https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1885836927112552800
I can't believe what I just listened to. The DNC Leader interrupted the party election to tell members that not enough non-binary candidates have been elected, so they MUST now vote for one.
— George (@BehizyTweets) February 1, 2025
"With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently twoโฆ pic.twitter.com/8CelMVzyE6
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
OOP is wrong, the speaker here is not saying that an enby must be elected, but that they will hold the elections in a certain way to ensure that of the remaining 3 seats there will be a balance, using a convoluted but sensible explanation of what a balance means here.
It's still extremely silly but this doesn't excuse a 70IQ take on it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The speaker isn't saying an enby must be elected, period.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, they're saying one person of any gender must be elected, but if a male or female has been elected, then you have to pick someone else for the any gender. If you can make that make sense as "this doesn't mean you can't vote for a man or a woman" rather than "you can't vote for another man or another woman", I'd appreciate it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Assuming the next two electeds retain the existing balance, the third elected can be any gender: man, woman, enby, whatever.
The rule does not require a mathematically perfect gender balance when an odd number of people are involved. Your interpretation is even more r-slurred than the rule itself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Reread how the third vote is constructed - "a male candidate if a male has not been elected or a female if a female has not been elected." Basically if the first two votes go both male or both female then the third vote must go to the opposite. If a male and female has already been elected then it can go to any gender. If the goal was to strictly have one male / one female / one enby then there would also be special restrictions on the second vote to make sure you cannot get two males or two females.
It's also more convoluted because it doesn't really account for some edge cases, like if enbies take the first two rounds then what happens with the third is undefined. Presumably it will still be any gender for the third seat but this is not explicitly stated because it's probably seen as unlikely. The enby stuff is just awkwardly grafted onto their normal rules.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
PERIOD .
โฆ
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think from context it's safe to assume that, if a regular male and female get elected in the first 2 rounds, that "any gender" for the last round means "any non-cis gender"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No. If a man and woman get elected in the first two rounds, then a man or woman can get elected in the third. "Balance" doesn't mean that there have to be the exact same number of men/women in the end and therefore since there's an odd number of seats overall that the remaining one must go to an enby. Just that they will prevent an outcome where all three seats are won by men or all three seats are won by women.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Watch this link to the very end, they confirm that by "any gender" they mean "non-binary gender"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The old lady got confused and started talking inconsistently because the process is confusing and sucks. She is forgetting the context that there's a third vote as well. If the goal was to have a male, a female, and an enby then they would not be doing two votes together at all, they would just split the ballot and do the three votes in parallel.
If you can find a billion clips of this, you can presumably find the outcome too, right? Ultimately what were the genders of the winners?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Why is that a safe assumption? It's not what the rule requires, and it's not what the speaker said.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because they already have a panel that satisfies those rules, 2 males + 2 females is balanced. However, they're re-rolling the vote anyway, meaning they're using different definitions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The rule doesn't require the final member of an odd-numbered group to be trans/enby. If they've elected (as an example) 4 of 5 people to a group and it's perfectly balanced, then the final person can be of any gender (including cis) without violating the rule.
It's a dumb rule, but it's still not as dumb as people seem to think it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Elsewhere they actually corrected themselves and said "2 male, 2 female, 2-er 1 any gender- er non-binary gender"
Watch to the very end. It is as dumb as people think it is
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I heard "any gender or nonbinary," and I assumed it was a reference to a lot of enbies considering themselves ungendered or without gender.
I do think he's likely misstating the requirement a bit too strictly on the cis side.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
But then that would be denying that trans women are real women and marking them out as different from cis women. If you don't say "cis male" and "cis female" then you are defining cisness as the default norm, and that's discrimination and transphobia.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
So why "one male, one female, and one of any gender" then? "Male" and "female" are 'any gender' but this seems to be "nope, you must pick someone that tis not male and not female".
If they go by the general population, to be representative, that would mean 1.6% identify as non-binary. I'm not good enough at maths to work out if that means a whole one person must be elected to represent them - what is 1.6% of seven candidates? Though I suppose with an odd number like that, it works out to "three men, three women, and one who the heck knows what".
You'd think they would have learned their lesson with Sam Brinton, though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
youre r-slurred? that part was describing what nonbinary candidates count as, not that it was a requirement, so they wouldnt allow non binary candidates to occupy seats that are meant for males or females, literally making it purely a disadvantage for them, as they can only fill the seat for "any gender"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context