Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Only if he has "an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to, something." in this case "Trans".

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

I’d be interested to hear the views of some of our left-leaning posters in response to this tweet by J K Rowling, who is politically on the centre-left but who is also a gender-critical campaigner for women’s rights.

I’ve heard others describe this as an ‘80-20’ issue - i.e. the vast majority of the ordinary voting public think it’s obvious common sense, and yet the activist left has decided that somehow, the defining human rights issue of our time is that of men (who claim to be women) to access female-only spaces. The US Democrats are continuing to shred themselves over this very issue.

I’m no fan of Donald Trump and I applaud this latest executive order because it is good, and overdue, and on the basis that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I heartily dislike the way he has been able to whitewash his deserved reputation as a womaniser with a PR win his opponents have handed him on a plate. As others have noted, money can’t buy photo ops like this one.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1738853698

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Both Trump and JKR are 100% right. A trans woman is a man full stop. They may want to think otherwise but biology cannot be changed. A man is a man and a woman is a woman, not amout of arguing can change that.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

:D:D:D

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

:tu:

Gis a kiss lads :kiss:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

He’s very evil and a threat to the entire world……except for this bit…and other bits he has and has not yet done.

Some stuff he does may be good……..

But don’t forget, deep down he is a self centred, misogynistic, Orange dictator, who only cares about himself……….apart from this this stuff…………..but that does not in any way absolve him from being a self centred, misogynistic, Orange dictator.

Look, for the avoidance of doubt, we like some of the stuff he’s doing……but ultimately he’s the devil incarnate, apart from the bits we like.

I hope that’s clear.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

A truth spoken by a liar is still a truth. Sorry if that’s a bit too much nuance. :shrug:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Not sure why it (women's sports eligibility requirements) takes an executive order to do this kind of thing. Surely it wouldn't have any difficulties in passing Congress?

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Apart from Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ PR strategy, the key to the hurry on this particular issue it seems to be the largely unnoticed provisions in clause 4, which bans the immigration service from giving entry visas to foreign male competitors intending to compete in female categories in any sport on US soil, up to and including the LA Olympics in 2028. They seem to intend to force the IOC to man up (pardon the pun) and reinstate sex testing rather than fudging it and passing the buck to sports governing bodies, and to do so before everyone gets too far down the road towards qualification and team selection for the next Games. Getting that out there now ensures any legal blowback will have been settled beforehand. On this issue, the administration genuinely seems to believe it is doing something for women’s rights across the whole western world where this genderist nonsense has taken hold, rather than just within the USA. Though it’s important to note that this rule would also exclude males with disorders of sexual development, such as 46,XY DSD from slipping into female categories. There is more than enough evidence now in the public domain to say that the Algerian boxer, Imane Khelif, is a biological male with 46, XY DSD. While that doesn’t make him transgender in any sense, it was nevertheless unfair for him to be allowed to box women, and under a simple sex testing regime managed by the IOC that would never have happened.

With regards to primary legislation, from what I understand it, an EO is just quicker, and while it’s reversible by a future president, the Trump admin seems to believe that it’s such a widely-supported issue it’s unlikely to be rolled back. I mean, you saw the photo (and presumably the TV footage that went with it). Presented as it was, who’s going to make an active argument against protecting women and girls from male advantage in sports? Any future Dem administration that proposes rolling this back will have that thrown right at them, and rightly so. It’s a scandal that boys and men, regardless of how they feel about themselves or their identity, have been indulged in this way and allowed to use their biological advantages against women and girls.

All that said, I have also seen some GOP politicians suggesting they might like to follow this up with legislation at some point.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

I'll stick my neck out and say that this would get strong support across both parties.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

I think it is the extremists on both sides that have determined where we are today. First, the extreme trans supporters demanded, in various forms, that any man who "considers" themselves as a woman should be regarded as equal by society in all contexts. Clearly a dumb idea but it is this entitlement that drove and distorted the agenda and so set in motion the journey we see today.

Now it is a reasonable proposition that a man (or woman) who undergoes the long, difficult and painful process of gender reassignment (hormones, surgery, etc.) should be treated as a woman (or man) in the same way as society treats any another member of that group. If they are physically the same, in all meaningful senses of the word, and you still object then you are just discriminating on the basis on DNA. It is a separate discussion when the trans individual declares themselves to be the opposite sex but this is visibly not apparent. This is where the concerns, rights, safety, etc. of the target gender need to be addressed. It is this that the extreme trans supporters ignored and it is this that has led us here.

Now the turn of the extreme anti-trans supporters: while some are coming from a position of safety concerns, equality of opportunity (in sports, etc.), a lot are coming from a much darker place. The role of the Evangelical right and their wish to impose their world view on the majority is part of this.

At the end of the day, the modern world with its complexities and nuance will never be accommodated within the purview of the emergent MAGA/Christian Nationalist collective. Consequently, it must be changed. What was multi-coloured must now be black & white, or binary, to coin a phrase. This is a sinister direction: what might be next? Maybe banning gay marriage, or even being gay itself. After all, these all come from the same playbook.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

Disagree.

The basis of sex is biology (i.e. you always were, always are, and always will be either male or female, and the terms man and woman always and only mean adult human male and adult human female respectively).

Hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery may reduce or modify explicitly male or female behaviours and mask appearances, but serious studies have shown that in sports, especially, men retain biological advantages regardless of what medical treatment they have had. Reducing testosterone isn’t enough. Creating cosmetic sex organs does not reduce bone density.

Many women campaigning in this area also refer to what they call ‘male pattern aggression’; i.e. while the basis of sex is biological, a lifetime of being brought up according to natal sex inculcates patterns of behaviour which cannot easily be un-learned (and which medical treatment does not undo) and which are triggering especially for women who have suffered male violence.

Women seeking man-free spaces, especially where they are vulnerable and/or in intimate settings (medical treatment, toilets, rape crisis services, prisons) should not have to be concerned with whether the individual who enters that space alongside them is a man or not. Nor should they be forced to rely on an administrative process that creates a legal fiction (i.e. in the UK context, the Gender Recognition Act, which is increasingly being shown to be at odds with the rights and protections of the Equality Act). There simply is no way to draw a line between what is an acceptable intrusion by a man into an intimate female space and what is an unacceptable one. No man (i.e. adult human male) should ever be permitted to believe he may use such a space.

It’s worth noting that while this all applies equally to women who pretend to be men (no matter how sincerely they might believe it), the problems are asymmetric. A woman in a men’s toilet is, statistically, at risk. A man in a woman’s toilet is, statistically, a source of risk.

I could go on, and probably will. Meantime if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the objections from an avowedly atheistic point of view you could have a look at what Prof. Richard Dawkins has to say in this area. And I never thought I’d recommend Dawkins to anyone.

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

You just crushed many people who have turned their dick inside out :LOL:

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

i think you mean gender reassignment;)

Re: President Trump 2.0
 

It is fascinating. I kind of followed the journey of Rodrigo Alves now Jessica Alves

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Alves

You could tell there was no stopping how far he would go. I just think of the excruciating pain should he gender flip the coin :shocked: