I've seen a depressing trend of Democratic politicians embracing anti trans talking points and compromising gender affirming care for young people. This is extremely concerning as states and the federal government are undermining access to care now more than ever. Democrats standing by trans people has far more dire consequences now than ever, yet we're being treated as politically disposable by people who used to campaign on lgbtq issues like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg.
I can't say I'm surprised. Liberal papers like the New York Times has been uncritically promoting unscientific transphobia for years that claims alternatives exist to gender affirming care. My guess is that people see a person transitioning as an unfortunate thing, desperately wishing there was another way. They ignore the fact that gender affirming care is both the best treatment for dysphoria, and one of the most successful treatments for any mental condition ever discovered.
To put it simply, making gender affirming care harder to obtain for kids will kill many of them. Kids being kept from care by their parents already drives people to suicide, and a slimy politician preventing supportive parents from helping their kids will do the same. Every time I see people claim these guys are our best shot at beating fascism, I die inside. I have no doubt that they'll eventually axe care for all adults like everyone who was originally "worried about fairness in sports" is currently pushing for. The only way they won't is if we make it a costly issue for them.
186 Comments
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 92 pts · 342d
none of us are free until all of us are free.
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 341d
I agree with that but it won't be a single victory that gets everyone what we need.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 44 pts · 342d
Burn the DNC to the ground, these impotent acts of betrayal of the voting base that fail to meaningfully activate anyone in return are the unmistakable indicators of a terminal disease in the party.
The sooner we do it, the sooner we can start building a real party on the left in the US.
This isn't redeemable or reformable.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 8 pts · 342d
Make a third party that appeals regionally at first than expand nationwide to replace the democrats.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 342d
It’s a mathematical certainty that any work on a third party will only help the party that it is most unlike. Seriously, you aren’t the first to think “fuck it, let’s just have a NEW party.” You will spend your days actively harming your interests until you die. And here’s the part where you tell me it needs to get worse before it gets better. No, it doesn’t. It needs to get better incrementally over long time scales and that is the ONLY way anything has ever improved anywhere. Do the work. This nonsense about burning down the world over a single issue is performative crap we don’t have time for.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 12 pts · 342d
This is why first-past-the-post needs to be replaced with the single transferable vote. The rules were originally designed by the rich for the rich.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 342d
If you believe that’s where your energy is best spent, I wish you success. It’s probably a matter of planting trees whose shade you’ll never sit in, but there are healthy alternatives we can promote.
Starting a third party in a FPTP system? That’s just suicide.
There is another way: run for office as a Democrat and be the change you want to see in the party. What Bernie and AOC did. We need a few dozen more of them, and things will actually start moving.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 342d
What the tea party did. What MAGA did. What Mandami is doing.
Changing the existing party is what works. Demolishing it does not.
We can only hope Elon starts his third party he's threatened a couple times.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 342d
The Republican party replaced the Whig party and the Bull Moose party came close.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 342d
mamdani is the first of these and the democratic party won't even endorse him; what makes you think they'll behave any different for others?
timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 342d
If you haven't noticed, it doesn't fucking matter. Mamdani is the candidate and assuming people turn out he will be the mayor.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
They’ll never “endorse” their replacements, nor do they need to.
As others have pointed out here, this kind of takeover of an existing part is exactly what Trump did. You may remember that he did it over the strenuous objections and through stiff resistance of the party.
He did this through his mastery of media, and capturing 30% of the voters in this country with his performance through the process. They eventually realized that Trump was the best card they had to play.
As Bernie and AOC showed, you can muster enough popular support in your home constituency that pushback from the bureaucrats doesn’t matter.
I think the sad news for a lot of people in this thread is that 30% of Americans are not actually onboard with their agenda for a more socialistic America. So while isolated successes may be possible, and help things progress, there simply isn’t going to be a groundswell of support like Trump received. The Democrats are the limp plastic bags of cold soup that they are because the voters themselves are complacent with the status quo and not really willing to roll the dice on it. Sure, plenty are poor enough to almost certainly benefit, but they don’t think of themselves that way. No one’s lower class - everyone’s on their way to joining the “I got mine” club anytime now. And that’s America. This is it I’m afraid. This is who we are.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 341d
Because they will see that he wins anyway
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 342d
It took centuries for women to earn the right to vote, so I happily champion decent causes until their full fruition.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
That’s the way to think: long arc.
Rosa Parks wasn’t the first person who refused to give up her seat on the bus. There were absolutely other cases that could have been pushed through the courts earlier. But Parks was an ideal figure: clean record, old, harmless little lady. For her story to go down in history, others had to be passed over. It’s what we call picking our battles.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 342d
It worked in Canada, India and the UK.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 342d
they have Parliamentary systems :/
the US is fucked because the President is enormously powerful and elected directly by the people.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 341d
The president is not elected directly by the people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 342d
the proper way is to do a hostile takeover of the Democratic party.
Trump wasn't really a Republican, he was a nationalist (in 2016) and now a fascist (in 2024.) Republicans were neocons, libertarians and classical conservatives.
in 2017 he purged the actual Republicans from the Party, and filled its hollowed husk with MAGA. by 2024, the takeover was complete. actual Republicans (e.g. Liz Cheney, Romney) abandoned ship. the name is the only thing that stayed the same.
so, we need to do the same with the DNC. the formula is simple. hijack the primaries, shove the existing leadership out and show the Republicans what "socialism" really means.
PugJesus@piefed.social · 3 pts · 341d
Amen.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
Agreed.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 341d
Most of them voluntarily left though
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 342d
It isn't a single issue. It simply isn't. Regardless, telling trans people and their allies online that fighting for their rights is "nonsense" amounting to "performative crap", seems like transphobia to me.
vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 342d
Look at this guy strategizing like he has multiple fair and free elections left!
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 342d
Woman* and it’s always worth talking about improving democracy. It’s not like every US election is automatically “rigged” after Trump got a second term. Check Portland’s electoral system.
lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 342d
Trans rights are human rights. What would be the point of opposing fascism if it's not to uphold human rights?
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 342d
because it's worse for business than neoliberalism was. The rich agreed to fascism because they needed to redirect populist sentiment, but the neoliberal model really was optimal for them.
SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 342d
They created a culture war to distract people from the class war they are winning.
lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 341d
Based on a recent video i viewed of tech CEOs practically fellating Trump on camera, I would say business sentiment regarding fascism is mixed, at least.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 341d
They wish they didn't have to kiss the ring, but at least they aren't seeing harsher regulation from radical communist liberals.
Rooskie91@discuss.online · 36 pts · 342d
Giving up on trans rights is the definition of losing to fascism.
Fascism is an ideology that's turtules all the way down. Once you exclude one group you have built the social infrastructure and mechanisms to exclude any other group. The only defense is to accept and include all groups.
vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 342d
This. This is how genocide operates. The number of bystanders gets lower and lower as they are carted off into the camps or turn full blown fascist. It’s always like this. Armenia. Germany. Rwanda. It’s a set script.
RFK has made no secret of wanting to take away meds from mentally ill people and putting them into farming camps.
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 32 pts · 342d
Mamdani needs to become mayor of New York already to show these clown democrats how to do their jobs.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 342d
They are doing their jobs. They aren't stupid, they just don't work for us.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 342d
And we shouldn't be voting for anyone who won't work for us.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 342d
The problem is that it can be difficult to tell who that is until they’re already elected. Kind of like how a driving instructor has no idea how the next person in the test car is going to perform until they actually do it.
And then once they’re elected there’s a distinct advantage for incumbents to stay elected, unless they’ve really fucked up somehow.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
Republicans managed to do it. They have an entire party perfectly willing to destroy the country for the billionaire oligarchs from the very top all the way down to the town dog catcher.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 341d
That's because the Republican base is a literal cult
renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf · 23 pts · 342d
You guys don't get it. We need to concede the civil rights of a marginalized group to defeat fascism!
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 342d
👵🖕
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 9 pts · 342d
if the Social Democrats would just concede the Jewish Question, they could have kept the Nazis out of power!
ameancow@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 342d
yesman@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 342d
Your "reasoned" argument to "slow down", "don't rock the boat" or "be patient" for social justice would be familiar to Civil Rights activists. MLK suggested that the "white moderate" was a bigger obstacle to civil rights than the white citizens council.
What you're really saying is that class struggle takes priority over social justice. The big problem with that is that social justice has never came to people who who politely sit at the back of the bus.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
verdigris@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 342d
Right, the problem with the white moderates was their focus on class struggle...
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 15 pts · 342d
If every time you give in to their demands and they take a step further to the right and ask for more with the intention of surviving to fight to protect what you value another day, you will eventually lose what you value and have nothing left to defend.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 342d
Welcome to your civilization. Where your rights are used to further agendas.
Edit:Not Progress
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 15 pts · 342d
I get it, but conservatism has taken over by ratcheting the country to the right. They've been patiently putting people in positions of power from dog catcher up to the presidency for the last forty years.
Progressives aren't satisfied with ratcheting the country to the left. It's all or nothing.
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 342d
The country never moves towards the left or anything closely resembling egalitarianism in any meaningful way. Gay marriage has been one of the few major wins in recent history, but that's not "ratcheting the country to the left". You could be the most staunch supporter of capitalism and "free markets" in the world, literally the opposite of egalitarianism, and still support trans and gay rights/be socially liberal.
The Democrats aren't satisfied until the country is completely to the right and they aren't interested in winning elections or seriously fighting MAGA - their focus is firmly on suppressing the left.
Progressives do not hold significant power in elected office or in the DNC. Bernie Sanders had two primaries rigged against him, and David Hogg was recently ousted from his position as Vice Chair of the DNC
for gender diversity reasonsbecause he was pushing progressive primary challengers.Ken Martin also ensured DNC officer neutrality in future primaries this year, in order to neuter David Hogg not long after he committed to funding these challengers (which is likely why David Hogg refused to run for re-election). Democrats only have a problem with rigging primaries when progressives are the ones getting support.
Progressives are unpredictable and difficult to control, may be of the socialist variety, and disincentivize major donors - which the DNC and Democratic party rely on.
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 342d
"Ending" slavery, suffrage, the New Deal, income tax, * gay rights... They were all steps to the left.
I'm not arguing that the democratic party as it stands is the vehicle to institute a just and fair society. But I did watch the Tea Party subvert and consume the republicans. It can be done to the democratic party as well. It has to be in tandem with regular wins, like how the conservatives did it.
*I can't believe I left out Roe v Wade
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 342d
Slavery only increased under neoliberal policy. Where does our lithium come from? Slaves and child slaves. Our cocoa? In part, child slaves. Where do most of our goods come from? Sweat shops and exploited third-world countries. Our prison labor, which has absolutely exploded under neoliberal policy, is also by definition slave labor. Before Trump, over 40% of our agricultural labor force were undocumented immigrants - modern slaves.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd see how much suffering and exploitation went into every single item around you.
Ancient history, and none of these things besides suffrage truly represent the left, which is commonly associated with socialism and egalitarianism - the left was historically coined to describe socialists. And it's worth mentioning Democrats are further right than most European center-right parties.
You could even be a bigger fascist and authoritarian than Trump, including being a Christian, and be in support of gay rights. See Peter Thiel, self-proclaimed right-libertarian, who is the opposite of a libertarian in practice.
Democrats flying the rainbow flag is just as gross and meaningless as corporations doing it: it's branding. Except now the branding requires that we sacrifice trans people to appeal to
centristsRepublicans/old-school conservatives and try to siphon voters from MAGA. Meanwhile, gay marriage is likely going to quickly be dismantled like everything else, while Democrats stand silent.Will this come in time to address the fresh water crisis? Will it come in time to address the climate crisis? How many trans people will die by suicide because it's "too radical" to support them even a little bit? How many people will die because of preventable disease? How many people will forego higher education? How many people will be laid off and rendered homeless until we establish UBI? How many child slaves will be sacrificed in the mines so we can have new iPhones every year? I could go on and on and on.
Progressives have been playing ball way more than you suggest. Enough. It's become a game of dodgeball where progressives can't throw, only take hits from the Democrats and everybody else. Shifting to the right is not an effective strategy for Democrats, not even a little bit. 1/3 of the country doesn't vote, why the fuck is nobody looking at that group?
Saw your edit:
A Supreme Court decision. Which was never codified into law by Democrats...
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 342d
You're going to sit there and say you wouldn't have voted for fucking Lincoln because he didn't "really" end slavery?
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 342d
I'd like to believe that I would be arguing for the abolition of all social, race, and class-based hierarchies, among other things, but this isn't then and I wasn't born in that time period.
Suppose I were born at that time, had access to a very good education, and possessed roughly the same spirit as I do now; I'd likely be politically active and influencing people like Lincoln as best I could.
Nobody is entitled to another's vote though, and I'll just leave it at that.
Edit - I thought on it and I feel it's necessary to amend this for those curious why I would respond in such a way:
If it came down to it, I'd likely vote for Lincoln. Regardless of some of his statements, he showed deep principles:
Very few involved with politics in the present day are even 1% as principled and vocal about what they believe to be right as Lincoln - he was so incredibly ahead of his time.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 341d
Well I would definitely 100% be supporting moderate pussy Lincoln because the Confederacy fucking sucks and I don't want their supporter to win.
Sorry to hear you were on the fence about it.
M1ch431@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 341d
There were historically people calling Lincoln's abolitionist ideas not radical enough, so bite me.
You'd likely unquestionably vote for a self-proclaimed Zionist committing a genocide, and that was your point in reality - to shame me for having principles in general and in particular in regards to how I vote. You are free to push the Democratic party to the left or away from supporting genocide at any point instead of attacking me - I don't vote for genocide and my vote must be earned through representation.
It's basic democracy, the Democrats don't automatically earn or own my vote because they play at being socially liberal when it suits them.
I could imagine you arguing to Lincoln that he actually should be less radical, that he should compromise on his principle of seeing slavery as being wrong. Just allow a little slavery Lincoln... c'mon man.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 339d
No "buts".
Liberation cannot be done with giving it to everyone, provided that fascists get buried 6 ft under.
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 339d
It's not liberation until it's for everyone. But we won't get there in one legislative fight, or even one legislative session, once and for all. It will always need to be fought for.
Conservatives won't turn down a smaller victory for one that's out of reach. That's why they're winning.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 339d
Ansolutely agree, people didn't turn to being pro-abortion instantly. But with a long and gradual strifle.
But we should be aware to never give up that which we already have.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 341d
🖕
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 341d
Constructive and useful. Go fuck yourself.
They make a great point, but nope. Gotta make them feel stupid for thinking about the obvious problem with idealism.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 341d
You think basic human rights are idealism?
No wonder the Democrat's approval rating is so low. Your party is so spineless.
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 341d
Nice twisting of the words as usual. Im not even american you imbecill.
I think believing that everyone can change their mind because you say so is idealism.
nomoretdrdd@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 341d
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 342d
Democrats should really just embrace pro-gun politics and win over both right-wingers and left-wing gun owners.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 342d
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 342d
I'm always amazed at the idea that we left leaning don't have guns. I've got a range a few miles away. While yes, i don't have a basement full of guns. The number is definitely not zero. I think there are more left gun owners than is given credit.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 342d
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 342d
Would you like me to guess your sex and race? I've never repaired a 15th century submarine, twice the former though. I must just be an outlier.
theangryseal@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
I bought my crappy little gun for 80 bucks.
I guess I need to find out what tools I need to repair a 15th century… ohhhhh.
Haha
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 341d
I've had to use guns many times, never needed it for self defense in a human confrontation, so far. Like most people, I'm not trying to create confrontation, I try to live at peace with people.
But I have several outbuildings that have been invaded by destructive animals multiple times. By local law, I am not allowed to relocate them. Sure I could pay $100 a critter or more for a professional to kill them, but a bullet is a lot cheaper. Also, the 2nd amendment wasn't written for self defense. It was written for tyranny.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 342d
liberals won't use them, leftists would
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 342d
Now that's a good answer. And i guess the distinction gets more relevant bybthe day.
Eh_I@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 342d
I pray I'll never have to pull a plunger on someone. But if that day comes, I'll be real glad I already have a plunger.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 342d
"I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 342d
Right wingers will never, ever, under any circuimstance shift left. Pandering to them is exactly why the turnout for Harris was millions less than Biden.
jasory@programming.dev · 2 pts · 341d
Voter turnout was at a record high in 2020, because the Covid-19 pandemic and BLM protests, made the then administration unpopular. It was a relative anomaly, and the next presidential race would have had lower turnout regardless of the candidate.
Prior to 2024, Harris had always presented herself as more left than Biden, she only claimed to tow the line in 2024 due to how unpopular she was in the 2020 DNC primary.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 342d
Guns are still, nevertheless, a good thing for antifascists. Democrats literally are trying to empower the fucking cops to arbitraily deny people of color the constitution right to own guns (via denying gun permits under so-calles "may issue" laws, ironically, were struck down by the 6 fascist-alligned judges in the supreme court)
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 341d
I just don't see full auto rifles being more useful to us than semi-autos.
Unless we use it to spray crowds of people it has more drawbacks than benefits.
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 342d
Honestly and in all seriousness, I don't think trans rights matter enough to drop them. Like these people aren't in favor of e.g. trump because of trans rights. They are in favor of trump. Why? There is no actual reason. We are talking about people who want the death penalty and a small government??? Who want to cut spending and vote for the guy who spends more money??? they are worried about the quality of life of workers and vote ice cold capitalist into power??? Trans rights don't matter for them, it is a story that they can tell themselves. It is a "reason" because "idk i am just really frustrated and I don't know how to deal with the mental discomfort of acknowledging that my behavior especially my political behavior supported the creation of the situation that I strongly dislike" just isn't comfortable for them.
Trans rights are more than extremely important but politically, they just don't matter. Dropping them will change nothing, but make us worse people.
5too@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 341d
To say it another way, even if you were to drop support for trans rights, you wouldn't gain much of anything.
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 341d
Yeah, thanks for putting it that way.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 341d
Like I said elsewhere, they already held these views and see now as the perfect time to push them. They think that because the fascists won they don't need to try as hard, even though them not sacrificing their pet beliefs on TikTok and Palestine contributed to that result. They think Harris being a brown woman is where they failed rather than her being Biden's VP.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 342d
They're neoliberals so they can't say the obvious things a Dem candidate needs to do to win an election.
They'd rather a Republican win than a Dem who actually wants to fix wealth inequality
henfredemars@infosec.pub · 10 pts · 342d
Yes, this 💯. They’re drunk on corpo dollars.
yesman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
Show me this phantom Democrat. I'll vote for them.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 342d
If you honestly can't think of a single example, me naming anyone isn't going to help anything...
But let's give it a shot:
Bernie Sanders
Sunshine@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 342d
He’s an independent right now.
piefood@feddit.online · 4 pts · 342d
Who has been constantly side-lined by the Democratic party
Octavio@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 341d
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 341d
Transphobia IS gender fascism
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 342d
Not what they mean at all. It's just that social issues are secondary to winning the war.
This means putting it off until Conservatives can no longer stop us.
(Not trans btw, just believe in trans right)
piefood@feddit.online · 18 pts · 342d
Their strategy is currently losing the war, as well as social issues
BanMe@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 342d
My FB feed is still littered with die-hard liberals espousing views we could afford to debate 15, 20 years ago. Pollution and gun rights. Every word they say is heard differently by the other side and they still don't get it. Fascists are taking over the US and they want to figure out how to recycle better.
brianary@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 342d
True, but we're losing it much faster lately.
piefood@feddit.online · 7 pts · 342d
My problem isn't how fast we're losing, it's that the supposed "opposition" is pretty openly not fighting.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 342d
Because the wealthy ones are the ones who actually drive any actual change, regardless of politics or effort. If they want hell on Earth, there will be hell on Earth. And they want hell on Earth.
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 342d
Thanks. Glad I'm here for you to sacrifice.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 342d
it's giving Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 342d
Except none of the assholes people have proposed actually have good strategy. None of them are populists, just pro business liberals who are simple downgrades to the Democrats of last year, worse at everything including making up for what lost them 2024.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 341d
Oh, I forgot you can't vote anymore. Argument moot I guess.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 341d
What a weak mentality from a fitting username. The voters must change to match the party in your mind, not the other way around. To suggest otherwise means I'm an anti voter or green party Russian agent. That's the only possible interpretation for someone unwilling tolerate criticism of their tribe; that I'm an absolute strawman who isn't enlightened enough to polish shoes with my tongue.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 341d
You aren't going to get everything you want right away. People could not even handle climate change ffs! We should ensure our survival and dominance first, before implementing literally anything else.
They kept latching onto climate change as if it were some made up bullshit.
Pure idealism simply gets you nowhere. Why do you have to have everything NOW? No one said we will abandon trans rights altogether.
But it does not matter now. It's armed resistance or nothing else.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 341d
"Trans people want basic human rights?!? What kind of crazy, idealistic world do you think we live in? We have to abandon you now, but don't worry, we'll totally come back for you after we get ours."
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 11 pts · 342d
That's like saying they need to give up on the mentally and intellectually handicapped in order to fight the original Nazis... it was who they killed first!
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 341d
The Nazis included trans people in that initial group, btw.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 342d
As an AAPI kid, I am more than used to liberals and leftists abandoning and shitting on us at the drop of a hat. In a just world? That wouldn't fucking happen. In the world we live in? I'll settle for not being actively attacked. Let us fight the slow burn fight just don't actively harm. Just so long as it wins elections and does overall harm mitigation.
But that isn't the case. Democrats increasingly try to be "republican lite" and it just doesn't fucking work. Because the DNC seems to believe the bullshit that the republicans are full of "bush era republicans" and "mavericks" who all hate what the party has become and are just looking for an opportunity to do the right thing. And they completely ignore that all those "mavericks" still vote lockstep with the magats (barring one or two personal issues) because they actually also want the hate and suffering but don't like that it isn't them who are leading the charge.
But when one candidate is running on the gas chamber for all trans people and the other candidate just wants to rough them up a bit? The hateful shitheads aren't going to settle for less. But to everyone else? "Both sides suck".
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 342d
There are more important reasons we need to oppose the "lesser evil." I simply have no faith that they can defeat the fascists in their current state, which means we need to at least shape them up before the next chance they have to take power. Unless they become more competent and politically capable, they might not be able to capitalize on Trump's inevitable death, nor will they be able to maintain power for long if they make the same mistakes as Biden.
The only way they will not be weak and useless is if there is a capable left wing they need to contend with. It's why they oppose Mamdani more strongly than Trump; they would no longer have a solid monopoly on progressives, and would need to share capitulate to maintain an alliance.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 342d
I can understand the cold hard logic of opposing highly progressive candidates (in favor of people like Biden and Kamala who were progressive but are also very much in the DNC's preferred overton window). The US is a fundamentally conservative country. Going too Left as a party opens the Democrats up to "bunch of fucking socialists" rhetoric and can potentially lose a LOT of purple states.
I personally don't agree that attacking Mamdani et al is the right answer and I very much point at people like AOC who started as a firebrand and will still fight "when it matters" but has also learned that she needs additional support in Congress to do anything.
But yeah. The Democrats as they stand? trump could broadcast himself raping a toddler from the oval office and the best we can hope for is a bunch of old white guys awkwardly nodding their head to the Hamilton soundtrack while shouting down anyone who dares to try to capitalize on things.
At the end of the day: Politics is compromise. And, at the national level, a lot of those compromises are inherently increasing the suffering of others. While I will never say that throwing someone under the bus is "worth it", it is hard not to awkwardly talk around it when it leads to a win and an overall net good. But we don't have that. We consistently see the Democrats pivot to the right while not actually getting anything for it other than demoralizing the base more and more every day.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 342d
One needs a stronger position to make a more favorable compromise, which will also do more to invigorate the right and left of the Democrats. If the right wing Dems feel they can rest on they're laurels, they neglect the base and are weaker against the GOP. If the left of the party is highly motivated by winning seats and gaining power, the right will need to work harder to maintain control of the party. It'd really be emblematic if the monopolistic tendencies of capitalists in a system that only innovates when they don't have what they want.
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 342d
We dont have to give up on any single group to fight MAGA morons. Just start calling MAGA what they are, the pedo party.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 341d
They're a party of groomers, in every sense of the word. They are heavily invested in brainwashing kids from an early age to serve their authoritarian order, while their system of unchecked power over children perpetuates child abuse both sexual and non sexual. They rely on grooming emotionally lost young men to be their foot soldiers and enforcers, encouraging them to bully and abuse women and minorities while stealing everything of value they produce. They are everything they accuse their enemies of being.
_druid@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 342d
Ratchet effect, in real time. This is what harm reduction and blue no matter who buys you. Democrats are not your friend. The system cannot be reformed. We cannot vote our way out of this. Trans people need to arm up. Allies need to arm up. Look out for one another. Stay safe and good luck.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 342d
The standards you walk by are the ones you accept.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 342d
But you see, throwing trans people under the bus is a necessary step to finally convince the people running the camps that we're on their side. I'm actually reducing harm. I'm a good person.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 342d
the old guard is trying to avoid another zohran, bernie, aoc, or the minnesota mayor, hence pedalling a republican lite is the best they can do.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 342d
I think its extremely uncommon to say we have to sacrifice trans rights
More commonly some people say trans rights are a fringe issue not necessary to defeat fascism, and slightly less common yo say trans rights were never even on the table.
If you have to pick between an anti-trans dnc and a Republican then you're gonna be voting on some other issue like whether or not to bring back Gulags and if the lower 90% should be able to afford housing or food or healthcare.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 6 pts · 342d
Right wing politicians are really good at getting elected by doing and saying whatever they need to. Once they’re in office, as Trump demonstrated, all bets are off.
So far, the left’s strategy has been two-fold.
piefood@feddit.online · 0 pts · 342d
Those two points look like the Democratic strategy, not the left's strategy
rarsamx@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 341d
Oh my friend. You haven't figured out that the Democrats are just really "right light" without a backbone?
Would've they been better than Trump? 100% yes. But anything can be better than Trump's Republicans.
There is no real social left movement in the US. Maybe Bernie and AOC get close to it but still quite centrist.
So, the Democrats are the right throwing some social crumbs around but supporting regressive policies. Once people realize that, a real social movement can start.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 341d
I've known this for years. What I'm pissed about is liberal asshats who think transphobes are the messiahs who will save their already dead rule of law.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 339d
There are left movements, though. There's the Democratic Socialists of the USA.
rarsamx@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 339d
I'm pretty sure even Communists. But your political system and the leaning of most of the US people means that they will never be able to have any impact.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 339d
Not without exposure, and not with that attitude. One person can have impact, for better (Nelson Mandela) or worse (Trump).
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 341d
Personally, I don't see a difference between combating fascism, and gender rights, gender affirming care, and recognizing people as the gender that they feel most comfortable as. I also don't see a difference between combating fascism and LGBTQIA+ rights in general.
Fascists would have all of those rights stripped away from people. So bring pro LGBTQIA+ and being against fascism, is essentially the same thing in my mind.
The thing about it is, you can be against fascism, but not pro LGBTQIA+, but it would be, in my mind, impossible to be pro LGBTQIA+ and not be anti fascist.
So anyone who wants to deny LGBTQIA+, gender affirming care, or the recognition of people's gender, but who is self-proclaiming to be against fascism, is either under some confused notion of what fascism would entail, trying to find some "middle ground" which doesn't really exist, or they're still fascist, but only if their way of life is what's being promoted under fascism, and we can it something other than fascism.
All of those people can suck my dick.
LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights.
EDIT: I want to add that I'm not LGBTQIA+. I just believe that anyone who is, should have the same rights to be just as happy, or as miserable, as everyone who isn't. I am an ally. I am a humanist.
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 342d
Isn't defeating fascism and standing for trans rights the same thing?
Same with eliminating religion?
These organisations aren't good for human rights. They aren't good for anything or anyone.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 342d
No. You can not-have trans rights without fascism. Otherwise, 100% of the earth has been fascist for the entire history of humanity.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 342d
"Let's meet in the middle and only oppress people 50%"
piefood@feddit.online · 5 pts · 342d
Not only Democratic politicians, I see it here in the Fediverse all the time. People seem to think that the Democrats winning is more important than human rights.
I just don't understood that kind of dogmatic thinking.
onslaught545@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 342d
Because when the other side is explicitly promising a theocratic fascist dictatorship, you have to pick the lesser evil to even have a chance of things getting better without large scale violence.
A lot of things need to change to get to the point where we're not picking between two evils, but those changes have to start at local and state levels, and it takes time to propagate to the federal level.
Trans rights being side-tabled for a bit is better than them and every other "undesirable" getting sent to concentration camps.
It's not that we're simping for the Democrat leadership, it's that we're smart enough to realize it's currently a binary system and the other option is exponentially worse.
piefood@feddit.online · -1 pts · 342d
What happens then, when the "lesser evil" gets in power, and rolls back 5% of what the facists did, bomb a bunch of innocient people, give mountains of money to their rich friends, and continue to attack "undesirables"?
Yes you are
But that's not true. The other option is only slightly worse, and Democrats keep spending their time trying to get as close to that line as possible.
If they want our votes, they should try doing what we want, like supporting basic human rights, instead of supporting the fascists.
onslaught545@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 342d
If you think the Democrats are only slightly better than Trump and the rest of MAGA, I have a bridge to sell you.
piefood@feddit.online · 1 pts · 342d
Both:
But yeah, go ahead and tell me how much better the Democrats are.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
Vote for the next lesser evil until its all rolled back and we have a non imperial foreign policy.
If you don't work to build a leftist movement you'll never have one. Voting for harm minimization is still helpful as we build.
piefood@feddit.online · -2 pts · 342d
And hows that been working out? The lesser evil keep marching towards the right. They even fight against anyone who says we can do more than just roll-back 5%.
Or we could just vote for leftists, instead of right-wingers who lightly cosplay as leftists in the hopes that one of these days, they'll change course and become actual leftists.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
We've not been doingi it. Non voting is the biggest block for decades now.
Like I said
piefood@feddit.online · -2 pts · 342d
Yes we have. We did it under Obama, and Biden. Guess what happened? They rolled back %5 of the facist policy, beefed up the rest, gave handouts to their rich friends, took away more civil rights, and bombed the fuck outta people.
And I'm saying: I am building one. By voting for actual leftists, instead of cosplayers.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
Non-voting is still the winner in those; further we don't have a consecutive lesser evil in those, so that does not help as much as it could.
Still,
Not everyone is going to have a leftist in their local and state ballot. Its rather privileged of you to say this is not helpful to the rest of us.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
What happens is that there's 5% less fascism. And also it doesn't increase by whatever amount the fascism party would've increased it by.
The other things would've also happened (and more even!) under the fascism party.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 342d
I don't want 5% less facism, I want a party that fights against facism, instead of supporting it. The Democrats spent their time building out the tools for fascism, then put on their shocked-picachu face when the facists use those tools.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
Nobody wants just 5% less fascism. But your options are full fascism or 5% less.
What are you gonna do? Not vote for either party? You just removed a vote from 5% less fascism.
The reality is, there is a fuckton of fascists in america. If you want no fascism you gotta for for less fascism first, to signal to the political parties what you want. When they see that less fascism gives them votes, they will shift towards less fascism until there is none.
Just like Americans signaled so much that they want more fascism, that both the republicans and democrats got more fascists.
piefood@feddit.online · 1 pts · 342d
Aparently the Democratic leadership does, since that's what they keep doing.
That is not true, but the Democrats have convinced a lot of people that it is true. We have a ton of options.
You mean the same party that have spent the past few decades ignoring their voters? The same party that helped build out the tools that the facists are using, even when their voters didn't want those systems?
A vote for Democrats tells them that, even when they support things like facism, genocide, and taking away human rights, you are gonna stick with them. I'm not going to, because I am against those things.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
Don't worry, I'm not American, I don't have to stick with no American political party.
You claim that you have other options. Which ones are those? The third parties that will never win because the system strongly favours a 2-party system?
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 5 pts · 342d
You realize the left needs to win for us to have human rights? Your critique makes literally zero sense.
piefood@feddit.online · 4 pts · 342d
Are you talking about the party that isn't able to win, and also doesn't support universal human rights?
Maybe they would have more luck with the former, if they tried the latter.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 342d
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
If the left needs to win, then we can't vote for most democrats.
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 342d
Winning an election is step one. Policies that benefit everyone (except maybe the very top) is next. Then win the next election and pull the country left. Then rinse and repeat. We didn't get here overnight.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 342d
But Democrats aren't winning. They are moving to the right and losing. In the rare circumstances where they do win, they generally end up supporting right-wing policies anyway. It's almost like there's a correlation between those.....
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 342d
We have two different problems. The democratic party as everyone knows, is a feckless bunch. So it must be turned into a viable party once again. But we can't rehabilitate it and kneecap it at the same time. They also have to win (and then cycle/replace candidates that aren't with the program.)
The Tea Party did it to Republicans. We have to do it for Democrats... It would also be great to erode resistance to ranked choice voting.
It's a tall order. We should have been doing it twenty or thirty years ago.
piefood@feddit.online · 0 pts · 342d
The Democrats learned from what happened to the Republican party, and set up systems to prevent that from happening. You can keep fighting to rehabilitate them, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Just like you can fight to rehabilitate the Republicans if you want, but I'm not gonna hold my breath for that either.
GaMEChld@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
I think it's more that people think winning is more important than performative losing. It's not pragmatic to promote talking points that hurt your own cause.
For example, I'd wager that cutting hundreds of billions from Medicaid will hurt the general population AND the trans population far more than gender affirming care for kids or trans rights in sports would benefit trans people.
And consider this, every time we lose, it's going to get worse and worse and keep shifting the Overton Window to the right.
Are we supposed to pretend that strategy and tactics aren't applicable to politics? Winning the broader war wins many smaller battles by default.
piefood@feddit.online · 2 pts · 342d
I'm looking at the current Democratic strategy of moving to the right, and continuing to lose.
You are correct that strategy and tactics are applicable. Maybe if the Democrats want to win, they should avoid their losing strategy.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 342d
The US democrat party has a huge problem. That it is in the US. Therefore, there can only be 2 parties. Yet, the spectrum of politicians is huge. It's big enough for it to be hated by everyone.
The right will hate the democrats because they are woke and young and pro-trans, pro-brown, pro-immigrant.
And the left will hate the democrats because they are fascists, old, anti-trans, racists and anti-immigrants.
The media can pick and choose what democrat they want to demonize, and that ends up hurting the entire party. The left will hate the rightmost democrats, and the right will do the same with the leftmost ones.
Which ends up with conservatives voting for the republicans, and progressives not even bothering to vote because they are too much to the right.
They only win sometimes because the republicans are so ridiculously horrible that any good big policy will land the democrats the white house. But good luck getting that whole spectrum + their donors to all agree on one good big policy.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 342d
almost as if the Democrats should run an actual Leftist candidate so the Left would turn out for them.
worked for the Republicans. the Right turned out for Trump after the party withered under decades of neocons.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
That's where the next problem comes in. America has a fuckton of fascists.
Turning to the right in a right environment will always be more successful than turning to the left.
The only way out is to advocate for leftwing policies without stating they are left-wing. Whatever is labeled "woke" in America is probably not going to gain them many votes.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 342d
is Mamdani woke? is Luigi woke?
they're both extremely polarizing, hated by the establishment and extraordinarily popular. kinda like Trump was, actually.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
I haven't looked into it, but mamdani is probably extremely popular in NY, but hated by the MAGA crowd. Since they probably heard him from fox news than from his policies.
I haven't heard Luigi be called woke. But what he did is not (just) culturally left, it is economically left. Which is what I think the left should focus on. Culturally left is "woke" because that is what the commies do in their cities, "real hardworking manly Americans" don't have trans people in their rural towns, but they do have bloodsucking healthcare companies.
Listening to the children's feelings is "woke". Increasing the taxes on the billionaires to deliver drinkable water to Americans is not.
piefood@feddit.online · 0 pts · 342d
I think you are glossing over a big part of the picture: Where the Democratic leadership gaslights their voters, and pushes against popular, leftist candidates, and popular, leftist policies.
Yes, the Democratic party has a huge problem: They actively fight against the politicians and policies that their voters want.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 342d
To be fair. They have tried with what they believe Americans want.
It's been on the decline lately, but the last ~10 years there has been a big trend of "Americans wants black women". If a movie had a group of at least 4 people, a black woman was one of them. If an ad had 4 people in quick succession, a black woman was one of them.
So they saw this opportunity and decided that the most important thing would be having the first black woman president. They might just be incredibly bad at seeing what the voters actually want. And of course, going for cultural-left made them lose against the most incompetent opponent.
Or they might just be physically unable to be an economically left party, so they go with cultural left in order to differentiate themselves with the fascism party.
piefood@feddit.online · 0 pts · 342d
No they didn't. Americans have very clearly been saying that they want someone who is not a status-quo, neoliberal politician, who is only in it to help out their donors. The Democrats keep saying "Nah, we're just gonna pick the candidate for you."
They didn't do this because they are bad at reading what people want, they did this because their core philosophy is directly oppositional to what Americans want.
What are you talking about? I've never heard anyone say that. It might shock you to hear this, but movies aren't where you find out what voters want.
No, they saw the opportunity to have another corporate shill who won't rock the boat and took it. She just happened to be the VP at the time, so they could justify not having an actual primary.
No, them picking terrible, center-right candidates, running on terrible, center-right policies, and openly telling their voter-base to sit down and shut up is what made them lose.
They aren't physically unable, they chose to be bound by what their donors tell them.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 342d
Probably traditional tribal resistance to criticism that calls into question dominant cultural scripts. It's the same instinct that demands resistance only be peaceful and legal.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 4 pts · 342d
Sources on that?
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 341d
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/after-getting-the-ruling-it-wanted
Zink@programming.dev · 4 pts · 342d
Ok, look, as long we PINKY PROMISE that we're going to stop at the VERY FIRST one of the "first they came for the..." marginalized groups, you gotta let us murderize JUST THEM and then bada bing, bada boom, fascism is cooked!
socsa@piefed.social · 4 pts · 341d
Honestly I am very much a supporter of pragmatism and strategic politics towards building unity on the left, even if it means sacrificing some issues in favor of more pressing ones. I hate purity testing and assume most people who engage in it are acting in bad faith. But I completely agree with this. A coalition without respect for basic human rights is just a nonstarter.
deaf_fish@midwest.social · 6 pts · 341d
It's also really weak to point at fascism and say "look they treat some people badly for no reason. On an unrelated note, we are also going to treat some people badly for no reason."
philosloppy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 342d
liberals gonna lib but what does the acceptance, or rejection, of science have anything to do with it? Plenty of fascists have had no problem embracing science as a method of political expediency and plenty of leftists have rejected scientific advance as a measure of political progress.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
Who says that?
ComradeRachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 342d
I just ran into a YouTube video where a bunch of cis gay people were saying in the comments that society needs to give up trans people for the Democratic Party to do better and make progress for the majority. Technically not fash but too many cis people willing to throw trans people under the bus for “progress” in their eyes.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 342d
Same old shit. Give up on gun control to keep people from voting dem. Give up on gay rights to avoid alienating voters. Give up on electric vehicles to avoid losing votes. Give up on being liberal at all.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 342d
Me. And I guess other people too.
The top 1% are using cultural positions to divide the working class into conservatives and progressives.
Trans people are fractions of a percent of the population. While anti-trans people are a way bigger %. A party that supports trans people will lose voters for it.
It is a global phenomenon that fascism is gaining power. Countries everywhere are turning to the far-right parties. Leftwing parties can't afford to lose voters. Because if you don't have enough votes, you can't implement the policies you lost those votes for.
I'm not saying they should go opposite, and go anti-trans. Just that they shouldn't fight for trans people more than any other group. For example fighting so they don't get assassinated by the government is ok, but subsidizing trans-related spending (such as hormones or whatever) is not.
Instead, they should focus in regaining voters by listening to the worker class, which is the biggest voter base there is.
Raise minimum wages. Decrease working hours. Give more funding to healthcare and education. Tax the top 1% out of existence.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 342d
so our assassination isn't acceptable, but dropping HRT from Medicare is... let's find the line you'd take. which of these are acceptable sacrifices:
genuinely interested where your breaking point is, since the current administration is pursuing all of these.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 342d
"bathroom bills" could be a range of very different policies. A law that says "trans women are men for the purposes of going to the bathroom and vice versa" is fine. A law that say "trans cannot go to public bathrooms" is not. As I said, don't give them preferential treatment (pro-trans), but don't hurt them specifically (anti-trans).
Same with workplace discrimination protections. "Being trans" is not a firable reason just like having 4 fingers isn't. However there are jobs where that might be a problem. For example lacking a thumb in an assembly line should be taken into account. If being trans can have a similar impact on a job (I can't find any example), the same should happen.
"Gender marker changes on documents" is way too broad of a question.
"Adoption rights" I don't know enough about how the adoption process works or why this is a trans issue.
"Gun rights" no civilian other than those with very regulated permits should have permission to own a firearm. Same as before, being trans has nothing to do with guns.
"Military service" this actually has something to do with trans, since some countries treat men and women differently in the military. Since it's a physically intensive job, they should be treated as their biological sex. Or even better, they should be treated depending on physical performance. But we both know that's not gonna happen anytime soon so no need to waste time on that.
"Public service" again, too broad of a question and idk what it has to do with trans.
"Prisons" prisons in general are very complicated and I don't know how to manage them. About trans, the best should probably be to keep them about biological sex. But of course listen to their complaints, if they complain credibly that they are sexually threatened, keep them in a separate section of the prison. But that goes even if not trans, there's lots of same-sex rape in prisons going on.
"Don't say gay" idk what those laws are about. It's illegal to say "gay"? Anyway, it should be about "not say trans" right? In that case, that's against free speech, you can't make it illegal to say a word.
"Social media" again, free speech. If it is covered under free speech, can post it. If not, can remove it. Or if it goes against the social media's policies. Those are private entities, not government agencies.
"Banning insurance" kinda weird question. If the procedure is banned, the insurance too. If not, not.
"HRT for adults/minors" this procedure is specifically for trans. It is not worth the political capital to prevent its ban. Do a survey and listen to the people. What decision would get more votes? Do that.
"Conversion therapy" I don't know what that means.
I answered a lot of questions way too fast, so might not be final decisions. But the summary still is: if it's something to benefit trans specifically, don't support it. If it's something that treats trans as inferior humans, don't allow it.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 342d
it's not preferential treatment. you want Kim Petras to use the men's bathroom? I guarantee that will go poorly. she'll be harassed by men who are confused why a woman is in the men's bathroom. and what about FTMs? you want to make Buck Angel use the women's room? dude is a jacked bodybuilder who looks like he could break you in half. that would absolutely terrorize women.
under Bostock v Clayton this is currently true, but the Trump administration has specifically declared that Bostock doesn't apply to Federal jobs - meaning they could fire a postal worker just for being trans. the religious Right has been pushing to overturn this decision, so they can refuse to hire trans (or gay) people in their (secular) businesses.
should someone who has fully medically transitioned be able to obtain a driver's license or passport that reflects their gender? I look like a woman, but my passport says M because of Trump's order.
because bigots think trans people are groomers, and want to make sure orphans only go to straight, god-fearing couples. we're not asking for special rights, we're asking to have the same right to adopt that you have. that's all.
would you oppose a law that specifically bans trans people in particular from owning guns?
women can serve in the US military. men can too. trans people cannot again, beside of Trump's executive order, which says we lack the "honor" and "integrity" required for military service.
can the government refuse to hire qualified postal workers, administrators, intelligence analysts or rocket scientists, just because they're trans? can the government fire all trans employees?
so let's say a trans woman transitions at 13, passes perfectly, and has a vagina. you want to put her in a prison cell with a bunch of violent men who will almost certainly rape her?
the laws make it a fireable offense for teachers to mention their gay (or trans) significant others, at school, or to discuss LGBT issues at all. in a recent Florida case, the school fired a trans woman schoolteacher just for referring to herself as "she."
conservatives are pushing for social media sites to block minors from accessing "adult content." they're also pushing to define any LGBT themes, such as pride flags, TV shows with gay/trans characters, or posts by trans people (including other minors) as "adult content." would you support blocking access to (for example) PhilosophyTube to those who prove they're 18+, just because that YouTuber happens to be trans?
hold the fuck on. you were saying it was an issue of "subsidizing" gender care. if a private insurer wants to cover HRT, that's not a subsidy. that's a policy decision. are you talking about banning HRT?
if you ban my HRT, I will smuggle it into the country. I cannot live without it. that's like banning antidepressants for suicidal people. I'll bring enough for my community, and I'll try to help as many of us as possible escape this hellhole.
so basically, you're fine with laws specifically punishing trans people, removing rights we had back in the goddamn '70s, as long as they're not actively putting us in concentration camps?
nah fam. fuck that. I'm not voting Democrat if that's what Dems are prepared to do. I might as well let Trump have a third term - it'd be the same.
if you take my rights away, I'll let them take yours away too.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 342d
It's way too many topics for a single comment. I'm not even gonna respond the ones we seem to agree on.
"Bathrooms" -> preferential meaning there has to be a law to handle the edge cases of trans. Just use the current laws. Peeing-recipients are based on genitals. Nobody is going to check if you're in the correct one anyway.
"Gender markers" -> again, special handling for trans: don't support.
"Gun" I already answered, has nothing to do with trans.
"Military" -> as I said, if men can and women can but trans can't, that's anti-trans. So makes no sense
"Public" 4-finger rule applies. If you can't do that to ppl with 4 fingers, you can't to trans
"Prison" as I said, if there's serious risk of being raped, separate, just like you would with any other prisoner
"Don't say" -> handle like any other free speech case
"Social media" are conservatives asking social media companies? Let them. Are they making it into law? Don't
"Banning insurance" idk what you read in my response but it's not what I wrote. Read again please. I'm saying that insuring it should be as legal as the procedure.
"HRT" smuggle if you want. The procedure is not the problem. The political capital needed to defend it is.
Btw I'm no democrat, not even American.
Idk where the concentration camp comes from. I'm saying treat them like any other person.
missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 342d
right, this is the major sticking point. you seem to think it's a "special right for trans people" but it's not:
there was never a law that gave trans people the right to HRT. we just asked our doctors, who researched, and agreed, and prescribed it to us. we used the same rights as everyone else.
it's not a "special right" for trans people to own guns. we have a 2A right to own guns, same as anyone else (since you're not American, you may not understand the controversy: see this - the government was trying to ban trans people from owning guns by classifying us as "mentally defective.") there's no "special right" for trans women to use the women's bathroom. there weren't any laws restricting who could use what bathroom at all until this moral panic started.
do Jews have a "special right" to practice Judaism? no! all people have the right to practice their religion. banning Judaism wouldn't be revoking a "special right," it would be taking a universal right away from a targeted group.
all of these bans work by removing rights from us that everyone else has. we've never been given special rights in the first place.
most trans people cannot survive without HRT. that's why the suicide rate was so high. banning it will kill many of us - those who can't get asylum abroad.
our deaths may be an acceptable loss to you. but I won't vote for a party that lets my people die for political points. I assume Palestinian Americans felt similarly in 2024 - if there will be genocide either way, who cares? why should I care about the country if either choice leaves me and my sisters dead or disfigured?
Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 342d
Kill yourselves for the movement, not a great position to hold.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 342d
I don't understand where in my comment I'm saying anyone should kill themselves.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 342d
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 342d
Who said that??
Phegan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 341d
mhague@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 341d
If people want me to vote blue then surely they must disagree with the idea that Democrats have been continuously moving right.
How can Democrats dominate the popular vote and enjoy all this success when times are relaxed, yet we end up here? Now when times are precariously tough, voting blue is supposed to help?
Who knew "Vote for the lesser evil." was a synonym for "Vote Gavin Newsom." If I make a moral judgement and choose a lesser evil like accelerationism or nonviable third parties, suddenly "choosing a lesser evil" is wrong. People want to dish out top-shelf rhetoric with the force of a cannon but get mad when you take it seriously.
twice_hatch@midwest.social · 2 pts · 342d
I'm sure this time we'll get a third-party President!
piefood@feddit.online · 5 pts · 342d
I'm sure this time the Democrats won't betray us!
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 342d
Your mistake was thinking that a political party like the Democratic party of the USA sees any social group as anything but a sum of votes to get them in power. If the sum gets negative they will drop support faster than the speed of light.
Never trust people who wants to actively achieve power. I don't know how to solve "politics" with this axiom. But experience and history has taught me that, people who seek power as not trust worth.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 342d
I haven't held trust for a long time, as you are right any how the cost/benefit analyze. That is why I want to raise the cost of being a bigot.
iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 342d
Soulg@ani.social · -1 pts · 342d
Nobody is saying this
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 342d
People are definitely saying this, and if you haven’t seen it then it’s because you missed it.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 342d
Are you willfully ignorant, or gaslighting? My favorite part is how he claims Democrats were hurt by support for trans issues in 2024 when they were notably quiet about the issue the entire campaign. This is despite trans attacks from the right being both nothing new, and nothing that mattered in past elections. The most likely reason these politicians have turned to transphobia is because they themselves buy into it.
nomoretdrdd@lemmy.cafe · -2 pts · 341d
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 341d
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Can you reword it?