Feminists In Civil War Over Trans Rights Law, Gender Inclusivity Could BACKFIRE On Feminists
Feminists In Civil War Over Trans Rights Law, Gender Inclusivity Could BACKFIRE On Feminists. A new law called the Equality act would amend the 1964 civil rights act to expand protections to trans individuals. But Republicans and even some Feminists oppose the bill saying that gender identity is too vaguely defined and one Feminist going as far to claim the bill is a human rights violation.Within Feminism there are different factions such as intersectional and gender critical. Both groups are at odds with each other and simply by using their preferred titles I can be accused of supporting one group or the other.In some circumstances social justice activists and far left activists have actually contradicted their own protests by simultaneously demanding women only spaces but also demanding they be open to all identities.Even more odd is Matt Gaetz argument that this new law could allow Trump to be the "first female president"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A new bill would allow President Donald Trump to declare himself the first female president in U.S.
history.
And yes, I know it sounds crazy, but it's an argument brought up by Representative Matt Gaetz when discussing the Equality Act.
This is a bill that seeks to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gender identity as a protected class.
Gates argues that gender identity is too vaguely defined, and it would allow anyone to claim that they were male or female.
Thus, in an extreme case, Trump could claim he is the first female president.
Now, on the left, they're arguing that the right is just trying to use transphobia to stop the bill from being passed.
However, it seems that as we try to expand civil rights, there is some contradiction that will ultimately be fought against by the left themselves.
In one circumstance, as people sought gender inclusivity in a lounge, intersectional feminists actually resisted this because they wanted a woman-only space.
It's true that this new bill, as well as the existing law, might make it impossible for women's-only programs.
Today, let's take a look at what's going on exactly with the Equality Act and how people are trying to counter it or how they're defending it.
But before we get started, make sure you're subscribed to our new YouTube channel, YouTube.com slash Subverse Videos.
The goal of this channel is to produce straightforward news, on-the-ground reporting, and expert interviews to cut through the spin and the bias to the best of our abilities.
Now, tonight, we're going to be premiering a special preview of a new Mysteries podcast we're going to be doing.
That'll be at 7 p.m.
If you want to support this video, just share it on social media to help spread the news.
Gates says transgender rights bill would let Trump declare himself the first female president.
The story says, Gates, one of Trump's most vocal defenders on Capitol Hill, is known for making incendiary statements.
He was speaking at a hearing on H.R.
5, the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination against gay and transgender individuals in housing, use of public spaces, employment and other areas.
Gates said at the hearing that while he supports the rights of transgender people and will not denigrate or deny their existence or their struggles, he believes the bill as written would only nominally protect certain individuals while causing tremendous harm to others.
What happens when sex is defined as gender identity and gender identity is terribly vague?
Gates asked.
Will all sex-based distinctions be erased?
Would grants for female-led businesses or programs for women in STEM fields suddenly be open to all persons, whether they believe or not that they identify as a woman?
Consider this possibility.
If President Trump were to say, I am now the first female president, who would celebrate that?
Would those who support the legislation think that's a good thing, or would they be dismayed?
Bad actors have already weaponized some ostensible equality laws for their own benefit.
But it's not just Republicans.
This is actually a huge debate in the feminist community.
This story from PJ Media.
Lesbian feminist slams the Equality Act.
HR5 is a human rights violation.
On Tuesday, lesbian feminist Julia Beck, who was kicked off of the Baltimore LGBT Commission because she opposes transgender identity, testified against the federal Equality Act.
Her testimony caused quite a stir, with many Democrats expressly asking other witnesses to delegitimize it.
If the Act passes in its current form as H.R.
5, then every right that women have fought for will cease to exist, Beck warned.
H.R.
5 is a human rights violation.
Every single person in this country will lose their right to single-sex sports, shelters, grants, and loans.
The law will forbid ever distinguishing between women and men.
They add, Beck warned, male rapists will go to women's prisons and likely assault female inmates, as has already happened in the UK.
Female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male presence in women's shelters.
Men will dominate women's sports.
Girls who would have taken first place will be denied scholastic opportunity.
Women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined, and banned from social media platforms.
Girls will stay home from school when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed space toilets.
Girls and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical staff or intimate care providers, including elderly or disabled women who are at serious risk of sexual abuse.
Female security officers will no longer have the right to refuse to perform pat-downs or intimate searches of males who say they're female, and women undergoing security checks will no longer have the right to refuse having those security checks being performed by men claiming a feminine identity.
Everything I just listed is already happening, and it's only going to get worse if gender identity is recognized in federal law.
Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, asked Sanu Chandi, legal director of the National Women's Law Center and a pro-transgender witness, to contradict Beck's testimony.
Listening to that testimony, it seems like that particular witness does not believe that transgender people exist, Chandi responded.
I find this response to be entirely disingenuous, and there is a legitimate argument to counter Beck's statements.
Just because there are people who exploit the system, and just because the media covers stories, doesn't mean they're actually as big of a problem as we think they are.
Now it's true they may be a problem, and it's also true this might be overhyped.
It requires an actual deep look at statistics and what is actually going on.
Now, I'm not saying this to discredit Beck.
I'm just offering up a legitimate criticism of the things she's bringing up.
Simply coming out and saying, it sounds like Beck doesn't think transgender people exist, in no way actually argues what she's saying.
This is one of the biggest battles happening on the left right now, and there is no middle ground.
I have been called a sexist by both sides, trans-inclusionary and trans-exclusionary.
I've been called a transphobe or a woman-hater.
There's just no way to appropriately respond to this.
If you think that trans women should not be competing against biological females, you're transphobic.
If you think people have a right to use whatever language they want on social media without being banned, you're transphobic.
However, when I actually say that I think trans people are deserving of civil rights protections, then I'm called sexist by other feminists.
There's quite literally no way to be correct in this matter, because both sides don't like what you have to say about it, even if you're just trying to explain it.
But there are some interesting problems that will arise with the loose and vague definition of gender identity.
So, naturally, this is going to land me on the TERF side of the argument, I suppose.
But it's important to point out, so let's point it out anyway.
First, it's important to note that many of these women's-only school programs actually already are illegal.
It's just that no one's challenged them, so they're not being shut down.
But there are some people who are actively challenging them.
Now, here's where it gets kind of confusing.
If anyone can identify as any gender they want, personally, I don't think you're going to see a massive wave of people just deciding to join women's sports, but cheaters do exist, and when you tell someone a college scholarship is on the line, you may find that some people decide cheating is worth Getting $100,000 worth of school education or whatever the scholarship is worth.
Yeah, they might actually cheat.
The definition doesn't require anyone to undergo hormone therapy or to be formally diagnosed.
You can just say you are trans or a woman and then you have immediate access to spaces typically designed to protect females.
Or you have programs designed to encourage women in certain areas actually get shut down.
Like this story from the Grand Forks Herald.
Rules for women-only grants changed after man's discrimination charge at University of Minnesota.
This is from last November.
As it is already illegal to discriminate based on someone's gender, identity is less relevant to what we're already seeing right now, but this story shows us the strange contradiction held by intersectional feminists.
This story from the College Fix.
To protect illegal women-only lounge, hundreds of women and some men promised to squat.
Michigan State University had a study lounge that was off-limits to men for 91 years
until a professor from a rival school filed a regulatory complaint.
The media noticed and poof, the lounge was suddenly open to all genders.
Because of this, 500 students, including a smattering of men,
have promised to squat in the lounge, with another 400 interested as of Monday night.
The event, Take Back the Women's Lounge, said, we must join together to take back our safe space.
Adding, this will be an intersectional event and it has come to my attention that women of different identities have previously felt uncomfortable in the women's lounge, so I wanted to make an additional effort to make the space open and inclusive to women of all identities.
Now, this may be the best example of why the Equality Act will fail in many regards, so long as gender identity is so vaguely defined.
At this school, they wanted a space for women only.
However, there are also trans women, thus they needed to make the space Intersectional, meaning it would include trans women as well.
But, how do you define what makes a woman a woman?
That's been something of great debate, even among the intersectional feminists, because you might actually have someone who identifies as a woman, a biological female, who wears a tailored suit, like a three-piece suit.
Well, that's a traditionally masculine role, and they're embracing it, but it doesn't mean they're not a woman.
So what happens then when someone wears, I don't know, just clothes like I'm wearing, walks in and they say, we fought for the right to have a women's only space, you can't come in.
Could I then just say, I'm a woman?
And they have to let me in?
More importantly, do they have the right to challenge me or anyone else to ask us whether or not we're actually women?
While I think it would be exceedingly rare that someone would lie and pretend to be trans just to get access to a lounge, it's also important to point out that anybody in the lounge has no right to even challenge you.
Because think about the ramifications of that.
Someone could show up who's legitimately trans and then be forced to show their papers or prove they're trans.
Well, that's not acceptable.
Thus, the only thing they can do is make the space open to literally everyone.
You can't go around asking for papers, and you can't make assumptions about what makes someone a woman.
That's their own logic.
Thus, they can't actually fight for a safe space for women, at the same time fight for it to be open to all identities.
It literally does not make sense.
And this is what we will likely end up seeing across the board.
The contradiction doesn't end there.
The ACLU, a noted intersectional left-wing identitarian organization, opposes sex segregation.
It seems like they don't actually agree on exactly what's going to happen here.
Some intersectional feminists saying there should be a women's only safe space, while the ACLU says sex segregation is wrong, and this bill would basically do away with that anyway.
One of the most important arguments which I brought up earlier is that I think cheaters will be rare.
They will exist.
But just because this creates an opportunity for some cheaters doesn't mean we shouldn't offer up protections to gender non-conforming people or for trans people.
I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I can say it is true.
There will be people who exploit the system.
This will result in biological females losing special protections, and there is an assumption underlying much of this argument that there is no biological difference between men and women, which is absolutely wrong.
Or I should say, males and females.
It's a very hard topic to navigate.
Whether or not Trump declares himself the first female president upon this act being passed is an entirely different story, and it's extremely unlikely.
But you can let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern.
And I'll have more videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
