Hilary and Chelsea Clinton discuss trans issues

I also don't agree with "punishing" religions even with the removal of the tax exemption but that wasn't what Warren said. No idea why Beto is still even in the race tbh.

I do have a problem with religions taking their religious exemptions but then being clearly political and partisan.

My point is that someone who is deeply religions and conservative will never vote for a democrat - no matter how measured the response is about "traditional" marriage. Anyone who has a problem with same sex marriage is not a likely swing vote.

For this election I hope that the democratic party concentrates on getting out the voters who actually believe in their values/aims rather than changing the mind of the republican or swing voters - a doomed exercise. Stacy Abrams is particularly good on this concept.

I also hope the Clintons just shut up.

Look on the bright side, though, Hillary’s clearly on our page. I think it’s worth a little cheer when any influential woman turns out not to have completely fallen.

She had a lot of crap thrown at her on social media over the years so perhaps this is why she sees the ‘victim’ or underdog side here (if only blinded by who is actually threatening to do what to who).

Also, yes, this:

It's hard to think of a woman who has lived a life freer from fear of assault than Chelsea Clinton.

Thank you, Womb. Not just the protection of class privilege, but literal Secret Service agents protecting her throughout her formative years (still? I don't know about that part) HAS to have had an effect on her perspective.

The Establishment Clause of our constitution makes it extremely clear that the US government may not favor one creed over any other. If O'Rourke had argued to remove tax-exempt status from all religious organizations, that would have been logically consistent and (probably; I am not on SCOTUS!) constitutional.

O'Rourke's assertion that he would seek specifically to remove tax-exempt status from those congregations that do not marry gays and lesbians (but retain it for those who do) seems to fly in the face of this clause of the constitution. To echo what Arnold said, but from an American perspective, that is very, very, very off-putting even to this atheist.

To be clear, as the monitors sometimes need things spelling out, that is not at all because I don't support gay and lesbian marriage. I do! I am just extremely alert to the dangers of government endorsing one form of religious belief or strongly-held feelings of conscience over any other, and exacting penalties against those creeds currently out of favor.

I don't know whether Warren's comment came before or after O'Rourke's during the forum---does anyone know? If it was after, that seems particularly flat-footed.

Maybe not, pallisers, but I am very put off by talk of 'punishing religions who refuse gay marriage' as suggested by O'Rourke, and I'm a born and raised atheist in 40% not religious Scotland.

I can't imagine that such talk plays well with swing voters in the much more deeply religious US of A.

It comes across as a teensy bit totalitarian.

yeah that would have been more measured. But nothing she said will affect her likely vote in a presidential race one whit. Nobody who believes strongly in the "traditional marriage" thing is likely to vote for Elizabeth Warren or indeed any Democrat.

What was she supposed to say?

'You are entitled to your beliefs and while I don't share them I will continue to support the religious freedoms on which our great nation was founded.'

well if someone asked me about marriage between one man and one woman, I'd probably explode with something myself. Warren is a senator from a state which has had same sex marriage for more than 15 years. The supreme court has said laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional. It is probably the social issue that is most acceptable to moderate conservatives. What was she supposed to say? The gibe at the guy was probably unwise but does anyone really think if she had given a more measured response he might have considered voting for her?

This is the Warren incident a poster referred to. There is video footage of it. Warren almost explodes with self-satisfaction.

Warren was asked what she’d say if a supporter told her they believed “marriage was between one man and one woman”. Warren replied: “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that. Assuming you can find one.”

And the idea that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is underprivileged is as credible as Owen Jones being working class.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

AOC?

But I think also Democrats such as AOC, who doesn’t come from privilege I don’t think, parrot the TWAW line

AOC was tweeting support for Mermaids and encouraging donations.

It's hard to think of a woman who has lived a life freer from fear of assault than Chelsea Clinton.

When all you have to worry about is the bathrooms at the most elite institutions and workplaces, I'm sure the issue must seem very silly.

She won't have to go to a prison and deal with the pigs in wigs there. She doesn't have to worry about homeless shelters. Or public bathrooms that haven't been pre-cleared by security.

If I had her security detail, I probably wouldn't be afraid of very much. Intersectionality as practiced by many intersectionalists involves examining every single oppression...except social class.

boy who identified as a girl and was now living as a girl (wearing long hair and dresses and going by a different name) is that it? Is that all there is?

well he was 6 so there really wasn't any other way for him to present as a girl other than this stuff which of course means nothing. In reality this child clearly had gender dysmorphia, was under the care of a psychologist and his parents were trying to ease his mh issues by agreeing he could "be a girl" - the school went along with it. It was no skin off anyone's nose to call him Mary or whatever and no one cares what he wore etc but I do wonder what happened in the end (the kid would be 11 now).

My ds was in class with a girl who really struggled with feminine gender presentation. I loved/love her - she was such a positive role model for ds's younger sisters (in the school lift), really strong. In high school she became he and changed name. 7 years later they are now "they" and in a relationship with another transman. In other words she is in a lesbian relationship with another woman who also bucks gender stereotypes - as I could have told them was their destiny back in the 8th grade. I spoke to her dad at a dinner recently. Her parents were outwardly very supportive of the trans thing, used the pronouns, used the new name etc etc. but he said to me that they were utterly clear in their own heads that she was never a boy trapped in a boy's body from day 1. She was a girl - not the kind of girl that stereotypes are made of but a girl nonetheless. The whole thing is so so odd.

I'm not sure about the "trying to lose the election" thing after the LGBTQ townhall. The reality is the people who are anti-gay marriage which is most of what this guy is complaining about will never vote democrat no matter what.

Good opinion piece in USA Today:

Ex-Republican: Do we still agree on beating Trump? After your LGBTQ forum, I'm not sure.

When we watched CNN's LGBTQ town hall for the Democratic candidates Thursday, we had very different reactions. This is the event, you remember, where former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas said he’d punish religious institutions for refusing gay marriage, and where Sen. Kamala Harris of California started by informing us of her pronouns, and then host Chris Cuomo, after a mild and dopey joke, had to go on Twitter the next day and apologize for making light of it. This is where Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts fielded a question about traditional marriage with a sneering, smug insinuation that the only people who would ask her about that are men who can’t find a woman.

You thought it was great. You saw a ringing defense of LGBTQ rights and a reaffirmation of what Democrats stand for.

I saw it and thought: Are these people insane? Are they trying to lose the election?

amp.usatoday.com/amp/3947332002?__twitter_impression=true

I know one (right on) man who believes it. He’s had an awful lot for girlfriends - but never dated a trans woman.

I know people IRL who claim to believe that TWAW but a. strong motivation to lie based on social pressure and relatedly b. involved in super woke uber queer social group in which saying anything else would mean losing your entire support network and very likely them then going after you like you'd decided to leave Scientology.

Outside of that group there's a lot of uncomfortable fidgeting and avoidance of eye contact whenever the subject comes up.

To be fair to Chelsea Clinton, hasn’t Clymer always been very good at taking people in? My understanding is that before transition, he had a large following as a self-proclaimed “male feminist”.

AOC is the daughter of an architect who went to school in a nice suburban area outside of New York City.

She isn't uber privileged like Chelsea Clinton but from a comfortable background even by the standards of the wealthiest nation going.

I haven't found this to be a generational issue, though maybe it is in the US. My own children and their friends all think 'TWAW' is a steaming pile of manure and hold opinions on the matter that they'd be banned from expressing on this site. Nobody I've spoken to on the matter in my working class home town, regardless of age or sex, agrees with this ideology. The only people I know in real life who even pretend they think 'TWAW' are politicians.

AEC? Doh ‘sex’’

boy who identified as a girl and was now living as a girl (wearing long hair and dresses and going by a different name) is that it? Is that all there is?

No one asks “what does ‘living like’ mean”? No one says ‘but all you have ever known is the skin you were born in - how can you possible ‘know’ what the other sex feels like?’ ‘Is your AEC your body or your mind?’ Or the million dollar statement ‘women and girls just don’t know how it feels to have a penis’.

But I think also Democrats such as AOC, who doesn’t come from privilege I don’t think, parrot the TWAW line.

it is utterly generational - nothing to do with privilege. Also in the US anti TWAW is strongly associated with the christian right and conservatism which makes it tricky to navigate.

I'd love someone to do a kind of Frost/Nixon disingenuous interview technique on Chelsea. "Okay, so this is a generational thing, but here is your chance to reach out to those older voters, many of whom are probably well meaning, nice people who're just a bit behind the times. Explain to them how come someone with a beard and penis can be a woman..."

Then keep asking questions. "So it's because they feel like a woman inside... I'm sure a lot of people who're maybe new to this stuff won't have thought much about this, so what does it mean to feel like a woman inside?"

And so on and so on, until everyone (presumably barring the interviewee) can see the Emperor has no clothes on.