I literally just got out of meetings with members of Congress & used the bathroom on my way out.
Trans women are women—full stop. We're every bit as "biologically female" as cis women & @SpeakerJohnson's statement doesn't change the fact that women's spaces include trans women. https://t.co/B4gpBkuXRo
Zooey Zephyr is a trans woman, aka a man. Full stop, if it makes you feel any better. Trans women are of course not women, because that’s what the “trans” in “trans woman” means. Trans women are of course not every bit as “biologically female” as cis women, because, again, that’s what the “trans” part means.
How did a man who pretends to be a woman get elected to Congress from Idaho?
Zooey Zephyr represents Missoula in the 100th district in the Montana State House of Representatives. He was sworn into office in 2023, and he won re-election earlier this month. Missoula is more liberal than the rest of the state.
Sarah McBride, a different trans-identified male, was elected to Congress in Delaware earlier this month; no district, as Delaware has only one representative. The state leans Republican, but not heavily so.
Zephyr isn’t a U.S. House representative, he’s a Montana STATE House representative. To be reporting from the U.S. House using “Rep.” and implying they’re a member of the U.S. House is par for a liars course.
Delaware is a very blue state. Aside from being home state to Biden, it has two Democratic senators, hasn’t voted for a Republican for President since 1988, and hasn’t had a Republican governor since 1993.
Trans women are women—full stop. We’re every bit as “biologically female” as cis women….
.
It’s transubstantiation. The bread and wine used in Holy Communion are the Body and Blood of Christ—full stop.
It would seem to be as pointless to expect honesty about biology from a transactivist, as it is to seek genuine understanding about baked goods and fermented grape juice from a Catholic priest. Each group have ideological commitments that will filter and colour both their understanding and explanations of these subjects, that will inevitably preclude any complete, unbiased examination or discussion. Acceptance of their “rules of engagement” means abandoning the common understanding of the terms under debate, ceding a victory they haven’t earned. Zephyr’s defintion of “biology” cannot be understood or accepted without doing lethal damage to the very concept of “biology. In his mouth, the word means something completely different, almost entirel antithetical to the original meaning.
Without backing up, unpacking, and acknowledging this unilateral, idiosyncratic redefinition makes any discussion of “biology” with him completely pointless. It will quickly devolve into little more than him saying “NEENER, NEENER, I know you are, but what am I? ” He’s speaking the same words, but turning it into a different language.
It’s the same with having to find out the beliefs of who’s speaking in order to determine exactly what they mean when they use the phrase “all women.” Far from being a mere exercise in academic word play, this phrase, on the wrong tongues, in the wrong legal documents, or in the wrong rules and regulations, will have dire consequences for women about to enter a hospital ward, prison block, rape crisis centre, or boxing ring. Language use can’t change the facts of material reality, but that doesn’t stop trans activists from trying, with the help of far too many who insist that it can, and does.
We’re every bit as “biologically female” as cis women…
As in “not at all”. As I keep saying, “cis woman” is not another name for “biological female” (indeed, referring to biological females in Genderspeak is no more possible than referring to political and intellectual freedom in Newspeak). “Cis women” and “trans women” are both people who think or feel in certain ways best left unspecified. The only difference is what “gender” they were arbitrarily “assigned at birth”. Once again, I strongly doubt that many biological females would say they fit the definition of “cis woman” if TRAs ever spelled out exactly how this requires them to think or feel.
In principle gender ideology is perfectly compatible with the idea of a biological male being a “cis woman”. If a male was assigned “female” at birth*, and keeps identifying as such, that would, by definition, make him a “cis woman”.
* According to gender ideology this should happen all the time since there are no reliable external indicators of “maleness” vs. “femaleness”, and the whole “assigning” process is based on nothing but random guessing anyway.
No point in wondering why he went with ‘full stop’ instead of the standard American ‘period’, I suppose.
Ha! Probably the same reason I changed my mind about saying “period” instead.
“How did a man who pretends to be a woman get elected to Congress from Idaho?”
Congress? Idaho?
Regardless – probably the usual suspects: stockholm syndrome, or the 7(+?) year itch of titillation?
Zooey Zephyr represents Missoula in the 100th district in the Montana State House of Representatives. He was sworn into office in 2023, and he won re-election earlier this month. Missoula is more liberal than the rest of the state.
Sarah McBride, a different trans-identified male, was elected to Congress in Delaware earlier this month; no district, as Delaware has only one representative. The state leans Republican, but not heavily so.
Apparently the trans cult has hijacked the word ‘fact’ and spun it around backwards.
Zephyr isn’t a U.S. House representative, he’s a Montana STATE House representative. To be reporting from the U.S. House using “Rep.” and implying they’re a member of the U.S. House is par for a liars course.
Not his real name either. Much “performativity.”
@Sackbut,
Delaware is a very blue state. Aside from being home state to Biden, it has two Democratic senators, hasn’t voted for a Republican for President since 1988, and hasn’t had a Republican governor since 1993.
.
It’s transubstantiation. The bread and wine used in Holy Communion are the Body and Blood of Christ—full stop.
It would seem to be as pointless to expect honesty about biology from a transactivist, as it is to seek genuine understanding about baked goods and fermented grape juice from a Catholic priest. Each group have ideological commitments that will filter and colour both their understanding and explanations of these subjects, that will inevitably preclude any complete, unbiased examination or discussion. Acceptance of their “rules of engagement” means abandoning the common understanding of the terms under debate, ceding a victory they haven’t earned. Zephyr’s defintion of “biology” cannot be understood or accepted without doing lethal damage to the very concept of “biology. In his mouth, the word means something completely different, almost entirel antithetical to the original meaning.
Without backing up, unpacking, and acknowledging this unilateral, idiosyncratic redefinition makes any discussion of “biology” with him completely pointless. It will quickly devolve into little more than him saying “NEENER, NEENER, I know you are, but what am I? ” He’s speaking the same words, but turning it into a different language.
It’s the same with having to find out the beliefs of who’s speaking in order to determine exactly what they mean when they use the phrase “all women.” Far from being a mere exercise in academic word play, this phrase, on the wrong tongues, in the wrong legal documents, or in the wrong rules and regulations, will have dire consequences for women about to enter a hospital ward, prison block, rape crisis centre, or boxing ring. Language use can’t change the facts of material reality, but that doesn’t stop trans activists from trying, with the help of far too many who insist that it can, and does.
Typos in aisles two and three:
Each group has ideological commitments…
Without backing up, unpacking, and acknowledging this unilateral, idiosyncratic redefinition,
makesany discussion…As in “not at all”. As I keep saying, “cis woman” is not another name for “biological female” (indeed, referring to biological females in Genderspeak is no more possible than referring to political and intellectual freedom in Newspeak). “Cis women” and “trans women” are both people who think or feel in certain ways best left unspecified. The only difference is what “gender” they were arbitrarily “assigned at birth”. Once again, I strongly doubt that many biological females would say they fit the definition of “cis woman” if TRAs ever spelled out exactly how this requires them to think or feel.
In principle gender ideology is perfectly compatible with the idea of a biological male being a “cis woman”. If a male was assigned “female” at birth*, and keeps identifying as such, that would, by definition, make him a “cis woman”.
* According to gender ideology this should happen all the time since there are no reliable external indicators of “maleness” vs. “femaleness”, and the whole “assigning” process is based on nothing but random guessing anyway.