this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
201 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19242 readers
2066 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump and Vance have made anti-transgender attacks a central part of their campaign, using demeaning language and misrepresentations to portray transgender individuals as a threat to national identity.

Harris has largely ignored Trump’s attacks but has pushed back on his characterization of her stances, noting that federal policy allowing transgender military personnel access to gender-affirming medical care was in place during Trump’s presidency.

Advocates like GLAAD’s Sarah Kate Ellis and Charlotte Clymer warn that Trump’s approach fuels hostility, marginalizing vulnerable communities and creating a culture of animosity instead of understanding and empathy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork 13 points 1 month ago

In NY State, we have a state-wide proposition that extends the anti-discriminatory language in the Constitution, currently just covering "race, color, or creed", to a whole host of other categories, including national origin, disability, gender expression, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare. They even take the time to replace "his or her" with "their" in the clause. The important bit is supposed to be the pregnancy parts, because it was initially proposed as a way to put abortion access into the State Constitution:

https://elections.ny.gov/2024-statewide-ballot-proposal

The opposition to it has been all over the map. I see signs saying to vote no on the proposition to "protect women's sports" and "stop funding health care for illegal immigrants". No signs at all saying to vote no in opposition to abortion: I think even the Republicans here know that is a non-starter. But I think it's telling that all these signs are asking people to vote "no" on an anti-discrimination amendment because they think these people need to be discriminated against. It's hate all the way down.