The Democrats are determined to destroy women's rights/safety,privacy,dignity/sport - Violence Against Women Act will allow some self-id in correctional facilities and force females to strip search TiMs - F the Dems.

submitted by BEB from twitter.com

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BEB[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope I am misreading this, but if I'm reading this correctly it's so F-ing sneaky of the Democrats: If they can't get males into women's spaces via the Equality Act and state legislation, they're going to sneak them in under an act unironically titled the "Violence Against Women Act."

Why are the Democrats - the self-proclaimed Progressive party - so determined to ensure that women and children are raped and sexually assaulted/harassed? I am honestly baffled.

[–]our_team_is_winning 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I saw a headline about GOP (evil baddie Nazi, etc.) voting against this act, and it made it sound like the Worst Misogynists in History had voted against an act to PROTECT women, oh how could they....

And I thought "I bet this act has a deceptive name. I'll bet 'women' is not defined the way 'women' is defined by biology."

Sure enough! I fully expect the pork in EVERY upcoming bill to include anti-woman trans demands.

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why, though? What is behind the Democrats' determination to endanger women and often children? Money? Who wants men in women's spaces so badly? The Dems will lose power, so it better be worth it.

[–]our_team_is_winning 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is behind the Democrats' determination to endanger women and often children?

I've been trying to solve that one too.

Simplest answer: Trans is a powerful lobby and the politicians like their bribes. Wars kill and maim hundreds of thousands, but they've always been on board with wars if siding with the MIC means profit. Pervs in your daughter's restroom probably seems mild compared to beheadings. And Trans demands seem to have some military ties.

More sinister answer: It's one step closer to pedo demands.

Insidious (today's word?) answer: It's one step closer to transhumanism, and these career politicians think they should have immortal life and eternal power.

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nancy Pelosi or some Power Dem said something INSIDIOUS when the House rules were changed to gender neutral language, something like, "This is the future."

But I'm guessing that transhumanism isn't going to be for the hoi polloi, so rank-and-file congresspeople will most probably not get a ticket on the Mothership.

[–]pacmanla 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm puzzled by the Democrats all out crusade on trying to get men to be seen as "real women" (whatever real means to them) & the pushing of males into females spaces. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but a registered Independent. I've always hated the two-party system & thought we needed a serious change (still do), but I would've never thought the Democrats would be so all in on this trans nonsense. It's definitely something sinister & bigger at play here. I have my thoughts, but don't want to get into "conspiracy theories", but I really believe the information that I have gather & research into the money behind this whole trans climate that we're being inundated into.

[–]aloris342 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this is just about power. Where do women, as a class, differ from men functionally, if we don't differ in material ways like having a uterus or ovaries? Well, on average we're smaller, weaker, slower, less physically robust, need more frequent contact with medical providers, need more societal protection of our physicality. If you redefine the class of women to include people who are actually male, you distort the statistical curve of any feature that affects our class. In fact you erase the physical differences that vary on a continuum. Thus we have males able to defeat (with ease!) females in running, cycling, etc, and the rationalization: "some women are really tall/really strong/really fast, so what's the big deal?" as if females who have similar features as males are not extremely rare in our sex class. What is the overall societal effect of this? It takes away protection and resources from those of us who, because of our biological femaleness, are smaller, weaker, slower, and erases the evidence that we even need that protection. It solidifies power in the hands of the powerful.

Everything about this is really about power.

[–]WrongToy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I brought it up at Ovarit (https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/23699/i-m-not-sure-i-ll-be-voting-dem-in-2022-2024-sorry) and the response was largely positive.

The skeptics were people who said this cannot be my hill, because of climate change, or racial justice, or abortion.

If Dems really care about these things, where have they been for 30+ years on each single one? It's not like the 1994 crime bill geared toward Black people happened under a GOP, it was just more acceptable that it happened under a Dem. Let alone the Lewinsky situation. And since, it's just been, here, let's make sure there's an abortion clinic in your state where you have to pay $800 to get $100 worth of meds.

The Dems are the ones prioritizing these TIMs, specifically the TIMs they know, who are mostly affluent and entitled. Until they stop doing that, I will not stop looking for an alternative to them or not supporting them. It's your party Dems, and way I see it, I don't even get a chance to have a conversation.

I've been a registered Dem since 1982 and still am btw, but as long as the Dems continue this charade, for which I fully blame them for, I'm not voting for any Dem on the federal level unless it is crystal they're onboard with gc. That's my issue, women's issues, and I'm sorry that gets in the way of other legit issues, but that's the way I feel about it.

[–]BEB[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a passionate liberal on most things, but my other foaming-at-the-mouth issue is war, as in anti-war. The Democrats fail miserably on that too.

And look at what the Democrats are steering women towards:

  • "Sex work" as work
  • Surrogacy
  • Lite porn work as in cam girls

The Democrats seem determined to have women's bodies be marketplaces. So F them.

[–]WildApples 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am completely with you. The Dems suck on labor, poverty, and other bread and butter issues; they are disingenuous and Machiavellian in their support of civil rights; and they have supported robust expansion of an anti-democratic surveillance state. Women's issues were really the only thing that kept me voting for them, which is why last year I abstained from voting altogether. I am not sorry about it at all. I am happier with each passing day that I did not compromise my integrity by voting for Biden.

I will never forgive the Democrats for this.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm with you all the way. I registered as a Democrat when I became eligible to vote in 1972, but became an independent during the Clinton presidency. One of my older sisters, a staunch women's rights advocate, was a major figure in the Democratic leadership council in the 80s and 90s and served as a high-up official in the Clinton administration. But what she divulged about the inner workings of the party and what I saw for myself soured me on the Dems. The Democratic party today is nothing like what it was in the era of FDR and Jimmy Carter.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Come on - spill!

[–]WildApples 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So they are trying to transform it into the Violence Against People Act?

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Democrats need to call it what it is: Violence Against Women With Penises Act

What I don't get is why are the Dems so hell bent, and using such sneaky methods, on getting men into women's spaces?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pathway to pedo acceptance? If people will honestly believe - or pretend - a man is a woman, why not believe an adult is a child or a child is an adult? We already have the concepts of old soul and young at heart. I'm not even full GC I'm fine with some bio-males (HSTS) in women's spaces I just want some Damn Gatekeeping and awareness of AGP.