Is it ironic that Congresscritter Nancy Mace is/was freaking out about the possibility of trans-Congresscritter 'Sarah' (i.e. Tim) McBride invading "women's spaces" in the congressional office buildings? I mean, considering that Nancy Mace *personally* opened these doors through her womanly invasion of the formerly "male space" of the military academy 'The Citadel'?
Thursday, November 21, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Our society isn't ready to solve this issue, as exemplified by the following exchange --
Larry: But there they made separate bathrooms available. That's what's she's saying is they should not accommodate this man, by allowing him into women's restrooms. And point 2, she didn't go into the citadel claiming she was a man.
Me: Larry, this tranny bullshit is just the other side of the coin of what women (collectively) and Nancy Mace (individually) have been doing almost our entire lives. How is it relevant that there were segregated restrooms at the Citadel, when the *issue* is that the Citadel was a "men's space", and Nancy Mace's invasion of it compromised its mission? If course this man should not be allowed to invade the women's restrooms, BUT Nancy Mace should not have been allowed to invade the Citadel.
And on "point 2" -- so, if this fellow *weren't* pretending to be a woman (and demanding that the rest of use pretend likewise), it would be OK for him go into the women's restrooms?
Larry: He was born a male. Let him use the men's room. And Nancy Mace wasn't the first woman to attend the Citadel, that distinction belongs to Shannon Faulkner. Nancy was the first to graduate the Citadel.
Me: I didn't say she was the first to "attend"; that she was not the *very* first to "attend" does not falsify my point that she, personally, played a significant role in bringing us to this particular point (*) which now offends her. And thus the irony.
Of course he must use the men's room. But that doesn't solve the problem (**): denying that men and women *are* different and necessarily serve different roles in, and for, society.
Just as there are places and functions in which men have no business, so too are there places and functions in which women have no business (the most glaring of which is the military); and until our society admits this truth, this sort of shit cannot be stopped.
(*) She didn't start us down his road; it was our Victorian great-grandfathers who did that, when they started worshiping women as living saints.
(**) That immediate decision had already been made before I first posted. And as soon as the Dems control the House, it will be reversed.
Larry: I'm pretty sure it's going to be a long time before the dems even control playtime In a kindergarten class again. And I don't think woman not having a role in the military is correct. But I do have concerns to them being in a frontline role.
Me: Even aside from the Dem cheating, nearly half the country voted for both the zombie in 2020 and the empty pants-suit in 2024, and the GOP only just controls the Congress starting next session. Sure, there were impressive shifts away from the Dems even in NY and CA, but I'm not holding by breath for that to be permanent.
"Women in combat" is *baked into* the presuppositions which allow women in the military in the first place. Further, once even hypothetical/mythological "highly qualified" women are brought into the military, the bureaucratic incentives constantly push for the lowering of standards so as to "qualify" even more women.
If you don't want your granddaughter to come back in a body-bag, you must oppose militarizing women in the first place.
Post a Comment