[–] lucretiamott forestgender 118 points Edited

"Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."

Isn't a girl de facto denied access if she is too uncomfortable to share a restroom or locker room with boys? Isn't she denied access to sports if her spot on the team is taken by a boy?

Why do we only worry about boys' access and not girls' access?

Girls should just be nice and let weird boys into their spaces. Just be nice. Why aren't they being nice?


I heard those last two sentences from my make cousins all the time growing up... Some things never change

I know. I almost screamed when I read that part. I barely felt comfortable changing around other girls in the locker room. I would have been absolutely mortified to change in front of a male no matter how they presented themselves.

Omg same I have small breasts and back then I basically only had puffy nipples (sorry if tmi) and I was horrified changing in front of girls who already had round, pronounced breasts...not to mention that’s what got me into shaving down there back then even though I absolutely hated it. Children are so charged with “oOoOoOo” energy about bodies and sexuality when they are first starting to develop that there is just absolutely no way a dick in the room would not just suck out all of the oxygen and, even if the male child had good intentions, what is a male child going to feel with all of the eyes of naked girls on him on a regular basis? It’s not even good for them IMHO.

No one, I repeat NO ONE is being denied access to the bathroom etc by having to use the one corresponding to their sex. They are free to play on the boys sports team and change in the boys locker, like EVERY OTHER male.

This is the evergreen point - always. They're not being denied ANYTHING.

Male children. Got it.

I'm wondering how many child TIFs are keen to use the boys' changing rooms? And when they do, how well that works out for them? Is there anything in terms of evidence on either of these? Statistics, news stories?

[–] Tesserae_Tali 19 points Edited

Gavin Grimm sued her school (with the help of the ACLU) over being denied access to the boy’s facilities, and I believe there have been several other such cases. Trans-identified girls significantly outnumber trans-identified boys, so I predict that there will be plenty of them in boys' bathrooms and boys' locker rooms across the US. Obviously, they'll be at elevated risk for sexual harassment and sexual assault, but protecting trans-identified youth from their own dysfunctional decision making is currently frowned upon. As a bonus, they'll also succeed in making some of the more self-conscious boys deeply uncomfortable—especially given that a trans-identified teenage girl is much more likely than your average teenage girl to be an obsessive fujoshi with poor social skills. It's a bad scenario all around, but hey, at least we can look forward to lots of girls winning in boys' sports! </obvious sarcasm>

It read the same way as “TERFs reduce women to their genitals—a disingenuous, outright incorrect interpretation of a sexed term (e.g. female human, female-restricted bathroom). If you’re denying that trans women are women, you’re denying them humanity. If you’re restricting access by sex, you’re restricting access altogether. Such sloppiness with language, I believe, can only be attained by reaching entirely new heights of sanctimony (such that you feel anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, even if you have to twist your own message a teensy-tiny bit to pack the preferred punch).

It really is telling that TRAs only arguments hinge on completely misinterpreting what "T*RFs" say and then arguing against the strawman of their creation.

Extremely disheartening but not surprising. I expected this.

Remember: most people on the left have kneejerk reactions to this because they believe that most trans people are the harmless gay variety. They're blissfully unaware of how this will be used to erode women's rights. Keep fighting.

They're not on the left. No one gets to be on the political spectrum by sitting around with their thumb up their butt blissfully unaware of the consequences of their actions or beliefs. Most particularly not on the left end of that spectrum. This is a hill I'll happily die on... the second you abandon feminism you're not on the left anymore.

But it may be that if they're called out on their lack of consciousness that some of them may indeed wake up.

[–] Verdandi 4 points Edited

I get what you're saying but this is not our fight right now. Arguing endless amounts of semantic battles like this will only waste your breath and energy. Not only because nobody is going to listen but because parties actually shift over time and we really don't have total control over which way and how much that's going to happen.

But again, feel free. It just seems utterly pointless to go on and on about when this is basically an emergency.

Like it or not, this is the reality of the Democratic Party. Ignoring that is pointless.

[–] lucretiamott forestgender 58 points

Is it weird that I'm banking on trump's conservative ass supreme court to save us from this shit? (Yes, it's weird.) I don't even know if they would tbh. Everyone is so fucking captured and seems to have lost their damn minds.

[–] sensusquaeram 41 points Edited

I don't think it's weird. I predict the main action is still going to unfold through the courts, especially when the medical malpractice charges against the transing of adolescents gain momentum. There's also a "get out" clause someone mentioned in the Twitter thread for language in Title IX that may supersede the Executive Order.

ETA, here it is:

Mike Cullinan @MikeCullinan3 Replying to @WomensLibFront "Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX . . .prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary." wonder what that last part means.

Dr Viv Pointon @VPointon · 1h Replying to @MikeCullinan3 and @WomensLibFront It might be the get out clause.

If any SCOTUS puts an end to the farce of executive orders, I'll be thankful. I don't care whose court it is.

Congress passes laws, not the president.

[–] zuubat 17 points Edited

Is it weird that I'm banking on trump's conservative ass supreme court to save us from this shit?

Hello, hello Justice Amy Coney Barrett? Hello?

Uh, just sayin', ya know those mean, mean things the other girls were sayin' about you? Yes, those mean things, yes, I know they were really mean.

But just hear me out, please. Those were the other girls, not me. No, I mean it [sorry for pun, sorry!], the other girls.

You and me, we can be besties now, cool?

Amy? Amy?

[+] [Deleted] 1 points

I've never had a huge problem with her. She's smart, she's qualified, she seems sane. The uproar was ridiculous.

Don’t get too hopeful, they just gave us that Bockstock decision.

If you believe the TRA/media spin on Bockstock, which I do not. To my reading, they explicitly decided on the basis of sex.

I read a good sum of the opinion and I’m not as optimistic given the way Biden’s new EO applies Bockstock. I think it’s more or less consistent with their jurisprudence and generally makes sense, but it deviates from the meaning of biology with sex. This deviation is resulting in Biden’s EO for example.

I completely agree. I'm a little dumbfounded by that being deemed a victory.

Every time Trump signed an EO, immediately it was blocked and shut down. Will the same happen to Dementia Joe the Wokest of the Woke? Doubtful. Women who protest will probably go on his "domestic terrrorist" watchlist.

Will Tulsi Gabbard speak up and help us get this into court (immediately!)?

The Erasure of Women Decree cannot stand.

I resent your Trumpian “Dementia Joe” and adulation of extreme homophobe Tulsi Gabbard. Surely you can criticize the Equality Act from a left-wing stance?!

Last I knew the Supreme Court doesn't do diddly about executive orders. But I am not sure.

Load more (1 comment)
[–] sensusquaeram 56 points Edited

So I read the dang thing and the wording is fairly open and unspecific, like a directive to agency heads to come into compliance within 100 days. But it concludes with:

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

"Applicable law" is huge here. This points to judiciary tests.

Congress could also deny the appropriations because of executive overreach, introduce legislation to counter the order, etc.

WoLF said they'll be coming out with analysis and an action plan, personally I'll be watching for that.

Thank you for a sensible and informed response. I'll admit I haven't read any part of the executive order, but what I see in the snippet you posted makes the EO seem general enough to be more of a gesture than anything else.

I'm still more fearful of attempts to push through the Republican counteract, the Fairness for All Act, which is basically the Equality Act with more entrenched religion (in the form of codifying religious exemptions and oppositions to the act).

It was a mind-numbing read. Spare yourself!

It does seem like a gesture. I think these flurries of EOs attempt to "set the tone" and signal Executive concern ("We hear you") without immediately bogging down Congress with appeals for legislation. And yeah, I'm with you -- I'm far more concerned about proposed legislation on this from both sides.

I think these flurries of EOs attempt to "set the tone" and signal Executive concern ("We hear you") without immediately bogging down Congress with appeals for legislation.

THIS. Exactly my take on it too. Maybe too optimistic a take, but I'm stressed enough about other things at the moment and need an outrage break. I appreciate your reading the EO so some of us don't have to! (although I should, just to be properly informed)

Thank you. That's what I thought...they can't contradict case law.... Maybe it is nothing more than an unenforceable PR stunt.

Possibly, but imo we do need to engage it early (thank you WoLF) because Bostock was narrow, and deflected the question of "what is sex, what is gender" in a way that lower courts are already trying to leverage.

It's all about how its wielded, and who it's wielded against. We know the deal, but so many others will be cowed by "the Prez sez TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN."

Wow he's not wasting any time losing midterms!

Republicans have so thoroughly disgraced themselves, and here's the Biden administration guaranteeing they'll come roaring back in two years.

They only have the Senate because of a 50/50 tie, time to make sure Republicans take control again!

Republican policies are harmful to women in other ways. I'd rather have to deal with one harmful policy like this and fight it than have to fight the whole book of harmful republican policies at once.

Oh, I agree. My point is more that this will be a midterm campaign issue.

I was sarcastically suggesting they’re deliberately sabotaging themselves.

Ya, our deciding vote via Veep was feeling just a littttttle too secure, so we wanted to really make sure we got it right for midterms!

Neither Party wants majority. Who will they blame if they have the majority? Scapegoat Manchin can only last so long.

[–] zuubat 44 points Edited

Trump out, Biden in. Big changes for two professional demographics:

1-A positive for late-night comedy writers, who were redundant for four years, as the jokes wrote themselves.

2-A negative for Republican political ad writers, who are now redundant, as the Equality Act has just written all the ads the GOP will ever need to retake Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024. But maybe they can retrain as late-night comedy writers, so win-win all around.

Oh, except for women.

Women and girls lose and what kills me is it's other women who will fanatically defend the Erasure of Women Decree.

I am conflicted in my politics. On the one hand I support many democratic policies like universal healthcare and better school nutrition, I don't agree with them pandering to the trans rights extremists.

Of course, it was done by executive order so there wasn't any debate allowed on it. >_<

[–] Rae 32 points

That might be a blessing in disguise. Executive orders can be undone while if it's pushed through as legislation it's much harder to undo in the future.

That makes me feel a little better then. It's just so annoying that all this trans stuff gets pushed through without any debate.

[–] rationalmind 27 points Edited

I’d rather this because as actual legislation it would be a pain in the ass to repeal. At least we replace Biden and get them to repeal this with the new president.

So annoying this Wizard of Oz/ Smoke and Mirrors never-ending culture war. We’re awake ruling class and we’re going to hold you accountable.

We were typing the same sort of idea at the same time! Yeah, I'm glad it's not legislation. :)

Great minds think alike! :) Let’s make sure to still email our House representatives and senators so they don’t get any crazy ideas by moving this bs into legislation. If the legislators do take it up, then we’re doomed.

It's because they received lots of sponsorship money to put this into action, isn't it?

Joe's a true believer.

I'll believe that when he creepily smells Dr Rachel Levine's hair.

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 13 points

Not even the creepiest of true believers would put his nose near that.

Load more (21 comments)