- 03 Feb 2019 23:53
#14985634
By "addressing" you mean you said you don't want to talk about it I guess.
They have a problem precisely because people like you declare using organisations like the HF undermines them. Yet it's pretty obvious that this is more of a desperate move by them. There was controversy in the UK too when two feminists went to the US to speak at the HF for the same reason. The article I quoted earlier has a section about this:
It's not Trump who is defining transgender people out of existence. It's actually progressives who want to define women out of existence. You couldn't make it up.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I addressed those all, and you have not shown how the two are related.
By "addressing" you mean you said you don't want to talk about it I guess.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, these people are working with the (homophobic) Heritage Foundation, who are giving then a platform paid for by wealthy conservatives.
I wish I was censored that much; i.e. had wealthy backers paying for me to disseminate my views.
They have a problem precisely because people like you declare using organisations like the HF undermines them. Yet it's pretty obvious that this is more of a desperate move by them. There was controversy in the UK too when two feminists went to the US to speak at the HF for the same reason. The article I quoted earlier has a section about this:
It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.
I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. (The moderator, Ryan Anderson, said they were speaking at Heritage because no similar liberal or leftist institution would give them space or time to make their case.) And it’s true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community. It’s also true that they can be inflammatory, offensive, and obsessive. But what interests me is their underlying argument, which deserves to be thought through, regardless of our political allegiances, sexual identities, or tribal attachments. Because it’s an argument that seems to me to contain a seed of truth. Hence, I suspect, the intensity of the urge to suppress it.
The title of the Heritage panel conversation — “The Inequality of the Equality Act” — refers to the main legislative goal for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying group in the US. The proposed Equality Act — a federal nondiscrimination bill that has been introduced multiple times over the years in various formulations — would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The TERF argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole? “Lesbians are female homosexuals, women who love women,” one of the speakers, Julia Beck, wrote last December, “but our spaces, resources and communities are on the verge of extinction.”
If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
[...]
It's not Trump who is defining transgender people out of existence. It's actually progressives who want to define women out of existence. You couldn't make it up.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman