See.
Now this is oniony enough to make grown men cry.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’ve got some work to do in my bombshelter.
Even the media that is supporting the ‘right’ is being weird
If your cast vote is influenced at all by a candidate’s physical attributes (such as gender), you’re doing it wrong.
“Why do we need XYZ candidate in?” “Well, because he looks like meeee!”
The category of “women” includes MTG, thatcher, Alice Weidel and giorgia melloni, so obviously yes.
Might be getting downvotes because it’s a straw man argument. It presupposes that women are voting for women because of their gender. I myself don’t know if that’s true. And “women” is such a large voting bloc that looking at median behaviors seems unproductive.
I think some women are looking for representatives who will defend their right to live and not bleed out or be injured for life by voting for candidates that support access to reproductive care, along with other issues that matter to them. Women on the left, like VP Harris, put forward full-throated support for that. But maybe I’m naive?
It presupposes that women are voting for women because of their gender.
Nah, it asks if it’s also wrong when a woman votes for a woman because she’s a woman.
I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of people online when it comes to this statement:
If your cast vote is influenced at all by a candidate’s physical attributes (such as gender)
Which I believe I succeeded in. Usually, when people present such a statement, there’s the implicit [only when it comes to men] - either by the one who posted the statement or those who read the statement (or both). I find it a weird combo of funny+sad when people try to justify to themselves that the same thing is fine if it involves anyone but men, but it’s wrong when it involves men.
See, where I’m from, Jessie is an old lady’s name
He might be on to something
Oh it’s that easy? No hormone therapy, no surgeries, just vote once. Glad to see Fox news being pro-trans
