scrubadub
I wouldn't vote for the Republicans either. What I'd like instead is Democrats to understood how regressive and corrosive to women's rights this type of policy is. It's so disappointing that they have such a misogynistic blind spot on sex and gender issues, yet can recognize the importance of women's rights in areas like reproductive choice.
Yes, so you agree with me then. As I said in my first comment, this is policy overreach by progressives. They've ended up pushing policy that enables any male who says he's a woman to access any space that was intended to be only for women. This harms women and girls.
> > If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?
> Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike??
I think you misunderstood the question.
At least, I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class, and vice versa, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.
Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women.
This isn't just limited to prisons. Another recent instance: Title IX is being redefined in this way, which according to the UN will discriminate against and disadvantage women and girls in educational settings: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-state...
> By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes?
Yes. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? When a male says he identifies as a woman, what exactly is he identifying with? You can't identify with a body you don't have, so what could he actually be identifying with, if not these stereotypes?
> They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman".
Sorry but you have been misinformed, this is the currently the actual progressive position. And it has led to horrifying outcomes when enacted into law, such as SB132 in California which allows imprisoned men to transfer to the women's prisons if they claim to be women: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-...
> These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom.
No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes.
They're reacting to policy overreach by progressives. There's no good reason why everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman. Yet this is what's happened in recent years.
Yes it's unfortunate that it has to be the Republicans pushing back against this in terms of introducing actual policy, but at least they're fixing the problem.