Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Emily Lake]

Ignoring the rampage into harassing Derek and the inevitable US presidential crap...

I'm happy to see UK using some common sense, and acknowledging that it's reasonable and appropriate to have single-sex facilities be based on actual sex rather than on an abstract and entirely subjecting feeling that can't be verified by anyone at all. It's nice to know that women in the UK don't have to worry about being exposed to random IRL dicks when they shower after their workout at the random gym, nor do they have to be on alert against some random dick-haver eyeballing them while they change.

 

[Toni]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

 

[bilby]

I'm happy to see UK using some common sense, and acknowledging that it's reasonable and appropriate to have single-sex facilities be based on actual sex rather than on an abstract and entirely subjecting feeling that can't be verified by anyone at all. It's nice to know that women in the UK don't have to worry about being exposed to random IRL dicks when they shower after their workout at the random gym, nor do they have to be on alert against some random dick-haver eyeballing them while they change.

Given that the ruling in the OP has exactly zero impact on a single part of that, I am somewhat surprised by your happiness.

The act protects people against discrimination, harassment or victimisation in employment, and as users of private and public services based on these protected characteristics: age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, and religion or belief.

For example, the ruling enables cis-women in the United Kingdom to successfully sue for discrimination, if an organization with a quota for a minimum number of female employeees in a given role, fails to meet that quota because they are counting trans-women as women.

The actual impact of this ruling on most areas of life in the UK will be minuscule, but it has been blown up into a big deal by a mainly US propaganda machine (YouTwitFace) desparate for ammunition to use in the culture wars that are pointlessly tearing your country apart, and using marginalised people as cannon fodder.

What that has to do with bathrooms is beyond me, but I am glad you are happy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

Saying she's a DEI hire doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

And some people can't understand that there's a difference between equal standing and being put behind others.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Yeah--but that is diversity. DEI. It's not automatically wrong. But skin color is not relevant to running the country.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

We aren't complaining that a person of color was chosen. We are complaining that she was chosen because she was black.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

It's just as wrong to exclude them as it is to pick only them.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

Sounds like revenge.

 

[Toni]

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

Saying she's a DEI hire doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

And some people can't understand that there's a difference between equal standing and being put behind others.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Yeah--but that is diversity. DEI. It's not automatically wrong. But skin color is not relevant to running the country.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

We aren't complaining that a person of color was chosen. We are complaining that she was chosen because she was black.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

It's just as wrong to exclude them as it is to pick only them.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

Sounds like revenge.

Biden and every single POTUS except Obama were chosen because they are white and male. Except for three women, every VP was chosen because of the color of his skin and what is between his legs.

You think it is revenge to be asked to even consider what it is like to be a woman or black or both?

My God the privilege you live in! You poor little baby who cannot face the possibility of having to compete in a world where what’s between your legs and what color you skin dies not give you the loooongg head start you think you are entitled to because. Just because.

 

[Toni]

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

Exactly. If you set out to find someone with irrelevant attribute X it's automatically a DEI hire.

However, VP is normally a DEI hire anyway, just not always so blatantly.

Is being white and make an irrelevant attribute?

 

[Toni]

Over and over we are told that Harris was a DEI hire because Biden himself declared that he would only select a black woman.

This claim might have validity only IF the following fact were true, which it is not: that in the past, black women have been seriously considered for vice president, along with everyone else.

Since they have not been, the complaint is entirely without merit.

So discrimination in favor of X is proper since X was discriminated against the past?

No, this is a big problem with the left. You can't fix past wrongs, the attempt simply perpetuates the wrong rather than fixing it.

This is silly. It is simply a way to rig the game yet again favor of cis straight white men. Someone can lie and say, “I’m going to consider everyone” but then keep on hiring only cis straight white men. OTOH if someone is sincere and then really does hire a qualified black woman, the pick will still be castigated as discrimination against cis straight white men. In fact there is not and never has been discrimination against cis straight white men. Removing unearned privileges is not discrimination.

If someone is actually discriminating go after them. However, if it's properly blinded how do they discriminate??

And it's the current situation that causes people to question the credentials of anyone who could be thought to be DEI.

And how can you say there has never been discrimination against cis het white men?? When you try to balance the racial mix of your employees you are inherently discriminating against them! The current crop of new hires is not responsible for any past discrimination but you are stacking the deck against them.

Really? Just how is it that you know that the white males are not the least qualified?

How are you discriminating against the employees hired?

Why is it that you believe the most qualified candidates are white and male?

 

[Toni]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

So it is better to continue to discriminate against the groups who have been traditionally discriminated against?

Why? Because they are used to it?

Or is it because white men are too fragile to have to face competition from other than white male candidates?

 

[ZiprHead]

I am not "stereotyping [...] every woke person as an extremist", but am saying that woke is an extreme ideology.

I think I see the problem here. You think diversity, equity, and inclusion is extremism.

 

[Toni]

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

Saying she's a DEI hire doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

And some people can't understand that there's a difference between equal standing and being put behind others.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Yeah--but that is diversity. DEI. It's not automatically wrong. But skin color is not relevant to running the country.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

We aren't complaining that a person of color was chosen. We are complaining that she was chosen because she was black.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

It's just as wrong to exclude them as it is to pick only them.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

Sounds like revenge.

Asking someone to reach deep within themselves and find a shred of empathy for those who do not look like you is revenge?

The mere suggestion that perhaps you need some empathy is painful to you?

Justice and fairness = revenge in your book?

I realize women are expected to just lay back and take it but that don’t play anymore.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

Saying she's a DEI hire doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

It is an insult.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Yeah--but that is diversity. DEI. It's not automatically wrong. But skin color is not relevant to running the country.

Question. If a state has 30 percent black population and zero blacks are in elected state office... it that not relevant?

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

We aren't complaining that a person of color was chosen. We are complaining that she was chosen because she was black.

That is a flat out false claim. It is absurdly ignorant. She was selected to help drive voter turnout for the Presidential candidate, not because she was black. She was a US Senator, State Attorney General, City Prosecutor. Harris was more than her color, but that is all you see in her.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

Sounds like revenge.

You need to get your ears checked. The first time a black woman is nominated to be a on a major Presidential ticket and you folks whine about it. That is what I hear.

 

[laughing dog]

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

Saying she's a DEI hire doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

And some people can't understand that there's a difference between equal standing and being put behind others.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Yeah--but that is diversity. DEI. It's not automatically wrong. But skin color is not relevant to running the country.

But plenty of voters think it is relevant. Which makes it relevant in an election.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

We aren't complaining that a person of color was chosen. We are complaining that she was chosen because she was black.

Wow. Do you really have such a tin ear?

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

It's just as wrong to exclude them as it is to pick only them.

Funny, I don't recall you making such an observation when Joe Biden or Mike Pence or Al Gore or Dan Quayle was chosen. Then again, maybe my memory is fault.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

Sounds like revenge.

Wow, that is Trumpian language.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

3. Your last line is the best though: if you disagree with me then start agreeing with me.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

I sure as hell won't vote for the GOP either. I could be brought back to the Dems, but I'll eat a bag of horse cocks before I pull the lever for Trumps and Fundies.

In the meantime, keep on keepin' on. It won't affect me.

 

[bilby]

I am not "stereotyping [...] every woke person as an extremist", but am saying that woke is an extreme ideology.

I think I see the problem here. You think diversity, equity, and inclusion is extremism.

Apparently he is not alone in the hearfelt belief that not being deliberately cruel to other people is an extreme and abberrant position, that is worthy of deep suspicion and fear.

What if those people were to take over, and start trying to prevent you from being deliberately cruel to other people? How would you like that, eh?

 

[Toni]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

3. Your last line is the best though: if you disagree with me then start agreeing with me.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

I sure as hell won't vote for the GOP either. I could be brought back to the Dems, but I'll eat a bag of horse cocks before I pull the lever for Trumps and Fundies.

In the meantime, keep on keepin' on. It won't affect me.

Interesting that you believe you are being used as a punching bag because I suggested that maybe white men should try to put themselves in the position of women, and especially women of color. Especially given the statistics re: domestic abuse. Asking for empathy in your mind = treating you as a punching bag. That says way more about you as a person than it does me or about your politics or mine or anybody's.

Exactly what made Harris a bad candidate?

 

[TSwizzle]

Exactly what made Harris a bad candidate?

Nothing at all. It’s a mystery as to why she lost so spectacularly. I hope she runs again in 2028.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

3. Your last line is the best though: if you disagree with me then start agreeing with me.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

I sure as hell won't vote for the GOP either. I could be brought back to the Dems, but I'll eat a bag of horse cocks before I pull the lever for Trumps and Fundies.

In the meantime, keep on keepin' on. It won't affect me.

Interesting that you believe you are being used as a punching bag because I suggested that maybe white men should try to put themselves in the position of women, and especially women of color. Especially given the statistics re: domestic abuse. Asking for empathy in your mind = treating you as a punching bag. That says way more about you as a person than it does me or about your politics or mine or anybody's.

Exactly what made Harris a bad candidate?

1. One of the most important matters I handle in my job is domestic violence. I had a three day trial back in November for DV. filed another one just this week, and I have another trial coming up in May for the same thing. Both men and women commit DV, btw. I've represented women who've done eye-popping things which meant there was no other solution except to cop to a shorter restraining order because trial would've gotten them the full five years. It's true that men commit DV more often than women, but it's wrong and dishonest to make sweeping claims about it being solely a male thing.

2. I don't want empathy. You're willfully mischaracterizing what I said. What I want is to not be told that I'm an oppressor when I'm not. I tried to intellectualize it for the past 20+ years before finally throwing up my hands and saying fuck it because it resulted in Trump becoming POTUS. How out of fucking touch must a party be to lose to Trump twice? How did the Dems lose the union vote? How did any of this happen???

One explanation is backlash. People are driven away, angered into spite voting, or they just lose interest. The other is that the Democratic party is run by incompetent, iron-bubble asshats who would rather double down on losing social issues than win elections that would allow at least some measure of progress.

Harris was bad candidate because of her past stances on losing social issues. At the time I didn't care about that. I voted for her and gave her campaign $1500 dollars. That wasn't because I thought she was a great candidate though; it was because Trump is disgraceful for too man reasons to list.

Again, keep dismissing what me and others like me are saying. What you seem to fail to understand is that it won't hurt us, and it's already been devastating to the groups you claim to care about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

She wasn't a shitty candidate. She was stuck with the same albatross around her neck that Biden would have had that was grocery prices. She couldn't talk about how she would change things as she was part of the acting Administration.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

• Annie or Little Mermaid is played by a black actor, white men are upset
• Main protagonist in Star Wars is a woman, white men are upset
• Captain Marvel.... white men are upset
• First time a black woman is nominated to be VP... white men are upset
• Female Doctor Who... yeah... white men are upset
• Female lead ensemble in Ghostbuster and Oceans 11...
• USWNT Soccer team asks for equity in pay and facilities, especially in light of their global success... white men are upset (yes, I know, other colors of men were upset too and they are just MAGA as white men, so some love for men of color who were upset as well)
• Kansas City Field Goal kicker says some pretty old school shit... white men applaud

Generalization yes. Enough white men are upset, yes, that is still true.

These are not one and done's, this is a pattern. And I'm tired of reading that... no this time it is real.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag.

I'm pretty damn white. I don't feel like a punching bag. I don't feel like I've been targeted. I don't feel like I'm being left behind... by the Democrats. I simply realize everything isn't about me.

Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

To keep things in perspective in this insidious insult is that this is the case because of the passage of the ACA, not because of this imagined war on white males. The GOP managed to leverage so much rage from the electorate in 2010, that they were awashed into power Federally and the States and then the GOP went to stage three of fuck American Democracy and gerrymandered the fuck out of the United States.

 

[Toni]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

3. Your last line is the best though: if you disagree with me then start agreeing with me.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

I sure as hell won't vote for the GOP either. I could be brought back to the Dems, but I'll eat a bag of horse cocks before I pull the lever for Trumps and Fundies.

In the meantime, keep on keepin' on. It won't affect me.

Interesting that you believe you are being used as a punching bag because I suggested that maybe white men should try to put themselves in the position of women, and especially women of color. Especially given the statistics re: domestic abuse. Asking for empathy in your mind = treating you as a punching bag. That says way more about you as a person than it does me or about your politics or mine or anybody's.

Exactly what made Harris a bad candidate?

1. One of the most important matters I handle in my job is domestic violence. I had a three day trial back in November for DV. filed another one just this week, and I have another trial coming up in May for the same thing. Both men and women commit DV, btw. I've represented women who've done eye-popping things which meant there was no other solution except to cop to a shorter restraining order because trial would've gotten them the full five years. It's true that men commit DV more often than women, but it's wrong and dishonest to make sweeping claims about it being solely a male thing.

2. I don't want empathy. You're willfully mischaracterizing what I said. What I want is to not be told that I'm an oppressor when I'm not. I tried to intellectualize it for the past 20+ years before finally throwing up my hands and saying fuck it because it resulted in Trump becoming POTUS. How out of fucking touch must a party be to lose to Trump twice? How did the Dems lose the union vote? How did any of this happen???

One explanation is backlash. People are driven away, angered into spite voting, or they just lose interest. The other is that the Democratic party is run by incompetent, iron-bubble asshats who would rather double down on losing social issues than win elections that would allow at least some measure of progress.

Harris was bad candidate because of her past stances on losing social issues. At the time I didn't care about that. I voted for her and gave her campaign $1500 dollars. That wasn't because I thought she was a great candidate though; it was because Trump is disgraceful for too man reasons to list.

Again, keep dismissing what me and others like me are saying. What you seem to fail to understand is that it won't hurt us, and it's already been devastating to the groups you claim to care about.

I definitely know that women also commit domestic violence against men. I also know the stats. You seem to as well, so let’s not play coy here.

I did not suggest YOU need to RECEIVE empathy although we ALL need that. But YOU absolutely DO need to develop empathy as well as a better grasp of history or even current times and recognize that as a white person and as a male person ( I am assuming on both counts —and apologies if I got that wrong), you have certain advantages based only upon your skin color and what’s in your pants. I know that that there are also certain downsides to being white and male , one of which is believing that white men have things easy. No one has it all easy in this life. All of us face difficulties and unfair obstacles. Including white people and including white men.

But modern society, with its family structures and governmental structures were largely designed by and largely for the benefit of white men, who, hundreds of years ago, made the assumption that what was best for them was best, for everybody. Women and persons of color were largely regarded as being much less capable and much more childlike and in need of protection, best achieved by assigning them lanes to which they were expected to stay. Persons of color were simultaneously regarded as being more primitive, more animal like, stronger and much more impervious to pain. Women were considered weaker and more fragile and in need of protection from ‘the world’ which, let’s face it, really was men.

While today the world is very different, the same assumptions are still made to a certain —but yes, lesser degree. I’m not suggesting that you believe that white men are superior to non-whites and women. I’m suggesting that structures based upon that assumption still exist and still influence how we all view ourselves and each other, however unconsciously. This is not all favorable towards men or towards white men or white people but largely it still holds.

Empathy is not a weakness but a strength. A super power, even. By having empathy with other people, we can see more accurately what motivates other people and what they need and want. It teaches us the same things about ourselves. It promotes understanding and helps us all reach fair and just solutions when conflict arises. It does not mean viewing bad behavior as good or acceptable, but can guide us to preventing and improving bad behavior/poorly functioning societal structures so all benefit.

Sympathy is more about feeling sorry for someone else’s troubles. Sympathy has its place but that’s not what I’m talking about.

 

[laughing dog]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

But they are not the only ones who are "highly qualified". So why restrict SCOTUS and running mate nominations to that relatively small demographic?
And of course, what made Biden's decision even worse is that he made both these race and gender restrictions at about the same time, about two high-profile nominations.

Perhaps to make a point that those in a group or groups who have been entirely or nearly entirely excluded from consideration would now get first consideration.

I know I am repeating myself but only an idiot would think that Biden did not already have a list of candidates for VP who met all of his criteria before he made that statement.

"Would now get first consideration" -- discrimination. Period. You can't fix old wrongs, you inherently end up discriminating against those who have done nothing wrong. Only by introducing the artificial notion of harm to groups can you disguise the evil you're seeking.

What did Harris do wrong, aside from being born female with dark skin?

The fact is that some white people just cannot get over not being first in line for any and all good jobs.

Out of a limited pool of candidates, Biden wanted to pick someone he could work well with and who would bring something different to the table. Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

And no one complained that Obama chose a white man to be his running mate. I wonder why. I absolutely understand why Biden was chosen and yes, white and male were almost certainly major factors.

Not a single complaint that a woman or a person of color was not chosen.

White men just cannot get over once in a while not being in the pool. It’s almost as if they fail to recognize that there is a pool of highly qualified candidates without them being in the center of it.

If it stings: maybe quit grousing and start recognizing that this is what it is still like to be a person of color or a woman, not to mention both.

1. Harris didn't "do" anything wrong. She was just a shitty candidate in a party that's chosen to alienate huge voting blocks.

2. "White men just cannot get over..." Such statements could be seen as sweeping, thoughtless generalizations, but nah. I'm sure that insulting one of the two largest voting demographics for decades has no effect on elections.

3. Your last line is the best though: if you disagree with me then start agreeing with me.

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

I sure as hell won't vote for the GOP either. I could be brought back to the Dems, but I'll eat a bag of horse cocks before I pull the lever for Trumps and Fundies.

In the meantime, keep on keepin' on. It won't affect me.

Interesting that you believe you are being used as a punching bag because I suggested that maybe white men should try to put themselves in the position of women, and especially women of color. Especially given the statistics re: domestic abuse. Asking for empathy in your mind = treating you as a punching bag. That says way more about you as a person than it does me or about your politics or mine or anybody's.

Exactly what made Harris a bad candidate?

1. One of the most important matters I handle in my job is domestic violence. I had a three day trial back in November for DV. filed another one just this week, and I have another trial coming up in May for the same thing. Both men and women commit DV, btw. I've represented women who've done eye-popping things which meant there was no other solution except to cop to a shorter restraining order because trial would've gotten them the full five years. It's true that men commit DV more often than women, but it's wrong and dishonest to make sweeping claims about it being solely a male thing.

FFS, who is claiming it is SOLELY a male thing? Statistically it is PREDOMINANTLY a male thing. Generalizations are about PREDOMINANT things.

2. I don't want empathy. You're willfully mischaracterizing what I said. What I want is to not be told that I'm an oppressor when I'm not. I tried to intellectualize it for the past 20+ years before finally throwing up my hands and saying fuck it because it resulted in Trump becoming POTUS. How out of fucking touch must a party be to lose to Trump twice? How did the Dems lose the union vote? How did any of this happen???

FFS. who is pointing to you and showing that your actions are oppressive. Generalizations are about PREDOMINANT things.

Or are you disagreeing that historically, that white men have been oppressive in Western Civilization>

One explanation is backlash. People are driven away, angered into spite voting, or they just lose interest. The other is that the Democratic party is run by incompetent, iron-bubble asshats who would rather double down on losing social issues than win elections that would allow at least some measure of progress.

The backlash is real even if it mostly snowflake behavior. Which means that the Democrats have to figure out a way to somehow deal with that backlash and move forward.

Harris was bad candidate because of her past stances on losing social issues. At the time I didn't care about that. I voted for her and gave her campaign $1500 dollars. That wasn't because I thought she was a great candidate though; it was because Trump is disgraceful for too man reasons to list.

Again, keep dismissing what me and others like me are saying. What you seem to fail to understand is that it won't hurt us, and it's already been devastating to the groups you claim to care about.

Trump's policies are hurting lots of people and will hurt even more. So, it may hurt you.