The issue is that electing transphobes normalizes transphobia. The Democratic party is always courting votes from "moderates" and conservatives, but no one is chasing trans voters. This is basically a perfect set up for the ratchet effect: Dems stop letting trans girls play sports, Repubs celebrate their victory and move the goal posts again, and now Dems are proposing some new "middle ground" restraint on trans people.
None of my local candidates were on Erin's analysis, so I don't have a horse in that particular race. But I do think it's reasonable to refuse to vote for anyone who is willing to strip you of your rights because of your gender. I don't think it's fair to blame a marginalized group for why they're being marginalized, when the other option is to advocate for them.
Looking at a trans person and saying "vote against your interests because if you don't vote it might be worse for you quicker" is not fair or right. No one should be feeling smug when they do that, despite how much it seems to happen on Lemmy. The better, more useful, thing to do is to see if you are in any of the districts on Erin's list, and, if so, advocate for your trans allies. Call your rep and say, "Hey, I want to vote for you, but your stance on trans people doesn't align with my values." Pressure them to not implement transphobic policies. You can still plan to vote for them anyway, but they don't need to know that. Use the threat. Convince them that trans allies need to be courted, too, and Dems are not just the accepted and default candidate because "Republicans bad."
no international body that isn't directly corrupt would accept them as legit leadership
If other nations are still interacting with, conducting diplomacy with, and trading with that administration, they are accepting the leadership as legitimate. They are not running around the back to deal with or support an opposition leadership; they are accepting the results of the election as presented. That is directly in conflict with the point you put forth.
Trade is being reduced, soft power is drying up, but that is specifically because the current administration is accepted as legitimate. Everyone in the world is agreeing on who is in charge in the US, and they're pulling back as a result, but there's no circumstance where nations stop accepting Trump as the leader of the US based on the results of the midterms. Which, to your definition, makes all of those nations corrupt as well.
... so you think other nations are going to stop interacting with the United States if the US legislature is installed via bribery and corruption?
Has that happened for any other country? Let's look at the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index list, and you tell me which countries are getting kicked out of the UN or cut off from international diplomacy.
Yeah, I'm not saying Hegseth is trans. But "That's gender-affirming!" is not the gotcha people think it is unless you fundamentally have a problem with affirming gender. It turns "gender-affirming" into an insult that is okay to use against people you don't like, similar to declaring all homophobes to be closet-cases. Both perpetuate the specific type of hatred that the speaker is supposedly opposing.
Not saying it's the exact same thing, but it's similar.
I've had "good" insurance for almost a decade now, but I could never find a doctor that was in-network, taking new patients, and less than 50 miles away. I was calling around locally every three months, like clockwork, for years.
I finally got lucky this week, so I've got an appointment in October. The receptionist asked me when my last physical was, and I said 2004. She said, "Oh, so not in the last year then?"
This is especially true when the guy you need to stand up to has a 32% approval rating. It's not hard to look good when you're kicking the guy no one likes, and it honestly might be the move to flip centrists away from the "woke" progressives that are winning primaries.
Not that I want that. I'd rather have the progressives win and start sending fuckers to the Hague. But I'd be shocked if there wasn't some conservative think-tank mapping out this possibility.
This is the point of the article: none of these options are good for trans people. If the choice is "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like many Republicans) or "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like the entire list in the article), then, from the perspective of preserving trans rights, there is not a choice. Electing transphobes empowers transphobes and normalizes transphobia, regardless of which letter they have next to their name.
If you're a single-issue voter who only cares about trans rights and you've seen this exact bullshit play out already across the pond, there's no vote that will make your life better.
As for this line:
maybe these politicians aren't transphobic at all and are simply attempting to walk a tightrope in an imperfect system
So I'm not supposed to trust what a candidate tells me or how they've previously voted, and I should just assume they mean something more secretly benevolent? That's literally exactly why my in-laws voted for Trump: they didn't believe anything that was reported about Project 2025 because, and I quote, "he used to be a Democrat."
Tom Souzzi can eat my whole ass. All of Long Island is DINOs who campaign on persecuting any minority they can find. Souzzi and Schumer should go fuck off to the fantasyland where the Baileys live and let us actually make some progress.
Oh, if the Dems are only going to trample on some of my rights, I guess that's okay.
Have you not seen what's happened in the UK in the last few years? That's the playbook. Their center-left party realized that every time they take away another right from the trans community, they get more support from conservatives and only lose support with trans people that they want to exclude anyway. Transphobic Democrats will steer the party into doing the same thing here if they can.
That said, this article should've come out months ago. The best way to kick transphobes out of the party is to primary them, not let them lose in the general.
The problem is who the opinion is unpopular with. About 22% of registered voters are in the AARP, and they'd be most at risk of losing their driving privileges. Any legislator proposing this or voting for it may as well kiss their office goodbye.
I've had this in my queue for a while now; it's just hard to find time to watch movies.
Atlanta paid homage to the movie/book by making an episode entitled "The Goof Who Sat by the Door" in their fourth season. It was a fantastic mockumentary telling a fictional account of how Disney made A Goofy Movie specifically to be the blackest movie of all time. It stands on its own, outside the continuity of the rest of the show, so even without seeing the rest of it, I highly recommend people check out that one episode.
You may not consider yourself a good networker, but I think you must be. I've been working for over 20 years now and never got a single job because of a referral.
The issue is that electing transphobes normalizes transphobia. The Democratic party is always courting votes from "moderates" and conservatives, but no one is chasing trans voters. This is basically a perfect set up for the ratchet effect: Dems stop letting trans girls play sports, Repubs celebrate their victory and move the goal posts again, and now Dems are proposing some new "middle ground" restraint on trans people.
None of my local candidates were on Erin's analysis, so I don't have a horse in that particular race. But I do think it's reasonable to refuse to vote for anyone who is willing to strip you of your rights because of your gender. I don't think it's fair to blame a marginalized group for why they're being marginalized, when the other option is to advocate for them.
Looking at a trans person and saying "vote against your interests because if you don't vote it might be worse for you quicker" is not fair or right. No one should be feeling smug when they do that, despite how much it seems to happen on Lemmy. The better, more useful, thing to do is to see if you are in any of the districts on Erin's list, and, if so, advocate for your trans allies. Call your rep and say, "Hey, I want to vote for you, but your stance on trans people doesn't align with my values." Pressure them to not implement transphobic policies. You can still plan to vote for them anyway, but they don't need to know that. Use the threat. Convince them that trans allies need to be courted, too, and Dems are not just the accepted and default candidate because "Republicans bad."
My boss had three of us on a Teams call for nearly an hour and a half yesterday because he needed our help to make one Power Point slide.
You said:
If other nations are still interacting with, conducting diplomacy with, and trading with that administration, they are accepting the leadership as legitimate. They are not running around the back to deal with or support an opposition leadership; they are accepting the results of the election as presented. That is directly in conflict with the point you put forth.
Trade is being reduced, soft power is drying up, but that is specifically because the current administration is accepted as legitimate. Everyone in the world is agreeing on who is in charge in the US, and they're pulling back as a result, but there's no circumstance where nations stop accepting Trump as the leader of the US based on the results of the midterms. Which, to your definition, makes all of those nations corrupt as well.
... so you think other nations are going to stop interacting with the United States if the US legislature is installed via bribery and corruption?
Has that happened for any other country? Let's look at the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index list, and you tell me which countries are getting kicked out of the UN or cut off from international diplomacy.
... I've got some bad news for you, friend.
They are. The less you use their services, the more money they make.
Ah, I see how it could be read that way. I was agreeing, trying to back you up. I could've been clearer. Apologies.
"That's not really the same at all" is a very confusing way to agree. My bad.
Yeah, I'm not saying Hegseth is trans. But "That's gender-affirming!" is not the gotcha people think it is unless you fundamentally have a problem with affirming gender. It turns "gender-affirming" into an insult that is okay to use against people you don't like, similar to declaring all homophobes to be closet-cases. Both perpetuate the specific type of hatred that the speaker is supposedly opposing.
Not saying it's the exact same thing, but it's similar.
It's in the same vein as people lashing out at Hegseth for wanting to give testosterone to troops that want it with, "That's gender-affirming care!"
Like.... yeah? So? Do we not want gender-affirming care to be available to people?
I've had "good" insurance for almost a decade now, but I could never find a doctor that was in-network, taking new patients, and less than 50 miles away. I was calling around locally every three months, like clockwork, for years.
I finally got lucky this week, so I've got an appointment in October. The receptionist asked me when my last physical was, and I said 2004. She said, "Oh, so not in the last year then?"
This is especially true when the guy you need to stand up to has a 32% approval rating. It's not hard to look good when you're kicking the guy no one likes, and it honestly might be the move to flip centrists away from the "woke" progressives that are winning primaries.
Not that I want that. I'd rather have the progressives win and start sending fuckers to the Hague. But I'd be shocked if there wasn't some conservative think-tank mapping out this possibility.
This is the point of the article: none of these options are good for trans people. If the choice is "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like many Republicans) or "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like the entire list in the article), then, from the perspective of preserving trans rights, there is not a choice. Electing transphobes empowers transphobes and normalizes transphobia, regardless of which letter they have next to their name.
If you're a single-issue voter who only cares about trans rights and you've seen this exact bullshit play out already across the pond, there's no vote that will make your life better.
As for this line:
So I'm not supposed to trust what a candidate tells me or how they've previously voted, and I should just assume they mean something more secretly benevolent? That's literally exactly why my in-laws voted for Trump: they didn't believe anything that was reported about Project 2025 because, and I quote, "he used to be a Democrat."
Tom Souzzi can eat my whole ass. All of Long Island is DINOs who campaign on persecuting any minority they can find. Souzzi and Schumer should go fuck off to the fantasyland where the Baileys live and let us actually make some progress.
Oh, if the Dems are only going to trample on some of my rights, I guess that's okay.
Have you not seen what's happened in the UK in the last few years? That's the playbook. Their center-left party realized that every time they take away another right from the trans community, they get more support from conservatives and only lose support with trans people that they want to exclude anyway. Transphobic Democrats will steer the party into doing the same thing here if they can.
That said, this article should've come out months ago. The best way to kick transphobes out of the party is to primary them, not let them lose in the general.
Ah, yes, Heartwood Tokens. Because red and green are notoriously bad at generating mana or accessing Treasure Tokens.
The problem is who the opinion is unpopular with. About 22% of registered voters are in the AARP, and they'd be most at risk of losing their driving privileges. Any legislator proposing this or voting for it may as well kiss their office goodbye.
I've had this in my queue for a while now; it's just hard to find time to watch movies.
Atlanta paid homage to the movie/book by making an episode entitled "The Goof Who Sat by the Door" in their fourth season. It was a fantastic mockumentary telling a fictional account of how Disney made A Goofy Movie specifically to be the blackest movie of all time. It stands on its own, outside the continuity of the rest of the show, so even without seeing the rest of it, I highly recommend people check out that one episode.
I saw walkmans and cassette tapes in the store yesterday. I was shocked.
You may not consider yourself a good networker, but I think you must be. I've been working for over 20 years now and never got a single job because of a referral.