Republicans War on Women

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

 So again, are you suggesting she made public her attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES or she fabricated a story of an attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES?

So again:

happy jack wrote:

Not suggesting anything, because I don't know what, if anything, actually happened - just pointing out that quite a large chunk of change is being made here.

Is there something about the above statement that you find to be ambiguous or confusing?
Because it seems pretty straightforward to me.

As Heretic pointed out, this is what you said earlier in the thread... (the exchange after "Bullshit.")

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Not suggesting anything...

Bullshit.

You wrote:

Heretic wrote:

A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

So you did suggest that money was the motive for Dr Ford to step forward... you specifically said that it "would not surprise you in the least."  So your answer is indeed "ambiguous and confusing" in light of your prior post. Are you retracting your prior post?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 

So you did suggest that money was the motive for Dr Ford to step forward... you specifically said that it "would not surprise you in the least."  So your answer is indeed "ambiguous and confusing" in light of your prior post. Are you retracting your prior post?

No, I'm not retracting anything.
It's indisputable that a good sum of money is there to be made, but I have no idea who the beneficiary or beneficiaries may ultimately end up being.
Do you?

You can't deny that you suggested that Dr Blasey Ford came forward because of money. because that's what you said.

I'd be shocked if Ms Ford just pockets the money and walks away. Especially in light of what the money was raised for...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

Quote :

"Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ... and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security," the page description reads. "Let's create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks."

The page specifies that extra funds raised "will go to women's organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations."

Dr Ford is a multi-millionaire.  It's ludicrous to suggest that she came forward for monetary reasons.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Do you favor family separation when families come to this country seeking asylum?

No, but that's not happening anymore, is it?

Families still being separated at border — months after Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy reversed

Quote :

The Trump administration has quietly resumed separating immigrant families at the border, in some cases using vague or unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing or minor violations against the parents, including charges of illegally re-entering the country, as justification.

Over the last three months, lawyers at Catholic Charities, which provides legal services to immigrant children in government custody in New York, have discovered at least 16 new separation cases. They say they have come across such instances by chance and via their own sleuthing after children were put into temporary foster care and shelters with little or no indication that they arrived at the border with their parents.

ProPublica stumbled upon one more case late last month after receiving a call from a distraught Salvadoran father who had been detained in South Texas, and whose 4-year-old son, Brayan, had literally been yanked from his grasp by a Customs and Border Protection agent after they crossed the border and asked for asylum. Julio, the father, asked to be identified only by his first name because he was fleeing gang violence and worried about the safety of relatives back home.

It's very reassuring to see that the old gang is here debating.

Well, I think the term "debate" is... generous.

Heretic wrote:

Well, I think the term "debate" is... generous.  

Agreed.  

BTW - I haven’t posted much lately, but it’s not from lack of interest...

I’m currently in the process of moving across the country, so as soon as things settle down a bit, I expect to be posting regularly again.  In the meantime, I’ll post whenever I can.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   
I'd be shocked if Ms Ford just pockets the money and walks away. Especially in light of what the money was raised for...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

Quote :

"Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ... and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security," the page description reads. "Let's create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks."

The page specifies that extra funds raised "will go to women's organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations."

Dr Ford is a multi-millionaire.  It's ludicrous to suggest that she came forward for monetary reasons.

No need to get upset with me.
Just reportin' the news.

Any new "reportin'" on this, Jack?

The transgenderists war on women.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/bipartisan-womens-rights-groups-protest-the-equality-act/Culture

Bipartisan Women’s Rights Groups Protest the Equality Act

By Madeleine Kearns

January 30, 2019 4:42 PM

This new act is likely to pass, and bodes more harm than good for women and children.

The Equality Act — which would amend civil-rights legislation to explicitly include “gender identity” as a protected characteristic and mandate all federally funded entities to interpret sex as “gender identity”– is on the House’s agenda. It will likely pass.
“Gender identity” is the gender or sex one feels oneself to be. Perhaps because of the ideology’s internal incoherence, the ramifications of legally enshrined “gender identity” are poorly understood. Media spin, activist “studies,” pseudoscience, and the conflation of “gender identity” with sex and sexual orientation have confused the matter.


What are the connotations of the phrase “gender identity,” which the Equality Act would enshrine in the U.S. Code? To a conservative, it might mean something vague relating to bathrooms and pronouns. To a liberal, it might imply opposition to bigotry. But there is a growing movement, spanning left and right, of people who understand that gender-identity ideology poses harmful consequences for women and children. They are now putting aside their political differences and joining forces.
With debate over the Equality Act looming, two groups held events in Washington, D.C., last weekend. The first, “Women Stand Up,” was organized by members of Standing for Women, along with other bipartisan women’s- and lesbian-rights groups across Britain and North America. The second, “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left,” was put on by the Heritage Foundation.
Kara Danksy, a board member of the radical-feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) explained the policy minefield. After the Department of Education, under President Obama, decided that “sex” as defined in Title IX’s anti-discrimination provisions should include “gender identity,” the Trump administration rolled back its guidelines. This has muddied the waters for schools and colleges, with everyone unsure of the proper protocol.

Since then, some trans-identifying pupils have sued their schools for not granting them access to opposite-sex bathrooms, while female pupils have sued their schools because they want sex-segregated bathrooms. Dansky hopes that the latter will appear before the Supreme Court, which could help clarify this question.
The Equality Act, however, would be an “unmitigated disaster,” says Dansky:
If we construe the word sex to mean gender identity, what we are saying is that women and girls do not exist as a category worthy of civil-rights protection. Feminists have been fighting for hundreds of years in this country and for thousands of years in other places to fight for the rights of women and girls in many arenas but, for my purposes, in the legal and policy arenas. And we have made really, really important wins. And I do not want to see those pulled back.
Across Britain and North America, trans activists are successfully overriding the legal and policy protections for women, emboldened by widespread confusion. Last year, the United Kingdom had its own version of the kerfuffle with a nationwide debate over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). If reformed, the GRA would allow a person to change his legal gender simply by filling out a form.
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, co-organizer of “Women Stand Up” and Standing for Women, funded a billboard campaign to spread a dictionary definition of “woman” (“an adult human female”). But when trans activists complained, the billboard company removed the billboards and its owner said his company had been “misled” about them.


The dictionary entry was also banned from appearing on buses in Edinburgh after the company explained it was “likely to offend” the general public. A recent press release on free sanitary products from the Scottish government did not mention the word “woman, “women” or “girl.” Words like “menstruators,” “pregnant people,” and “chestfeeding” are cropping up elsewhere. This, says Keen-Minshull, is misogynistic.


Standing for Women focus their efforts at the grassroots and encourage women to speak out in their local communities and to remind the public what the definition of a woman is. Their latest campaign involved draping statues of famous women around the U.K. in T-shirts with the same definition. Trans activists deemed this “transphobic.” Pink News, a pro-trans website, inaccurately described the statues as having been “defaced.”


For their efforts, such women face censorship and smears. On the panel of “Women Stand Up” was Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy, who was kicked off of Twitter for stating that a male sex offender (who identifies as female) is male. And when Keen-Minshull tweeted that a child sex-change advocate had “castrated” her 16-year-old son when she took him to Thailand for a now illegal sex-change operation, she was investigated by the police on suspicion of “hate speech” and told she would be arrested if she left the country.
10

At the event, Keen-Minshull urged the mostly American and female audience to cherish and make use of their constitutionally protected free speech — and to oppose laws which undermine women’s sex-based rights. Women and children depend on it.

And still more of the transgenderists war on women.
Careful, Libs - your ubiquitous victim groups are beginning to eat their own.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-nature-of-sex.html

Feb. 1, 2019
The Nature of Sex

By Andrew Sullivan

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 lobbbying 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.”
What the radical feminists are arguing is that the act doesn’t only blur the distinction between men and women (thereby minimizing what they see as the oppression of patriarchy and misogyny), but that its definition of gender identity must rely on stereotypical ideas of what gender expression means. What, after all, is a “gender-related characteristic”? It implies that a tomboy who loves sports is not a girl interested in stereotypically boyish things, but possibly a boy trapped in a female body. And a boy with a penchant for Barbies and Kens is possibly a trans girl — because, according to stereotypes, he’s behaving as a girl would. So instead of enlarging our understanding of gender expression — and allowing maximal freedom and variety within both sexes — the concept of “gender identity” actually narrows it, in more traditional and even regressive ways. What does “gender-related mannerisms” mean, if not stereotypes? It’s no accident that some of the most homophobic societies, like Iran, for example, are big proponents of sex-reassignment surgery for gender-nonconforming kids and adults (the government even pays for it) while being homosexual warrants the death penalty. Assuming that a non-stereotypical kid is trans rather than gay is, in fact, dangerously close to this worldview. (Some might even see a premature decision to change a child’s body from one sex to another as a form of conversion therapy to “fix” his or her gayness. This doesn’t mean that trans people shouldn’t have the right to reaffirm their gender by changing their bodies, which relieves a huge amount of pressure for many and saves lives. But that process should entail a great deal of caution and discernment.)
The Equality Act also proposes to expand the concept of public accommodations to include “exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays”; it bars any religious exceptions invoked under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993; and it bans single-sex facilities like changing, dressing, or locker rooms, if sex is not redefined to include “gender identity.” This could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy. It could deny lesbians their own unique safe space, free from any trace of men. The bill, in other words, “undermines the fundamental legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls.”

……...

Y'know, I seem to remember a situation sometime last September/October wherein there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the posters on this board, and the incessant mandate/mantra at that time was, "YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WOMAN!!!!".
Whatever happened to that sentiment?
And do you think we're gonna see that again anytime soon?
Just axin'.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/06/blackface-sex-assault-claim-throws-virginia-government-into-chaos/

Virginia thrown into chaos over blackface, sexual assault scandals

By Ruth Brown

Virginia’s leadership crisis took an absurd turn Wednesday when the man who is second in line to become governor admitted he has worn blackface — even as Gov. Ralph Northam’s job is already on the line for the same thing and the man who is first in line to replace him is embroiled in a sex scandal.

...……

Questions over the state’s leadership first arose last week over a photo on Northam’s page in his medical school yearbook showing a man in blackface and another in KKK garb — and the next in line for his job, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, was then hit with sex assault allegations.
………

happy jack wrote:

Y'know, I seem to remember a situation sometime last September/October wherein there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the posters on this board, and the incessant mandate/mantra at that time was, "YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WOMAN!!!!".
Whatever happened to that sentiment?
And do you think we're gonna see that again anytime soon?
Just axin'.

Yeah.  Well you are going to see it again... Morality is not relative.  Fairfax is in deep trouble, and it's likely to get worse.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Y'know, I seem to remember a situation sometime last September/October wherein there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the posters on this board, and the incessant mandate/mantra at that time was, "YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WOMAN!!!!".
Whatever happened to that sentiment?
And do you think we're gonna see that again anytime soon?
Just axin'.

Yeah.  Well you are going to see it again... Morality is not relative.  Fairfax is in deep trouble, and it's likely to get worse.

Haven't heard from you in a while. I guess you've been too busy orchestrating all those full investigations into Fairfax, huh?

Yeah. Well unlike Kavanaugh, Fairfax has called for an FBI investigation into the allegations...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justin-fairfax-virginia-lieutenant-governor-calls-for-investigation-into-sexual-assault-allegations-2019-02-09/

Quote :

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax repeated Saturday he is not resigning after two women came forward and accused him of sexual assault. Fairfax instead called on "all appropriate and impartial investigatory authorities, including the FBI, to investigate fully and thoroughly the allegations against me."

Several of the state's top Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, have called for Fairfax to step down after a second woman came forward Friday to accuse Fairfax of sexual assault. Fairfax has maintained the allegations against him are not true.

To be honest, I haven't really been focused much on Fairfax... not while there's a "National Emergency" going on...  BTW - Have you purchased your MAGA hat yet?

Yeah. Well my position hasn't changed. Reade's allegation has been corroborated by others. I don't give a rat's ass about what Pelosi thinks... this allegation against Biden should be investigated fully.

Yeah. Well that was back in the days when I actually (naively) believed that it was possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.  I no longer believe that, so an occasional comment will have to suffice.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well that was back in the days when I actually (naively) believed that it was possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.  

Yeah. Well that was also back in the days when someone you ideologically opposed was the one in the hot seat.

I'm also ideologically opposed to Biden... so what's your point?

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well that was back in the days when I actually (naively) believed that it was possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.  

Yeah. Well that was also back in the days when someone you ideologically opposed was the one in the hot seat.

I'm also ideologically opposed to Biden... so what's your point?

My point is that I'm not seeing 10 pages of your posts claiming, "WE MUST BELIEVE THE WOMAN!!!!".
Nothing more, nothing less.