politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There should be a hundred Democratic House members on the House floor defending McBride. There should be female Democratic House members complaining left and right about how they find it weird that Republicans are requiring them to share bathrooms with men.
The problem Democrats have on trans issues is that most Democratic leaders don't really seem to believe in the validity of trans people. They'll make vague platitudes about supporting rights. But it's all very much a "you do you" type of thing. They don't actually support or affirm trans identities. You don't see many Democratic lawmakers out there saying, "trans men are men. Trans women are women" and actually meaning it.
These things are quite explainable, and quite defendable, if you're actually willing to do it. For example, trans women don't "force" themselves into women's bathrooms. Do you know how most trans women decide it's time to switch from the men's to women's restrooms? They don't just one day announce they're trans and start using the opposite facilities. Almost all trans women start their transition. Once they're far enough along on their HRT and change in presentation, they inevitably start getting weird looks and harassment in the men's restroom. Cis men start reading us as women, and we start getting harassment for being in the men's room. That is when most of us switch over to the women's room. And it works the opposite for trans guys. 99% of trans people work on the rule of, "use whatever restroom causes the least disruption."
That's how you can fight bathroom bans in a way anyone can understand. Trans people don't form their beliefs and practices out of nowhere. It's all quite logical and reasonable. But you have to actually be willing to defend people.
But that is not what Democrats do. They don't defend trans people, they tolerate them. Democrats can't give good, well-reasons responses to defend trans people, as they prefer to live forever on the fence. Yes, when it is politically popular, they're willing to speak up for us in terms of vague discussions of universal rights. But when the other side starts demonizing trans people, because Democrats have never taken trans issues truly seriously, they don't know how to properly respond.
And they're fools for doing so. This kind of obsession and policing of gender ends only one place - with everyone forced back in the closet. And for cis women, that ultimately means being forced back into your traditional gender role, where the gender police think you belong - pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen.
I am sick to death of the nonstop firehose of gender identity politics. From the conservative faux-machismo consumerism to the trans identity parade.
"You do you"
...is the most you can expect from anybody. You cannot force acceptance but you sure af can (and should) enforce tolerance.
Everybody is too hung up on gottdam categories. Now I am pro-enby. Fuck all gender/sexuality classifications. Every spectrum is just a singularity. Stop hyper defining everything and just let people be who they are without asking them to be somebody else. That's it. That's all that is required of you. That's also why you cannot force acceptance, because that will always result in abuse. But tolerance needs enforcement.
To put a finer point on the other comment, this is a human rights issue. "You do you" would be enough if an equity of human rights existed in this country for trans people. It does not.
What's going on is an attempted extermination by neglect.
The problem is that "you do you" is an ineffective counter when the other side has decided to actively exterminate a minority group. "You do you" is fine in normal times, when there isn't an actively malevolent political movement bent on the destruction of a minority group.
This conflict is entirely at the feet of right wingers. Trans people have never been well understood or popular. But up until 2016 or so, we were mostly an afterthought. And honestly, that's fine. What the trans community really wants more than anything is to just be left the hell alone. But Republicans lost the fight on gay rights, and they needed another out group to target. So they moved on to trans people.
The conversation mostly works like this;
Conservatives: trans people are demons and we should exterminate them like animals
Liberals: umm, maybe that's not a good idea. How about we just let everyone live the way they want and not bother them?
Conservatives: why do liberals care so much about trans people??? Why do they never stop talking about trans people?!
Conservatives like to say liberals are obsessed with gender politics, but that focus is ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONSERVATIVES. And liberals don't have some general like of trans people. It's simply part of core liberal philosophy that you don't sit idly by while minority groups are attacked.
But again, if you actually want to stand up for someone's rights, you need to actually be able to rhetorically defend them. Consider this:
Conservative: TRANS PEOPLE ARE MUTILATING CHILDREN'S GENITALS
Liberal: I think everyone should live and let live. Let's just have tolerance.
Do you see how weak, ineffective, and utterly useless that is? When someone spouts a bigoted or racist line against a minority group, you can't just sit back, say "I accept all viewpoints," and do nothing. If you actually care about protect people's rights, you need to be able to actually defend them.
The problem with milquetoast centrist "live and let live" is that it's very, very easy to paint extremely damaging revocations of civil rights as simple "common sense" policies. For example, I described why it's a really, really bad idea to force trans people to use the restroom that corresponds to their birth sex. But a Republicans will say, "I don't oppose trans people, I just think we need some common sense rules to protect everyone." And if Democrat isn't actually willing to protect the rights of trans people, they'll end up going along with it as it seems neutral on its face.
Or, for another example. Consider "separate but equal." If you didn't know anything about Jim Crow and how utterly laughable the idea of separate but equal was, it seems fine on its face. And if opponents to segregation just took a "you do you" philosophy, they never would have stood up against Jim Crow. They would have just said, "ok, black people. You go do your thing, separate but equal, but I don't want to have to listen to all this identity politics. I'm sick of this woke shit."
I don't even know if any mainline party beliefs are actually beliefs rather than just "is it worth it to me to support this population". They'll throw trans people under the bus because they're a small population with limited engaged support. They also didn't make a big stink about the Hatian false accusations. Sure, they'll do a "why are Republicans bothering with this unimportant issue", but the thrust there is that these issues are foolish, not wrong.
Support for every minority population is a calculation, not a principle. And since they're always waiting to see whether a Republican libel is resonating before deciding their stance, there's never any messaging to stop them from resonating in the first place. It's "I'm in favor of social justice the moment 51% of the voting population is in favor and completely agnostic until that point". And really the percentage requirement is probably more like 60%-70%.