It’s a simple question
My god this is infuriating.
I don’t know what hearing this is. There was a hearing on a bill on transgender athletes in Montana in January and I couldn’t find one on a federal bill so this is probably Montana, but I don’t know for sure.
But anyway – it’s astounding. He asks the obviously relevant question, if in 20 years there is a women’s team that is all “biological males” would you support that? And she doesn’t answer. She’s so flummoxed she asks him to repeat it, so he does, and she just outright refuses to answer, and even says “I apologize for not answering the question,” and then robotically repeats the moronic formula. Answer the fucking question!! If this new dispensation becomes normal and males take advantage of it and “women’s teams” become all-male, will you still think that’s a fine thing?
Yes or no?!
He’s probably a Republican and wouldn’t ask, but I would: we she support a women’s commission on abortion rights which consisted only of transwomen?
I think she answered the question. The answer is “yes.” Her hesitation wasn’t due to embarrassment or being flummoxed, but due to wanting to look like she was flummoxed. I mean, it’s just so obvious that trans women are women that it’s hard for her to wrap her mind around what was being asked.
But she brought it on herself by making the “it’s such a small proportion “ argument. It’s a stupid argument to make if you’re trying to support a principle.
Of course, I suspect most transwomen would not support an all male women’s sports team. That puts them back in the spot they were in…mediocre males against other males. They need to be a small proportion, because that’s the only way they win. If they are competing against other biological males, they no longer have the edge they want.
I wonder how many of them realize that.
Well, it’s a pyramid scheme then, isn’t it. The first ones in will get the medals and endorsement contracts, but later trans opportunists, not so much.
I hope this trend gets nipped in the bud quickly for reasons of fairness to women and girls, rather than dying out due to saturation of the playing field.
She knew very well that the answer was yes, but she also knew how awful that answer looks. Cue evasion.
It is Montana.
http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210118/-1/39670
I think she knows that, to be consistent, yes, she supports it. But she’s hoping against hope that, having given women no means to push back, men won’t take advantage in embarrassing ways. Embarrassing to her, that is.
If you watch it without the sound so you can’t hear her sweet little lady voice, the body language is all “what the fuck am I hearing?” The way she draws herself up and leans back, the looking down her nose, the trump-hands going “stop right there”, the eyebrows – she looks absolutely furious to me. And arrogant and condescending.
Isn’t it good that it’s a woman here representing the ACLU, and not a TiM? If it were a TiM, and the interrogator had been a woman, it would be not unlikely that the interaction would go like this:
“Would you support a woman’s sport team that would have all transgender biological males as transgender women?”
“Transgender women are women, transgender girls are girls, AND YOU CAN SUCK MY DICK AND THEN DIE, YOU TERF.”
What about that slippery slope? Why, the trans cult defies gravity of course! Don’t be silly. :P
Sorry, that wouldn’t just be a TiM. Could be any male.
‘If you watch it without the sound so you can’t hear her sweet little lady voice, the body language is all “what the fuck am I hearing?” The way she draws herself up and leans back, the looking down her nose, the trump-hands going “stop right there”, the eyebrows – she looks absolutely furious to me. And arrogant and condescending.’
Yeah, the body language was startlingly unprofessional.
Interesting that the mask doesn’t, uh, mask the body language much.
I interpreted her reticence as not being willing to give credence to the presumption in the question that “transwomen” are biological males. She does not want to acknowledge that point. I suspect, if she were asked about a hypothetical team consisting of all “transwomen”, she’d have answered “yes” with little or no hesitation. Just a guess, of course.
‘…a small proportion…’ Its a measure of the madness that girl’s/women’s sports are the center of such a storm. Is there actually a substantial body of MtFs trying to erase women’s sports? Or just a random collection of creepy opportunists?
Right now it appears to be this, but they have gotten a substantial portion of the movement – both trans and trans allies – to sign on, to take it as one of the most important, most crucial, issues of the day.
@Sackbut #13;
I agree. Her unease at the ‘transphobic” terminology also probably accounts to an extent for her body language.
The fact that it’s a question from a “transphobe” accounts for the rest. Doesn’t want to understand; doesn’t want to answer; doesn’t want to treat it as if it’s a good faith question. To do so is to enter a World View of Doom.
I was wondering how things would have gone if the ACLU had sent Chase Strangio…
It’s a great illustration of how these argumentative techniques don’t work outside of liberal enclaves.
I don’t know anything about the committee member asking the question. He may be a hard right wing, actual transphobic asshole who isn’t reachable in any way. But the question itself is a legitimate one, at least in the eyes of many people who are persuadable, and who TRAs will need to persuade if they want to get legislative wins in jurisdictions like Montana.
And it’s not like you couldn’t answer it. It’s not some slanted, “have you stopped beating your wife” question. How hard would it be to say something like “we consider that an unlikely hypothetical, because there’s little evidence that the percentage of transgender students would be high enough to bring that about. But we don’t believe that human rights are contingent on how many people assert those rights. We wouldn’t set a quota for how many transgender women can be on a team, or how many transgender athletes Montana should ‘allow’ statewide.”?
But this is clearly someone who’s not used to receiving pushback, and so she’s unable to deal with a fairly simple question. It probably took all of her self-control to refrain from calling him a transphobe and demanding he be banned from Twitter… er, the committee.
Much of the TRA position hinges on those claimed small percentages, and attendant claims that therefore the differences between the future and now will be tiny.
They do everything to not acknowledge that these tiny percentages are likely to have huge ripple effects that affect everything, given sufficient time and “tolerance”.
One example of this is the UK’s apparent 84% explosion in child sex abuse with “female” perpetrators. This entire increase would be completely accounted for if fewer than 2% of male perpetrators claimed to be female instead.
Sports will be similar. Females will be out competed and intimidated and harassed out of their own category. How long until the US gets its first Lauren Jeska?