Us & Them: Exclusion isn't good for the team.

https://www.the-reframe.com/us-and-them/

In distancing himself from his earlier support of trans people, James Talarico may have thought he'd keep himself from being cast as Them, but he participated in the exact story that casts him that way.

He could have said "exclusion isn't good for our team. I will always stand with trans kids and all trans people, and that's how you know I'm going to stand for all of you. Texas is for everyone in Texas, and the United States is for everyone in the United States. We don't harass kids in my Texas. In fact, we don't harass anyone. I hope to earn everyone's support, but if taking away kids' health care is what I need to do to get it, then I'll work for the basic human rights of trans kids without your support, and I'll work for your basic human rights without your support, too."

Instead, he did what he has done. Talarico very likely has persuaded the bullies that he will back down to pressure, and persuaded trans people that he’d rather be liked by Republican bigots than by trans people in Texas, and that even if he wins in November, they’ll be on their own.

31 points · 6 comments · view on lemmy.world

6 Comments

eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 7d (5 replies)

Talarico is a Bible thumper, what did you expect?

neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 7d (4 replies)

Consistency?

As a state representative, Talarico voted against GOP restrictions barring trans student-athletes from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity. He said such proposals amounted to a push for the government to “police people’s private parts” and would harm “the least of these,” a reference to Jesus’ remarks in scripture. And he compared the justifications offered for the bans — that trans athletes had a genetic advantage and excluding them would promote safety — to rationales historically used to bar Black athletes from competing in professional sports.

growsomethinggood@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 7d

I think that, regardless of the other extremely valid criticisms here, this inconsistency issue is one of the dumbest moves politically because it turns him into a liar to both sides. If you support trans people, he's either lied in his support for trans people in the past or is willing to lie about it now to get elected. If you hate trans people, he's covering up his past and manipulating you for votes- you could never 100% trust him to enact your hateful policies with the background he has. Both would be unenthusiastic to support this candidate, and all he's done is burn the goodwill of people who were happy to support him a week ago. Can you imagine if he critiqued the question's premise like Al-Sayed or stood his ground in support of trans people instead? Really seems to be shooting himself in the foot here.

FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 7d (2 replies)

The religious have to maintain inconsistencies.

oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 3d (1 reply)

Why?

FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d

Have you read their books? The Christian Bible starts with two different accounts of creation. It can't even get past the first few sentences without contradictions.