Today's Senate Judiciary Hearing

submitted by WildApples from (self.GenderCritical)

I only caught the tail end of it, but this is what stood out to me:

  • I am incensed at the way the Democrats are using race to push this bill. Corey Booker's and Alfonso David's references to not being able to eat at lunch counters disgusted me. I do not want LGBT people to be discriminated against, but let us not pretend they are being subjected to the state-sponsored apartheid that black people suffered before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. No one is forcibly pulling a trans person off of a lunch counter stool to deny them service. There is no separate, inferior LGBT section meant to treat them as second-class citizens. They are not getting lynched because of their identity. The police are not hosing them down to keep them from fighting segregation. They do not have to sit at the back of the bus. This is what comes of all this fakakta censorship of "offensive" material from the past; people have no clue what real hate looks like and what kind of suffering groups endured to put today's trials and tribulations into perspective.

  • Alphonso David's comments about trans people being denied medical services seemed like pure gaslighting. It is another instance of the Democrats trying to equate trans issues with the segregation black people faced by making it seem like trans people are being denied services outright. I looked up the person David mentioned, Tanya Walker, and it appears that the bulk of what he is labeling "denial" consists of "misgendering," "deadnaming," and asking about Walker's genitals. There may be valid discussions to be had about how to approach trans-identifying patients with sensitivity, but it is ridiculous to want to prevent medical staff from trying to ascertain a person's true sex. Sex can affect the presentation of conditions and their appropriate treatment. Why would anyone want to put an unnecessary obstacle in the way of a trans-person getting appropriate treatment? All this bill will do is make treating trans-identifying people more legally and socially fraught, distracting medical staff from the medical issue at hand and incentivizing minimizing time and communications with such patients to avoid the risk of lawsuits.

  • Alphonso David's deer in headlights look when he was asked how many sexes there are was a riot. How can anyone take these people seriously?

  • I appreciated Ted Cruz's anecdote about coaching children's sports teams and the evident differences in performance between the sexes that start to arise around puberty. Conversely, Dick Durbin's closing remark about having been such a bad athlete that anyone could have beaten him regardless of sex was stupid. Just because you suck or because some women perform better than most men does not mean males do not have an advantage over females. When I run races, I do better than 50% of the men, but I know no matter how much I improve I am not going to beat the top men. There is a reason why the top spots in co-ed races are always held by men. If they did not specifically enumerate women's categories, women would NEVER win. I hate the Democrats so much now.

  • Abigail Shrier was great, what little I saw of her. I think it was Lindsay Graham John Kennedy who started asking her weird questions about students' genitals. His line of questioning really missed the mark there. Instead of emphasizing that girls will be forced to share locker rooms with boys and be exposed to their genitals, he asked whether the bill would make it illegal to put them together. Obviously not since that is the whole point of the bill. It seems like he should have been asking whether the bill would make it illegal to keep boys and girls separated in the locker room. Maybe he got confused. IDK.

What were your thoughts?

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]PM_Me_Your_Tits_Ladi 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As a black person, I found the crude comparison of trans people's issues with black people's issues the most insulting. I really hate Dems for this.

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

The gender lobby is constantly comparing black women to TiMs, and blacks' struggles for rights and justice with transgender activists' silly demands - it's atrocious.

Why are black Democratic leaders, like Congresspeople James Clyburn, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, et al., allowing this?

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's really gross, on par with several "progressive" pitbull advocates I've come across making the same comparison of "breed discrimination" literally comparing humans to dogs.

[–]BEB 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wish that women speaking on this issue would not still have to keep up the pretence that TiMs are normal except for their dysphoria, when in fact, a significant % of TiMs are autogynephiles (get sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women) or have severe mental health issues. And US TiMs also have extremely high lifetime incarceration rates.

I think we need to start confronting the elephant in the room -that a sizeable portion of TiMs are dangerous themselves - rather than pretend that we are only scared of normal men using trans-friendly laws to assault us in sex-segregated spaces.

[–]one1won 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I appreciate and agree with your analysis. Well said!

I'm on mobile, so key points for those who wish to reference video of hearing From my notes:

  • HRC's Mr David: "44 Tpeople killed in America last year!" "The T live in fear!"
    Reeeee....

(he tried not to answer the how many sexes question, he REALLY didn't want to answer, he looked down when/just before he did say, softly, "more than 2". LOL)

  • Durbin's dismissive hand-waving: "exaggerated claims", "fear mongering", "problems for girls and women in states with similar bills don't exist", "no problems no problems!"

  • (?) EA was drafted in 2015

  • Senator Hyde-Smith: Womens history! Now, EA (T, is in effect) - "the exception that SWALLOWS the rule"

  • Senator Blackburn: "WHY walk back women's rights and endanger their lives..."

  • Senator Hartzler was a teacher, she stressed importance of Title IX in education as well as sports

Dem Senators and speakers were classic TRA rhetoric.

  • 16 yo Tgirl Stella Keating was, unsurprisingly, classic narcissistic me, me, me, I, I, I. Founder of GenderCool (TM? /s). "We are the future" (meaning gender kids) and "I'm going into politics!" Rah, rah, so stunning

  • Guffey is mother of a late teen "black, non-binary, trans". Testified that slavery was wrong

  • Did you catch Ted Cruz say the Dems denied Repubs third proposed panelist, Kathy Mitchell, mother of a sports affected girl? (only proponents of the Act were allowed to make emotional pleas or relay personal IRL experience, in effect)

  • Shrier and Rice-Hansen were great, well prepared, awesome presences! Typical women! ;)

  • Seriously, a couple of these elder senators are Biden-esque in their speech (and cognitive abilities?). How terrible were their opponents, or voter base, last election?

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

Great points! I meant to mention them denying the proposed panelist, but it slipped my mind. I have to go back and watch from the beginning to see Senators Hyde-Smith, Blackburn and Hartzler.

I also meant to say that I thought the Republicans did a good job with striking a measured and balanced tone to avoid playing into the Democrats' hands and being accused of bigotry (though they'll probably be accused of such anyway by them anyway!).

[–]devushka 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Did you catch Ted Cruz say the Dems denied Repubs third proposed panelist, Kathy Mitchell, mother of a sports affected girl? (only proponents of the Act were allowed to make emotional pleas or relay personal IRL experience, in effect)

I did not catch that, thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering why the Republicans only had two witnesses and the Dems had three.

Durbin's dismissive hand-waving: "exaggerated claims", "fear mongering", "problems for girls and women in states with similar bills don't exist", "no problems no problems!"

No problems, except for the girls that loss to the transgirls in Connecticut or the woman who just got raped in prison that Abigail Shrier brought up. But, yeah, totally no problems at all. 🙄

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

How were the Dems allowed to deny the GOP a speaker?

[–]devushka 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is not true,” the Democratic aide told the Caller. “Republicans were able to call two minority witnesses of their choosing – consistent with longstanding Committee practice – and they choose not to invite Kathy [Christy] Mitchell as one of their witnesses. We cannot have one set of rules when Republicans are in the majority, and another set of rules when Democrats are in the majority.”

This makes it seem like the minority party only gets two witnesses. I'm not familiar with how all the Senate committee meetings work though. Source.

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

That seems to me to be not fair no matter which party is in the majority. Each party should have the same opportunity to present testimonies.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yep. These lawmakers get paid well into the 6-figure annual range before even considering benefits. They ought to be forced to sit through the entire deluge of the other side's witnesses.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Would you know how the Democrats were able to get the Equality Act through the House with no hearings?

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

I do not remember where I saw it, but some Democratic legislator said they did not have to hold hearings this session because they already conducted hearings last year.

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

But did the House have Equality Act hearings last year?

As I've mentioned, I'm still fuming over the 2019 House Judiciary Committee Equality Act hearings because the Democrats behaved like rude, misogynistic, turds, including the women.

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

It was probably 2019 then. Either way, their excuse for not having hearings this year was that they already conducted them previously. They are playing so fast and loose with the democratic process. It is disgusting.

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

If you feel so moved, please send a thank you note or call to whoever you felt stood up for your beliefs - it makes a difference!

[–]WrongToy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

i missed the live. Is the video available to watch anywhere?

Edit: video may be watched here.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-equality-act-lgbtq-rights-are-human-rights

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So patronizing, calling TQ "rights" anything other than 'privileges' while lumping them in with LGB.

[–]WildApples[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is what gets me. What is being called discrimination and denial of service with regards to the T population seems to mostly be about failure to validate them by reflecting their self-selected identity back to them.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the three trans- employment discrimination cases highlighted on HRC's website are from decades ago-- 1968, 1999, and 2004. You'd think that if the problem of discrimination was as bad as they are portraying, they would have some more recent cases to highlight.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If we could just cleave that acronym into LGB and TQ, we could pass an LGB version of the bill much more easily - stripped of any of the compelled-to-serve nonsense like Masterpiece Cakeshop (indefensible given how social media are allowed to curate their platforms without repercussions).

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

The TQ+ should be jettisoned ASAP by LGB. Not only does TQ+ demands mean gay-friendly legislation stalls, but I think the Equality Act and similar legislation that attacks women's rights are going to lead to a huge backlash against LGB because their names are attached.