Found this 12,000 wrod article in the NY Times interesting.
Are the dems (and trans people) shooting themselves in the foot by zealously supporting trans rights? Are there any viable “moderate” positions that support trans rights but limit access to sporting events, some female-only spaces (such as prisons, women’s shelters, spas), or should/are trans men/women always be treated the same in all respects as cis men/woman, such that it’s immoral to ever distinguish the legal rights of trans people?
Should military or prisons be legally obligated to medically support transition to one’s self-understood gender? If yes, how many house seats, judges, and presidents is it worth losing to support trans rights? (The obvious answer is none will be lost, maybe other than Harris, because once the American people are appropriately educated about the true ontological and cultural status of gendered categories they will flock to the democratic party and tax cuts for billionaires, mass deportations, and public shootings will be a thing of the past.)
EDIT: The original Title of this thread was “Is Support for Trans Rights Bad Politics” and @CanadaMatt3004 changed the title to reflect his ideological position. This is obviously an abuse of mod powers and reflects the seemingly persistent need of trans rights advocates to silence opponents–in a discussion forum no less.
Seems like it really turns off the low iq people. You probably can’t form a majority coalition in a country this stupid while openly supporting trans rights. Last time dems were actually successful they ran a guy (obama) who opposed gay marriage. We live in a really backward hateful country
Trans rights are generally popular. What’s not popular is sports and surgery for minors. Those could be more popular with the right narrative, but trans activists have been terrible for trans people in the same way that Palestinian activists have achieved terrible results for Palestinians.
Are you somehow implying that dems shouldn’t run on Trans Rights and Justice for Gaza in 2028? Maybe they need to mix in Open Borders and Defund The Police if they really want to carry Iowa and Indiana in the general election?
Then again, maybe they should really nail down the Bard College womyn/ethnic studies majors demographic and hope for high turnout.
Support for any sort of progressive social change involves getting people to accept that the way things are currently done is wrong or immoral but it’s hard to sell that without making people feel judged, and a lot of progressives are smugly morally superior in the attitude so it’s a turn off to a lot of comfortable centrist people who just want good vibes, nimby, and no one to rock the boat.
Every major civil rights advancement has come at a huge political cost.
I genuinely have no idea what a progressive is if not someone who advocates for the super minority with almost zero political power. Simp seems to think that their tiny numbers and total lack of political influence is a reason to not support trans people when it’s morally the main reason we should support them.
It’s such a deeply conservative way of seeing the issue. It’s the step on those with less power to move up view of the world.
Amazing we are now doing open pro-bigotry topics here. Great and wonderful place this is that hasn’t at all been warned about what will happen if you let bigots bigot. If only ikes would invite simp to SPE. Easy solution.
Ignoring your persistent straw manning, this is a thread about politics. Assume I am a major supporter of trans rights, like many quoted in the NYTimes article, how many elections are you willing to lose while the nontrivial gains made for trans rights over the last decade are gradually stripped away? It’s an easy solution if you just assume that the Trump-voting public is actually secretly on your side or will be shortly. Either that, or maybe there will be a 9-0 majority of religious conservatives on the supreme court for another 50 years. I’m willing to throw some trans goals under the bus, akin to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and see how things develop over the next 10-20 years.
why are we sacrificing people’s civil rights and lives when we simply need to message better? i’m not willing to sacrifice diversity and inclusion programs to appease bigots, we just need to find a way to show people the truth that diversity is our strength. the dems are just so fucking bad at messaging and they dont want to stop funneling money to the same consultants that tell them to fuck vulnerable people over for a quick buck.
if one person is oppressed than we are all oppressed and we should respond like it.
