Booty queen
Men who identify as women can invade women’s sports, but maybe not those contests where people score women on how fuckable they look in bathing suits. For that kind of thing the customer wants an actual woman, by golly.
Beauty queen Anita Noelle Green competed in the Miss Universe pageant, was the first transgender contestant for Miss Montana USA and title holder for Miss Elite Earth Oregon 2019. Only one pageant has excluded her on the basis that she’s not a “natural born female” — Miss United States of America. A federal judge OK’d that policy on Thursday.
It’s a consumer issue. If you buy a steak at the grocery store you don’t want to unwrap it at home to find it’s pickled herrings.
Green sued Miss United States of America in December 2019, claiming its gender identity discrimination violates Oregon’s Public Accommodations Act and infringes on her First Amendment rights to free speech and free association.
But the pageant claims it, too, has the First Amendment right to free association: in this case, the right to deny access to “non-biological females.” The pageant says in court documents that its mission is geared toward “natural born women” and that including Green would “undermine its vision” and mar its “message of biological female empowerment.”
The pageant’s motion to dismiss repeatedly misgenders Green, referring to her as “a biological male who identifies as female” and “a man who identifies as a woman.”
How is that “misgendering”? Trans women are men who identify as female, so where’s the misgendering in saying so? That’s what “trans” means.
Green clarified in a declaration to the court that she has “always been a woman.”
“I never altered my gender or sex,” Green said. “I simply affirmed my underlying gender identity as female based on a realization of who I deeply was.”
That’s a religious belief, and as such, cannot be imposed on unwilling others.
Green says she wants the voices of all women to be heard in pageants like Miss United States of America.
Oh please. Ugly women? Average women? Short women, fat women, old women? Beauty pageants are not “inclusive”: exclusion is the whole point of them.
Green is debating whether to appeal or not.
I hope he appeals. I hope that a lot of men who are pretending to be women try to enter beauty pageants. In fact, let’s make it compulsory for men pretending to be women to enter beauty pageants.
If shelters for women cannot keep the men out, let’s tell all the misogynistic organisations that they can’t keep men out either.
They used to grant they were the male sex, but with a woman’s gender. Now their gender identity is “female.” The obvious next step is to eliminate the term “transgender.” They didn’t transition from one thing to another. They aren’t “transcending” gender. They ought to just demand the right to be called “women,” full stop.
My guess is that at least a couple things hold them back. If they disappear into female statistics, they can’t keep track of victims of transphobia and keep status as Most Oppressed. They also disappear into female statistics.
Cock and balls?
I was pretty sure that I had seen news about a transwoman winning a beauty contest, so I went searching. One of the first hits was for a Mexican transwoman who won an international beauty contest. The victor called his win a victory for all transwomen in Latin America. Reading further, I find that the contest was specifically for transwomen. So, selecting from among transwomen, surprise! A transwoman won! What a ridiculous article.
Another hit was legitimate: a transwoman won the Spanish feeder pageant for the Miss Universe competition.
It would not surprise me in the least to see men winning these competitions. They care greatly about appearance and femininity. They know what men like to see. Drag has a long history of men performing femininity quite well. Suzi Parker’s book “Sex in the South: Unbuckling the Bible Belt” has a chapter on drag performers in which the author gushes about how these men are absolutely indistinguishable from women, and she talks in detail about the techniques and apparatus used to minimize male appearance. These performers don’t try to look like this all the time, but they spend a great deal of time and effort getting into costume and practicing the motions; they are different from people who are trying to pass as the other sex in normal everyday life.
Re #3: I suspect that a successful entrant in a bikini competition is likely to have had “bottom surgery”, as they call it.
There’s a bunch of preliminary contests before you get to Miss America and such. I don’t see why people with no chance of winning/advancing can’t be allowed to enter those. Some deluded plain women probably already do.
Miss Montana has a limited age range (14-27), and despite age being a protected characteristic, this is not considered age discrimination in the naughty sense. In fact there a a fair few requirements that might be considered intrusive:
“If you are single (never married), not pregnant (never given birth), legally a female, a U.S. Citizen, a residentor a full -time student in the State you wish to compete in, and are between the ages of 14 and 27”
…and none of those are considered a breach of free association or similar. This is a single exemption being carved out by men wanting to enter a female-reserved space.
I’m always confounded at how trans advocates so keenly defend their own right to freely associate and speak, but don’t see any conflict at all in denying those same rights to others.
I mean, I do think the answer is quite simply sexism, but trans advocates deny that at all opportunities, even though their demands destroy the rights of all female people to proper autonomy if they wish to participate in public life in any meaningful way.
I think it’s all of a piece with the exaggerated claims about most vulnerable, most at risk, most persecuted, yadda yadda yadda. It’s all bullshit but it’s convinced an astonishing number of people that it’s the absolute truth.
Just one instance where the Big Lies of the TA movement have succeeded. People who want to be seen as “good progressives,” but can’t be arsed to look up details of the issues involved are parroting the lines of their chosen institutionally captured progressive organization. ACLU? They’re on board. Planned Parenthood? They’re the good guys, right? Amnesty International? IOC? Oreo Cookies? Gee, they’re all saying TWAW, so it must be true! Someone would have to be a real dick to go against all of them! I’m not a real dick, and want to be seen as not being a real dick, so I’m going to follow their lead. They must know what they’re doing, right?
@YNNB?, yes, but even *if* that were *all true*, that doesn’t then justify the actual sticking point, which is that TRAs say that trans rights MUST be established in such a way that extinguishes the rights of another group (women) that everyone agrees are also (even if TRAs say less so) oppressed and vulnerable.
That’s like declaring the deaf cannot have sign language lessons because the blind children don’t have assistance dogs.
I actually don’t oppose “trans rights” to facilities and services that meet their specific needs, nor to anti discrimination legislation on matters of housing and employment.
I do oppose free rein for any and all males to chase female people out of their own things by making the female people uncomfortable, unsafe, unwelcome and uncompetitive there.
When challenged on this, TRAs will claim that they are not – absolutely not! – saying that a person should be forced into any association they don’t want, of course people have the freedom to associate etc. etc…. But. There is always a but, and it is usually the same one: “…but we can examine their choices and the reasons they give for signs of prejudice.”
Which of course leads straight into a diatribe about how bigoted lesbians are for not wanting a male claiming to be a woman as a partner, neatly undercutting their point without them even seeming to notice.
That’s where the whole concept of “cis privilege” is deployed to strip women of the reality of their oppression under patriarchy. There can be nobody but trans on the podium of their Oppression Olympics, as this would ruin the illusion of being most oppressed, and would take away from the centering of their concerns over everyone else’s, especially women’s. (Even “Black Lives Matter” was morphed by some into “Black TRANS Lives Matter.”)
Women are told that there is “no conflict,” of rights between “trans” and “cis” women, and that “rights are not pie,” but trans activists do their damnedest to keep women out of the restaurant altogether, let alone let them anywhere near the table, when pie is served. Deals are struck, understandings are reached, training seminars are paid for, and laws are misrepresented. Governments and corporations get to be the good guys, protecting and promoting the trans downtrodden, encouraging “inclusion,” earning their Stonewall Diversity Champion stamp of approval. The implicit threat of being branded “transphobic” can be called upon to bring recalcitrant organizations to heel, but it rarely comes to this, as trans demands leave patriarchal power structures completely intact. Win-win! Women’s rights are generousy, quietly given away, under a rainbow flag, behind closed doors, in a confidential, gentlemen’s agreement.
While all of this is happening away from prying female eyes, trans activists are busy telling everyone that misgendering drives “trans kids” to suicide, and that trans identified males are all going to be murdered in cold blood if anyone is allowed to hear or read the words of Jane Clare Jones, Selina Todd, Julie Bindle or Kathleen Stock. Their mere presence on the same internet platform, let alone in the same room as a trans identified male, constitutes a mortal threat. (How exactly this works in real life is never made clear, if it is male violence that is the reason they must be granted unconditional access to female spaces. Rejection of the safety of third spaces in exchange for the high of “affirmation” and “validation” achieved from getting into the WOMEN’S room doesn’t help the logic of their argument either). The words of gender critical women certainly represent a mortal threat to the trans activist movement, because their arguments in defence of women’s rights are unanswerable, therefore it is imperative that their words are never heard, never quoted, never linked to. Smearing them, strawmanning their positions, branding them as “dangerous transphobes,” as evil, right-wing, white-supremicist, colonialist, TERF bigots who must be no-platformed at all cost, is essential. The audacity and ludicrousness of these charges belies a certain desperation. Trans activists don’t care if the charges are true, they just have to be believed by useful idiots who will advance the cause and vilify its critics. These bullies hope that the mantle of faux political inferiority, and psychological fragility they have so eagerly assumed, assiduously cultivated, and relentlessly proclaimed, will garner enough uncritical, reflexive sympathy to conceal the logical vacuity, and moral bankruptcy of their actual position.
Yeah, the whole notion of “cis privilege” is nonsense on the face of it. Since when has the oppressed group ever gained power through identifying with the means of their own oppression? I do understand how it helps those who are the oppressors to identify with it, because that confirms their own power. So “cis men” have something to gain, but “cis women” don’t.