Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 11:45:53 AM
https://x.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1854518313654821239
How can the left treat transgender people like humans and still win elections? Jesse Kelly is correct that it's a tiny population that a lot of people think is gross. But they are still humans that deserve rights, no?
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 07, 2024, 11:55:38 AM
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 11:56:17 AM
I think they would be better off taking a strong stance for transgender kids in sports. I think we saw that taking a strong stance of "protecting these people is the right thing to do" can be effective if you look at how the NC bathroom bill was handled. If you ignore it or try to move to the right on it, 'pubs will hound you to death over it.
Note I think this is a recurring problem for Kamala's campaign - it doesn't matter if Kamala says she's pro-fracking and owns a glock, she's still going to be anti-oil and anti-gun so you might as well take a better principled stance.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 07, 2024, 12:03:18 PM
One thing I think is the pronouns in bio need to stop. it really triggers snowflakes and doesn't add a ton of "human rights" value IMO.
I think they would be better off taking a strong stance for transgender kids in sports. I think we saw that taking a strong stance of "protecting these people is the right thing to do" can be effective if you look at how the NC bathroom bill was handled. If you ignore it or try to move to the right on it, 'pubs will hound you to death over it.
Note I think this is a recurring problem for Kamala's campaign - it doesn't matter if Kamala says she's pro-fracking and owns a glock, she's still going to be anti-oil and anti-gun so you might as well take a better principled stance.
Agree, but we've talked about this in other threads. A D could literally show off their gun case while conducting the sermon at their local anti abortion church and the Right would be able to convince their side none of it is true. If a "more principled stance" means being more progressive or left, they will lose the middle. Again, R's don't care. They will obviously vote R no matter who is running. The democrats have to figure out how to get everyone motivated. I'm honestly not sure how they do it.
Post by: hjfklmor on November 07, 2024, 12:09:55 PM
A big part of it is just how great the R political machine is. They can just sit around a wait for the Ds to do or embrace something and attack it to death. This riles up the social media folks and gets them involved and voting and they know the rest of the Rs are going to vote with them no matter what. The transgender thing obviously helped and was working. Most of the ads didn't even make any sense. They just added transgender people or taglines to their commercials. The right is great at this.
I don't even see how you can say the Ds embraced this issue. Harris seemed to actively avoid discussing it. Same with pronouns in bios - I don't recall any of that talk from the campaign or its messaging. They get hammered by these issues and the wild things some leftists say and do online, and have to answer, politically, for stances they've never made. Meanwhile Republicans seemingly don't have to answer for the wild crap the politicians themselves actually say. I don't really know how you solve that problem.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 12:11:46 PM
I think you can be anti-fracking in PA if you talk about the environmental impact and have plans in place to help the local economies supported by fracking
With transgenders it's definitely trickier, but I think if you start by focusing on "how about we let these law-abiding humans who hurt absolutely no one live normal human lives in peace" and highlight the cruelty Jesse Kelly is espousing you can limit the damage at least
I keep going back to the bathroom bill response.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 12:13:59 PM
A big part of it is just how great the R political machine is. They can just sit around a wait for the Ds to do or embrace something and attack it to death. This riles up the social media folks and gets them involved and voting and they know the rest of the Rs are going to vote with them no matter what. The transgender thing obviously helped and was working. Most of the ads didn't even make any sense. They just added transgender people or taglines to their commercials. The right is great at this.
I don't even see how you can say the Ds embraced this issue. Harris seemed to actively avoid discussing it. Same with pronouns in bios - I don't recall any of that talk from the campaign or its messaging. They get hammered by these issues and the wild things some leftists say and do online, and have to answer, politically, for stances they've never made. Meanwhile Republicans seemingly don't have to answer for the wild crap the politicians themselves actually say. I don't really know how you solve that problem.
they did have a pretty rough clip of her saying "convicted criminals should get sex change operations". politicians can't be doing that. They should be saying "Health care is between a patient and physician, even among prisoners because we aren't a cruel nation". (obviously have someone jazz it up a bit.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 07, 2024, 12:15:47 PM
A big part of it is just how great the R political machine is. They can just sit around a wait for the Ds to do or embrace something and attack it to death. This riles up the social media folks and gets them involved and voting and they know the rest of the Rs are going to vote with them no matter what. The transgender thing obviously helped and was working. Most of the ads didn't even make any sense. They just added transgender people or taglines to their commercials. The right is great at this.
I don't even see how you can say the Ds embraced this issue. Harris seemed to actively avoid discussing it. Same with pronouns in bios - I don't recall any of that talk from the campaign or its messaging. They get hammered by these issues and the wild things some leftists say and do online, and have to answer, politically, for stances they've never made. Meanwhile Republicans seemingly don't have to answer for the wild crap the politicians themselves actually say. I don't really know how you solve that problem.
yep, see my post above. I have no idea either. Trump can say whatever crazy crap he wants. There was a meme a while back that is spot on. Transgender person "I just want to be who I am". Republican "Stop shoving this stuff in our faces!!!!!!!!" I never saw one ad about this issue from Ds. It was in every R commercial. They are very good at this stuff.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 12:18:47 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2024, 12:20:39 PM
If anyone disagrees with us it's an attack
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 12:27:10 PM
I do, however, continue to feel it’s ridiculous to list more than one. Why do “he/him/his” when you can just do “he.” Pick either he, she, they, or leave it blank, imo.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 12:33:59 PM
In short I agree with the Jesse Kelly take tbh. Working out in the field next to a lot of guys who'd support trump if they could (from Canada) or would get riled up about it you get to see their side of it, or why they feel the way they do about stuff like this, and frankly this is what dems gotta do in order to win the working class back.
I think what is lost in the conversation (and you see articles/discussions dancing around this), is when someone doesn't like transgendered or gay or whatever, they are automatically anti-gay, or anti-trangendered, or whatever, when they simply maybe uncomfortable with it no differently than someone maybe uncomfortable with talking about politics at work. It doesn't make them anti-politics, they just aren't going to something in a place that is not really for that. It's rather benign angst. But once you label it against them, then you draw a hard line in the sand, and well, it's hard to come back from that, and they embrace being against something they already were not a fan of. Hence their feelings about it being talked about in school. You're forcing their hand to have to accept, to have to do this, when it's often shades of acceptance.
Most I think are generally ok with someone being transgendered, live and let live, but to them they see this as why do I have to declare it, why do I have to even think about, I maybe see one never or barely ever, why is this something I now have to consider. It's just extra noise in an already chaotic life to them, and realistically for most people. They have food they need to put on the table, they got bills to pay, why is this even something we got to talk about on a national scale (to them).
Like anecdotally from election night I remember when the Delaware race for the house was called and they specifically called it out amongst all the other 435 house races they could talk about how important it was to celebrate a transgendered person being elected to congress. If a trumper was there you could easily hear a slur, but in general I think the collective groan that person would have would manifest as more as "omg who cares!" And if they were able to articulate it more "omg who cares, all I want to know is what this person believes in or is going to do for me, I literally don't want to know or think anymore about this." And that is how they feel. so to Jesse's point, it's like an unnecessary poking of a bear.
It's taking a very personal journey of growth and acceptance and making it feel or act like policy when it simply doesn't matter to them and there are 1834582 problems that need to be solved rather than wondering of this person should play against boys or girls.
Do I want people to care and be more compassionate? Absolutely. Should people feel accepted, 100%. Should it guide policy, these elections seem to say no. How do we still make people feel accepted on a national scale? IDK, probably just talk more about actually being inclusive while not making it defining. Supportive but not discussed much. Still perosnally workshopping that.
Post by: hjfklmor on November 07, 2024, 12:35:30 PM
A big part of it is just how great the R political machine is. They can just sit around a wait for the Ds to do or embrace something and attack it to death. This riles up the social media folks and gets them involved and voting and they know the rest of the Rs are going to vote with them no matter what. The transgender thing obviously helped and was working. Most of the ads didn't even make any sense. They just added transgender people or taglines to their commercials. The right is great at this.
I don't even see how you can say the Ds embraced this issue. Harris seemed to actively avoid discussing it. Same with pronouns in bios - I don't recall any of that talk from the campaign or its messaging. They get hammered by these issues and the wild things some leftists say and do online, and have to answer, politically, for stances they've never made. Meanwhile Republicans seemingly don't have to answer for the wild crap the politicians themselves actually say. I don't really know how you solve that problem.
they did have a pretty rough clip of her saying "convicted criminals should get sex change operations". politicians can't be doing that. They should be saying "Health care is between a patient and physician, even among prisoners because we aren't a cruel nation". (obviously have someone jazz it up a bit.
This is not really the context of this thread but my frustration lies in Harris taking heat for that clip (understandably, I suppose, given the feelings of the general populace on this issue) but then Trump saying things like we need to root out the enemy within and it not mattering even slightly. One side needs to tread so lightly and be aware that "politicians can't be doing that" and the other gets to rant about Jewish space lasers.
Again, not the point of this thread and I have no ideas. Just venting I suppose.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2024, 12:41:15 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2024, 12:53:51 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 01:01:11 PM
Most I think are generally ok with someone being transgendered, live and let live, but to them they see this as why do I have to declare it, why do I have to even think about, I maybe see one never or barely ever, why is this something I now have to consider. It's just extra noise in an already chaotic life to them, and realistically for most people. They have food they need to put on the table, they got bills to pay, why is this even something we got to talk about on a national scale (to them).
overall I enjoyed your post but this stuck out to me as questions a transgender could ask as well! They don't want to consider if they can get the health care they need or play a sport. they just want to live their lives. Maybe some want to be in the face of conservatives, but I doubt many do.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 01:06:09 PM
I think with this R's are good at making this a false trolley problem, and remember the ads are made to inflame, but if basic home economic stuff aren't being considered then you aren't seeing the choice made in front of them. Not able to put food on the table? Well those dems are only offering support to these *pick a group*. And that person is making that choose to pull the level onto that group every time.
And yeah, that messaging trump has of they/them vs you is perfect, as it's specific to the voter, and paints the dems as only supporting a small, small sect. In general if a dem is asked "do you support *pick a group* the answer is my policies support all groups, that group, white, black, Latino, gay and straight, this is about us."
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 01:20:57 PM
Most I think are generally ok with someone being transgendered, live and let live, but to them they see this as why do I have to declare it, why do I have to even think about, I maybe see one never or barely ever, why is this something I now have to consider. It's just extra noise in an already chaotic life to them, and realistically for most people. They have food they need to put on the table, they got bills to pay, why is this even something we got to talk about on a national scale (to them).
overall I enjoyed your post but this stuck out to me as questions a transgender could ask as well! They don't want to consider if they can get the health care they need or play a sport. they just want to live their lives. Maybe some want to be in the face of conservatives, but I doubt many do.
Absolutely, in a different way (and not to make this about climate change, just messaging) it's like voicing support for renewables as "home grown" or "onsite energy production" or "energy independence", that kind of self determination many pubs love. Imagine how many pubs you could get if you said "hey get this wind and solar at your house and never pay an electric bill again, and it'll pay itself off in X years" you get a lot more people interested.
If you only talk about climate change (which is nebulous to most people), as "we need to shut down coal/gas" you're messaging it as "I want the industry to die and the people who work it it to go out of work". If you say "hey we need to transition, here is how, here is how I will make sure you're taken care of during this, and we're gaining energy independence and reducing reliance or foreign oil and it will create opportunity and jobs this way" instead of talking about whether or not the planet is going to survive. You get a lot of people on board. If you stop talking about the science part (which most don't understand), and instead talk about how doing this benefits them, today, and not something that is 25-50 years from now, it clicks with people who aren't college educated, which is to say, most people.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 07, 2024, 01:22:59 PM
If anyone disagrees with us it's an attack
My stance is that all people should be treated equally. I personally think it's weird if you disagree with that. I'm well aware that a large part of the voting public disagrees with me.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 07, 2024, 01:29:27 PM
Also a few more thoughts,
I think with this R's are good at making this a false trolley problem, and remember the ads are made to inflame, but if basic home economic stuff aren't being considered then you aren't seeing the choice made in front of them. Not able to put food on the table? Well those dems are only offering support to these *pick a group*. And that person is making that choose to pull the level onto that group every time.
And yeah, that messaging trump has of they/them vs you is perfect, as it's specific to the voter, and paints the dems as only supporting a small, small sect. In general if a dem is asked "do you support *pick a group* the answer is my policies support all groups, that group, white, black, Latino, gay and straight, this is about us."
Agree with this. I'm always just curious why it works so well on the R side. D's try this all the time with "Rs are for the rich". The one ad they ran with the video of Trump telling people that they were rich as hell and he was just going to make them richer if he got elected was a pretty damn good ad in my opinion, yet it obviously didn't resonate.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 07, 2024, 02:08:55 PM
and right about here would be the part where someone like _33 is going to come in and say "oh so voting R makes me a homophobe? got it." so I'm going to explain what i mean.
I think there are a large amount of perfectly decent, polite, upstanding people who think homosexuality, or being transexual, is icky and they would just prefer to not have to deal with it in any way shape or form. Does finding something icky automatically make you a transphobe? No, of course not. Just because I don't like onions doesn't make me anti-vegetable or mean i want to ban all onions. But its not socially acceptable to say that part out loud. So then its like huh well in terms of policy most of it really isn't going to affect me one way or the other whether its an R or a D in power (it actually probably will but i'm too sure of myself to bother checking), but the R will actively fight to make sure that <the thing i find scary or icky> is outlawed or at the very least not welcomed or encouraged and its okay to be discouraging of it. And then at that point its just a matter of finding An Incident to justify this incredibly valid stance. An undocumented migrant kills a US citizen. A girl doesn't make the swim team because a trans person amab made the team and took their spot. Does it matter than the number of instances this happens is statistically irrelevant? Does it make any kind of sense to base your voting on something that (directly) affects like 0.0075% of the population? No. because i don't like things that i find scary or don't understand and i want it to be okay for me to say it without fear of being ostricized.
If there is a better explanation I would love to know what it is, because i don't like the thought of the general public being juuuuuust X-phobic enough that they are going to vote for policy making that scary thing go away, even if it means 99% of every other policy is going to be very demonstrably against their own interests. But if that is indeed the case here, then like well folks...a facist dictator is apparently what we want. I am in the minority apparently, but if the majority of We The People want a facist then it would be very ironic for me to get upset when we make policy that reflects the will of the many over the will of the few.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 07, 2024, 02:15:12 PM
The fact that Raphael "Ted" Cruz...a guy who quite literally boarded on a plane to go to Cancun as his constituents were dying from freezing to death because of the shitshow of a power grid that Texas has (because there is no legislation forcing the power companies to provide sufficient infrastructure instead of just lining their pockets) -- the fact that THAT GUY actually GAINED POPULARITY in this election compared to 6 years ago is just proof that he knows what people actually care about.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2024, 02:17:55 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 02:23:53 PM
Also a few more thoughts,
I think with this R's are good at making this a false trolley problem, and remember the ads are made to inflame, but if basic home economic stuff aren't being considered then you aren't seeing the choice made in front of them. Not able to put food on the table? Well those dems are only offering support to these *pick a group*. And that person is making that choose to pull the level onto that group every time.
And yeah, that messaging trump has of they/them vs you is perfect, as it's specific to the voter, and paints the dems as only supporting a small, small sect. In general if a dem is asked "do you support *pick a group* the answer is my policies support all groups, that group, white, black, Latino, gay and straight, this is about us."
Agree with this. I'm always just curious why it works so well on the R side. D's try this all the time with "Rs are for the rich". The one ad they ran with the video of Trump telling people that they were rich as hell and he was just going to make them richer if he got elected was a pretty damn good ad in my opinion, yet it obviously didn't resonate.
Yeah, it's a little harder and this is just a guess, is the message needs to be less "he's going to make him/billionaires rich" or the "pay their fair share" one, and more "his policies are making you poorer/have to pay more/cut your social services here to pay for their tax cut." Elon/Trump getting richer doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you understand it's coming from your pocket or coming at the expense of your healthcare, your education, your prosperity, etc. Make it personal. Their tax cut hurts you and this is why.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 07, 2024, 02:27:06 PM
Post by: Spracne on November 07, 2024, 02:35:13 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/
I'm fine with a both/neither standard.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 02:49:55 PM
I think there are a couple of different things at play here. First and foremost - and i'm having a hard time accepting this one but i'm not sure how else to square it -- i think that a large percentage of our population are just the necessary amount of racist/homophobic/xenophobic/whateverophobic that it actually has become a plurality of what is important to them when they go to vote.
and right about here would be the part where someone like _33 is going to come in and say "oh so voting R makes me a homophobe? got it." so I'm going to explain what i mean.
I think there are a large amount of perfectly decent, polite, upstanding people who think homosexuality, or being transexual, is icky and they would just prefer to not have to deal with it in any way shape or form. Does finding something icky automatically make you a transphobe? No, of course not. Just because I don't like onions doesn't make me anti-vegetable or mean i want to ban all onions. But its not socially acceptable to say that part out loud. So then its like huh well in terms of policy most of it really isn't going to affect me one way or the other whether its an R or a D in power (it actually probably will but i'm too sure of myself to bother checking), but the R will actively fight to make sure that <the thing i find scary or icky> is outlawed or at the very least not welcomed or encouraged and its okay to be discouraging of it. And then at that point its just a matter of finding An Incident to justify this incredibly valid stance. An undocumented migrant kills a US citizen. A girl doesn't make the swim team because a trans person amab made the team and took their spot. Does it matter than the number of instances this happens is statistically irrelevant? Does it make any kind of sense to base your voting on something that (directly) affects like 0.0075% of the population? No. because i don't like things that i find scary or don't understand and i want it to be okay for me to say it without fear of being ostricized.
If there is a better explanation I would love to know what it is, because i don't like the thought of the general public being juuuuuust X-phobic enough that they are going to vote for policy making that scary thing go away, even if it means 99% of every other policy is going to be very demonstrably against their own interests. But if that is indeed the case here, then like well folks...a facist dictator is apparently what we want. I am in the minority apparently, but if the majority of We The People want a facist then it would be very ironic for me to get upset when we make policy that reflects the will of the many over the will of the few.
You're pretty close to what I think about it but looking at it a from a different angle, which is good to see. I think the play is less specifically trying to do the ban on certain people, but more using the 'ick" feeling to drive that engagement to a fever pitch. As you said in general most of these people aren't really bad, nor most these people even want a ban or whatever or could again care less when brought down from a frenzy, I think it's bacon bits to a foundation of using people's fear they can't make ends meet, and the small whateverophobic part is a focus of that unease, and then casting that unease to be the dems are the ones progressing this unease, they are making you feel this way, and we will make you feel comfortable again by removing that problem, amongst others.
It's definitely can take a fascist slant, and I no doubt many would be ok with that. But it's like they already know this group is hurting financially, and people who are usually in distress are families cause kids are expensive AF, and many families are traditional so why not say it's destroying them, or that it could be their daughter not making the team. You already got their attention with a bad economy and an alternative to that, why not throw in other things that you already are uneasy or could be made uneasy about.
To me still, if you had a healthy, thriving middle class and strong economy and no inflation, and trump came along talking about border walls and banning transgender people, you'd get some support, but it would not move the needle, cause now he's trying to cobble together a small group of people who are passionate yes, but ultimately unaffected by it.
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 05:00:12 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
Post by: DQ12 on November 07, 2024, 05:17:46 PM
I think the right probably has a similar problem with the pro-lifer types (ahem) and how far to the left they can get on the abortion issue (to grab some of that meaty center of the electorate) before they scare off the hardcore pro-lifers into voting for the american solidarity party or whatever.
As I think about it, this same thing probably exists for like, dozens of platform issues on either side. I'm leaving my post up even though everything i'm saying is completely obvious and none of it has any substantive value.
Post by: nicname on November 07, 2024, 05:23:08 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
Post by: steve dave on November 07, 2024, 05:31:47 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
ben shapiro is jewish but that doesn't matter in this instance.
Post by: nicname on November 07, 2024, 05:43:33 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
ben shapiro is jewish but that doesn't matter in this instance.
What general flavor of Christianity would you most closely approximate Orthodox Judaism to?
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 06:03:24 PM
I literally had no ideahttps://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
ben shapiro is jewish but that doesn't matter in this instance.
Post by: nicname on November 07, 2024, 06:08:09 PM
I literally had no ideahttps://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
ben shapiro is jewish but that doesn't matter in this instance.
lol, I kind of grunched the earlier Shapiro mention.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 06:08:42 PM
I think there's probably a tough balance to strike for both parties. I imagine there's probably a sweet spot somewhere for the left where they don't completely alienate the lgbt community while maintaining the more centrist/"normie" groups. Where exactly that line is, i don't know.
I think the right probably has a similar problem with the pro-lifer types (ahem) and how far to the left they can get on the abortion issue (to grab some of that meaty center of the electorate) before they scare off the hardcore pro-lifers into voting for the american solidarity party or whatever.
As I think about it, this same thing probably exists for like, dozens of platform issues on either side. I'm leaving my post up even though everything i'm saying is completely obvious and none of it has any substantive value.
I think your thoughts on abortion are interesting (and useful!). But I don't think there's much pressure from the right to do more than what has been done. Trump said he'd veto national abortion bans and it was the best Republican result in decades
Post by: Spracne on November 07, 2024, 06:14:32 PM
https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
ben shapiro is jewish but that doesn't matter in this instance.
What general flavor of Christianity would you most closely approximate Orthodox Judaism to?
Lutherans minus Jesus.
And I don't really know what you mean by "Apostlic succession," "problematic expressions of the Faith," or "affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners," but I submit that the fact we are using phrases like that in this thread is problematic in itself. Kinda weird how yla snuck a little Christian persecution complex into the discussion.
I meant what I said earlier about trading talk about sexuality/gender for talk about religious topics in schools. Let both happen organically, if at all.
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 06:15:54 PM
I don’t think that continuum really exists or is an indication of anything. Even within Catholic communities, the treatment of marginalized groups and focus on biblical teachings can be very different.https://www.instagram.com/anthonyblogan/reel/CvstLl1RSi-/This could be a plant for all I know but the point is a valid one. No one is immune to bigotry and a lot of the time their feelings come down to a gross oversimplification of who they perceive a given group to be.
I know a lot of people who perceive a “Christian” to be a Ben Shapiro type or even Trump brandishing a Bible for a photo op. They really are about as ignorant of what it means as many people seem to think about kids that go to school and get a surprise sex change.
In my experience, generally the further a church is distanced from Apostlic succession, the likelier it is to veer into problematic expressions of the Faith; including affirmation and condemnation of sin/sinners.
There are also Bible churches completely outside of what you’d call Apostolic succession that fall on opposite ends of the spectrum, some of which are probably truer to apostolic teachings (as evidenced in the New Testament) than the Catholic Church.
Post by: DQ12 on November 07, 2024, 06:44:29 PM
There’s pressure but it’s not very loud. Pro lifers are (understandably) still grateful for Dobbs. But as the Dobbs afterglow wears off, along with pro-choice sentiment increasing support more broadly, the next Republican ticket will have to try to be as center as possible without totally alienating the hardcore folks. Vance in the debate aligned a lot closer to me than Trump has, which probably means Vance’s message was too hardcore for the middle.I think there's probably a tough balance to strike for both parties. I imagine there's probably a sweet spot somewhere for the left where they don't completely alienate the lgbt community while maintaining the more centrist/"normie" groups. Where exactly that line is, i don't know.
I think the right probably has a similar problem with the pro-lifer types (ahem) and how far to the left they can get on the abortion issue (to grab some of that meaty center of the electorate) before they scare off the hardcore pro-lifers into voting for the american solidarity party or whatever.
As I think about it, this same thing probably exists for like, dozens of platform issues on either side. I'm leaving my post up even though everything i'm saying is completely obvious and none of it has any substantive value.
I think your thoughts on abortion are interesting (and useful!). But I don't think there's much pressure from the right to do more than what has been done. Trump said he'd veto national abortion bans and it was the best Republican result in decades
Again though, this phenomenon exists with basically every discreet issue. Be as centrist as you can without losing “the base.” I think the same is the case for LGBT stuff with dems. How far to the center can they get (in order to not disqualify the “working class” types) while keeping the hardcore LGBT’rs in line?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 07, 2024, 06:53:51 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 08:57:38 PM
There’s pressure but it’s not very loud. Pro lifers are (understandably) still grateful for Dobbs. But as the Dobbs afterglow wears off, along with pro-choice sentiment increasing support more broadly, the next Republican ticket will have to try to be as center as possible without totally alienating the hardcore folks. Vance in the debate aligned a lot closer to me than Trump has, which probably means Vance’s message was too hardcore for the middle.I think there's probably a tough balance to strike for both parties. I imagine there's probably a sweet spot somewhere for the left where they don't completely alienate the lgbt community while maintaining the more centrist/"normie" groups. Where exactly that line is, i don't know.
I think the right probably has a similar problem with the pro-lifer types (ahem) and how far to the left they can get on the abortion issue (to grab some of that meaty center of the electorate) before they scare off the hardcore pro-lifers into voting for the american solidarity party or whatever.
As I think about it, this same thing probably exists for like, dozens of platform issues on either side. I'm leaving my post up even though everything i'm saying is completely obvious and none of it has any substantive value.
I think your thoughts on abortion are interesting (and useful!). But I don't think there's much pressure from the right to do more than what has been done. Trump said he'd veto national abortion bans and it was the best Republican result in decades
Again though, this phenomenon exists with basically every discreet issue. Be as centrist as you can without losing “the base.” I think the same is the case for LGBT stuff with dems. How far to the center can they get (in order to not disqualify the “working class” types) while keeping the hardcore LGBT’rs in line?
I really think the most potentially insurmountable challenge with trans rights is trans girls playing girls sports. Which is really an absurd thing to worry about when you look at how often it happens but does the most damage to the center IMO. I don't know how to do it but I still think the best way I've seen a politician handle it is the Utah governor's veto announcement
https://governor.utah.gov/2022/03/24/gov-cox-why-im-vetoing-hb11/
I hadn't read it in a while and introducing a panel/committee to ensure the trans kids' participation is safe and fair for everyone seems like a pretty good compromise. (Really I think safety should be all that matters but it's compromise!) I would hope that could address a lot of fears while also keeping LGBT activists engaged and most importantly ensuring trans kids are mostly treated like regular kids
Post by: Spracne on November 07, 2024, 09:47:47 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 07, 2024, 09:59:11 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 10:02:30 PM
I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I leave that to medical professionals and the individuals and families involved, for both social and medical transitions. It's none of my business
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 10:04:27 PM
I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?I think it depends on whether you consider puberty blockers a part of transitioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, I personally think parents are the primary decision makers if you’re talking before 18 (you can of course pick an earlier age but they’re all arbitrary so why not the most socially acceptable).
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 07, 2024, 10:07:51 PM
I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The day of the gender reveal party.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 10:12:50 PM
I agree parents need to involved for medical transition but I'm not totally sold they need to be involved for some levels of social transition. My daughter has a friend in who is they/them around friends and at school but she/her at home because her mom is Russian and would freak the eff out. I don't quite understand it, but it's not really my business and it seems to work out ok.I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?I think it depends on whether you consider puberty blockers a part of transitioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, I personally think parents are the primary decision makers if you’re talking before 18 (you can of course pick an earlier age but they’re all arbitrary so why not the most socially acceptable).
Post by: catastrophe on November 07, 2024, 10:29:07 PM
Sure and I wasn’t really appreciating those distinctions in my response. Just as a general matter I do think kids (as human beings) are generally responsible for their social presentation/interactions.I agree parents need to involved for medical transition but I'm not totally sold they need to be involved for some levels of social transition. My daughter has a friend in who is they/them around friends and at school but she/her at home because her mom is Russian and would freak the eff out. I don't quite understand it, but it's not really my business and it seems to work out ok.I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?I think it depends on whether you consider puberty blockers a part of transitioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, I personally think parents are the primary decision makers if you’re talking before 18 (you can of course pick an earlier age but they’re all arbitrary so why not the most socially acceptable).
I will say, though, that I’d be pissed if my kid’s teacher never told me they were insisting that everyone at school refer to them as a different gender.
Post by: _33 on November 07, 2024, 10:34:59 PM
and right about here would be the part where someone like _33 is going to come in and say "oh so voting R makes me a homophobe? got it." so I'm going to explain what i mean.
I'm an amazing poster who would never say anything so lame. Please don't attribute your shitty fake posts to me.
Post by: michigancat on November 07, 2024, 10:40:43 PM
Sure and I wasn’t really appreciating those distinctions in my response. Just as a general matter I do think kids (as human beings) are generally responsible for their social presentation/interactions.I agree parents need to involved for medical transition but I'm not totally sold they need to be involved for some levels of social transition. My daughter has a friend in who is they/them around friends and at school but she/her at home because her mom is Russian and would freak the eff out. I don't quite understand it, but it's not really my business and it seems to work out ok.I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?I think it depends on whether you consider puberty blockers a part of transitioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, I personally think parents are the primary decision makers if you’re talking before 18 (you can of course pick an earlier age but they’re all arbitrary so why not the most socially acceptable).
I will say, though, that I’d be pissed if my kid’s teacher never told me they were insisting that everyone at school refer to them as a different gender.
Yeah I totally get it. On the flip side I can also understand how plenty of kids might look at school as a safer place to begin transitioning than home. Data for how often this happens and the outcomes for the kids would be really interesting
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 07, 2024, 10:45:38 PM
Sure and I wasn’t really appreciating those distinctions in my response. Just as a general matter I do think kids (as human beings) are generally responsible for their social presentation/interactions.I agree parents need to involved for medical transition but I'm not totally sold they need to be involved for some levels of social transition. My daughter has a friend in who is they/them around friends and at school but she/her at home because her mom is Russian and would freak the eff out. I don't quite understand it, but it's not really my business and it seems to work out ok.I’m just wondering, do we have an age where it’s appropriate to start transitioning?I think it depends on whether you consider puberty blockers a part of transitioning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, I personally think parents are the primary decision makers if you’re talking before 18 (you can of course pick an earlier age but they’re all arbitrary so why not the most socially acceptable).
I will say, though, that I’d be pissed if my kid’s teacher never told me they were insisting that everyone at school refer to them as a different gender.
Yeah I totally get it. On the flip side I can also understand how plenty of kids might look at school as a safer place to begin transitioning than home. Data for how often this happens and the outcomes for the kids would be really interesting
Looking back on when I was in high school, this is just wild to me. Kids must be a whole lot nicer than they used to be.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2024, 10:46:49 PM
There’s pressure but it’s not very loud. Pro lifers are (understandably) still grateful for Dobbs. But as the Dobbs afterglow wears off, along with pro-choice sentiment increasing support more broadly, the next Republican ticket will have to try to be as center as possible without totally alienating the hardcore folks. Vance in the debate aligned a lot closer to me than Trump has, which probably means Vance’s message was too hardcore for the middle.I think there's probably a tough balance to strike for both parties. I imagine there's probably a sweet spot somewhere for the left where they don't completely alienate the lgbt community while maintaining the more centrist/"normie" groups. Where exactly that line is, i don't know.
I think the right probably has a similar problem with the pro-lifer types (ahem) and how far to the left they can get on the abortion issue (to grab some of that meaty center of the electorate) before they scare off the hardcore pro-lifers into voting for the american solidarity party or whatever.
As I think about it, this same thing probably exists for like, dozens of platform issues on either side. I'm leaving my post up even though everything i'm saying is completely obvious and none of it has any substantive value.
I think your thoughts on abortion are interesting (and useful!). But I don't think there's much pressure from the right to do more than what has been done. Trump said he'd veto national abortion bans and it was the best Republican result in decades
Again though, this phenomenon exists with basically every discreet issue. Be as centrist as you can without losing “the base.” I think the same is the case for LGBT stuff with dems. How far to the center can they get (in order to not disqualify the “working class” types) while keeping the hardcore LGBT’rs in line?
I really think the most potentially insurmountable challenge with trans rights is trans girls playing girls sports. Which is really an absurd thing to worry about when you look at how often it happens but does the most damage to the center IMO. I don't know how to do it but I still think the best way I've seen a politician handle it is the Utah governor's veto announcement
https://governor.utah.gov/2022/03/24/gov-cox-why-im-vetoing-hb11/
I hadn't read it in a while and introducing a panel/committee to ensure the trans kids' participation is safe and fair for everyone seems like a pretty good compromise. (Really I think safety should be all that matters but it's compromise!) I would hope that could address a lot of fears while also keeping LGBT activists engaged and most importantly ensuring trans kids are mostly treated like regular kids
They deserve care and respect, truly. I'm sure I'll get harassed, but willing to be corrected. My compromise for anyone transitioning is they be in a "men's" league, and then women in a "women's". I'm sure being sexist , transphobic or something. I just think it's the most fair. FTR if any woman is good enough to be in the "men's" league they can and should.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 06:59:34 AM
I really think the most potentially insurmountable challenge with trans rights is trans girls playing girls sports. Which is really an absurd thing to worry about when you look at how often it happens but does the most damage to the center IMO. I don't know how to do it but I still think the best way I've seen a politician handle it is the Utah governor's veto announcement
https://governor.utah.gov/2022/03/24/gov-cox-why-im-vetoing-hb11/
I hadn't read it in a while and introducing a panel/committee to ensure the trans kids' participation is safe and fair for everyone seems like a pretty good compromise. (Really I think safety should be all that matters but it's compromise!) I would hope that could address a lot of fears while also keeping LGBT activists engaged and most importantly ensuring trans kids are mostly treated like regular kids
They deserve care and respect, truly. I'm sure I'll get harassed, but willing to be corrected. My compromise for anyone transitioning is they be in a "men's" league, and then women in a "women's". I'm sure being sexist , transphobic or something. I just think it's the most fair. FTR if any woman is good enough to be in the "men's" league they can and should.
Honestly, your compromise is a natural response for most people who didn't know transgenderism was a thing until they became adults. I don't think you're being sexist or transphobic, you're just someone who truly wants what's fair and is willing to take in new information.
As to leagues for people transitioning, you say "men's" and "women's" leagues. If I were in politics, I would ignore adult sports - pro leagues, olympics, rec leagues - they can set whatever policies they want. NCAA is a bit of a gray area because of all the government money wrapped up in college sports, but IMO in leagues for kids, "fairness" of competition should come second to allowing trans kids a safe place to compete as their new identity.
I am going to sound crass (and do not recommend a democrat politician using this language), but youth sports results flat out don't matter. As long as people are safe, it is just about having fun, competing, and being part of a community. Your kid will not lose a scholarship to a trans kid, will not miss a spot on the olympics team, will really not be impacted at all by transgenders competing with them. On the flip side, the lives of trans kids could be enormously impacted by not being allowed to play a sport, because it takes away a space for them to do something they enjoy and be themselves. Competing in the gender they don't want to could be absolutely humiliating for many of them and lead to any number of harmful outcomes. They are often scared, confused, and most importantly fragile children, and we should treat them with as much kindness and respect as possible.
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 07:44:27 AM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 07:52:31 AM
I don’t understand what the proposed “compromise” is.
It's briefly explained in the Utah governor link, but basically they were proposing a committee to review each individual case if a transgender child wanted to play sports to ensure safety and fair competition were protected. The more extreme positions would be an outright ban on trans kids competing with their preferred gender or allowing kids to compete with their preferred gender in all cases no questions asked.
Post by: _33 on November 08, 2024, 07:57:04 AM
I really think the most potentially insurmountable challenge with trans rights is trans girls playing girls sports. Which is really an absurd thing to worry about when you look at how often it happens but does the most damage to the center IMO. I don't know how to do it but I still think the best way I've seen a politician handle it is the Utah governor's veto announcement
https://governor.utah.gov/2022/03/24/gov-cox-why-im-vetoing-hb11/
I hadn't read it in a while and introducing a panel/committee to ensure the trans kids' participation is safe and fair for everyone seems like a pretty good compromise. (Really I think safety should be all that matters but it's compromise!) I would hope that could address a lot of fears while also keeping LGBT activists engaged and most importantly ensuring trans kids are mostly treated like regular kids
They deserve care and respect, truly. I'm sure I'll get harassed, but willing to be corrected. My compromise for anyone transitioning is they be in a "men's" league, and then women in a "women's". I'm sure being sexist , transphobic or something. I just think it's the most fair. FTR if any woman is good enough to be in the "men's" league they can and should.
Honestly, your compromise is a natural response for most people who didn't know transgenderism was a thing until they became adults. I don't think you're being sexist or transphobic, you're just someone who truly wants what's fair and is willing to take in new information.
As to leagues for people transitioning, you say "men's" and "women's" leagues. If I were in politics, I would ignore adult sports - pro leagues, olympics, rec leagues - they can set whatever policies they want. NCAA is a bit of a gray area because of all the government money wrapped up in college sports, but IMO in leagues for kids, "fairness" of competition should come second to allowing trans kids a safe place to compete as their new identity.
I am going to sound crass (and do not recommend a democrat politician using this language), but youth sports results flat out don't matter. As long as people are safe, it is just about having fun, competing, and being part of a community. Your kid will not lose a scholarship to a trans kid, will not miss a spot on the olympics team, will really not be impacted at all by transgenders competing with them. On the flip side, the lives of trans kids could be enormously impacted by not being allowed to play a sport, because it takes away a space for them to do something they enjoy and be themselves. Competing in the gender they don't want to could be absolutely humiliating for many of them and lead to any number of harmful outcomes. They are often scared, confused, and most importantly fragile children, and we should treat them with as much kindness and respect as possible.
Fully agree with treating them with as much kindness and respect as possible. We disagree on most everything else, but that's OK!
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 08:52:05 AM
Yeah I meant CFB's proposed compromise.I don’t understand what the proposed “compromise” is.
It's briefly explained in the Utah governor link, but basically they were proposing a committee to review each individual case if a transgender child wanted to play sports to ensure safety and fair competition were protected. The more extreme positions would be an outright ban on trans kids competing with their preferred gender or allowing kids to compete with their preferred gender in all cases no questions asked.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 08:53:53 AM
Yeah I meant CFB's proposed compromise.I don’t understand what the proposed “compromise” is.
It's briefly explained in the Utah governor link, but basically they were proposing a committee to review each individual case if a transgender child wanted to play sports to ensure safety and fair competition were protected. The more extreme positions would be an outright ban on trans kids competing with their preferred gender or allowing kids to compete with their preferred gender in all cases no questions asked.
his was let trans girls compete with boys and trans boys to compete with girls and not ban them from sports altogether
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 09:19:08 AM
ah. the gender terminology he was using confused me. yeah i don't see CFB's as a "compromise" really. i don't think anyone would object to a M->F kid playing in a boys' league -- at least i haven't seen an objection to that (other than the broader objection that kids shouldn't be allowed to "transition" in any meaningful sense). the question in my view is whether a M->F kid should be allowed to play in a female league.Yeah I meant CFB's proposed compromise.I don’t understand what the proposed “compromise” is.
It's briefly explained in the Utah governor link, but basically they were proposing a committee to review each individual case if a transgender child wanted to play sports to ensure safety and fair competition were protected. The more extreme positions would be an outright ban on trans kids competing with their preferred gender or allowing kids to compete with their preferred gender in all cases no questions asked.
his was let trans girls compete with boys and trans boys to compete with girls and not ban them from sports altogether
It's hard to think a of a "compromise" other than the Utah plan. But even that has it's own conceptual problems (e.g. so some trans kids get to play in their gender identity league, but some don't?). Figuring out a rational "compromise" that isn't cruel in its own right is tricky.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 09:29:08 AM
ah. the gender terminology he was using confused me. yeah i don't see CFB's as a "compromise" really. i don't think anyone would object to a M->F kid playing in a boys' league -- at least i haven't seen an objection to that (other than the broader objection that kids shouldn't be allowed to "transition" in any meaningful sense).Yeah I meant CFB's proposed compromise.I don%u2019t understand what the proposed %u201Ccompromise%u201D is.
It's briefly explained in the Utah governor link, but basically they were proposing a committee to review each individual case if a transgender child wanted to play sports to ensure safety and fair competition were protected. The more extreme positions would be an outright ban on trans kids competing with their preferred gender or allowing kids to compete with their preferred gender in all cases no questions asked.
his was let trans girls compete with boys and trans boys to compete with girls and not ban them from sports altogether
well you would be wrong!
Quote
In the wake of winning a controversial Texas state girls' wrestling title over the weekend, Mack Beggs, a 17-year-old transgender wrestler, spoke to the need to "stay strong" while also calling on state policymakers to "change the laws and then watch me wrestle the boys."
Beggs, who identifies as male, was dogged throughout the tournament by questions about whether his testosterone treatments made him too strong to wrestle fairly against girls. In an interview with ESPN's Outside the Lines on Wednesday, Beggs said he was unfazed by the boos that rained down on him en route to the 110-pound championship, which capped an undefeated season for the Euless Trinity junior.
https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/18802987/mack-beggs-transgender-wrestler-change-laws-watch-wrestle-boys
He was actually featured in a Ted Cruz attack ad as an example of what democrats are fighting for:
https://x.com/TheAdvocateMag/status/1852138727914475949
It's hard to think a of a "compromise" other than the Utah plan. But even that has it's own conceptual problems (e.g. so some trans kids get to play in their gender identity league, but some don't?). Figuring out a rational "compromise" that isn't cruel in its own right is tricky.
I agree with that. Still, I think it's the least cruel path that doesn't alienate the center. It should address concerns from parents who are naturally reacting like "hey, this kid will hurt my daughter", and to be honest I would expect most kids would be allowed to play in their preferred division.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 09:32:57 AM
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 09:41:56 AM
F->M participating in a girls league causes all sorts of issues because those hormones are banned substances and give a substantial advantage. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved in sports at all. I don't understand why so many conservatives want to live in a nanny state.
Should sports be de-coupled from the overwhelmingly public school system then? Have public school just be for learnin’ then, and all sports be some type of club, or some other independent governing body?
Edit to add: don’t we already have a thread for trans sports stuff
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 08, 2024, 09:43:40 AM
F->M participating in a girls league causes all sorts of issues because those hormones are banned substances and give a substantial advantage. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved in sports at all. I don't understand why so many conservatives want to live in a nanny state.
Should sports be de-coupled from the overwhelmingly public school system then? Have public school just be for learnin’ then, and all sports be some type of club, or some other independent governing body?
This would be a great plan to make sure only rich kids can play sports in high school.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 09:45:52 AM
F->M participating in a girls league causes all sorts of issues because those hormones are banned substances and give a substantial advantage. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved in sports at all. I don't understand why so many conservatives want to live in a nanny state.
Should sports be de-coupled from the overwhelmingly public school system then? Have public school just be for learnin’ then, and all sports be some type of club, or some other independent governing body?
Yeah, that's how the rest of the world does it.
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 09:47:15 AM
F->M participating in a girls league causes all sorts of issues because those hormones are banned substances and give a substantial advantage. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved in sports at all. I don't understand why so many conservatives want to live in a nanny state.
Should sports be de-coupled from the overwhelmingly public school system then? Have public school just be for learnin’ then, and all sports be some type of club, or some other independent governing body?
This would be a great plan to make sure only rich kids can play sports in high school.
Right. So the government necessarily has to be involved in sports if sports are to largely remain coupled to our primarily public education system.
Privatization of sports would probably go poorly for trans athletes imo btw.
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 09:48:19 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 09:54:09 AM
F->M participating in a girls league causes all sorts of issues because those hormones are banned substances and give a substantial advantage. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved in sports at all. I don't understand why so many conservatives want to live in a nanny state.
Should sports be de-coupled from the overwhelmingly public school system then? Have public school just be for learnin’ then, and all sports be some type of club, or some other independent governing body?
This would be a great plan to make sure only rich kids can play sports in high school.
Right. So the government necessarily has to be involved in sports if sports are to largely remain coupled to our primarily public education system.
Privatization of sports would probably go poorly for trans athletes imo btw.
While I would prefer sports to be privatized, I also don't agree that there is some necessity that government be involved in public school sports. KSHSAA runs Kansas high school athletics and it is a private, non-governmental organization.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 09:54:59 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 09:55:51 AM
This right here is why the Rs won though. We have two threads talking about an issue that affects a minuscule amount of people in the grand scheme of things. Not that it isn't an important issue, it's just bonkers that the Rs made it such a huge issue and had success with it.
Yeah, bigger government with a populist hate message is always going to be hard to beat.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 10:29:41 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on November 08, 2024, 10:36:39 AM
This right here is why the Rs won though. We have two threads talking about an issue that affects a minuscule amount of people in the grand scheme of things. Not that it isn't an important issue, it's just bonkers that the Rs made it such a huge issue and had success with it.The Dems will never fail to pick the dumbest motherfucking hill to die on. Jesus rough ridin' Christ, Democrats! We get it. Bigotry against trans community is bad. Is it worth losing an entire rough ridin' election? Just rough ridin' once try being pragmatic, Democrats.
Post by: Pete on November 08, 2024, 10:37:20 AM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 10:54:44 AM
Mods should prob move the recent series of posts back to the trans sports thread
Trans girls in sports is a key political issue. Democrats need to solve this if they want to win elections while protecting human rights.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 11:48:47 AM
This right here is why the Rs won though. We have two threads talking about an issue that affects a minuscule amount of people in the grand scheme of things. Not that it isn't an important issue, it's just bonkers that the Rs made it such a huge issue and had success with it.The Dems will never fail to pick the dumbest motherfucking hill to die on. Jesus rough ridin' Christ, Democrats! We get it. Bigotry against trans community is bad. Is it worth losing an entire rough ridin' election? Just rough ridin' once try being pragmatic, Democrats.
the thing is that I'm not seeing any evidence of high-profile Dems actually attempting to stand up against bigotry. They basically avoided the subject and still got bludgeoned for it.
if they actually stood up for trans people in a meaningful way that addressed genuine fears about what that might mean, they could both win elections and protect trans people. If not, at least they're going down doing the right thing, which in my opinion is preferable to being spineless and catering to bigots and still losing.
Post by: Trim on November 08, 2024, 12:16:16 PM
On the upside the Democrat try hard chart looks outstanding.
:lol:
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 12:20:30 PM
This right here is why the Rs won though. We have two threads talking about an issue that affects a minuscule amount of people in the grand scheme of things. Not that it isn't an important issue, it's just bonkers that the Rs made it such a huge issue and had success with it.The Dems will never fail to pick the dumbest motherfucking hill to die on. Jesus rough ridin' Christ, Democrats! We get it. Bigotry against trans community is bad. Is it worth losing an entire rough ridin' election? Just rough ridin' once try being pragmatic, Democrats.
the thing is that I'm not seeing any evidence of high-profile Dems actually attempting to stand up against bigotry. They basically avoided the subject and still got bludgeoned for it.
if they actually stood up for trans people in a meaningful way that addressed genuine fears about what that might mean, they could both win elections and protect trans people. If not, at least they're going down doing the right thing, which in my opinion is preferable to being spineless and catering to bigots and still losing.
Yep, they basically just let the Rs control the narrative that kids were going to school as one gender and coming back another. It was bonkers. The right is suburb at controlling the narrative. Every speech Trump made he made it sound like America was a third world lawless country. He is great at it.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 08, 2024, 02:09:19 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 03:03:54 PM
Mich, you are very well versed with the data for transgender peeps obviously. Is there much data on people that made that decision when they were younger and regret the decision as they were older and/or want to transition back?
I haven't looked into the details in a while, but this seems like a decent recent overview about the data and the complexity of measuring "regret":
https://slate.com/technology/2024/02/transgender-youth-health-care-regret-pamela-paul-nyt-data.html
Asking about the data shows your head is in the right place IMO. I've said it before, but I believe if data shows current standard methods of transgender care are not leading positive outcomes, the standards should change. Until then, I'll leave it to the trans kids, their families and medical professionals to make the decisions they think are best.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 08, 2024, 03:47:36 PM
I do agree and I don't think any parent or medical professional (or would hopefully assume) would pressure or coarse a child into transitioning. Obviously, we were all teenagers at one point and those are interesting/confusing years to say the least!Mich, you are very well versed with the data for transgender peeps obviously. Is there much data on people that made that decision when they were younger and regret the decision as they were older and/or want to transition back?
I haven't looked into the details in a while, but this seems like a decent recent overview about the data and the complexity of measuring "regret":
https://slate.com/technology/2024/02/transgender-youth-health-care-regret-pamela-paul-nyt-data.html
Asking about the data shows your head is in the right place IMO. I've said it before, but I believe if data shows current standard methods of transgender care are not leading positive outcomes, the standards should change. Until then, I'll leave it to the trans kids, their families and medical professionals to make the decisions they think are best.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2024, 03:49:54 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 04:40:27 PM
I do agree and I don't think any parent or medical professional (or would hopefully assume) would pressure or coarse a child into transitioning. Obviously, we were all teenagers at one point and those are interesting/confusing years to say the least!Mich, you are very well versed with the data for transgender peeps obviously. Is there much data on people that made that decision when they were younger and regret the decision as they were older and/or want to transition back?
I haven't looked into the details in a while, but this seems like a decent recent overview about the data and the complexity of measuring "regret":
https://slate.com/technology/2024/02/transgender-youth-health-care-regret-pamela-paul-nyt-data.html
Asking about the data shows your head is in the right place IMO. I've said it before, but I believe if data shows current standard methods of transgender care are not leading positive outcomes, the standards should change. Until then, I'll leave it to the trans kids, their families and medical professionals to make the decisions they think are best.
I'm very close to the parents of a transgender kid and it's really hard for the entire family, and it was a long process with lots of difficult conversations. And this kid didn't even take hormones at any point in the transition.
I think there is a perception that parents of transgender kids are all purple haired weirdo they/them freaks but that's usually not the case. They are usually just "normal" parents who love their children and want what's best for them.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 04:44:03 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 06:33:01 PM
a lot of people believe lgtbq kids can be influenced to be lgtbq by their parents, teachers, friends, etc. and it's scary to them. so that sucks.
My theory is that what really bothers them isn't that that friends and teachers and parents make them LGBT, it's that those people make it easier and safer to be LGBT
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 08:12:24 PM
I think the “social contagion” theory is most of it. When you combine that with the US’s aggressive approach to “gender affirming care” (in all its forms, but particularly things like puberty blockers) for minors, I think there’s some legitimate concern, rather than “we want to make lgbt kids feel unsafe.”a lot of people believe lgtbq kids can be influenced to be lgtbq by their parents, teachers, friends, etc. and it's scary to them. so that sucks.
My theory is that what really bothers them isn't that that friends and teachers and parents make them LGBT, it's that those people make it easier and safer to be LGBT
“Heck, my little sister was a tomboy, but now she’d be told by her shrink she IS a boy!” is the unsophisticated version of the above point, but I think it drives at the same general idea.
How much that’s actually happening (puberty blockers, influencing gender identity) isn’t really the point - I think the defense of and fight against that idea is a stark dividing line that dems could gain ground on if they wanted to soften their position.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 08:16:25 PM
a lot of people believe lgtbq kids can be influenced to be lgtbq by their parents, teachers, friends, etc. and it's scary to them. so that sucks.
My theory is that what really bothers them isn't that that friends and teachers and parents make them LGBT, it's that those people make it easier and safer to be LGBT
yeah, probably subconciously that's right
Post by: Spracne on November 08, 2024, 09:54:56 PM
I think the “social contagion” theory is most of it. When you combine that with the US’s aggressive approach to “gender affirming care” (in all its forms, but particularly things like puberty blockers) for minors, I think there’s some legitimate concern, rather than “we want to make lgbt kids feel unsafe.”a lot of people believe lgtbq kids can be influenced to be lgtbq by their parents, teachers, friends, etc. and it's scary to them. so that sucks.
My theory is that what really bothers them isn't that that friends and teachers and parents make them LGBT, it's that those people make it easier and safer to be LGBT
“Heck, my little sister was a tomboy, but now she’d be told by her shrink she IS a boy!” is the unsophisticated version of the above point, but I think it drives at the same general idea.
How much that’s actually happening (puberty blockers, influencing gender identity) isn’t really the point - I think the defense of and fight against that idea is a stark dividing line that dems could gain ground on if they wanted to soften their position.
But it kinda is the point, though.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 10:04:33 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 10:16:07 PM
Not if the left is trying to win the creamy middleI think the “social contagion” theory is most of it. When you combine that with the US’s aggressive approach to “gender affirming care” (in all its forms, but particularly things like puberty blockers) for minors, I think there’s some legitimate concern, rather than “we want to make lgbt kids feel unsafe.”a lot of people believe lgtbq kids can be influenced to be lgtbq by their parents, teachers, friends, etc. and it's scary to them. so that sucks.
My theory is that what really bothers them isn't that that friends and teachers and parents make them LGBT, it's that those people make it easier and safer to be LGBT
“Heck, my little sister was a tomboy, but now she’d be told by her shrink she IS a boy!” is the unsophisticated version of the above point, but I think it drives at the same general idea.
How much that’s actually happening (puberty blockers, influencing gender identity) isn’t really the point - I think the defense of and fight against that idea is a stark dividing line that dems could gain ground on if they wanted to soften their position.
But it kinda is the point, though.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 10:40:44 PM
I also think a big reason the thought of kids transitioning is scary to so many people is that they really don't understand the transition process (or how often it happens). In my experience it's very serious and methodical and is not boys going to school one day and getting surgery and coming home as girls.
Post by: DQ12 on November 08, 2024, 10:46:23 PM
IMO there's a chance to win the middle with data on outcomes and information from health experts combined with an element of "we aren't going to tell you how to care for your kids - it's between you and your doctors. Parents know their kids best and should do what they think is best for them, not what the government thinks is best for them".Then the left needs to rethink the “teachers don’t need to tell parents if the kid’s gender identity at school is different” issue, which is explicitly the opposite of that “parents know better than the state argument.” I’m paraphrasing the issue but I hope you know what I mean.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 09, 2024, 12:38:17 AM
IMO there's a chance to win the middle with data on outcomes and information from health experts combined with an element of "we aren't going to tell you how to care for your kids - it's between you and your doctors. Parents know their kids best and should do what they think is best for them, not what the government thinks is best for them".Then the left needs to rethink the “teachers don’t need to tell parents if the kid’s gender identity at school is different” issue, which is explicitly the opposite of that “parents know better than the state argument.” I’m paraphrasing the issue but I hope you know what I mean.
Why should a teacher assume that you are such a shitty parent that you don't even know your own kid's gender? I would think that the parents would figure all of that out if they would even care enough to go to parent teacher conferences, anyway.
Post by: michigancat on November 09, 2024, 05:49:02 AM
IMO there's a chance to win the middle with data on outcomes and information from health experts combined with an element of "we aren't going to tell you how to care for your kids - it's between you and your doctors. Parents know their kids best and should do what they think is best for them, not what the government thinks is best for them".Then the left needs to rethink the “teachers don’t need to tell parents if the kid’s gender identity at school is different” issue, which is explicitly the opposite of that “parents know better than the state argument.” I’m paraphrasing the issue but I hope you know what I mean.
I hear you, at the very least, the messaging on schools not telling parents needs to be improved. I mean to start it should be clear that the school won't be administering hormone therapy, just providing a safe-ish space for social transition. I went to look for data on how often this happens and didn't find any but instead found this thread, which has some useful perspectives:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trans/s/BwjGmtm1hY
Quote
1. Schools should not place kids in danger.
2. Schools are not in a position to know about or evaluate the potential danger to a kid if that kid's parents find out they're queer.
3. Therefore, schools should not share (or be compelled to share) information about a kid's LGBTQ+ status with parents.
It was obviously all anecdotes, including a few about being outed by their school and it leading to abuse at home. It also leads to some questions about the parent/school/child relationships:
Should the state out a trans child that doesn't want to be outed?
How much autonomy should a child have in a decision to out their identity to some communities but not their parents?
Should a school out a child who is gay to parents?
Should a school tell a parent if a child is dating someone, even if it's a hetero relationship?
So I think in terms of who knows best, it's probably:
The child
The medical professionals
Parents
School/government
I also understand how that's more difficult to message than "parents know best". Need to think about it some more.
Post by: michigancat on November 09, 2024, 06:45:19 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/s/3koxuzKhDd
Post by: michigancat on November 09, 2024, 06:54:38 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTeachers/s/tncuOSpyek
Post by: 114Hickory on November 09, 2024, 07:07:21 AM
IMO there's a chance to win the middle with data on outcomes and information from health experts combined with an element of "we aren't going to tell you how to care for your kids - it's between you and your doctors. Parents know their kids best and should do what they think is best for them, not what the government thinks is best for them".Then the left needs to rethink the “teachers don’t need to tell parents if the kid’s gender identity at school is different” issue, which is explicitly the opposite of that “parents know better than the state argument.” I’m paraphrasing the issue but I hope you know what I mean.
I hear you, at the very least, the messaging on schools not telling parents needs to be improved. I mean to start it should be clear that the school won't be administering hormone therapy, just providing a safe-ish space for social transition. I went to look for data on how often this happens and didn't find any but instead found this thread, which has some useful perspectives:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trans/s/BwjGmtm1hYQuote1. Schools should not place kids in danger.
2. Schools are not in a position to know about or evaluate the potential danger to a kid if that kid's parents find out they're queer.
3. Therefore, schools should not share (or be compelled to share) information about a kid's LGBTQ+ status with parents.
It was obviously all anecdotes, including a few about being outed by their school and it leading to abuse at home. It also leads to some questions about the parent/school/child relationships:
Should the state out a trans child that doesn't want to be outed?
How much autonomy should a child have in a decision to out their identity to some communities but not their parents?
Should a school out a child who is gay to parents?
Should a school tell a parent if a child is dating someone, even if it's a hetero relationship?
So I think in terms of who knows best, it's probably:
The child
The medical professionals
Parents
School/government
I also understand how that's more difficult to message than "parents know best". Need to think about it some more.
I agree with a lot of this, in principle. I believe there are some other factors that could be considered.
1. I would maybe reframe "who knows best" with "whose knowledge is most accurate."
2. I would also determine, as much as possible, the entity with the greatest stake in the child's well-being if I were to place these in an order of importance. An argument could likely be made for each of those you mentioned.
3. I believe it's important to keep variables in mind such as the child's intrapersonal development of identity/self-concept, biases/presuppositions of medical professionals, parents, and government, and the desired outcomes all entities work toward regardless of research-based findings.
4. The safety of the child, obviously, needs to be paramount. So, attitudes and outlooks of each of the entities mentioned must be part of the process. The problem is, these are often kept well-hidden and rarely fully disclosed.
Having said all of that, I would like to see everyone in any decision-making position regarding transgender children (including parents/guardians) be much more forthright about their own processes and policies, biases, etc. I see no value in trotting out anecdotes of extreme cases or touting anything as "absolute" in the soft sciences, which much of this is. The DSM has changed considerably over the years based on new data. Everyone is still learning and admitting that, inviting reasoned discussion, and moving toward the well-being of the children, as opposed to getting a win, would enhance healthy outcomes for everyone.
Post by: michigancat on November 09, 2024, 05:21:04 PM
The DSM has changed considerably over the years based on new data. Everyone is still learning and admitting that, inviting reasoned discussion, and moving toward the well-being of the children, as opposed to getting a win, would enhance healthy outcomes for everyone.
Well said. It's too bad political leaders can't talk like that
Post by: michigancat on November 10, 2024, 06:43:15 AM
https://x.com/TiffanyFong_/status/1855102205235167467
Here it is written out
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1855073216613503228
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2024, 09:06:45 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2024, 09:12:19 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2024, 09:22:24 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2024, 09:30:25 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Trim on November 10, 2024, 10:08:49 AM
I hope everyone gets what they voted for.
Welcome. https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=35629.0
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2024, 10:23:09 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on November 10, 2024, 12:57:42 PM
https://x.com/Halalcoholism/status/1855351926709522862
I think trans activists need to find a way to educate why they care about trans kids playing sports with their preferred gender without language policing or talking down to people who use language they don't like. Clearly not everyone gets it!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2024, 02:28:15 PM
Post by: _33 on November 10, 2024, 03:22:16 PM
I think losing elections is better than moving away from basic human decency. They should try to find voters elsewhere.
It's amazing how some people define 'basic human decency'.
Post by: kim carnes on November 10, 2024, 03:33:36 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 10, 2024, 03:46:21 PM
To the op, what specific rights don’t they have?Plenty of states have bans on transgender health care
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2024, 06:55:49 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2024, 05:32:54 AM
https://x.com/RepNancyMace/status/1859263432123633697
https://x.com/JuddLegum/status/1859270184067887462
https://x.com/Schilling1776/status/1859363563070001428
Seems mean
Post by: DQ12 on November 21, 2024, 06:33:08 AM
We’re specifically talking about bans on surgery/medication for minors here, right? Is there anywhere a trans adult is banned from medical stuff?To the op, what specific rights don’t they have?Plenty of states have bans on transgender health care
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2024, 06:57:20 AM
We’re specifically talking about bans on surgery/medication for minors here, right? Is there anywhere a trans adult is banned from medical stuff?To the op, what specific rights don’t they have?Plenty of states have bans on transgender health care
at the very least they are trying. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/trans-care-adults-red-states
Also, if you dig into some of the bills, they don't just ban surgery and medication, they ban social transition on government property.
https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0099.pdf
Quote
Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state
property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social
transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection
Social transitioning, to my knowledge is always the first "active" step in gender affirming care, definitely before medication. Regardless it is definitely a part of gender-affirming care that is trying to be restricted.
Post by: DQ12 on November 21, 2024, 09:11:51 AM
OK, but as far as states that actually have "bans on transgender health care" that you referenced, we're talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors," right? Is there any state law that actually prohibits adults from pursuing and getting the medical treatment we're talking about?We’re specifically talking about bans on surgery/medication for minors here, right? Is there anywhere a trans adult is banned from medical stuff?To the op, what specific rights don’t they have?Plenty of states have bans on transgender health care
at the very least they are trying. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/trans-care-adults-red-states
Also, if you dig into some of the bills, they don't just ban surgery and medication, they ban social transition on government property.
https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0099.pdfQuoteExcept to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state
property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social
transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection
Social transitioning, to my knowledge is always the first "active" step in gender affirming care, definitely before medication. Regardless it is definitely a part of gender-affirming care that is trying to be restricted.
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2024, 12:10:17 PM
OK, but as far as states that actually have "bans on transgender health care" that you referenced, we're talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors," right?
No, social gender transition is an important part of "gender-affirming medical care" but does not require medication or surgery. It is being banned on government property (namely schools) in some states. I already shared the contents of a Montana bill defining it.
Is there any state law that actually prohibits adults from pursuing and getting the medical treatment we're talking about?
you can pick nits but republicans are trying to take away this care from adults if they haven't already. I thought the link I shared before made that fairly clear but here is another article two years ago:
Quote
But Johnson is also backing another bill, HB1215, that would effectively cut off access to gender-affirming care for low-income people, including adults. The measure prohibits Tennessee’s Medicaid program from working with health insurance companies that cover gender-affirming care.
As of late February, Republican lawmakers in at least five states have introduced legislation that would limit such care for adults. Until this year, most proposed restrictions on transition-related care targeted people under 18. Some of the new measures prohibit it for individuals up to age 21, while others block Medicaid from covering for it for all ages.
“It’s interesting that initially we heard that this was a thing to protect youth, but now we are seeing that it’s really about all transgender people,” Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville) said while HB1215 was being discussed on Feb. 21 in the Tennessee House.
“Last year, the rhetoric was to protect kids, but now they are going after adults,” said Allison Chapman, a legislative researcher and transgender rights advocate based in Virginia.
In Oklahoma, House Republicans also approved a bill Tuesday that would prohibit any facility that receives public funds from offering gender-affirming care for minors or adults, as well as blocking insurance coverage for it. Another bill would make it a felony for a physician to provide transition-related hormone treatments or surgeries to anyone under the age of 26. In Kansas and Mississippi, legislators wanted to ban gender-affirming care for people up to age 21. In South Carolina, a measure would block the state’s Medicaid program from covering any transition-related medications or procedures.
Tennessee Rep. Tim Rudd (R-Murfreesboro), who supports HB1215, said on Feb. 21 that the bill was not making transgender health care illegal because people could still obtain it privately. Instead, it was “simply taking away a service” that does not align with the “values of most Tennesseans.”
But Angel Luci Pellegrino, a 38-year-old transgender man based in Chattanooga, Tenn., said the measure, if passed, would probably end his access to gender-affirming care. “My doctor informed me that if this bill passes, insurance will no longer cover my medicines, my doctor’s appointments and my laboratory tests,” he said, adding that he is on disability and “can’t afford private health care.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/11fmqts/new_state_bills_restrict_transgender_health_care/
Post by: DQ12 on November 21, 2024, 02:36:11 PM
OK, see, in the spirit of this thread, I think there's some illuminating left-right divide here that may shed some light on the original topic of this thread.OK, but as far as states that actually have "bans on transgender health care" that you referenced, we're talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors," right?
No, social gender transition is an important part of "gender-affirming medical care" but does not require medication or surgery. It is being banned on government property (namely schools) in some states. I already shared the contents of a Montana bill defining it.Is there any state law that actually prohibits adults from pursuing and getting the medical treatment we're talking about?
you can pick nits but republicans are trying to take away this care from adults if they haven't already. I thought the link I shared before made that fairly clear but here is another article two years ago:
So you originally said that states have bans on "transgender health care." I think we agreed that the only "bans" that exist (at least currently) involve "health care" for children (though I think our definitions of "health care" may be different). You reference some legislation that bans/curtails access for adults currently being contemplated in some state legislatures, but as far as I can tell, no adult bans have actually been passed into law anywhere (yet). I think we agree on that.
But where I really, genuinely start losing you is when you (a) say that "social transition is banned on government property (namely schools) in some states" and (b) you refer to "social transition" as "health care" (that has presumably been "banned" in Montana).
With respect to the Montana law, I read it this morning, and I think either you or I am misunderstanding it. If you think that law prohibits a child in school from presenting as a particular gender, I think you're misreading it. "Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection..." As I read it, it says that you can't use state property to promote/advocate for social transitioning. Nothing in that provision says that a kid can't present a certain way in schools or that teachers can't use preferred pronouns. It just says that state property can't be used to promote or advocate for social transition (whatever, exactly that looks like within the bounds of the first amendment). It's certainly not "banning social transition." I haven't even found an article that addresses (let alone criticizes) that specific portion of the statute -- and plenty address the medical issues. If that provision does what you suggest it does, I would assume that it would've garnered a lot more attention than it has. If you think that provision "bans social transition in schools," then I think we've found an interesting intellectual rift between us.
Second, and I don't know if this is a broad, fundamental disagreement between us or a misunderstanding, but I want to make sure. I don't know what you mean when you say "social transition is an important part of gender-affirming medical care" in the context of this conversation when you talked about how there have been bans on transgender healthcare. When you originally said "bans on transgender healthcare," I assumed you were talking about actual medical care involving...medical providers. Is it your view that if you use someone's preferred pronouns (or otherwise abiding by their gender expression) you're providing them "healthcare"? And if not, you're denying them "healthcare"? It's very possible I misunderstood you, but when I read that my mind was kind of blown and it made me think we're not even speaking the same language on this stuff if your definition of "healthcare" is that broad.
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2024, 04:20:51 PM
One thing about surgeries that I found interesting is that some of the bills that are banning "genital mutilation surgery" explicitly provide exceptions to circumcision. Anyway.
With respect to the Montana law, I read it this morning, and I think either you or I am misunderstanding it. If you think that law prohibits a child in school from presenting as a particular gender, I think you're misreading it. "Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection..." As I read it, it says that you can't use state property to promote/advocate for social transitioning. Nothing in that provision says that a kid can't present a certain way in schools or that teachers can't use preferred pronouns. It just says that state property can't be used to promote or advocate for social transition (whatever, exactly that looks like within the bounds of the first amendment). It's certainly not "banning social transition." I haven't even found an article that addresses (let alone criticizes) that specific portion of the statute -- and plenty address the medical issues. If that provision does what you suggest it does, I would assume that it would've garnered a lot more attention than it has. If you think that provision "bans social transition in schools," then I think we've found an interesting intellectual rift between us.
Honestly, I really don't know if supporting a child's social transition via preferred pronoun use is considered "promoting or advocating the use of social transitioning", but it feels like it is. What about a school counselor learning a child is transgender and advising parents on how to receive care? Why include that line at all if they don't want to restrict access to social transition? I don't know, you're the lawyer. Regardless, I do think they will continue to push the wording until social transition is explicitly banned. Kansas had a bill vetoed that had the exact clause that Montana had about using state facilities to promote social transition, but also had this:
Quote
A state employee whose official duties include the care of
children shall not, while engaged in those official duties, provide or
promote the use of social transitioning, medication, or surgery as a
treatment for a child whose perceived gender or perceived sex is
inconsistent with such child's sex.
https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2023_24/measures/SB233/
Now, I don't know exactly who this would apply to, but I assume there are CPS counselors or something that would deal with transgender youth? Would they be banned from advising those youth on social transition resources? What about a foster parent? And I know it got vetoed but I'm guessing it wouldn't have with a different governor.
Is it your view that if you use someone's preferred pronouns (or otherwise abiding by their gender expression) you're providing them "healthcare"? And if not, you're denying them "healthcare"? It's very possible I misunderstood you, but when I read that my mind was kind of blown and it made me think we're not even speaking the same language on this stuff if your definition of "healthcare" is that broad.yeah that's fair - I would say that by using correct pronouns you are supporting their health care if that makes sense? The professionals advising transgender youth on social transition are explicitly providing health care IMO, even if they don't prescribe puberty blockers. A school allowing a student to use the bathroom of their choice and addressing them by their preferred name and pronoun is supporting that care.
This isn't a fully baked out thought but I think enabling social transition in schools (and other facilities) is somewhat akin to providing accommodations to other people via the ADA. It isn't explicitly health care, but it is providing accommodations for their conditions.
Post by: DQ12 on November 21, 2024, 05:05:24 PM
Before I get into the tangent conversation, I want to make it clear that the "bans on surgery/medication for minors" are 100% taking away rights from transgender patients and their parents. Current evidence and professional medical guidance shows that the use of puberty blockers and other hormones generally leads to more positive outcomes for transgender patients than when they aren't used. Gender affirming surgery for minors is rare, but still should be available as long as their is solid medical evidence showing it is the right thing to do and parents and are on board.OK, and I don't really take issue with anything in this post. I 100% agree that "Bans on surgery/medication for minors" are "100% taking away rights from transgender patients and their parents." No doubt about that. But that's why I excluded that from my original question this morning:
One thing about surgeries that I found interesting is that some of the bills that are banning "genital mutilation surgery" explicitly provide exceptions to circumcision. Anyway.With respect to the Montana law, I read it this morning, and I think either you or I am misunderstanding it. If you think that law prohibits a child in school from presenting as a particular gender, I think you're misreading it. "Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection..." As I read it, it says that you can't use state property to promote/advocate for social transitioning. Nothing in that provision says that a kid can't present a certain way in schools or that teachers can't use preferred pronouns. It just says that state property can't be used to promote or advocate for social transition (whatever, exactly that looks like within the bounds of the first amendment). It's certainly not "banning social transition." I haven't even found an article that addresses (let alone criticizes) that specific portion of the statute -- and plenty address the medical issues. If that provision does what you suggest it does, I would assume that it would've garnered a lot more attention than it has. If you think that provision "bans social transition in schools," then I think we've found an interesting intellectual rift between us.
Honestly, I really don't know if supporting a child's social transition via preferred pronoun use is considered "promoting or advocating the use of social transitioning", but it feels like it is. What about a school counselor learning a child is transgender and advising parents on how to receive care? Why include that line at all if they don't want to restrict access to social transition? I don't know, you're the lawyer. Regardless, I do think they will continue to push the wording until social transition is explicitly banned. Kansas had a bill vetoed that had the exact clause that Montana had about using state facilities to promote social transition, but also had this:QuoteA state employee whose official duties include the care of
children shall not, while engaged in those official duties, provide or
promote the use of social transitioning, medication, or surgery as a
treatment for a child whose perceived gender or perceived sex is
inconsistent with such child's sex.
https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2023_24/measures/SB233/
Now, I don't know exactly who this would apply to, but I assume there are CPS counselors or something that would deal with transgender youth? Would they be banned from advising those youth on social transition resources? What about a foster parent? And I know it got vetoed but I'm guessing it wouldn't have with a different governor.Is it your view that if you use someone's preferred pronouns (or otherwise abiding by their gender expression) you're providing them "healthcare"? And if not, you're denying them "healthcare"? It's very possible I misunderstood you, but when I read that my mind was kind of blown and it made me think we're not even speaking the same language on this stuff if your definition of "healthcare" is that broad.yeah that's fair - I would say that by using correct pronouns you are supporting their health care if that makes sense? The professionals advising transgender youth on social transition are explicitly providing health care IMO, even if they don't prescribe puberty blockers. A school allowing a student to use the bathroom of their choice and addressing them by their preferred name and pronoun is supporting that care.
This isn't a fully baked out thought but I think enabling social transition in schools (and other facilities) is somewhat akin to providing accommodations to other people via the ADA. It isn't explicitly health care, but it is providing accommodations for their conditions.
"Healthcare" is such a broad term that it's useful (at least for me) to define it. You might mean one thing, I might understand another, and we're actually talking about two different things without even realizing it. Anyway, I wanted to get an understanding of what you were talking about when you talked about "bans on transgender health care." When phrases like "trans healthcare" can refer to a spectrum of "an adult seeking private gender therapy" (maybe a small percentage objects to this?) to "surgery and puberty blocks for minors" (relatively, a lot more people object to this) it's a pretty broad brush that I think it causes a lot of confusion. Just food for thought in the spirit of this thread, trying to bridge the gap on some of this stuff.Plenty of states have bans on transgender health careWe’re specifically talking about bans on surgery/medication for minors here, right? Is there anywhere a trans adult is banned from medical stuff?
And with your last post, I think I understand where you're coming from -- or at least what you meant to say this morning when you responded to my original question above. If we're talking specifically about [existing] "bans on transgender health care," I think we're only talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors." There's other existing state law you think is bad (Montana), and there's bonafide "medical care" stuff you think will be banned in the future, but as far as what's currently on the books, no "healthcare" has been "banned" for adults, and the "healthcare bans" for minors are restricted to certain medication and surgical procedures?
1. That's a genuine question. I don't really know the legislative landscape all that well -- which is why i originally asked when you talked about healthcare bans. It's possible there could be bans on other types of "healthcare" that I just legit haven't thought of and you haven't raised. And 2. If I missed the mark on that last summation, let me know. I think it's where we ended up, but maybe not.
Post by: michigancat on November 21, 2024, 07:05:14 PM
OK, and I don't really take issue with anything in this post. I 100% agree that "Bans on surgery/medication for minors" are "100% taking away rights from transgender patients and their parents." No doubt about that. But that's why I excluded that from my original question this morning:
:cheers:
I'll admit I got defensive and thought you were dismissing those as rights by focusing on other stuff. Glad I was wrong!
"Healthcare" is such a broad term that it's useful (at least for me) to define it. You might mean one thing, I might understand another, and we're actually talking about two different things without even realizing it. Anyway, I wanted to get an understanding of what you were talking about when you talked about "bans on transgender health care." When phrases like "trans healthcare" can refer to a spectrum of "an adult seeking private gender therapy" (maybe a small percentage objects to this?) to "surgery and puberty blocks for minors" (relatively, a lot more people object to this) it's a pretty broad brush that I think it causes a lot of confusion. Just food for thought in the spirit of this thread, trying to bridge the gap on some of this stuff.
In my defense, I was responding to a kim carnes post. But you are right, I think most people consider "gender affirming care" as surgery. Fewer understand the hormones side of it, and I'm guessing not many realize social transitioning is the first step.
this seems like a decent overview for youth transitioning: https://transcare.ucsf.edu/transition-roadmap
And with your last post, I think I understand where you're coming from -- or at least what you meant to say this morning when you responded to my original question above. If we're talking specifically about [existing] "bans on transgender health care," I think we're only talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors." There's other existing state law you think is bad (Montana), and there's bonafide "medical care" stuff you think will be banned in the future, but as far as what's currently on the books, no "healthcare" has been "banned" for adults, and the "healthcare bans" for minors are restricted to certain medication and surgical procedures?
1. That's a genuine question. I don't really know the legislative landscape all that well -- which is why i originally asked when you talked about healthcare bans. It's possible there could be bans on other types of "healthcare" that I just legit haven't thought of and you haven't raised. And 2. If I missed the mark on that last summation, let me know. I think it's where we ended up, but maybe not.
I was busy and didn't have much time to look at it closely today, but according to this link, several states ban using medicaid funds for transgender care for adults in addition to minors. I suppose they could still receive care privately, but given the fact that they are on medicaid it probably wouldn't happen: https://www.mapresearch.org/equality-maps/healthcare/medicaid
Now, is that a "ban on transgender healthcare" for poor adults? To me, it effectively is. But I can see how someone might not see it the same way.
Post by: michigancat on March 01, 2025, 07:15:21 AM
https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1895159419295445316
https://x.com/DMRegister/status/1895587459288756540
https://x.com/Kecojazo/status/1895544243323641905
So gross
Post by: catastrophe on March 01, 2025, 10:15:14 AM
Post by: CHONGS on March 01, 2025, 11:04:47 AM
The Civil Rights Act is the bane of conservativism and they will do anything to remove it.
Post by: michigancat on March 01, 2025, 01:24:40 PM
I mean this has always been the goal. Sports was always a fig leaf. Legalized discrimination is what Republicans want. Trans today, gay tomorrow, Black people after that.
The Civil Rights Act is the bane of conservativism and they will do anything to remove it.
Yep, and Democratic leadership is terrified to do anything about it
Post by: Cire on March 13, 2025, 02:46:44 PM
Post by: Spracne on March 13, 2025, 02:52:20 PM
There's more kids with measles in texas right now than there are trans kids competing in college
There are members of this blog with more children of their bodies than trans athletes competing in college ...
Post by: Cire on March 31, 2025, 08:24:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 02, 2025, 04:28:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on April 02, 2025, 04:59:53 PM
https://twitter.com/thertcafe/status/1907529067361972707?s=46&t=-jwPwnR3rKHM9sk9hA7h8g
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
who cares
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 02, 2025, 05:03:18 PM
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
Post by: Cire on April 02, 2025, 05:35:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on April 02, 2025, 07:07:23 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on April 02, 2025, 07:11:53 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
:clap:
Post by: michigancat on April 02, 2025, 07:14:50 PM
Give me a rough ridin' break with people talking about trans women competing in adult regional fencing tournaments as an example of supporting women's sports. It's so disingenuous. eff that crap straight to hell.
Post by: Spracne on April 02, 2025, 10:28:39 PM
Also I care very much about women playing sports against men. My daughter plays club water polo in the men's division at her college. Why? She won't be the fastest or strongest or have the best shot but she loves the sport and loves to compete, which is what sports SHOULD be about at everything but the highest level.
Give me a rough ridin' break with people talking about trans women competing in adult regional fencing tournaments as an example of supporting women's sports. It's so disingenuous. eff that crap straight to hell.
I appreciate your timely dossier on this, as I'm certain to hear about this from my mother soon.
Post by: Stevesie60 on April 02, 2025, 10:56:35 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
Well said.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 03, 2025, 02:01:14 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
:love:
Post by: MakeItRain on April 03, 2025, 02:04:28 PM
I mean this has always been the goal. Sports was always a fig leaf. Legalized discrimination is what Republicans want. Trans today, gay tomorrow, Black people after that.
The Civil Rights Act is the bane of conservativism and they will do anything to remove it.
This also didn't get the love it deserved. This is absolutely why, if you consider yourself a civil rights absolutist, that you should hold people's feet to the fire who are willing to put civil rights on the back burner for any reason at all.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 03, 2025, 04:04:24 PM
Post by: kim carnes on April 03, 2025, 04:20:40 PM
Also I care very much about women playing sports against men. My daughter plays club water polo in the men's division at her college. Why? She won't be the fastest or strongest or have the best shot but she loves the sport and loves to compete, which is what sports SHOULD be about at everything but the highest level.
Give me a rough ridin' break with people talking about trans women competing in adult regional fencing tournaments as an example of supporting women's sports. It's so disingenuous. eff that crap straight to hell.
I’m sorry, how is your daughter playing against men in club water polo at all relevant to this discussion?
Post by: nicname on April 03, 2025, 04:34:44 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 03, 2025, 04:41:41 PM
Why is trans sports talk filtering into the general trans thread?Dax
Post by: catastrophe on April 03, 2025, 06:29:43 PM
I gotta agree with Kim. This thread is about hating trans people, not men and women competing against each other.Also I care very much about women playing sports against men. My daughter plays club water polo in the men's division at her college. Why? She won't be the fastest or strongest or have the best shot but she loves the sport and loves to compete, which is what sports SHOULD be about at everything but the highest level.
Give me a rough ridin' break with people talking about trans women competing in adult regional fencing tournaments as an example of supporting women's sports. It's so disingenuous. eff that crap straight to hell.
I’m sorry, how is your daughter playing against men in club water polo at all relevant to this discussion?
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 03, 2025, 08:22:17 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
Yeah!! eff this dumb $!#*!! Who in the hell does she think she is refusing to play in this dumb match?? What right does she think SHE has? This whore is just wanting to take attention away from this trans and be like that bitch, Riley Gaines. If they would have played the Nat'l anthem at this event I'm sure she would have knelt being the attention seeking $!#* that we know that she is! Un-rough ridin' believable the nerve of this vile whore!
How in the world is the approval of the dems at an all time low??? I just don't get it.
Post by: michigancat on April 03, 2025, 09:47:01 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
Yeah!! eff this dumb $!#*!! Who in the hell does she think she is refusing to play in this dumb match?? What right does she think SHE has?
What rights were taken away from the woman who quit?
Post by: bucket on April 03, 2025, 09:58:05 PM
who cares
Yeah!! eff this dumb $!#*!! Who in the hell does she think she is refusing to play in this dumb match?? What right does she think SHE has? This whore is just wanting to take attention away from this trans and be like that bitch, Riley Gaines. If they would have played the Nat'l anthem at this event I'm sure she would have knelt being the attention seeking $!#* that we know that she is! Un-rough ridin' believable the nerve of this vile whore!
How in the world is the approval of the dems at an all time low??? I just don't get it.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 03, 2025, 10:00:47 PM
I know you don't cRusty. I know you're all about cis-gendered women having to compete against men.
That's why whenever this is brought up, you can't defend it, so you just tap out.
Accepted
What is there to defend? There was a fencing tournament that a woman signed up for and refused to play against another eligible woman, so she was kicked out of the tournament, which is standard policy for the US Fencing organization. These are adults playing for fun and this awful person tries to have a Riley Gaines moment against over a trans woman who finished 24th out of 39 participants.
eff that vile woman for making a spectacle of the event and potentially putting the trans woman's life at risk and eff anyone who thinks she was treated unfairly and wants to use this for political gain.
Yeah!! eff this dumb $!#*!! Who in the hell does she think she is refusing to play in this dumb match?? What right does she think SHE has? This whore is just wanting to take attention away from this trans and be like that bitch, Riley Gaines. If they would have played the Nat'l anthem at this event I'm sure she would have knelt being the attention seeking $!#* that we know that she is! Un-rough ridin' believable the nerve of this vile whore!
How in the world is the approval of the dems at an all time low??? I just don't get it.
...are you okay?
Post by: mocat on April 03, 2025, 10:05:04 PM
Post by: bucket on April 03, 2025, 10:06:37 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2025, 10:34:20 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 03, 2025, 10:42:06 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2025, 10:44:33 PM
:confused: (ftp://:confused:). What did I do wrong? I'm just trying to fit in here guys? Did I not demonize her enough? I mean I used the same verbiage that Mcat did and probably did as much research on her to justify what he said? She's obviously an attention seeking whore right? I mean It might have come off a little more rage filled but not by much right? It's that you all were just so happy to pat him on the back and I wanted to fit in.. damnit!
No
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 03, 2025, 11:03:09 PM
:confused: (ftp://:confused:). What did I do wrong? I'm just trying to fit in here guys? Did I not demonize her enough? I mean I used the same verbiage that Mcat did and probably did as much research on her to justify what he said? She's obviously an attention seeking whore right? I mean It might have come off a little more rage filled but not by much right? It's that you all were just so happy to pat him on the back and I wanted to fit in.. damnit!
No
"eff that vile woman". He actually knew that she was vile which is impressive isn't it? And I know hyperbole is a little over your head.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2025, 11:10:34 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 03, 2025, 11:24:07 PM
The maga mind virus at work.
:lol: :lol: (ftp://:lol: :lol:)Please elaborate? I just gave you an exact quote from him going overboard for no reason. Do you feel what he said is justified and right? That it was right of him to villainize someone he doesn't even know because she didn't want to compete?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2025, 11:31:55 PM
The maga mind virus at work.
:lol: :lol: (ftp://:lol: :lol:)Please elaborate? I just gave you an exact quote from him going overboard for no reason. Do you feel what he said is justified and right? That it was right of him to villainize someone he doesn't even know because she didn't want to compete?
I very much doubt that kRusty or anyone else would have cared if she just didn't want to compete in her hobby that she signed up for freely.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 04, 2025, 08:27:06 AM
The maga mind virus at work.
:lol: :lol: (ftp://:lol: :lol:)Please elaborate? I just gave you an exact quote from him going overboard for no reason. Do you feel what he said is justified and right? That it was right of him to villainize someone he doesn't even know because she didn't want to compete?
I very much doubt that kRusty or anyone else would have cared if she just didn't want to compete in her hobby that she signed up for freely.
Do you think he could have just said it that way?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 04, 2025, 08:31:19 AM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 04, 2025, 09:51:40 AM
It was the performative political statement that he took issue with. It's like talking to a maga wall, I don't get how you don't understand any of this.
:lol: (ftp://:lol:) A performative political statement huh? He disparaged someone he didn't even know and called her vile because of her stance. If only this woman would have been more like his badass daughter who plays polo with the guys none of this would have happened right?
Btw, I understand it completely and wouldn't have even commented if he didn't throw such a tantrum and villainize her. You're incredibly dense and are the one who doesn't understand. And I love how you throw maga into this because you have nothing else in your bag and have a pea brain.
https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html (https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html)
We all know that Martina wears a maga hat 24/7.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2025, 11:10:48 AM
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 12:15:05 PM
It was the performative political statement that he took issue with. It's like talking to a maga wall, I don't get how you don't understand any of this.
](ftp://[emoji38) A performative political statement huh? He disparaged someone he didn't even know and called her vile because of her stance. If only this woman would have been more like his badass daughter who plays polo with the guys none of this would have happened right?
Btw, I understand it completely and wouldn't have even commented if he didn't throw such a tantrum and villainize her. You're incredibly dense and are the one who doesn't understand. And I love how you throw maga into this because you have nothing else in your bag and have a pea brain.
https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html (https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html)
We all know that Martina wears a maga hat 24/7.
I disparaged the woman for the hurtful actions she took. I don't need to know someone personally to know they are a piece of crap when their actions tell me all I need to know.
However the article just drove home that she is a hateful person.
Quote
It has now been reported that the timing of Turner’s act was inspired by her aim to get her protest recorded.
“I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee,’” Turner told Fox News Digital
“I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'
“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you.”
I'm sorry but that lady absolutely rough ridin' sucks, get out of here with that "I have much love and respect for you" when you run to Fox News to publicize the story and make the trans woman's existence national news to millions of hateful people. (Actually I'm not sorry)
Also Martina can eff right off for acting like USA Fencing "threw her under the gender bus" when they were following established rules that would have disqualified her regardless of who she quit against. News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 04, 2025, 01:09:19 PM
You are clearly in the domain of women should just shut the eff up and take it . . .
My gawd
Post by: Cire on April 04, 2025, 01:20:34 PM
Oh cRusty . . . just admit that you are complete whack-a-doo who is enjoying the fact that you want to see women competing against men, and then at some point time both past - present - furture claim that you're some sort of champion for women.
You are clearly in the domain of women should just shut the eff up and take it . . .
My gawd
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 04, 2025, 01:22:31 PM
Who or what am I associating cRusty with, Cire?
Where am I demonizing cRusty via association?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2025, 01:23:53 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 04, 2025, 01:26:22 PM
Post by: Cire on April 04, 2025, 01:36:18 PM
:lol: :lol:
Who or what am I associating cRusty with, Cire?
Where am I demonizing cRusty via association?
I guess it's more of a straw man/ad hominem
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2025, 01:38:57 PM
Girls . . . I am going to tell you what to believe and how you should feel about this topic for the rest of your lives . . Dug Dad
tell me your kids were stupid without actually telling me
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 04, 2025, 02:05:11 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 04, 2025, 02:05:39 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 04, 2025, 02:22:33 PM
However the article just drove home that she is a hateful person.
Quote
It has now been reported that the timing of Turner’s act was inspired by her aim to get her protest recorded.
“I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee,’” Turner told Fox News Digital
“I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'
“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you.”
I'm sorry but that lady absolutely rough ridin' sucks, get out of here with that "I have much love and respect for you" when you run to Fox News to publicize the story and make the trans woman's existence national news to millions of hateful people. (Actually I'm not sorry)
Also Martina can eff right off for acting like USA Fencing "threw her under the gender bus" when they were following established rules that would have disqualified her regardless of who she quit against. News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too.
[/quote]
What hurtful actions did she take? To decline the match? lol. It's just so easy for you and others on here to dismiss the feelings of someone that doesn't agree with your thinking on the matter. On top of that, go ahead and judge that person as a piece of crap because she wanted to express her side of the story (I'll give you her being a tad over the top and running to Fox).
"News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too". Another dumb rough ridin' lesbian eh? Must be tough to have to judge all of these vile beings on such a regular basis. I can feel the weight on your shoulders being judge extraordinaire and it saddens me.
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 02:29:21 PM
You are clearly in the domain of women should just shut the eff up and take it . . .
Take what? What was going to happen to this woman? She might lose to a below average performer in a regional amateur fencing tournament? In that case you are correct - I think this particular woman should shut the eff up and accept that.
Post by: nicname on April 04, 2025, 02:58:04 PM
It was the performative political statement that he took issue with. It's like talking to a maga wall, I don't get how you don't understand any of this.
]
Btw, I understand it completely and wouldn't have even commented if he didn't throw such a tantrum and villainize her. You're incredibly dense and are the one who doesn't understand. And I love how you throw maga into this because you have nothing else in your bag and have a pea brain.
https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html (https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html)
We all know that Martina wears a maga hat 24/7.
I disparaged the woman for the hurtful actions she took. I don't need to know someone personally to know they are a piece of crap when their actions tell me all I need to know.
However the article just drove home that she is a hateful person.QuoteIt has now been reported that the timing of Turner’s act was inspired by her aim to get her protest recorded.
“I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee,’” Turner told Fox News Digital
“I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'
“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you.”
I'm sorry but that lady absolutely rough ridin' sucks, get out of here with that "I have much love and respect for you" when you run to Fox News to publicize the story and make the trans woman's existence national news to millions of hateful people. (Actually I'm not sorry)
Also Martina can eff right off for acting like USA Fencing "threw her under the gender bus" when they were following established rules that would have disqualified her regardless of who she quit against. News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too.
Be humble
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 03:04:47 PM
What hurtful actions did she take? To decline the match? lol. It's just so easy for you and others on here to dismiss the feelings of someone that doesn't agree with your thinking on the matter. On top of that, go ahead and judge that person as a piece of crap because she wanted to express her side of the story (I'll give you her being a tad over the top and running to Fox).
She didn't just decline the match, she planned to have it filmed so she could go to Fox News to humiliate a trans woman who wasn't hurting anyone and broadcast her name to millions of hateful people. That's despicable.
Quote
"News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too". Another dumb rough ridin' lesbian eh? Must be tough to have to judge all of these vile beings on such a regular basis. I can feel the weight on your shoulders being judge extraordinaire and it saddens me.
https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 03:05:46 PM
ElaborateIt was the performative political statement that he took issue with. It's like talking to a maga wall, I don't get how you don't understand any of this.
]
Btw, I understand it completely and wouldn't have even commented if he didn't throw such a tantrum and villainize her. You're incredibly dense and are the one who doesn't understand. And I love how you throw maga into this because you have nothing else in your bag and have a pea brain.
https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html (https://www.firstpost.com/sports/fencing-transgender-controversy-usa-redmond-sullivan-stephanie-turner-martina-navratilova-13876941.html)
We all know that Martina wears a maga hat 24/7.
I disparaged the woman for the hurtful actions she took. I don't need to know someone personally to know they are a piece of crap when their actions tell me all I need to know.
However the article just drove home that she is a hateful person.QuoteIt has now been reported that the timing of Turner’s act was inspired by her aim to get her protest recorded.
“I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee,’” Turner told Fox News Digital
“I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'
“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you.”
I'm sorry but that lady absolutely rough ridin' sucks, get out of here with that "I have much love and respect for you" when you run to Fox News to publicize the story and make the trans woman's existence national news to millions of hateful people. (Actually I'm not sorry)
Also Martina can eff right off for acting like USA Fencing "threw her under the gender bus" when they were following established rules that would have disqualified her regardless of who she quit against. News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too.
Be humble
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 04, 2025, 03:23:28 PM
What hurtful actions did she take? To decline the match? lol. It's just so easy for you and others on here to dismiss the feelings of someone that doesn't agree with your thinking on the matter. On top of that, go ahead and judge that person as a piece of crap because she wanted to express her side of the story (I'll give you her being a tad over the top and running to Fox).
She didn't just decline the match, she planned to have it filmed so she could go to Fox News to humiliate a trans woman who wasn't hurting anyone and broadcast her name to millions of hateful people. That's despicable.Quote"News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too". Another dumb rough ridin' lesbian eh? Must be tough to have to judge all of these vile beings on such a regular basis. I can feel the weight on your shoulders being judge extraordinaire and it saddens me.
https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
How incredibly presumptuous that you think she had the intent to humiliate a trans woman instead of bringing awareness to what she believes is right. Oh yeah, we should all bow to the all knowing Mcat.. :rolleyes: (ftp://:rolleyes:)
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 03:33:55 PM
What hurtful actions did she take? To decline the match? lol. It's just so easy for you and others on here to dismiss the feelings of someone that doesn't agree with your thinking on the matter. On top of that, go ahead and judge that person as a piece of crap because she wanted to express her side of the story (I'll give you her being a tad over the top and running to Fox).
She didn't just decline the match, she planned to have it filmed so she could go to Fox News to humiliate a trans woman who wasn't hurting anyone and broadcast her name to millions of hateful people. That's despicable.Quote"News flash, lesbians can do shitty things, too". Another dumb rough ridin' lesbian eh? Must be tough to have to judge all of these vile beings on such a regular basis. I can feel the weight on your shoulders being judge extraordinaire and it saddens me.
https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
How incredibly presumptuous that you think she had the intent to humiliate a trans woman instead of bringing awareness to what she believes is right. Oh yeah, we should all bow to the all knowing Mcat.. :rolleyes: (ftp://:rolleyes:)
Oh I fully believe she wanted to bring awareness to what she thought was right. She also rightfully recognized that the most effective way to do that was to have herself filmed kneeling to a trans woman knowing she would be kicked out of the tournament and sharing the video and the trans woman's bio to Fox News. How noble!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 04, 2025, 03:50:49 PM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on April 04, 2025, 03:59:16 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 04:08:25 PM
Is this the only match in the tournament that the trans lady won?
Looks like she went 2-4
https://fencingtracker.com/event/31203/results
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2025, 04:27:23 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 04, 2025, 04:35:24 PM
Girls . . . I am going to tell you what to believe and how you should feel about this topic for the rest of your lives . . Dug Dad
tell me your kids were stupid without actually telling me
My kids are actually quite smart and I didn't tell them what to believe . . . but these idiotic analogies you're trying to use to give air cover for your disdain for cis-gendered females who only want to compete against other cis-gendered females in sports is on the same level of total derp that cRusty attempts to employ by talking about overall record or what place the dude finished in . . .
It's just a total cop out and dumb AF
Post by: Cire on April 04, 2025, 05:23:06 PM
What about if the organization and community is supportive?Girls . . . I am going to tell you what to believe and how you should feel about this topic for the rest of your lives . . Dug Dad
tell me your kids were stupid without actually telling me
My kids are actually quite smart and I didn't tell them what to believe . . . but these idiotic analogies you're trying to use to give air cover for your disdain for cis-gendered females who only want to compete against other cis-gendered females in sports is on the same level of total derp that cRusty attempts to employ by talking about overall record or what place the dude finished in . . .
It's just a total cop out and dumb AF
Shut everything down for a single maga someone who makes me uncomfortable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on April 04, 2025, 05:55:32 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2025, 06:08:07 PM
Girls . . . I am going to tell you what to believe and how you should feel about this topic for the rest of your lives . . Dug Dad
tell me your kids were stupid without actually telling me
My kids are actually quite smart and I didn't tell them what to believe . . . but these idiotic analogies you're trying to use to give air cover for your disdain for cis-gendered females who only want to compete against other cis-gendered females in sports is on the same level of total derp that cRusty attempts to employ by talking about overall record or what place the dude finished in . . .
It's just a total cop out and dumb AF
You seem to be used to kids that can be told what to think so
I just assumed they were simple and were very bad with women
Post by: michigancat on April 04, 2025, 06:20:00 PM
Sorry about that rusty. That was a jerky thing to say.
I didn't think it was jerky FWIW! no need to apologize.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 04, 2025, 07:55:24 PM
Hey Dug that's not cool man.Are you suggesting that he or others should be cool to people who express bigoted views?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 04, 2025, 08:34:45 PM
Hey Dug that's not cool man.Are you suggesting that he or others should be cool to people who express bigoted views?
Well, im suggesting that talking about someone else’s kids isnt cool. It’s not cool when Dax does it. I felt the temp rising in the thread and was hoping to pull back the reigns. I can just stay out of it if it’s helpful.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 04, 2025, 10:56:20 PM
in favor of kneeling all of the sudden lmfao
The irony and double standard is rich isn't it? :driving: (ftp://:driving:)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 05, 2025, 06:43:40 AM
Hey Dug that's not cool man.Are you suggesting that he or others should be cool to people who express bigoted views?
Well, im suggesting that talking about someone else’s kids isnt cool. It’s not cool when Dax does it. I felt the temp rising in the thread and was hoping to pull back the reigns. I can just stay out of it if it’s helpful.
He seemed to be suggesting my kids can’t think for themselves when all I was saying is leave the women in sports to actual women in sports and not gross old men who are insisting on up skirt checks.
I assure you my actual kids who are females in sports give zero about how much Riley Gaines or the fencing girl are trying to make.
Post by: _33 on April 05, 2025, 03:27:22 PM
Post by: mocat on April 05, 2025, 03:51:45 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 05, 2025, 03:56:09 PM
Quote
Stephanie Turner actually fenced a mixed foil event 7 days earlier where there were men in her pool, and she fenced men in DE's and came in 8th out of 25, much higher than many of the men in the event. Managed to do all those bouts without black cards. So this isn't even a tiny bit don't want to fence men', it's pure don't want to fence trans people' which has nothing to do with imagined gender benefits, and everything to do with pure transphobia.
Post by: chum1 on April 05, 2025, 05:55:48 PM
Post by: Spracne on April 05, 2025, 06:57:23 PM
That's well said and really the crux of the matter to me and surely others here. People who claim to be pro fairness are ultimately simply anti transgender in general. Whether they realize it or not.
"Whether they realize it or not" - They don't. That's the problem.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 09:15:36 PM
That's well said and really the crux of the matter to me and surely others here. People who claim to be pro fairness are ultimately simply anti transgender in general. Whether they realize it or not.
"Whether they realize it or not" - They don't. That's the problem.
That is such horseshit. You just so badly want to believe it to be true.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 05, 2025, 10:20:56 PM
Post by: Tobias on April 05, 2025, 10:22:55 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 10:42:39 PM
Purplewood absolutely knows he hates trans people and don't any of you say otherwise
Go eff yourself bud. You're a miserable piece of crap. I haven't posted once in a trans thread and this is what you love to do. You can't back any of your nonsense up either because you are so miserable. You and others on this board can't stand someone having a different opinion as your own. Well, actually not you because you just fall in line with what other libs say because you're incapable of having an actual thought. This is also why the libs have such a shitty approval rating.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 05, 2025, 11:02:53 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 11:16:29 PM
Yikes, people having a different opinion than you makes you really angry.
It's not. It's pussies like you that accuse someone of being something that they're not because you're weak and have a pea brain. This is at least the second time you've accused me of something that I'm not without any proof whatsoever. It's actually quite sad and I feel sorry for you. If you want to accuse me of something, back it up. I also realize that this is a message board and I really do appreciate all the banter and differing opinions. It's when a douchebag like you can't come up with an argument or have a discussion and then have to resort to accusations that aren't even close to being true because you're so dumb. Pathetic.
Post by: Spracne on April 05, 2025, 11:21:14 PM
Purplewood absolutely knows he hates trans people and don't any of you say otherwise
Go eff yourself bud. You're a miserable piece of crap. I haven't posted once in a trans thread and this is what you love to do. You can't back any of your nonsense up either because you are so miserable. You and others on this board can't stand someone having a different opinion as your own. Well, actually not you because you just fall in line with what other libs say because you're incapable of having an actual thought. This is also why the libs have such a shitty approval rating.
The problem isn't your opinions. It's how you present your opinions as facts. Or take someone else's opinion as fact and state it as such. Also, what are we drinking tonight?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 05, 2025, 11:24:26 PM
Purplewood absolutely knows he hates trans people and don't any of you say otherwise
Go eff yourself bud. You're a miserable piece of crap. I haven't posted once in a trans thread and this is what you love to do. You can't back any of your nonsense up either because you are so miserable. You and others on this board can't stand someone having a different opinion as your own. Well, actually not you because you just fall in line with what other libs say because you're incapable of having an actual thought. This is also why the libs have such a shitty approval rating.
The problem isn't your opinions. It's how you present your opinions as facts. Or take someone else's opinion as fact and state it as such. Also, what are we drinking tonight?
You're trying to reason with someone who thinks the funniest thing to happen the last five years was Paul Pelosi being hit with a hammer
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 11:29:50 PM
Purplewood absolutely knows he hates trans people and don't any of you say otherwise
Go eff yourself bud. You're a miserable piece of crap. I haven't posted once in a trans thread and this is what you love to do. You can't back any of your nonsense up either because you are so miserable. You and others on this board can't stand someone having a different opinion as your own. Well, actually not you because you just fall in line with what other libs say because you're incapable of having an actual thought. This is also why the libs have such a shitty approval rating.
The problem isn't your opinions. It's how you present your opinions as facts. Or take someone else's opinion as fact and state it as such. Also, what are we drinking tonight?
Ha! I won't disagree with you on this or how I've presented some things and I can understand why there might be some bitterness (this is a message board) but that doesn't mean you can label me as XYZ because of just that. And I've had some wine. :rolleyes: (ftp://:rolleyes:) I'm not wackycat, Spracs. If you want to accuse me of something, back it up and don't be a pussy.
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 11:33:22 PM
Purplewood absolutely knows he hates trans people and don't any of you say otherwise
Go eff yourself bud. You're a miserable piece of crap. I haven't posted once in a trans thread and this is what you love to do. You can't back any of your nonsense up either because you are so miserable. You and others on this board can't stand someone having a different opinion as your own. Well, actually not you because you just fall in line with what other libs say because you're incapable of having an actual thought. This is also why the libs have such a shitty approval rating.
The problem isn't your opinions. It's how you present your opinions as facts. Or take someone else's opinion as fact and state it as such. Also, what are we drinking tonight?
You're trying to reason with someone who thinks the funniest thing to happen the last five years was Paul Pelosi being hit with a hammer
The fact that you chose to use this one is pure comedy and shows what a loser you are. I've had much funnier takes than that. I would love to pull up some of your gems but I'm not a dope like you.
Post by: Spracne on April 05, 2025, 11:34:19 PM
Post by: Tobias on April 05, 2025, 11:38:40 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 05, 2025, 11:47:30 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 06, 2025, 06:09:06 AM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 06, 2025, 11:53:16 AM
Man, I wonder if sober pw is going to re-read the last few posts before he started drunk posting last night and chuckle a bit.
Keep working that drunk angle. I've posted inebriated plenty over the years but last night wasn't one of them. And I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little judgement of the evils of alcohol sitting there typing from your righteous perch. Now that would have given me a little laugh.
Post by: michigancat on April 06, 2025, 12:39:15 PM
Man, I wonder if sober pw is going to re-read the last few posts before he started drunk posting last night and chuckle a bit.
Keep working that drunk angle. I've posted inebriated plenty over the years but last night wasn't one of them. And I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little judgement of the evils of alcohol sitting there typing from your righteous perch. Now that would have given me a little laugh.
honestly if you carefully re-read the few posts before yours you might find spracne and chum to be giving a lot of folks the benefit of the doubt. Your reaction to it was funny!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 06, 2025, 01:26:54 PM
Saw this on Reddit about the woman who kneeled:QuoteStephanie Turner actually fenced a mixed foil event 7 days earlier where there were men in her pool, and she fenced men in DE's and came in 8th out of 25, much higher than many of the men in the event. Managed to do all those bouts without black cards. So this isn't even a tiny bit don't want to fence men', it's pure don't want to fence trans people' which has nothing to do with imagined gender benefits, and everything to do with pure transphobia.
I think I pointed out this girl just wants some of the Riley Gains moron money. this was her shot and she wasn't going to miss it.
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 06, 2025, 06:02:58 PM
Thats commitment, purp! And I commend you for that (and specifically that and nothing else about what you said or what you are doing)
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 06, 2025, 08:15:06 PM
I'll hand it to purp, he's still in here dying on that Hill. Even the daxbot was like well crap the only thing that's left here is this lady just hates trans people. Or, if I being generous, she may not specifically hate trans people but it willing to knowingly humiliate then and put them in danger for get chance at a RileyGaines Moment
Thats commitment, purp! And I commend you for that (and specifically that and nothing else about what you said or what you are doing)
Ha! I would have lost the over/under bet on when you would have chimed in but I knew I could count on you to put in your slanted view on things. Now that I'm sober it's obvious that she is just another MAGA grifter that didn't get to ring the cash register like she thought. No worries, plenty more opportunities knowing how many of these vile creatures are out there!
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 06, 2025, 08:54:45 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 07, 2025, 12:54:26 PM
I'll hand it to purp, he's still in here dying on that Hill. Even the daxbot was like well crap the only thing that's left here is this lady just hates trans people. Or, if I being generous, she may not specifically hate trans people but it willing to knowingly humiliate then and put them in danger for get chance at a RileyGaines Moment
Thats commitment, purp! And I commend you for that (and specifically that and nothing else about what you said or what you are doing)
Ha! I would have lost the over/under bet on when you would have chimed in but I knew I could count on you to put in your slanted view on things. Now that I'm sober it's obvious that she is just another MAGA grifter that didn't get to ring the cash register like she thought. No worries, plenty more opportunities knowing how many of these vile creatures are out there!
She is certaonly not done trying to $$
Post by: LickNeckey on April 07, 2025, 02:23:22 PM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on April 07, 2025, 02:35:25 PM
https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1909056790949412976
Yep, just like around election time. Tanking the economy so they need to rile up the dummies to gain support. Wash, rinse, repeat. Pet eating is right around the corner if market keeps tanking.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 07, 2025, 02:39:14 PM
did you not hear the man?
ENTIRE TEAMS ARE GOING TRANS!!!!
ENIRE rough ridin' TEAMS!!! THE WOKE MIND VIRUS IS SPREADING
Post by: Stupid Fitz on April 07, 2025, 02:59:24 PM
jesus SF
did you not hear the man?
ENTIRE TEAMS ARE GOING TRANS!!!!
ENIRE rough ridin' TEAMS!!! THE WOKE MIND VIRUS IS SPREADING
I mean, duh, DT told us about those elementary kids that went to school as boys and came home girls a while back. This is just them growing up and joining sports teams.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 07, 2025, 04:12:39 PM
I see common ground is being found, opinions are being expressed with grace and civility, and opposing viewpoints are not being demonized. Well done in the 'transgender issues' thread everyone lmao.
The only common ground that there is on this issue is absolute and 100% shame for and intolerance of anyone who expresses a shred of bigotry against trans people or anyone else for that matter.
Post by: Trim on April 07, 2025, 05:39:34 PM
If the former, and if women's basketball is allegedly profitable now, why isn't this happening in wnba and big college women's hoops?
Post by: michigancat on April 07, 2025, 06:58:09 PM
Are people anti- all this in sports still thinking it's dudes scheming to find a way to play in women's sports and whip ass, or is that while it may be earnest it's still unfair?
If the former, and if women's basketball is allegedly profitable now, why isn't this happening in wnba and big college women's hoops?
I think most people have moved on from the idea that there are males pretending to be trans so they can win at sports .
Post by: Trim on April 07, 2025, 07:21:33 PM
https://x.com/BMeiselas/status/1909351475429716101
I had no idea there was competitive (?) frisbee golf.
https://x.com/JenniferSey/status/1908653584557744422
Post by: catastrophe on April 07, 2025, 08:36:54 PM
https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1909056790949412976No doubt mostly pining for Obama and his Trans Pacific Partnership
Post by: _33 on April 08, 2025, 09:18:11 AM
I see common ground is being found, opinions are being expressed with grace and civility, and opposing viewpoints are not being demonized. Well done in the 'transgender issues' thread everyone lmao.
The only common ground that there is on this issue is absolute and 100% shame for and intolerance of anyone who expresses a shred of bigotry against trans people or anyone else for that matter.
lmao that's what I'm talking about! Fantastic 'Transgender Issues' post right here.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 08, 2025, 08:04:17 PM
John Oliver segment.
Pretty good.
Post by: Cire on April 09, 2025, 08:52:57 AM
I see common ground is being found, opinions are being expressed with grace and civility, and opposing viewpoints are not being demonized. Well done in the 'transgender issues' thread everyone lmao.
The only common ground that there is on this issue is absolute and 100% shame for and intolerance of anyone who expresses a shred of bigotry against trans people or anyone else for that matter.
Bigotry is bigotry!
common ground!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 09, 2025, 01:05:40 PM
:lol:
https://x.com/BMeiselas/status/1909351475429716101
I had no idea there was competitive (?) frisbee golf.
https://x.com/JenniferSey/status/1908653584557744422
So didn’t Trump ban all of this?
Post by: michigancat on April 17, 2025, 07:49:42 AM
https://x.com/FoxNews/status/1912619350319853931
https://x.com/icons_women/status/1912533055438512154
Post by: Spracne on April 17, 2025, 08:16:16 AM
Post by: cfbandyman on April 17, 2025, 08:31:55 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on April 17, 2025, 08:46:30 AM
Pam Bondi is a good lackey and a terrible public servant. She disgusts me.
It says something when RFK Jr is likely the least disgusting person in this administration. The entirety of trump 2.0 is horrible, disgusting lackeys.
Post by: bucket on April 17, 2025, 08:49:42 AM
Pam Bondi is a good lackey and a terrible public servant. She disgusts me.
It says something when RFK Jr is likely the least disgusting person in this administration. The entirety of trump 2.0 is horrible, disgusting lackeys.
That dude went after autistic people yesterday, though. They all have a grudge against someone.
Post by: Spracne on April 17, 2025, 08:56:11 AM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on April 17, 2025, 12:33:15 PM
I must have TDS, because I'm really at my wit's end with what this administration is doing everyday to undermine and destroy everything that made America great in the first place. This is a slow-moving train wreck, and the people still cheering it on are just as guilty, at this point. Where is my country?
Amen, comrade. The really sucky part is I will take no satisfaction in saying “see I told you so” like I would just so much rather it not happen in the first place. But hey, this was the mandate of We the People. So I guess there’s that.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 17, 2025, 02:12:41 PM
I must have TDS, because I'm really at my wit's end with what this administration is doing everyday to undermine and destroy everything that made America great in the first place. This is a slow-moving train wreck, and the people still cheering it on are just as guilty, at this point. Where is my country?
I think the train is moving pretty fast, actually.
Post by: steve dave on April 17, 2025, 11:39:35 PM
https://x.com/krangtnelson/status/1913085803460264369?s=46
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stupid Fitz on April 18, 2025, 08:20:51 AM
lmao
https://x.com/krangtnelson/status/1913085803460264369?s=46
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stepping away from the complete lack of self awareness that is one of MAGAs greatest attributes, I will never rough ridin' understand being shitty to people that are less fortunate than you that you don't even know. It just makes me sad that people are like this and even cheered for being this way.
Post by: cfbandyman on April 18, 2025, 08:23:31 AM
I must have TDS, because I'm really at my wit's end with what this administration is doing everyday to undermine and destroy everything that made America great in the first place. This is a slow-moving train wreck, and the people still cheering it on are just as guilty, at this point. Where is my country?
I think the train is moving pretty fast, actually.
Off the rails, on a crazy train even
Post by: Cire on May 07, 2025, 07:05:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 07, 2025, 07:47:49 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250508/b8be8a2bc0b9b3063bf7cc72519aed3a.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She should kill Greg Abbott for not being all-gender (please do this Nancy mace place do this Nancy mace please do this Nancy mace)
Post by: bucket on May 08, 2025, 09:01:29 AM
Post by: CNS on May 08, 2025, 09:17:59 AM
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on May 08, 2025, 12:09:16 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 08, 2025, 12:16:47 PM
Anti cis-gendered female entities are nearing the midpoint of the crossing of the Rubicon, might as well start soaking the rags with oil because you'll just need to burn the boats you're going so far into the land of absurdity.
Post by: Cire on May 09, 2025, 12:41:58 PM
CNN (former ESPN) analyst now equating women being forced to compete against men on the field of play as akin to MLK and the civil rights movement . . . as in she wants to see it continue and grow.
Anti cis-gendered female entities are nearing the midpoint of the crossing of the Rubicon, might as well start soaking the rags with oil because you'll just need to burn the boats you're going so far into the land of absurdity.
Link?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 09, 2025, 12:49:27 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2025, 02:41:30 PM
Dax, I've told you this before but the Rubicon is like ankle deep, no one is using boats to cross it.
I know that you colossal derp -
"Crossing the Rubicon" is an idiom that signifies passing a point of no return, making an irrevocable decision, or committing to a course of action with potentially irreversible consequences. The phrase is derived from Julius Caesar's historical act of crossing the Rubicon River into Italy with his army in 49 BC, which was a direct violation of Roman law and the beginning of a civil war
Post by: CHONGS on May 09, 2025, 04:03:23 PM
Post by: nicname on May 09, 2025, 04:54:49 PM
Post by: michigancat on May 09, 2025, 06:11:14 PM
We’ve really gotta keep the sports stuff in the trans sports thread.It's really the same thing
Post by: catastrophe on May 09, 2025, 07:01:55 PM
Even banning transgender people from the military has gotten less media attention than overseas pool tournaments.
Post by: MakeItRain on May 12, 2025, 03:38:34 PM
CNN (former ESPN) analyst now equating women being forced to compete against men on the field of play as akin to MLK and the civil rights movement
(https://media.tenor.com/ZttURy99Kn8AAAAM/good-great.gif)
The bigots are making the same excuses to not give transgender people equal rights as they did black people before civil rights legislation. Now it's unnatural and against god's will for transgender people to play sports and piss in peace. Back then it was unnatural and against god's will for black people to play sports and marry who they wanted to.
You have an issue with the comparison of trans civil rights in the '20's with black civil rights in the '50's, take it up with the crusty ass bigoted conservative christians who decided to use the same playbook. There are still people out there who think black people have extra muscles and crap.
Post by: _33 on May 22, 2025, 09:31:04 AM