I submit that this is just knee-jerk reactionary bullshit:

and the grievances that are being rehashed are mostly irrelevant to this thread. Even if this thread is also at least a little silly, or at least somewhat problematic in its premises, depending on how you understand them.

On the other hand, these are pretty reasonable sentences:

But, there is enough research to document that social location matters (including gender), and so at least in electing individuals you do also elect their social locations, in a sense. Hence it matters, for example, that elected officials are so much wealthier than the general public.

This "sense" is certainly complex, and it's not very useful to let the importance of social location completely swamp the importance of individuals either, so the point is still well taken. But it's also definitely wrong to ignore social location completely.

It's also quite possible to incorporate considerations around trans identities into an understanding of social location, all while still recognizing the reality of physiological sex. It's just a different topic.

I thought I made an obvious point that I'm not interesting in diving in to either. If the premise is "we need women leaders" and "women" are defined as basically nothing. Not genitals, not anything but someones declared identity, the concept of this thread or that theory falls apart right there. You flat out can't have both. It's actually incredibly simple. As to the relevance in this forum, maybe look at the responses to my post and the names I was called

What does someone mean by woman? Marianne Williamson or Laura Ingraham? Some Jenner with a penis or Kylie Jenner? This topic is ridiculous and in addition to that, the idiotic concepts we've all been waterboarded with over the past few years are highlighted. I simply couldn't resist.

Are you trolling with the comment about things relating to threads? That's a real question btw. Is that something you actually care about as a mod in general?

Your "derail" is quite relevant to the topic.

IDK what WN is talking about on that point.

juan's first post in this thread:

---

Wants space space from progressive ideas but the freedom to post things like Ngo BS.

It's not relevant, it' a derail to hatefully rehash trans and gender issues.

How is it "hateful?"

I didn't call it a derail, and I wasn't speaking as a moderator, to be clear. But the point is simple: no one reading this thread is actually having any difficulty understanding what the OP is talking about, or who is being referred to by "women." Which is not to say that there aren't interesting conversations to be had about the construction of gender categories (a topic on which I have said a lot :P), but they are pretty tangential to the topic OP has in mind.

Anyway, my view is roughly: no, it's probably too much to hope for that women will save the world. But I do think an increase of women in power will be a good thing compared to the status quo, and I expect the trend to continue in that direction. Particularly because of the benefits of incumbency, the more women run and win, the more likely it is the trend will accelerate (at least until you get closer to proportional representation). 2018 saw a pretty significant increase, and that seems like one of the most important consequences of the #metoo movement, actually.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess I'll respond before putting you on ignore:

For someone who isn't interested in continuing to post in this thread, you sure go on some long winded diatribes after the fact...

You seem way too angry and seem to care way, way too much about this. I literally don't know who Brian Stelter is and had to Google him (She? It?) and I've literally never paid attention to the whole gender pronoun whatever it is issue. I understand the points being made, but I thought it was kind of implicit that I'm speaking in binary terms. This thread isn't for quibbling over fluidity.

The question was rhetorical. You just wanted to come into the thread and call people ******ed and pretend that the thread bores you. And yet, you're still here...You could have simply not posted at all.

So I guess almost nobody really cares or feels like putting forth a thought, but I have arrived at a point that my "idea" has some merit, but not as much as originally thought

For example, I don't know how much I could trust Betsy DeVos, Susan Collins, Tulsi Gabbard, Nikki Haley...I even have qualms with Hillary Clinton although in terms of policy it would be nice to have a technocrat advocating and lobbying for effective ones...

Two points in support are 1) it is plainly obvious women still don't have enough representation in the House and Senate and of course, presidency. Obama putting two female judges on the Supreme Court I don't think was a coincidence. I think he knew exactly what he was doing by making those choices. Ideally you want appointees purely on merit but in the face of reality and the state of affairs, discretion is arguably the right thing to do in practice. And of course, perhaps they both ended up on the SC because they actually deserve it...

2) My thinking, I feel, holds more water if there is a critical mass of women in leadership roles. I'm not sure if this'll make sense to people, but the women's rally against Trump after his election resulted in zero arrests. That would never happen in a rally with, say, half or all men. It's pretty clear the propensity for violence and destructive modes of behavior largely lie with men. We just like to blow **** up I guess...

But what I'm saying is even if you had all somewhat untrustworthy women or women you disagreed with in principle, if the power structure is largely constructed of women, the policy making, the agendas...They'd all be completely different, would they not? The problem solving too. Am I right? There has to be something to this. Of course, women can be violent too, but I can point to very few who like to blow **** up so to speak...and I think that would reflect in the decorum and shaping of future policy

fwiw a lot of men (including me in the UK) went on the women's march against trump. It was never intended as some women only event. Yes it was mainly women but we also had several massive million people+ marches in London against brexit which were ~half men afaik and there was absolutely no trouble at all.