“We’re seeing a war against trans individuals being waged by our federal government, and we, as citizens, need to be willing to step up and say this is not OK,” Kluwe said. “The Democratic Party has taken a very defensive posture on trans issues when that’s the absolute wrong thing to do. You don’t make a bully go away by cowering in the corner and say, I’ll agree with you on these little things. That just encourages the bully.

“We need to be full-throated in the attack, saying these are people who pay taxes, who serve in our military, and who are entitled to the exact same rights that every single other American is entitled to, which includes health care and the opportunity to live a prosperous life. We can’t be afraid of the right-wing fear machine. We have to take it to them, show that we’re willing to fight.”

all 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 1 week ago (10 children)

3 things... Go vote. Check your liver. Have a colonoscopy.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Don't try to do all three at the same time, though. At BEST you'll be ejected from the polling station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    What if it's an ELECTive procedure?

    Obviously the crickets' chirping to compliment my genius is drowning out all of your laughter and applause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Seriously though. Check yourself for fatty liver. If you have it, then start exercising and keep doing that until you go out into the silent night. But I mean you can take a break for sleeping, work, and sex. And eat less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    If dying young is the price I pay for living without the constant anxiety of everything that could possibly go wrong with my body, then I guess I'll just have to pay it.

    I'm not going to cram a medical textbook's worth of anxiety into my every waking moment. That will kill me sooner, there's no "maybe" about it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    Are you checking your liver with an EtOH stress-test?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 week ago* (8 children)

    A football handegg player turned politician whose brain seemingly HASN'T turned to mush from too many concussions?

    About time! ✊🏼

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    It's because he was a kicker. They tend not to get touched very much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    Of course it's Kluwe. He's awesome.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Yes, either you stand for liberty and justice for all or you don't and Dems are supposed to defend that and pursuit of happiness for all. These are basic values and fiercely supporting them is what the country was supposedly about. Of course it hasn't lived up to it fully, but Dems have passed laws to get closer to the ideals and maga goes the opposite way. They depend on in and out groups while Dems want all included, raise all boats and be excellent to each other! The difference is between controlling dualistic groups that suppress people, and platforms that follow what's healthy and works in places with happy people to actualize. The answers are available so use them to pass the test and stop failing it every other time!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Hell fucking yeah!

  • source
  • Saying Democrats need to fight for trans people is like saying Republicans need to fight for trans people.

    It's true, but why bother with conservative parties? Better to put your effort with a progressive party.

  • source
  • [+] -13 points 1 week ago (49 children)

    On the flip side, the trans community needs to do better about recognizing who their friends are and who their real enemies are. Just because a politician disagrees with you on 2% of trans issues, doesn’t mean they should be compared to Hitler and bashed by the community. This is what is chasing many politicians away. Better to not talk about trans issues at all for these politicians.

  • source
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (38 children)

    There is plenty of nuance in the "trans community", with positions on transphobic dems that run the gamunt from I'll hold my nose and vote for them to since they obviously decided they don't need my vote I'll not vote for them.

    I can appreciate that if you don't know anything about trans people or how the hateful right wing works you might think that there's some concern about social-only trans women stealing scholarships from cis women due to some inherent hormonal advantage. But this simply does not happen..

    It's a hateful dog-whistle sounded by a group who wants to first ban all trans girls from any sport regardless of age or hormone, and then shut down all girls sports when no parent is willing to subject their daughter to an invasive exam.

    And while I don't mean to suggest that all such Dems are strong transphobes, if they're not willing to fight when someone is under attack I don't think they're fit for the job anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago (37 children)

    But this simply does not happen..

    If this is the case, then why fight so hard against Dems that suggest feel differently, either legitimately, or to win a seat?

    Honestly, I agree that there’s tons of nuance to the conversation, and neither side makes it about nuance. Which makes it hard to know what either side even wants.

    if they're not willing to fight when someone is under attack I don't think they're fit for the job anyway.

    My point is that I’ve heard democrats say things that seem reasonable, and saw the trans community rail against them. They might have fought for trans people in other ways, but now there’s no point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    If this is the case, then why fight so hard against Dems that suggest feel differently, either legitimately, or to win a seat?

    Because bigotry and hate always get dressed up in ways that feel reasonable. Pick any hateful position of the last hundred years, and we can find both the gentleel start and the naked abuse at its end.

    My point is that I’ve heard democrats say things that seem reasonable, and saw the trans community rail against them.

    Like what?

    The most recent Dem to make a transphobic splash is Josh Turek, nomineee for Senator from Iowa. I'll grab a paragraph and highlight the offensive part, just in case you don't see it.

    https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/iowa-josh-turek-transgender-ad

    As a kid in a wheelchair, I faced my share of bullying. That’s why I believe that no Iowan should face discrimination. As a Paralympian, I also know it’s important to have rules. It’s why I oppose males competing in female sports, something that is already illegal in Iowa. I’m against taxpayers paying for sex changes too. Anyone tells you any different is lying.”

    Turek made a splash just before this with a clip that talked about Christian love for trans folk. And then he went on to misgender every trans femm athlete, diminish every cis femm athlete, and promise to deny all trans-gender affirming care for any government employee, senior citizen, disabled person, or person living in poverty.

    I'll presume that you don't think this is "reasonable.". But way too often people who express mildly transphobic views like "I don't want social-only trans girls playing sports!" have equally odious prejudice that they're just hiding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    Because bigotry and hate always get dressed up in ways that feel reasonable. Pick any hateful position of the last hundred years, and we can find both the gentleel start and the naked abuse at its end.

    You might be right while also being wrong that some of these issues are about bigotry and hate.

    The most recent Dem to make a transphobic splash is Josh Turek, nomineee for Senator from Iowa.

    I would not have used his quote as something that was reasonable. Calling a trans woman a male is an easy way to show you’re a piece of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Is there a practical difference between the Nazi who cheers as you're put into a death train and the liberal who stands there with a frown?

    Or, to have a more reasonable discussion, can you point to who you think expressed a reasonable position trans voters are unreasonably upset at?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    I guess because some democrats think trans women shouldn’t play women sports, they’re basically the same as Hitler. lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    No, they're the Germans who stood by and did nothing.

    And while most transphobic bigots are less terrible than Hitler,.I'm not sure how bad the prejudice had to be before we're allowed to care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    I know. It's still a very stupid comparison. "I can't play on the team that I want to play on, I'm just like the Jewish people in the holocaust!" That's how this reads.

    I don't disagree that there are a lot of transphobic bigots in this world, and they genuinely want trans people to be miserable. But my entire point is, you will label somebody a transphobic bigot when they are actually incredibly supportive of trans people in most ways, but just have a difference of opinion on very few issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Also:

    "I can't play on the team that I want to play on, I'm just like the Jewish people in the holocaust!"

    It's not can't play on the team I want, it's can't play at all and am publicly identified as other.

    Objecting to this as trivial is like arguing that forcing gays to wear pink triangles or jews to wear yellow stars of david was reasonable and not a prelude to the extermination camps

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's not can't play on the team I want, it's can't play at all and am publicly identified as other.

    I don't even know where this is coming from. Even the people referring to trans women as boys (who are bigots), are not saying trans people can't play at all. You're making this up.

    And publicly identified as "other"? I've never head this. But it sounds made up as well. Certainly not something supported by people on the left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    I don't even know where this is coming from. Even the people referring to trans women as boys (who are bigots), are not saying trans people can't play at all. You're making this up.

    They're not saying it only because they're ignorant morons who can't think through what they're saying. Do you really think a teenage AMAB who realized they were.trans would actually be allowed to play on the boys after asking to play with the girls?

    Do you at all understand what puberty blockers and HRT do to humans? Did you know that trans girls and trans women have been playing sports post-HRT for decades and the number of sports in which they went from middling to top tier is zero?

    And publicly identified as "other"? I've never head this.

    I'm sure you're ignorant enough to not know it, but a bunch of trans people are closeted about not being cis. Not just those with no medical transition who "go stealth" and hide their gender as if it was something to be ashamed of, but also those for whom HRT was extremely effective who pass as their actual gender for anything but a very close medical inspection.

    They do so partly because it's none of nobody else's business, and partly because being open about being trans lets transphobic bigots who are far worse than your wilful ignorance identify them as targets for harassment, slander, and assault.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    But my entire point is, you will label somebody a transphobic bigot when they are actually incredibly supportive of trans people in most ways, but just have a difference of opinion on very few issues.

    You keep saying this and yet have never produced an example.

    Which is either because you personally are mildly transphobic, or you went looking and can't find any candidate who was both accused of transphobia and not confirmed as such on closed inspection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I'll take this deflection as an admission that your nazi point was stupid.

    Look, I shard articles yesterday from a different comment where people have been very supportive of trans people, but disagree on the issue of sports, and they have been labeled transphobic for it. It's no worth copying and pasting cause you and I probably disagree on what constitutes a transphobic bigot, so what's the point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I'll take this deflection as an admission that your nazi point was stupid.

    There's a whole separate comment responding to that. I split them because your quibbling as to how much hate is tolerable isn't a productive discussion.

    Look, I shard articles yesterday from a different comment where people have been very supportive of trans people, but disagree on the issue of sports, and they have been labeled transphobic for it.

    Who? Where? What comment?

    Let me see if I can find this alleged comment of yours....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (24 children)

    I’ve heard democrats say things that seem reasonable, and saw the trans community rail against them

    Citation needed.

    They might have fought for trans people in other ways

    Citation needed

    but now there’s no point.

    No citation needed, because obviously claiming that there's no point fighting for the rights of people who exercise their right to dissent and express grievances is fucking batshit crazy! 🤦🏻

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (23 children)

    I’ve heard democrats say things that seem reasonable, and saw the trans community rail against them

    Citation needed.

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/coward-democrat-confronted-by-angry-constituents-for-opposing-trans-equality/

    They might have fought for trans people in other ways

    Citation_ needed

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/coward-democrat-confronted-by-angry-constituents-for-opposing-trans-equality/

    https://www.kqed.org/news/12101538/newsom-signs-new-protections-for-lgbtq-reproductive-rights

    https://www.npr.org/2024/07/16/nx-s1-5041437/california-bans-school-rules-requiring-parents-notification-of-childs-pronoun-change

    I’m sure there’s others, and I’m sure they’re not good enough for you. Which I argue is the problem.

    No citation needed, because obviously claiming that there's no point fighting for the rights of people who exercise their right to dissent and express grievances is fucking batshit crazy! 🤦🏻

    My point is these people ARE fighting for trans rights. But when they say anything at all that goes against what the community wants, all of a sudden none of that means anything anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    Nothing about banning trans people from sports is reasonable…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (21 children)

    Nobody is banning trans people from sports. That’s not even a discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 week ago (20 children)

    Yes they are. Trans athletes are banned from playing on their teams.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (19 children)

    That’s a much more specific statement than you’re other one, and you know it. You intentionally misrepresent what is being proposed to make it sound worse.

    They’re not being banned from sports. They’re being told which team they’re allowed to join. It’s significantly different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (18 children)

    Yeah, they're not banned from participating in sports, they're just banned from participating together with their peers, essentially forcing them to deny their identity to participate. Not much of a choice, that.

    And that's not even going into the fact that trans women statistically are more at risk for sexual assault than any other demographic (yes, even moreso than cis women) and male athletes are amongst the most frequent sex offenders.

    So yeah, not so fucking reasonable!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    Adding nuance is great, as it helps identify the actual issues and discussion actual solutions.

    But do you see how saying “Trans people are being banned from sports” is an intentionally manipulative way representing the issue? I see stuff like this all the time on here, and it gets tiring.

    I’ll be honest, I see manipulative language in your comment as well.

    Banned from participating in sports with their peers

    Male/female sports isn’t about “playing with your peers”. Also, there's a further nuance that NOBODY discusses, and that's the difference between competitive levels. Schools have varsity vs jv. There's travel leagues vs Rec leagues. Trans people should have the opportunity to play with their peers, but that doesn't mean it has to include every level of competition.

    Essentially forcing them to deny their identity to participate

    "Essentially” is doing some very heavy lifting in this sentence because nothing else about that sentence is true.

    trans women statistically are more at risk for sexual assault than any other demographic

    Is this bad? Yeah! Should something be done about this? Of course!

    But you bring it up to make it sound like this is a result of trans women not being allowed to play women sports. This is incredibly manipulative.

    I could go on with other comments I have seen on here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (16 children)

    "Trans people are being banned from sports” is an intentionally manipulative way representing the issue?

    No it's not. "You're banned unless you deny your identity and put yourself at risk" takes more words and means essentially the same thing.

    When there's no reasonable alternative from being banned, you're effectively banned.

    Male/female sports isn’t about “playing with your peers”

    The hell it isn't! The social aspects are a HUGE part of any team sport. The sense of belonging is a huge part of why children want to do it in the first place.

    Membership of the team and the associated belonging being contingent on pretending to be something they're not is a surefire way to life long identity and self acceptance issues BEYOND what gender dysphoria already brings.

    It's abuse, if not literally a form of torture.

    there's a further nuance that NOBODY discusses, and that's the difference between competitive levels

    Because none of the bans differentiate between those. It's not "no trans girls in elite sports but junior varsity is ok".

    Pretending otherwise isn't adding "nuance", it's needlessly pretending that a very clear line is smudged.

    Trans people should have the opportunity to play with their peers, but that doesn't mean it has to include every level of competition.

    So what, they're to be allowed to participate, but if they're too good, they're going to be held back with kids of lesser prowess and/or zeal?

    Or do you mean the other way around? ONLY the trans athletes who are better than most cis athletes should be allowed to play?

    Either way, that's bigoted, no matter how much you pretend that it isn't.

    Essentially forcing them to deny their identity to participate

    "Essentially” is doing some very heavy lifting in this sentence because nothing else about that sentence is true.

    So you're saying that trans girls participating on the boys' team would NOT be denying their identity? In what fucking world?

    trans women statistically are more at risk for sexual assault than any other demographic

    Is this bad? Yeah! Should something be done about this? Of course!

    But you bring it up to make it sound like this is a result of trans women not being allowed to play women sports. This is incredibly manipulative.

    No, I make it sound like forcing trans girls into locker rooms with male athletes puts them at higher risk of being sexually or otherwise assaulted than they otherwise would be.

    And the reason why I "make it sound like that" is because it IS like that.

    If anything, what's manipulative is you trying so hard to mask your bigotry behind what you think sounds like reasonable concerns when it's everything but

    I could go on with other comments I have seen on here.

    I bet you could. Lemmy tends not to be a safe space for concern trolling and transphobia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (15 children)

    Phew. Too many things to respond to, but I read all of it, and I definitely see your perspective on many things and understand the unique challenges trans people face.

    Specifically in the conversation of sports, I see the other side of it. The male/female distinction in sports doesn't exist so you can play with your peers. It's due biological differences between people born male and female. I understand that you will add massive amount of context that is very specific to trans people, but to most people, it is a very simple thing that does not need to be complicated by medication or body composition, or anything else.

    Your comment about not distinguishing between competitive and non competitive sports is literally my point. It should be distinguished. Trans community should be saying "we just want to play with our peers, we don't care at what level". This would make the conversation much different nationally.

    No, I make it sound like forcing trans girls into locker rooms with male athletes puts them at higher risk of being sexually or otherwise assaulted than they otherwise would be.

    Is this actually based on anything, or is it just an idea that you think makes sense that isnt actually representative of where sexual assaults come from? I genuinely wonder as it just doesn't make sense that sexual assaults would come as a result of sharing a locker room. I would guess that allowing trans women to play women sports would have a 0% impact on the stat.

    There are many sports where females are on male teams already, and each one of those needs to take into account the locker room situation. For trans women, this should be considered as well. And if it's not, that is a problem with the administration, not with the sport structure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    Oh, you are a transphobic bigot! Sexist, too.

    The male/female distinction in sports doesn't exist so you can play with your peers. It's due biological differences between people born male and female.

    This is 99% wrong. The gendered distinctions in sports exist largely because in sports with the most gendered bias the top tier of girls still outperforms the sub-median cohort of boys,.and those boys historically do not take it well.

    In a discussion about trans girls your ignorance is even worse, since every trans athlete who has ever been allowed to play has ranked about as well as a woman as they did as a man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    Oh, I think you are a transphobic bigot! Sexist, too.

    Ftfy. I see your opinion was stated as fact. You can say I am ignorant about something, which would make for a valuable conversation, but saying "you're a bigot cause you don't know the things I know" is a non starter.

    Even worse since most people do not see things the same as you.

    This is 99% wrong. The gendered distinctions in sports exist largely because in sports with the most gendered bias the top tier of girls still outperforms the sub-median cohort of boys,.and those boys historically do not take it well.

    Are you saying we separate male/female sports because a boy doesn't want to lose to a girl? It's a pride thing?

    Much like the comment on sexual assault, if you have actual articles that support this, I'd love to hear it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    I'm not finding a second source for someone who misquotes me and refused to supply even one.

    And it doesn't matter why you are a bigot. You don't get a lollipop because your racism was learned instead of reactionary, because your homophobia was out of ignorance instead of panic, or that your transphobia was because you fell for propaganda instead of actively seeking out a minority you can bully.

    You said bigoted things. You've made arguments identical to those of hard-right trolls. Whether you're actually a sealioning redcap or just a privileged liberal who mistook a sophomoric conclusion for actual insight is IRRELEVENT.

    I called you a bigot based on statements you made. If this offends you then I can only hope that the experience of anonymous strangers on the internet being mean might be enough to help you grow up and start caring about people who aren't like you.

    Trans voters act harshly to transphobia because when they don't it just encourages more transphobia. Pols who aren't transphobic themselves moderate their subsequent statements,.and those who are instead do what youve done and double down on their biases even in the face of objection and explanation.

    I really do hope you grow up before the rest of the world becomes as dangerous for trans people as the United Kingdom has become.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (11 children)

    Here's what it looks like to me. You and I have a difference of opinions. But you don't have a real solid argument for why you are right and I am wrong.

    So instead of having a conversation and making arguments, you demonize me. If I'm a bigot, then you don't need to have a conversation. You don't need to take my comments seriously. You also don't need to defend your position or argue against mine.

    Fact is, I am an incredibly open and empathetic person. I consider myself progressive, pro lgbtq. But I also recognize that a problem leftists have had is not listening to the actual things the opposition says. Not everything a conservative says is wrong. For you, it's easy to say "you're a bigot" and feel good about yourself. For me, I want to understand where their comments are coming from. Many times it is coming from a place of bigotry, but many times it is well intentioned.

    You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, your going to find your movement is very lonely. You want to accept that not everybody on the left shares 100% of your opinions. You want to engage in dialogue rather than calling people names. I think things will be much better for everybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    I asked you to prove one example that supports this assertion of over-reaction and you refused. Find me one example of a current candidate who made a mildly transphobic remark and neither recanted nor exposed stronger transphobia and we could have a reasoned discourse over the reasonableness of the trans reaction.

    I didn't call you a bigot because I think you are incapable of growing and becoming better. I called you a bigot because you said bigoted things. I really do hope that you change your mind and realize how toxic you echoing hard-right talking points is.

    For me, I want to understand where their comments are coming from. Many times it is coming from a place of bigotry, but many times it is well intentioned.

    Why is the ignorance of those echoing bigotry more important to you than the outrage of those targeted by it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    I asked you to prove one example that supports this assertion of over-reaction and you refused

    I told you I already left a comment and you said you would find it. Which you clearly did because you moved to that thread, but I'll copy one below.... All the Newsom ones apply too. Scroll up if you need help finding them.

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/coward-democrat-confronted-by-angry-constituents-for-opposing-trans-equality/

    I would argue his comments were not transphobic (mildly or not), but he was shouted at during his speech as well as the comments I read on Lemmy.

    You and I will disagree on whether it was transphobic or not, but we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want another example, just reread our conversation 😂

    I didn't call you a bigot because I think you are incapable of growing and becoming better.

    Maybe reread the comment you're replying to. I didn't say anything about "incapable of growing..."

    You are calling me a bigot because you don't want to listen to other people's opinions. Calling me a bigot makes it easier for you to ignore me. If I'm a bigot then you don't have to worry about the possibility that you are the one that's wrong.

    Calling me a bigot makes you feel better about your own opinion while doing nothing to earn it.

    Why is the ignorance of those echoing bigotry more important to you than the outrage of those targeted by it?

    I think it's clear that you are going to throw out the term "Bigot" at the drop of a hat. In doing so you make the word meaningless.

    I'm not going to listen to people that I consider bigots. Not every conservative is. If conservatives are making valid points and I ignore them because other conservatives are bigots, that leads to a situation where I am the unreasonable one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    What exactly do you think "bigot' and "transphobic" mean? Because we should treat trans people as if they are their assigned gender at birth is a fair approximation for what I and others mean by the latter, and ideas that judge people by trivial characteristics is a fair approximation for the former.

    Let's focus on transphobia and Rob Sand. A few more recent links:

    https://littlevillagemag.com/rob-sand-addresses-students-iowa-city/

    https://www.thegazette.com/opinion/rob-sand-please-don-t-waver-on-transgender-rights/article_e77c3e00-face-4ea4-885d-b1a072173db8.html

    Your claim is that trans voters are with their activism driving a wedge betwren thrmselves and potential allies. Sand certainly seems like a good example, with his "no sports even after HRT" position, which i hope you can see is tanamount to a choice for trans athletes between being their true gender and playing sports, even if you want to quibble over the "transphobia" .label.

    What's interedting is that nobody in Iowa seems to accuse.Sand of being transphobic. The people on the ground greeted his comments with silence and one shout of "coward", and at least one letter to the editor which didnt include any call to not vote for him. This surely seems llike a strong example... Except that the trans reaction seems to be a pretty universal "mild.transphobia is still an improvememt."

    You also.mentioned Gavin Newsom, onetime plausible 2028 POTUS candidate before his transphobic self-own. If you think that mild transphobia would be where it stopped, why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?

    https://lalgbtcenter.org/vanguard/press-releases/statement-governor-newsom-betrays-queer-and-transgender-californians-with-health-budget-cuts-says-los-angeles-lgbt-center/

    Or, why does he oppose the wealth tax?

    https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/

    Why did he veto a law that would have protected doctors from being dragged to Texas for daring to provide gender affirming care to ex-texans?

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/gavin-newsom-explains-the-surprising-reason-he-just-vetoed-a-pro-trans-bill/

    As he did a rule to ensure trans folk on HRT can stock up?

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-17/newsom-vetoes-key-health-measure-transgender-politics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    For fun I decided to kick the links and see what the fuss was about. I'm ignoring the billionaire one cause that obviously has nothing to do with this conversation.

    why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?

    I don't know, but why did he sign one of the "most significant public investments in LGBTQ+ health, wellbeing, and safety in state history" a month later? Funny you missed this.

    https://lalgbtcenter.org/vanguard/press-releases/the-center-applauds-historic-california-budget-creating-the-first-statewide-lgbtq-community-center-fund/

    Why did he veto a law that would have protected doctors from being dragged to Texas for daring to provide gender affirming care to ex-texans?

    Maybe you didn't open and read this article, cause the article literally answers your question. I'll paste it here for you:

    In his veto notice, Newsom said he worries that if he allows the legislature to take that discretionary authority away from the governor on his way out the door, others will do the same in the future in a bid to limit the next governor’s power.

    As he did a rule to ensure trans folk on HRT can stock up?

    He's a transphobe because he doesn't let ya'll stock up? OK. All my meds are 90 days max. Your meds are 90 day. Just cause he doesn't give you special treatment, he's a transphobe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    That you take Newsom at his word about preserving some future governor's abikity to ship doctors to Texas is damning.

    As is you equating your viagra prescription or whatever with prescribed healthcare that unapologetic bigots are actively trying to ban.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?

    I don't know, but why did he sign one of the "most significant public investments in LGBTQ+ health, wellbeing, and safety in state history" a month later? Funny you missed this.

    https://lalgbtcenter.org/vanguard/press-releases/the-center-applauds-historic-california-budget-creating-the-first-statewide-lgbtq-community-center-fund/

    I gotta say, fact that you didn't respond to this and then muted me tells me all I need to know about you. When faced with the fact that you were WRONG, about basically everything in this conversation, your response to ignore and call names and mute.

    I know you won't see this, but it should be out there anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    First of all, you could have given the actual definition of transphobia and bigot (there are dictionaries), but you chose a version that matches your arguments.

    Your made up definitions allow you to call anybody that disagrees with you a transphobic bigot. And you can keep your same opinion without having to take into account other opinions.

    As for Rob Sand and Newsom. I don't like Newsom. But he's probably the one I think about the most. His interview with Kirk, for instance, did not come across as unreasonable, and he was even supportive of trans people in a way that was fully ignored by everybody on here. Kirk was not, of course. The reaction from the Trans community was swift and unreasonable.

    I've looked into other bills he gets bashed for, often times there's nuance that is ignored and a catchy headline that gets the reaction it wants. I don't really like defending him cause he kind of sucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    So, in addition to being a transphobic bigot who refuses to defend his point, you alsp dont know how the english language works. Cool.

    I supplied definitions because you were imputing a meaning i did not mean to convey. But since you still seem to not get it, lets do go to a dictionary.

    Starting with bigotry:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

    a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership

    You definitely are adhering to your opinion and prejudice, with regard to your dislike of members of a particular group.

    The definition i offered for what i meant was actually a little narrower than merriam-webster's phrasing, but not so much as to be improper usage.

    More interestingly, there"s nothing in the dictionary's definition that presumes a bigot is beyond reason or refuses to learn.. I'd be curious what dictionary supports that assertion.

    Maybe "transphobia" will be better for you?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia

    discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people

    Nope. You openly expressed aversion to transgender folk, and also excused formal imstitutional prejudice as somehow not being transphpbia just because it was presumably not made out of animus.

    Except that precluding all trans femms from femm sports is a hat trick of discrimination against, aversion to, and fear of.

    I stand by what i said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    You definitely are adhering to your opinion and prejudice, with regard to your dislike of members of a particular group

    Quit making shit up. In no way have I said or expressed a dislike of the Trans community. You added this because you know what I have said so far does not match this definition.

    Edit: cause I missed this.

    Nope. You openly expressed aversion to transgender folk, and also excused formal imstitutional prejudice as somehow not being transphpbia just because it was presumably not made out of animus. Except that precluding all trans femms from femm sports is a hat trick of discrimination against, aversion to, *and* fear of.

    More making shit up. I have shown ZERO aversion to trans people. You are making shit up for your own argument. And you tacked on the word fear for literally no reason.

    Prejudice is a weird one. Any restriction on women sports can be considered prejudice, whether trans women are allowed or not. Unless your argument is women sports should be open to everybody, you are showing prejudice as well.

    This is your problem. You do not understand the other side and are completely unwilling to, so you make shit up to justify ignoring others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    translation: you want us to disappear from the public while your buddies vote to have us put in concentration camps to be exterminated.

    thanks but no thanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    This is the most dramatic bullshit, and exactly what I’m talking about. Nothing at all about what I said supports your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Just because a politician disagrees with you on 2% of trans issues, doesn’t mean they should be compared to Hitler and bashed by the community

    Holy strawman argument, Batman!

    The vast majority of the Democrat politicians don't "disagree on 2%".

    They fully realize that trans rights are human rights just like their voters do.

    However, they're too scared of alienating their owner donors and the tiny sliver of Republicans who don't automatically consider anyone with a D behind their name a demon to do a goddamn thing to stand up for those rights, in stead going along with disingenuous tropes invented by GOP spin doctors to start the "skeptical to fascist" pipeline.

    And those gutless wonders AREN'T "called Hitler" and mostly not even "bashed by the community" either. They're just told that it would be great if they'd do their job of faithfully reflecting their constituency in stead of sacrificing them for donor dollars and tiny amounts of votes that pale in comparison to the ones they could get if they grew a fucking spine and went unapologetically progressive like the people want them to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago

    They fully realize that trans rights are human rights just like their voters do.

    Just gonna point out that believing trans women shouldn’t play women sports is not inconsistent with that statement. You might think it is, and we can agree to disagree, but not everybody gets all the rights they think they are entitled to.

    However, they're too scared of alienating their owner donors and the tiny sliver of Republicans who don't automatically consider anyone with a D behind their name a demon

    I think this is where you’re the most wrong. They aren’t “too scared”. And it isn’t all about trying to win favor from republicans. They have access to polling data that shows the opinions of both voters on the right and left.

    I am willing to bet these politicians can tell that being against certain trans issues does not change which democrats vote for them. But being in favor will motivate republicans to go vote against them as opposed to staying home.

    There’s also public polls that show even democrats have become less supportive of certain trans issues. So why express an opinion risks losing the election?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Keep being the problem for your own cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago

    The government should not be allowed to "own" property or enforce victimless laws. The problem is always the government.

  • source
  • [+] -29 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Less emphasis needs to be put into helping the like 2% of people, and much more on the general 80%+ percent of people who would be better off with lungs like lower taxes, government security over reach, corrupt politicians, taxing billionaires, getting so much money out of politics, better pay and benefits, and social healthcare, etc.

    Trans rights effect a small amount of people and way too much prioritization is being thrown at it. It's pretty much just a distraction so none of the bigger issues get taken care of.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    The problem with this mentality is that if we allow ourselves to be acclimated to the oppression of a marginalized community, ANY marginalized community, the next one becomes easier.

    You're blind if you think they'll stop with trans people.

    The only response to this kind of attack is a full throated rejection and counterattack.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Less emphasis needs to be put into helping the like 2% of people,

    Nobody's asking for that, it's about making sure that 100% of Americans are treated equally by the law

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Talking about it and getting laws passed and making that happen is "asking for that". All those things take time, resources, and advertising. There's a dozen other major issues that effect many more people, including the trans people themselves. You really think the Republicans in government actually care about what bathroom you use? It's just a distraction from things that are really important to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Republicans are the ones bringing Trans rights to the forefront by consistently attacking them. They are the ones spending on ads talking about the “trans agenda” and making wild claims like schools forcibly transitioning kids. The Trans-in-sports issue affects only a fraction of the already tiny Trans community, but the conservatives love focusing on it because, just like with the bathroom bills, they can frame it as though it’s about men trying to “take advantage” by pretending they are women - and because more people can see themselves trying to cheat at something or trick others to get what they want than can imagine feeling out of place in their own bodies, it works. So while I agree that it doesn’t need to be the Democrats focus (and it isn’t), they do need to counter the torrent of bullshit spewing from the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago

    The 2% is the focus of the attacks. They need to be defended because they are being attacked. It would be foolish to just let the fascists divide and conquer without any pushback. There is no benefit to abandoning a part of our coalition because that would simply invite further attacks on our flanks.

    As an example, Dems have been experimenting with anti-trans rhetoric because trans folks are being attacked by fascists. Influential consultants have floated the idea that Dems should run anti-abortion candidates to try and get ahead of the fascists attacks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Since you're potentially German (or even if you're not) there's a pretty famous poem about disregarding attacks on minority populations. You may have heard of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Back in the 90s a band called Manic Street Preachers wrote a great song inspired by the Spanish civil war.

    How it relates here is that if you tolerate the oppression and attempted genocide of trans people just because there's "only like 2%" of them, then your children will be next

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 1 comment in c/transgender@piefed.linenoise.vip view that post
    [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Democrats need to stop being conservatives full stop.

  • source