Hillary Clinton Questions Transgenderism, Left Meltdown Ensues

[Mister D]

Very true. Tying this back into the original topics of transgenderism and feminism, it also shows that the lack of universal societal progression renders progressivism as just one of many paths to take. As much as the left likes to emphasize the relativism of morality and culture, they certainly treat their own preferences as the only acceptable path. Since progressivism was born out of a Western context, its proponents show their ethnocentrism by forcing the transgender narrative on society. Clearly, a lot of the world outside of the West sees the absurdity of it.

[Chris]

Very true. Tying this back into the original topics of transgenderism and feminism, it also shows that the lack of universal societal progression renders progressivism as just one of many paths to take. As much as the left likes to emphasize the relativism of morality and culture, they certainly treat their own preferences as the only acceptable path. Since progressivism was born out of a Western context, its proponents show their ethnocentrism by forcing the transgender narrative on society. Clearly, a lot of the world outside of the West sees the absurdity of it.

Yes! And see The Roots of American Polarization on the moral relativism that results in the West with postmodern rejection of the principle of contradiction. Here in the embrace of gender is a social construct and the contrary rejection of it.

[Ethereal]

The question is when the normalization of pedos, zoophiles, and necrophiles begins. Or rather, which comes first? People claim this is hyperbole, but 15 years ago, people would have said that believing mainstream politicians would declare someone with a penis is a woman would be hyperbole.

Pedos rule the world, bro.

[IMPress Polly]

How can it be real but changeable on a whim?

Transgenderism isn't about roles but biological plasticity. It is a rejection of "the idea that men have to be "masculine" and women have to be "feminine"."

I understand how cognitive dissonance drives your reaction.

The bolded item is just simply not correct. Gender is the foundational premise of transgenderism, as the term itself plainly suggests. Gender itself is the concept of social roles for men and women. Transgenderism therefore is a defining of womanhood (and manhood for that matter) by lifestyle. For example, transgenderism would have it that a biological girl who plays with trains is psychologically a boy, and therefore should be reclassified as a boy for all legal purposes. Conversely, transgenderism would have it that a boy who plays with baby dolls is therefore psychologically a girl and should be reclassified as one for all legal purposes.

In other words, transgenderism is a societal attempt to invisibilize gender non-conformity by reclassifying those who don't conform to their expected social roles such that they appear to.

[IMPress Polly]

We don't disagree that transgenderism is ridiculous. We disagree over the role feminist ideology has played in its appearance. Anyway, yes, I can be a $#@!. I get that but you aren't special. Y

ou get treated like everyone else. Do you see me getting along with your male counterparts? I even savage conservatives when they annoy me. I argue with everyone!

It's kind of ironic how upset that makes a supposedly radical feminist. I'm all about equal treatment, toots. FFS it's a message board!

Only you could fabricate a way in which just simply being an ass makes you a feminist and constitutes progress toward a more just and equitable world.

At least you're doing your part, I guess!

Unfortunately, I haven't assumed you were talking exclusively or specifically about bathrooms. That you took up an argument associated with conservative "bigots" reminded me that your fellow tPF progressives mocked the very notion that transgenders would prey on women and children be it in bathrooms or anywhere else. The idea that sexual predators would take advantage of policies accommodating transgenders was dismissed out of hand as "fear-mongering". Where are those defenders of the faith, anyway? They must not have seen your commentary. I'm sure if they had they would have told us how paranoid, hyperbolic and delusional this fear is. Not.

Yeah, to restate the obvious, I don't agree with most leftists on the topic of transgenderism anymore. There was a time when I made myself fall for that kind of bull$#@! just simply because 'the right people I otherwise like are on this side of the argument, so I should be too'. That's pretty much what it boiled down to for me for a period of about four years between 2013 and 2017. That period is over.

Polly, it's a $#@!ing prison! ROFL You know they're filled with anti-social savages, right? Maybe that's not the best example? I don't believe that anywhere near a majority of transgenders are criminally-inclined and transitioned to have easier access to female victims. In any case, we agree. Biologically male inmates should not be housed with biologically female inmates at any time. That's just common sense. Even the guards should be all female. I'd like to say that it's incomprehensible to me how any administrator could allow such a thing to happen particularly if the "women" in question had been convicted of sexual crimes but...it's the U.K. They're way ahead over there. Separate housing for these weirdos is best because it's probably more likely that they'll be victims not victimizers.

See, we can agree.

The statistical facts speak for themselves whether you like them or not. Of course convicted criminals aren't reflective of an entire community by a long shot. I never suggested otherwise. What I actually said was that these statistics suggest that some men who are sexual predators opportunistically weaponize trans ideology for exploitative purposes. And these obvious opportunists are actually supported and actively defended by the organized transgender movement in these cases invariably, you will find.

I am glad that we can at least agree on what policies should be in place though. That's the main thing here.

[donttread]

In an interview with the Sunday Times of London recently, Chelsea and Hillary Clinton were asked if someone with a beard and a penis could be a woman. Chelsea responded in the affirmative: "Ye-esss. Yes." () Her mom, however, reportedly seemed uneasy and responded:

"Errr. I’m just learning about this. It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It's going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently."

Asked about whether someone should play on the sports teams that match their biological sex or which instead match their "gender identity", Chelsea of course suggested the latter, but Hillary had this to say:

"I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is. There are women who'd say [to a trans-woman], 'You know what, you've never had the kind of life experiences that I've had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you're the same as me.’ I hear that conversation all the time."

The reporter pointed out that many women are uncomfortable sharing public bathrooms with biological males. Hillary responded: "I would say that, absolutely."

(Source for this story that doesn't require a subscription to read.)

Asked again in a separate interview later wherein transgender politics were brought up again, Hillary Clinton once again stated that, while she believes that gender dysphoria is real, nevertheless women have "legitimate concerns" about the implications of arbitrary gender self-identification being accepted. The second time was after there had been time for people to chastise her for her answers in the first interview. I find that prominent public figures, and especially liberals, usually back down in the face of criticism on this issue and retract their previous statements with a groveling apology. The fact that Hillary instead reiterated the same base line opinion in a second interview suggests this to be her settled opinion on the matter for the time being.

Women who question whether men should be allowed to access women-only spaces (women's shelters and rape crisis centers, women's prisons, women's changing rooms, women's restrooms, women's athletic teams, etc.) if they claim to be female are vilified as bigots today, often with the specific term "terf", which is a slur that's supposed to mean "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". There is, in reality, no such thing as a "terf". The position of gender critical feminists like myself is that, for example, something much like what the UK has started doing for trans-identified prisoners, giving them their own separate prisons (in response to multiple rapes of female prisoners by so-called "trans-women"), could be done vis-a-vis restrooms (e.g. separate, single-stall public restrooms for trans-identified people, or just single-stall unisex restrooms as a third option), specialized rape crisis centers and transition houses for trans-identified survivors could be established and federally subsidized as is done for female survivors, etc. These solutions would accommodate everyone and they wouldn't force everyone to live as though we all agree that womanhood is just a state of mind that anyone can claim and not a material reality. That is the "transphobic" position of gender critical feminists like myself. According to trans activists, this position is tantamount to everything from banning trans-identified people from peeing to "genocide". You be the judge.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal-oriented sections of the media responded to Hillary Clinton's remarks hysterically. My favorite of these was a rant by a woman named Heron Greenesmith who writes for $#@! Media and prefers to be called a "they", which I will post a highlight of below:

"From white suffragettes aligning their interests with white men rather than women of color to get the vote, to Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA movement, to the “sex wars” of the 1980s, to white women working against the decriminalization of sex work, to white female voters’ majority support for Trump, white cisgender women have consistently refused to see how patriarchy, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, xenophobia, and classism work together to keep all of us oppressed. Anti-trans feminists are merely the current iteration of white feminism being lifted by the Right in order to bolster their grab for authoritarian control."

Apparently the author of these remarks, who is herself white (I looked it up), felt that that not only was all true, but had some logical connection to the issue at hand. First of all, the suffragettes wound up fighting for women's suffrage without the support of few African Americans mainly because the black liberationists like Frederick Douglas had sold them out on the issue of voting rights back in the 1860s. The black liberationists refused to insist on the inclusion of a woman's right to vote in addition to that of men of color, touching off a certain separation of white feminists from the black liberationists for generations. Even well after women's suffrage was ratified, most black people, including most black women even, opposed it. So that in the first place. In the second place, it was not only the campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and early '80s that was predominantly white, but also the movement in favor or it, it's worth adding. As to the so-called sex wars, I think it's worth pointing out that, frankly, if we were to survey women on the subject, probably more black women than white women would oppose prostitution and so forth. It is a well-documented fact, after all, that black women, more so even than their white counterparts, are truly valued primarily for their bodies. As to the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, it may be worth pointing out that the votes of white women were evenly divided in the 2018 midterms (49% for Republicans, 49% for Democrats), by contrast, that gender critical feminists are not most white women anyway, and that there are many women of color among us.

Also, how is race even relevant to this topic anyway? Seriously! What does any of this have to do with Hillary Clinton questioning gender identity politics? The whole screed seems like a desperate strawman argument to me. It goes on to point out that radical feminists are supported by many conservatives in our fight for our sex-based rights. If this is a problem for liberals, it's one they can solve by supporting us themselves instead of trying to censor everything we do, think, and say. It's just a thought. Not that that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton, frankly! I just mean to showcase the complete incoherence of the way that trans activists and liberals invariably respond to gender critical women of any kind, whether they're feminist radicals or, as in the case of Hillary Clinton, not at all.

Well remember this is a dyed in the wool career politician, Washington insider talking. I doubt she , or many of the others in DC, would really know their own opinion if it bit them in the ass. You must look at virtually everything they say through he lens of the perception they are trying to create.
I would guess that this was an attempt to testy the water with moderate dems.

[donttread]

In an interview with the Sunday Times of London recently, Chelsea and Hillary Clinton were asked if someone with a beard and a penis could be a woman. Chelsea responded in the affirmative: "Ye-esss. Yes." () Her mom, however, reportedly seemed uneasy and responded:

"Errr. I’m just learning about this. It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It's going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently."

Asked about whether someone should play on the sports teams that match their biological sex or which instead match their "gender identity", Chelsea of course suggested the latter, but Hillary had this to say:

"I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is. There are women who'd say [to a trans-woman], 'You know what, you've never had the kind of life experiences that I've had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you're the same as me.’ I hear that conversation all the time."

The reporter pointed out that many women are uncomfortable sharing public bathrooms with biological males. Hillary responded: "I would say that, absolutely."

(Source for this story that doesn't require a subscription to read.)

Asked again in a separate interview later wherein transgender politics were brought up again, Hillary Clinton once again stated that, while she believes that gender dysphoria is real, nevertheless women have "legitimate concerns" about the implications of arbitrary gender self-identification being accepted. The second time was after there had been time for people to chastise her for her answers in the first interview. I find that prominent public figures, and especially liberals, usually back down in the face of criticism on this issue and retract their previous statements with a groveling apology. The fact that Hillary instead reiterated the same base line opinion in a second interview suggests this to be her settled opinion on the matter for the time being.

Women who question whether men should be allowed to access women-only spaces (women's shelters and rape crisis centers, women's prisons, women's changing rooms, women's restrooms, women's athletic teams, etc.) if they claim to be female are vilified as bigots today, often with the specific term "terf", which is a slur that's supposed to mean "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". There is, in reality, no such thing as a "terf". The position of gender critical feminists like myself is that, for example, something much like what the UK has started doing for trans-identified prisoners, giving them their own separate prisons (in response to multiple rapes of female prisoners by so-called "trans-women"), could be done vis-a-vis restrooms (e.g. separate, single-stall public restrooms for trans-identified people, or just single-stall unisex restrooms as a third option), specialized rape crisis centers and transition houses for trans-identified survivors could be established and federally subsidized as is done for female survivors, etc. These solutions would accommodate everyone and they wouldn't force everyone to live as though we all agree that womanhood is just a state of mind that anyone can claim and not a material reality. That is the "transphobic" position of gender critical feminists like myself. According to trans activists, this position is tantamount to everything from banning trans-identified people from peeing to "genocide". You be the judge.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal-oriented sections of the media responded to Hillary Clinton's remarks hysterically. My favorite of these was a rant by a woman named Heron Greenesmith who writes for $#@! Media and prefers to be called a "they", which I will post a highlight of below:

"From white suffragettes aligning their interests with white men rather than women of color to get the vote, to Phyllis Schlafly’s Stop ERA movement, to the “sex wars” of the 1980s, to white women working against the decriminalization of sex work, to white female voters’ majority support for Trump, white cisgender women have consistently refused to see how patriarchy, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, xenophobia, and classism work together to keep all of us oppressed. Anti-trans feminists are merely the current iteration of white feminism being lifted by the Right in order to bolster their grab for authoritarian control."

Apparently the author of these remarks, who is herself white (I looked it up), felt that that not only was all true, but had some logical connection to the issue at hand. First of all, the suffragettes wound up fighting for women's suffrage without the support of few African Americans mainly because the black liberationists like Frederick Douglas had sold them out on the issue of voting rights back in the 1860s. The black liberationists refused to insist on the inclusion of a woman's right to vote in addition to that of men of color, touching off a certain separation of white feminists from the black liberationists for generations. Even well after women's suffrage was ratified, most black people, including most black women even, opposed it. So that in the first place. In the second place, it was not only the campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and early '80s that was predominantly white, but also the movement in favor or it, it's worth adding. As to the so-called sex wars, I think it's worth pointing out that, frankly, if we were to survey women on the subject, probably more black women than white women would oppose prostitution and so forth. It is a well-documented fact, after all, that black women, more so even than their white counterparts, are truly valued primarily for their bodies. As to the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016, it may be worth pointing out that the votes of white women were evenly divided in the 2018 midterms (49% for Republicans, 49% for Democrats), by contrast, that gender critical feminists are not most white women anyway, and that there are many women of color among us.

Also, how is race even relevant to this topic anyway? Seriously! What does any of this have to do with Hillary Clinton questioning gender identity politics? The whole screed seems like a desperate strawman argument to me. It goes on to point out that radical feminists are supported by many conservatives in our fight for our sex-based rights. If this is a problem for liberals, it's one they can solve by supporting us themselves instead of trying to censor everything we do, think, and say. It's just a thought. Not that that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton, frankly! I just mean to showcase the complete incoherence of the way that trans activists and liberals invariably respond to gender critical women of any kind, whether they're feminist radicals or, as in the case of Hillary Clinton, not at all.

Well remember this is a dyed in the wool career political type, Washington insider talking. I doubt she, or many of the others in DC, would really know their own opinion if it bit them in the ass. You must look at virtually everything they say through he lens of the perception they are trying to create.
I would guess that this was an attempt to testy the water with moderate dems.

[Chris]

The bolded item is just simply not correct. Gender is the foundational premise of transgenderism, as the term itself plainly suggests. Gender itself is the concept of social roles for men and women. Transgenderism therefore is a defining of womanhood (and manhood for that matter) by lifestyle. For example, transgenderism would have it that a biological girl who plays with trains is psychologically a boy, and therefore should be reclassified as a boy for all legal purposes. Conversely, transgenderism would have it that a boy who plays with baby dolls is therefore psychologically a girl and should be reclassified as one for all legal purposes.

In other words, transgenderism is a societal attempt to invisibilize gender non-conformity by reclassifying those who don't conform to their expected social roles such that they appear to.

Polly, you're merely repeating your reframing of transgenderism, a reframing contrary to how transgenders define themselves.

And that last sentence is incoherent. It makes my head hurt to try and read it.

[pragmatic]

The bolded item is just simply not correct. Gender is the foundational premise of transgenderism, as the term itself plainly suggests. Gender itself is the concept of social roles for men and women. Transgenderism therefore is a defining of womanhood (and manhood for that matter) by lifestyle. For example, transgenderism would have it that a biological girl who plays with trains is psychologically a boy, and therefore should be reclassified as a boy for all legal purposes. Conversely, transgenderism would have it that a boy who plays with baby dolls is therefore psychologically a girl and should be reclassified as one for all legal purposes.

In other words, transgenderism is a societal attempt to invisibilize gender non-conformity by reclassifying those who don't conform to their expected social roles such that they appear to.

Looked it up. Had no idea that was actually a word.

<high five> for working it into a sentence.

[donttread]

The bolded item is just simply not correct. Gender is the foundational premise of transgenderism, as the term itself plainly suggests. Gender itself is the concept of social roles for men and women. Transgenderism therefore is a defining of womanhood (and manhood for that matter) by lifestyle. For example, transgenderism would have it that a biological girl who plays with trains is psychologically a boy, and therefore should be reclassified as a boy for all legal purposes. Conversely, transgenderism would have it that a boy who plays with baby dolls is therefore psychologically a girl and should be reclassified as one for all legal purposes.

In other words, transgenderism is a societal attempt to invisibilize gender non-conformity by reclassifying those who don't conform to their expected social roles such that they appear to.

However, boys and girls and men and women have always had lots of outliers. Lots of women, many straight women, who love to hunt and split wood. Men who like to knit and arrange flowers and may even speak with a somewhat effeminate voice. Many with interest in areas as far apart as pro football and knitting. (Rosey Grier) Polly i think you have hit upon one of the great dangers of transgenderism. People who's interest can't be pigeon holed will automatically be encouraged to switch genders. And that is ridiculous.