The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

He is now responding to, in effect, to a public consultation. That should be valued.

Yepp. We have to allow people to learn and change

The oxycontin scandal was appalling with, Iirc, no real accountability in terms of people in jail. It was a fine (probably not that much relative to the profits made from deliberately addicting vast numbers of people).

It was so outrageously morally wrong, and yet they essentially got away with the human devastation and deaths caused.

They lied that oxycontin wasn't addictive very much as they've lied about the "evidence base" (there isn't one) for "gender affirming" medical procedures on children.

People getting rich off the backs of vulnerable people. That's what it is, it's not surprising people were sceptical about COVID vaccines and from my observation in the US COVID became about purity politics in a way it just didn't in the UK, probably in large part due to the NHS.

There were extremely extremely rare but in some cases deadly side effects of the astrazeneca vaccine. I don't know, given this fact, why anyone even slightly covid vaccine sceptical is denounced as an idiot!

Imagine protesting the rights of women in sport in Salem as a neighbourhood group who has appointed themselves as arbiters of righteousness….

Thanks for starting a new thread. I have also enjoyed following this discussion and reading the linked articles. It will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds over the coming weeks and months.

One of the things that has really struck me, Red, in the last few years, is the way Democrats, which is where American voters who tended to be anti-corporatist, and anti Big pharma were found, seem to have become firmly on the side of these things.

It's a bit like the way that the new political order seems to have firmly wedded the political left to globalism where previously tat is where you found anti-globalism. It's now, on the left, looked askance if you question the motivations of major pharmaceutical companies! I remember people being quite het up because of someone questioning whether companies were likely to release any research that suggested safety or efficacy concerns (which happens all the time!) or whether allowing them to avoid legal responsibility for damage caused by the vaccines was a good idea. Suddenly, it was like these companies were well known to be transparent and altruistic.

I know at least one person who I believe has completely changed her politics over this. My university roommate, who is American, grew up in a very crunchy household, her parents were hippies and they lived on a remote farm and grew most of their own food. She tended to be very into natural medicines and also joined the Democrat party when she moved back to the US after her degree.

Last time I saw her in person, toward the end of COVID, she told me that she was now a Republican - I don't think she was even torn about it. A very significant element of that was just how the Democrats in the US had gone completely nuts over COVID, and become (or wanted to become) completely authoritarian about health matters.

I also think that sometimes people in the UK don't realize that their own national response was relatively moderate. There are other places, including some in the US, that were pretty extreme about trying to impose things like vaccination requirements. Not always directly by the state, but by allowing or even encouraging private workplaces to require it.

So some of what we are seeing in the US now is very much a reaction to these kinds of things.

Placemarking, thanks for new thread @Ingenieur!

We can only hope that him and Wes Streeting aren't flakes and don't sell out on gay people and daughters.

However to an extent I think we see element of it being a possible 'hill to die on' for both.

Only time will tell.

Next year will have shock waves - the Dems need to start preparing for them in more ways than one.

They CANNOT continue with a 'status quo' approach. They need to go away, reassess and come up with some new thinking in a multitude of areas.

IF they get another shot at an election, they are going to have to do a LOT LOT better than the shit show they are putting on atm.

I mean, imagine protesting against the rights of women in sport in Salem of all fucking places! Optics are hard to get more wrong.

I am hoping that he has indeed done the depth of research and reached the understanding. And that now he has reached this position that he stays with it and starts to work to make changes for sports for female people.

Thanks for new thread. Lots of US politics podcasts are discussing this issue, urging a shift in direction.

Hellobore wrote
I am not sure how he squares the hole if he co-sponsored inclusion of males into female sports? I shall have to look at the timing. I wonder if he has seen the evidence since. Or whether he genuinely believes that interventions with puberty blockers etc will permanently remove advantage or some other intervention is how he thinks the two are not mutually exclusive regarding sports?

And surely it would be a foolish member of congress / parliament to co-sponsor a bill that you were not fully aware of the implications of and fully supportive of when it first was tabled?

As a politician he SHOULD have done due diligence. Yes.

However, how many people who have 'come to the dark side', gone through a similar journey of just not thinking it through. I do think a lot of the negatives, particularly about child transition, have willfully been suppressed or simply been unresearched and considered even by professional so it leaves the general public and politicians who don't have the benefit of much of the relevant specialist knowledge at a disadvantage.

This is why no debate and a more general failure to do proper public consultation with all vested interest groups is so problematic. Is it fair to hold a singular politician who wont, on his own, have had the ability to get that kind of consultation done to an impossible standard.

He is now responding to, in effect, to a public consultation. That should be valued.

We have to assume that everyone comes from a place of wanting to do the right thing. As long as thats your basis, when you realise that youve made an error others should allow you to speak out and explain yourself and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

If we don't value his about face we fall into 'the purity test trap' ourselves. We need to allow people to take the political fire escape as the only other place left for them to go is to resign completely and then have no influence at all or to double down. He will need support not to just fold, like so many idiot celebrities have, and to stick to his guns.

Neither of those two options serves the ultimate interests of the most vulnerable in our society.

Thats the acid test for me - whether he sticks to this or whether he eventually issues a totally lame public apology to sell his daughters out and 'save his career'.

And I've got to be honest, I don't think its necessarily the worst move for a politician at this point. It may well be jumping ship before the ship goes down with the bigger idiots on it. It could place him well for the future. The writing is on the wall here - the insurance companies are already factoring this.

I think you might be foolish to automatically bet against it at this point.

Context: Trump (RFK) firmly has his eyes on looking at the power of Big Pharma. That may well have long term implications - not necessarily in negative terms. I think looking at things from this side of the pond we can see the US has a much bigger issue with unethical practices in health care and advertising which aren't necessarily actually healthy - this ISN'T about vaccines. See Ben Goldacre and Margaret McCartney for further reading on this. They provide really valid and necessary criticism of the industry and the creation of the 'worried well' for commerical and self sustaining reasons rather than the overall well being of the public.

I DON'T think this is necessarily exactly how Trump or RFK see things (Goldacre and McCartney are extremely nuauced and balanced), but I do think some of fair concerns raised may surface properly as they should, maybe only as an unintended consequence, because it is an area that DOES merit greater oversight. The US has ALREADY had a massive social issue resulting from over medicalisation; The Opiod Crisis which led so many from prescription drugs to full on drug abuse, crime, homelessness and death. This scandal is a background we can't fully put to one side whilst we are talking about medicalisation of kids.

Resistance to covid vaccines and vaccines generally in the US needs to be seen through this lack of trust in health care providers and subsequent social crisis - we just don't get this here because we haven't had this collaspe in trust in the UK.

I am expecting major shifts in this field and public thinking under Trump - some of it won't be good but I also think in the US there is a real case that someone looking into it, is long overdue too. How that will ultimately play out, I'm not sure; it could well be a total disaster but also theres much to say SOMETHING is needed. RFK and Trump most certainly would be some of my last choices to lead this, BUT I'm fairly confident we are going to see quite a lot come out in the wash too... We know theres been lots of research thats been actively suppressed and how this can distort research and broader reviews (Both Goldacre and McCartney talk about this in their books which were published some years ago now - its not a remotely a Trumpian or even new concept).

I disgress somewhat with this, but we now have to think about the future USA diverging from the status quo of thinking and looking at things in different ways which may or may not work, rather than just doing things the way they've always been done (This is Musk's ethos too so look out for it in multiple areas).

I don't necessarily agree with any of them nor their approach on how they do this - my overall point is that there have been many failures of due diligence by many many politicians on both sides of the house, that have come to a head and ultimately have resulted in Trump being elected.

I don't think we hang someone out to dry for coming to the conclusion that there is a real unaddressed problem that he didn't see before.

(Yep I know I'm rambling somewhat at this point so I'll park it there).

Than you for the thread continuation @Ingenieur

Just following up from @lesbiannana’s comment on previous thread. The fact that the 14m who did not show up this time had never shown up before the 2020 election doesn’t weaken my point, though, does it? Those people were significantly fearful of a Trump presidency in 2020 that they DID get out and vote that time - and were just jaded and disillusioned enough with the Democrats after 4 years in office that they a) didn’t want to vote them back in and b) were not as averse to a Trump/republican administration by comparison. I’d be interested to know, also, whether it actually WAS the same 14m - ie, we know there were a large number of first time voters in 2020 as the statistics show that, but do we know it was the same voters who didn’t come this time, or has another demographic shown attrition? I’ve not had time to research this (have other priorities atm) but someone else may be able to answer that for me.

That the republicans won both houses also reinforces that this was a major cock up for the Dems. In summary: whether first time voters or not, the Dems had those votes in 2020, and lost them.

To say other wise is like a restaurant owner seeing an upsurge in trade for a few months with lots of new customers who subsequently finds his trade dropping off again. The owner doesn’t just shrug and say ‘ah well they’d never been before so it’s no matter, we enjoyed the boost while it lasted’… he looks at what he did wrong not to get them to keep coming back and overhauls his business accordingly.

I, too, am keen to see where the Democratic Party is headed on this.

Thread 1 on this was single-handedly the most informative discussion/debate I’ve followed on the subject. Genuinely feel like I am more informed and have really unpicked my own thoughts and beliefs on the subject by following that. I’m looking forward to continuing my education here. Thank you to all the well informed PPs that have taken the time to contribute, I am sure I am not the only one to have benefited.

Thanks OP the last thread was very interesting and I suspect over the next days/ weeks/ months there will be more on this subject.

Thanks.

This is the link to the old one (apols if someone else has just posted it)

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5207074-the-democrats-need-an-honest-conversation-on-gender-identity