[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*

[AK74]

Anyone got a clue how the Republicans plan to round up 11 million illegals?

What could possibly go wrong?

Using the world's largest lasso.

(rope, not Ted)

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Anyone got a clue how the Republicans plan to round up 11 million illegals?

What could possibly go wrong?

I think a few Republicans realise if you were to deport 11 million illegals America simply wouldn't function.

A lot of lazy Americans would rather claim benefits than do a job they consider beneath them.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think a few Republicans realise if you were to deport 11 million illegals America simply wouldn't function.

A lot of lazy Americans would rather claim benefits than do a job they consider beneath them.

A lot of American companies enjoy having cheap labour.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

A lot of American companies enjoy having cheap labour.

When I lived in New York a lot of illegal immigrants worked in the hospitality industry in bars, resturants and hotels. In fact NYC issued ID passes to people reagrdless of immigration status so they could prove their identity if they were stopped by the NYPD

 

[Withdean11]

Bad news keeps coming for the Democrats due to the census in 2030 and it's effect on the electoral college.

Based on the current map, they could win NV, WI, MI & PA in 2032 and still lose the election.

 

[Deadly Danson]

All this may be true, but it is also missing the point.

Trans women are not a threat to women, as a rule, except on the sports field and perhaps other fields where their extra strength is a risk. But what is a danger, is men who pretend to be trans women. It should be stating the obvious, but it is not possible to trust a sex offender. A male sex offender may very well claim to be a trans woman if he thought it would help him commit his offences.

There is no test to test whether someone claiming to be a trans woman is an actual trans woman, or whether he/she is a man pretending to be a trans woman. That's why JK Rowling is so determined to keep trans women out of women-only refuges; because to allow trans women in, is to allow men in.

It's funny though how all these people including JK and some on here who are suddenly so protective of women are ever so quick to mock anyone "weird" or different or with an unusual hair colour. It's almost as though protection of women is a great excuse to display prejudice and small mindedness. Which isn't to say of course that there aren't difficult and nuanced issues on this subject but the likes of Trump who has no compassion or subtlety are not the sort of person who can resolve these issues and his election win will inevitably lead to a further marginalisation and vilification of minorities.

 

[FatSuperman]

All this may be true, but it is also missing the point.

Trans women are not a threat to women, as a rule, except on the sports field and perhaps other fields where their extra strength is a risk. But what is a danger, is men who pretend to be trans women. It should be stating the obvious, but it is not possible to trust a sex offender. A male sex offender may very well claim to be a trans woman if he thought it would help him commit his offences.

There is no test to test whether someone claiming to be a trans woman is an actual trans woman, or whether he/she is a man pretending to be a trans woman. That's why JK Rowling is so determined to keep trans women out of women-only refuges; because to allow trans women in, is to allow men in.

I would argue you are missing the point. You're describing a man pretending to be a woman. Trying to solve that by making a rule that female-only spaces are for born female people requires people to be honest about their birth gender. And as you say yourself, someone pretending to be a woman to prey on women isn't going to follow the rules.

It's like banning police from interacting with women because Police Officer Wayne Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard. Those bad people will still exist and they don't follow the rules.

I don't know the answer so I appreciate I'm not being helpful, but I don't think it's going to make much difference by not allowing the tiny percentage of trans people access to female toilets etc. Are we going to have some DNA scan to be allowed entry. I'd be up for that, it might slow the dangerous men down a little.

 

[jcdenton08]

You know in the old movie “A Face in the Crowd”, how a hot mic is his undoing? The same could happen with Trump and they’d still back him. The guy can do no wrong amongst his support. It’s a cult of personality.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

I saw a comment saying many Democrats are regretting taking the high moral ground and going with Michelle Obama's comment "When they go low we go high"

They may as well have put forward a degenerate, intellectually challenged, hamburger eating ejjit and perhaps they would have won - what a sad reflection of America in 2024

 

[dsr-burnley]

I would argue you are missing the point. You're describing a man pretending to be a woman. Trying to solve that by making a rule that female-only spaces are for born female people requires people to be honest about their birth gender. And as you say yourself, someone pretending to be a woman to prey on women isn't going to follow the rules.

It's like banning police from interacting with women because Police Officer Wayne Couzens kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard. Those bad people will still exist and they don't follow the rules.

I don't know the answer so I appreciate I'm not being helpful, but I don't think it's going to make much difference by not allowing the tiny percentage of trans people access to female toilets etc. Are we going to have some DNA scan to be allowed entry. I'd be up for that, it might slow the dangerous men down a little.

You're still misunderstanding my point. I don't expect you to agree with it, but it would be helpful to the discussion if you could understand it.

This is the point. Any rule that allows trans women into female toilets, and also into homes for abused women, must also apply to men who claim to be trans women.

If as per your example a man is pretending to be a woman to access women-only spaces and commit crimes against women, he can be thrown out or arrested because there is a test to show that he is not a woman. If a man is pretending to be a trans woman, there is no such test.

Yes, you are right that the number of trans women who want access to homes for abused women is small. But then, the number of abused women who want access to homes where men and people who look like men are banned, is also small. You can't justify pleasing one group ahead of the other, purely on the basis of numbers.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Typically going through the process to get a GIC referral (6+ year waiting list for a first appointment btw) and hormones prescribed before we even get to discussing surgeries would be a pretty good test as its a massive commitment and lifestyle change.

In the UK as in the USA, it is already possible for men who go through the whole palaver of a sex change to be legally designated as women. I agree it would be a good test as to whether they can be proven to be trans women or full women.

 

[nicko31]

I think a few Republicans realise if you were to deport 11 million illegals America simply wouldn't function.

A lot of lazy Americans would rather claim benefits than do a job they consider beneath them.

I would imagine they are a lot of illegals working in many sectors, it will be inflationary. In fact most of Trump's plans are inflationary

Currently 2.4% very low - the dems were an economic disaster

 

[US Seagull]

Any rule that allows trans women into female toilets, and also into homes for abused women, must also apply to men who claim to be trans women.

How is this really any different than the current situation? There really isn't a test to see if people are female when they go into the toilet. I've never seen a restroom that asks you to drop your pants and flash your junk before you are let in. If you know of such a place, I'll be interested to hear about it. It simply doesn't happen. The only requirement to use the women's toilet now is looking feminine. Trans-men can't use women's toilets, despite being biological women, without expecting, at least, a lot of disapproving looks, but more likely Karen loudly screaming for somebody to come remove this interloper. Even particularly butch looking lesbians can have trouble with getting side eye when walking into the restroom.

So as it currently stands, there is absolutely nothing stopping your theoretical bathroom rapist from sticking on a dress, slapping on some makeup, and walking into a women's restroom.

And yet it doesn't happen...

To turn things around, why would you force a (trans-) woman to use the men's restroom? A situation that is much more likely to put somebody in serious danger?

 

[superseagull1994]

In the UK as in the USA, it is already possible for men who go through the whole palaver of a sex change to be legally designated as women. I agree it would be a good test as to whether they can be proven to be trans women or full women.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point? Why should we need to differentiate trans women and afab women after the trans fem has started medically* transitioning? That's not even mentioning trans men either.

*used to mean seeking gender affirming care, ie gender clinics and hrt in this instance to differentiate from social transition

 

[jordanseagull]

I haven't said there are no consequences mate. I'm saying it's ridiculous that it gets this much press coverage and social media attention given the scale of the issue. Where is your concern about the massive number of issues biological men cause women?

"Yeah malaria is bad, but this one person in Belgium got a really rare illness"

In fact that's a good case in point:

• Malaria deaths each year - 410,000
• Ebola deaths in the entirety of human history - less than 20,000

And yet the noise about Ebola was deafening. Oh and by the way, of those annual malaria deaths, 275,000 of them are children.

Of course the coverage is receives is disproportionate, no doubt. But what follows is pure whataboutery. If we applied this standard to all moral issues we'd never have the right to raise an issue with anything, given we all make use of phones the components of which are in part the product of child slave labour. There are an endless amount of other examples of moral hypocrisy or 'what about this more important thing' you and I could point to.

The point is not that it is an issue proportionate to other issues (it is not) - the point is that the issue is the product of a recent cultural construction that is easily solvable, unlike the others you refer to. You ask where my concern is for the issues biological men cause women. Trans women are biological men, and I repeat, this is one area in which an issue caused by biological men is easily solvable. Delivering 'some good' is better than delivering 'no good' on the basis that the overarching issue is still prevalent.

 

[FatSuperman]

You're still misunderstanding my point. I don't expect you to agree with it, but it would be helpful to the discussion if you could understand it.

This is the point. Any rule that allows trans women into female toilets, and also into homes for abused women, must also apply to men who claim to be trans women.

If as per your example a man is pretending to be a woman to access women-only spaces and commit crimes against women, he can be thrown out or arrested because there is a test to show that he is not a woman. If a man is pretending to be a trans woman, there is no such test.

Yes, you are right that the number of trans women who want access to homes for abused women is small. But then, the number of abused women who want access to homes where men and people who look like men are banned, is also small. You can't justify pleasing one group ahead of the other, purely on the basis of numbers.

I do get, I'm trying to explain that the problem isn't the trans people, it's the men that are looking to abuse women - irrespective of how they dress and how they identify. So focusing the solution on stopping anyone identifying as trans, does not solve the problem. Men can just waltz into women's toilets if they want to, they don't even need to put a wig on. If we enact your ban, the number of assaults on women will go down by a number incredibly close to 0. But if for example we had some solution to make women's toilets safer regardless of the gender identity of people going in to them, you can bet we'd have a better result.

My point, is that the focus is continuously on the trans people when we all know that isn't going to make the difference. And the reason we focus on it is simply because they are different.

 

[jcdenton08]

I think people have a fundamental right to use a toilet exclusive to their biological sex at birth. I hate gender neutral toilets and feel incredibly awkward when a woman is using a cubical while I’m at a urinal or an adjoining cubicle. I can’t even imagine how awkward some women feel, especially if she has experienced sexual harassment or worse.

As for trans people, the obvious solution is a third toilet, but given the huge expense for limited use they would see, there is no easy solution presently.

But shared toilets for men and women can do one.

 

[FatSuperman]

Of course the coverage is receives is disproportionate, no doubt. But what follows is pure whataboutery. If we applied this standard to all moral issues we'd never have the right to raise an issue with anything, given we all make use of phones the components of which are in part the product of child slave labour. There are an endless amount of other examples of moral hypocrisy or 'what about this more important thing' you and I could point to.

The point is not that it is an issue proportionate to other issues (it is not) - the point is that the issue is the product of a recent cultural construction that is easily solvable, unlike the others you refer to. You ask where my concern is for the issues biological men cause women. Trans women are biological men, and I repeat, this is one area in which an issue caused by biological men is easily solvable. Delivering 'some good' is better than delivering 'no good' on the basis that the overarching issue is still prevalent.

Yes, I knew someone would bring this argument up. I am absolutely not saying you can't address something because that problem is bigger. This isn't like saying we shouldn't deal with pancreatic cancer until we solve breast cancer. But I am saying we should focus a proportionate amount of effort and outrage on the larger issues. This isn't a breast (15% of all cases) vs pancreatic (2% of all cases) issue. It's a men (48.9% of the population) vs trans women (0.1% of the population) debate.

Somebody has already posted that by and large, people follow criminal patterns and statistics according to their birth gender. And effectively they are saying "See! these trans women are actually just men from a criminality perspective... therefore lets focus on trans women to solve the problem women are facing". I'm saying "how about we talk about the people in 48.9% first".

But ultimately I'm with you on the solutions Jordan, if we have one? If it's super easy, despite the small prize, to protect women from the handful of trans women looking to harm them... how do we do it? Because just banning them from toilets is no different from banning men... who still go in and attack women (hint: because it's not their gender identity that influences this... as the studies suggest. It's that they are evil people)

 

[dsr-burnley]

I do get, I'm trying to explain that the problem isn't the trans people, it's the men that are looking to abuse women - irrespective of how they dress and how they identify. So focusing the solution on stopping anyone identifying as trans, does not solve the problem. Men can just waltz into women's toilets if they want to, they don't even need to put a wig on. If we enact your ban, the number of assaults on women will go down by a number incredibly close to 0. But if for example we had some solution to make women's toilets safer regardless of the gender identity of people going in to them, you can bet we'd have a better result.

My point, is that the focus is continuously on the trans people when we all know that isn't going to make the difference. And the reason we focus on it is simply because they are different.

Why are you banging on about toilets? Most of my posts have been focussing on homes for abused women. And if you argue there that men can go in anyway, even though it's against the rules, so there is no point having rules to stop them, I would decidedly disagree.

I don't care who uses toilets as long as they, broadly speaking, look like they might be that gender and behave correctly. I do care, albeit at third hand because it isn't something that has ever touched my life, about the homes for abused women.

 

[FatSuperman]

I think people have a fundamental right to use a toilet exclusive to their biological sex at birth. I hate gender neutral toilets and feel incredibly awkward when a woman is using a cubical while I’m at a urinal or an adjoining cubicle. I can’t even imagine how awkward some women feel, especially if she has experienced sexual harassment or worse.

As for trans people, the obvious solution is a third toilet, but given the huge expense for limited use they would see, there is no easy solution presently.

But shared toilets for men and women can do one.

I agree that would make me uncomfortable, mainly because I think I'd be making them uncomfortable. But I have never even seen a shared toilet where there is a urinal in the same space as the sinks / cubicals. Obviously that is a stupid solution.

Gender neutral toilets are JUST TOILETS. I have one in my home. So do you. One person can go in at once. At many, many cafes, bars and restaurants the toilets are gender neutral... because there is only a small number of toilets. Cubicals separate from the sinks seems the easy solution.

Obviously doesn't stop men attacking women.