Iāve 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 weāre being treated as politically disposable by people who used to campaign on lgbtq issues like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg.
I canāt say Iām 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 theyāll eventually axe care for all adults like everyone who was originally āworried about fairness in sportsā is currently pushing for. The only way they wonāt is if we make it a costly issue for them.
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 canāt afford to lose voters. Because if you donāt have enough votes, you canāt implement the policies you lost those votes for.
Iām not saying they should go opposite, and go anti-trans. Just that they shouldnāt fight for trans people more than any other group. For example fighting so they donāt 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.
Kill yourselves for the movement, not a great position to hold.
I donāt understand where in my comment Iām saying anyone should kill themselves.
so our assassination isnāt acceptable, but dropping HRT from Medicare isā¦ letās find the line youād take. which of these are acceptable sacrifices:
genuinely interested where your breaking point is, since the current administration is pursuing all of these.
ābathroom billsā could be a range of very different policies. A law that says ātrans women are men for the purposes of going to the bathroom and vice versaā is fine. A law that say ātrans cannot go to public bathroomsā is not. As I said, donāt give them preferential treatment (pro-trans), but donāt hurt them specifically (anti-trans).
Same with workplace discrimination protections. āBeing transā is not a firable reason just like having 4 fingers isnāt. 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 canāt find any example), the same should happen.
āGender marker changes on documentsā is way too broad of a question.
āAdoption rightsā I donāt know enough about how the adoption process works or why this is a trans issue.
āGun rightsā 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.
āMilitary serviceā this actually has something to do with trans, since some countries treat men and women differently in the military. Since itās 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 thatās not gonna happen anytime soon so no need to waste time on that.
āPublic serviceā again, too broad of a question and idk what it has to do with trans.
āPrisonsā prisons in general are very complicated and I donāt 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, thereās lots of same-sex rape in prisons going on.
āDonāt say gayā idk what those laws are about. Itās illegal to say āgayā? Anyway, it should be about ānot say transā right? In that case, thatās against free speech, you canāt make it illegal to say a word.
āSocial mediaā 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 mediaās policies. Those are private entities, not government agencies.
āBanning insuranceā kinda weird question. If the procedure is banned, the insurance too. If not, not.
āHRT for adults/minorsā 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.
āConversion therapyā I donāt 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 itās something to benefit trans specifically, donāt support it. If itās something that treats trans as inferior humans, donāt allow it.
itās not preferential treatment. you want Kim Petras to use the menās bathroom? I guarantee that will go poorly. sheāll be harassed by men who are confused why a woman is in the menās bathroom. and what about FTMs? you want to make Buck Angel use the womenās 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 doesnāt 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 driverās license or passport that reflects their gender? I look like a woman, but my passport says M because of Trumpās order.
because bigots think trans people are groomers, and want to make sure orphans only go to straight, god-fearing couples. weāre not asking for special rights, weāre asking to have the same right to adopt that you have. thatās 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 Trumpās executive order, which says we lack the āhonorā and āintegrityā required for military service.
can the government refuse to hire qualified postal workers, administrators, intelligence analysts or rocket scientists, just because theyāre trans? can the government fire all trans employees?
so letās 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 āshe.ā
conservatives are pushing for social media sites to block minors from accessing āadult content.ā theyāre 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 āadult content.ā would you support blocking access to (for example) PhilosophyTube to those who prove theyāre 18+, just because that YouTuber happens to be trans?
hold the fuck on. you were saying it was an issue of āsubsidizingā gender care. if a private insurer wants to cover HRT, thatās not a subsidy. thatās 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. thatās like banning antidepressants for suicidal people. Iāll bring enough for my community, and Iāll try to help as many of us as possible escape this hellhole.
so basically, youāre fine with laws specifically punishing trans people, removing rights we had back in the goddamn '70s, as long as theyāre not actively putting us in concentration camps?
nah fam. fuck that. Iām not voting Democrat if thatās what Dems are prepared to do. I might as well let Trump have a third term - itād be the same.
if you take my rights away, Iāll let them take yours away too.
Itās way too many topics for a single comment. Iām not even gonna respond the ones we seem to agree on.
āBathroomsā -> 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 youāre in the correct one anyway.
āGender markersā -> again, special handling for trans: donāt support.
āGunā I already answered, has nothing to do with trans.
āMilitaryā -> as I said, if men can and women can but trans canāt, thatās anti-trans. So makes no sense
āPublicā 4-finger rule applies. If you canāt do that to ppl with 4 fingers, you canāt to trans
āPrisonā as I said, if thereās serious risk of being raped, separate, just like you would with any other prisoner
āDonāt sayā -> handle like any other free speech case
āSocial mediaā are conservatives asking social media companies? Let them. Are they making it into law? Donāt
āBanning insuranceā idk what you read in my response but itās not what I wrote. Read again please. Iām saying that insuring it should be as legal as the procedure.
āHRTā smuggle if you want. The procedure is not the problem. The political capital needed to defend it is.
Btw Iām no democrat, not even American.
Idk where the concentration camp comes from. Iām saying treat them like any other person.
right, this is the major sticking point. you seem to think itās a āspecial right for trans peopleā but itās 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.
itās not a āspecial rightā for trans people to own guns. we have a 2A right to own guns, same as anyone else (since youāre 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 āmentally defective.ā) thereās no āspecial rightā for trans women to use the womenās bathroom. there werenāt any laws restricting who could use what bathroom at all until this moral panic started.
do Jews have a āspecial rightā to practice Judaism? no! all people have the right to practice their religion. banning Judaism wouldnāt be revoking a āspecial right,ā 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. weāve never been given special rights in the first place.
most trans people cannot survive without HRT. thatās why the suicide rate was so high. banning it will kill many of us - those who canāt get asylum abroad.
our deaths may be an acceptable loss to you. but I wonāt 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?