this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
402 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
4033 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 hours ago

This should serve as a lesson to women everywhere that to conservatives, the definition of "trans" is flexible, and that someone is a "woman" only as far as it is politically useful to conservatives.

Look at the attack on the two Olympic athletes this summer. They were cisgender women, but they didn't meet western white beauty standards, and the right needed to find some "trans" athletes to attack, so they labeled cis women trans and demonized them. They still reference them in speeches.

Or these girls in this ad. Just some random cis girl athletes, but it was politically useful to label them trans, so they did.

As the culture war moves ever-more extreme, the definition of "trans" can always be expanded. Remember, 90% of cisgender women are crossdressers according to the traditional definition of the word. 90% of cisgender women regularly wear clothes that would literally have gotten them arrested in many parts of the US only half a century or so ago. It was literally illegal for women to wear pants in many areas. And as the push to confine women to ever-stricter gender roles marches on, any woman that doesn't meet this ever-narrowing standard of beauty can be labeled "trans" and have their rights stripped away.

Are you a woman athlete who looks a bit 'masculine' from years of participating in a contact sport like boxing? You're "trans" and deserve to have your civil rights taken away.

Are you a woman who works in a traditionally male career field? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

Do you wear anything other than dresses, skirts, and other traditionally female clothing? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

Do you want to have any independence at all, have your own bank account, and have any role in life other than daughter, wife, and mother? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

The attack on trans people is a perfect wedge for the right. There is no hard definition for the word "trans," and it can conveniently be defined ever-wider to confine women to ever-narrower ranges of acceptable behavior. When you hear hard right reactionaries talking about declaring being trans illegal or waxing about putting trans people in mental institutions, remember that it wasn't that long ago that cis women that showed any degree of independence were also institutionalized and lobotomized.

In the minds of many hard-right conservatives, 90% of women today are acting in ways that are fundamentally in contradiction to the role of their sex. In their eyes, most women are transgender. And while the narrow edge of the wedge is targeting people who actively seek out overt gender transition, that isn't the real end game.