The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

According to the BBC:

When Harris was running as a Democratic candidate for president in 2019, she checked a box in a questionnaire from a civil rights group saying that as president, she would use her authority to ensure that transgender-identifying detainees in prison and immigration facilities would have access to "treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care".

How people choose to interpret this is up to them, but that it might apply to as yet undocumented immigrants is as valid as any other interpretation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj4qyxlxn1o

Interesting.

Presumably as a centrist who works with children, you've been keen to understand the risks that the UK Cass Report has highlighted?

If the children's parents/carers are concerned that their child is being pulled towards a belief that they're in the wrong body, perhaps because the child is an autistic girl who hates her body changing during puberty (breasts and periods feel uncomfortable etc) and she's hearing adults talking about the idea that you can be any "gender" that feels right for you, and they're also concerned about the unknown impacts of puberty blockers... so they said no when their child asked for them.. Do you think these parents are a risk to their child?

Is this an example of a child who is at risk of homelessness, if the child wants to socially transition with a new opposite-sex name and a change in pronouns, where the parents want to follow a watchful waiting approach (so they say no to the name and pronouns) instead? Are the parents being hateful and anti-trans?

Because it is missing the context of the full convo.

People here literally thought they were giving trans surgeries to undocumented ("illegal") immigrants.

The pundits and politicians implied that the prisoners in question were immigrants in the detention camps at the border.

I think Covid.

This sort of incoherent belief is the result of backward reasoning to prop up another belief. The reasoning in this case is something like: Jesus is the son of God, not the son of Man. Therefore he is not the result of any form of human sexual intercourse. The only way that can be guaranteed is by having Mary a virgin.
Similarly the Immaculate Conception. Jesus is without sin, being God incarnate. Therefore he cannot have been born of a mother tainted by original sin, therefore Mary must have been conceived free of it.
The fact that this belief system is supported by quasi-logical arguments that have been developed and embedded for centuries doesn’t make it more true, though it does make people more inclined to give it credence and strengthens the institutions that benefit from people believing it - which are not averse to using coercion to force people to accept their teachings.

No, I am saying this bill targets anyone who is trans, and anyone who does drag.

This is the definition from the article you posted. It seems to be targeting drag? Are you saying all who do drag are trans?

'Both bills define drag as “a performance in which a performer exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience for entertainment.”

The example given in the article of entertainment being someone in drag at a football game singing the anthem is really stretching credulity. Is that 'before an audience for entertainment!

No, I don't.

You are entitled to feel however you like, and I understand why you may feel that way, but I do not agree.

The law was written in a vague way (purposefully) so that if you were trans and in a public place where a child could reasonably expect to be (grocery store for instance), and you displayed characteristics of the gender opposing your birth sex, you were "performing sexually."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/texas-transgender-ban-drag-shows-criminalize-parents.html

Actually had a friend get targeted by this legislature, he is a gay man who does drag performances clothed neck to toe, there is nothing meant to be fetishist about it more so than a Christmas panto.

There were several lesbians (and a couple of gay men) on twitter who said they were voting for Trump on this issue, a few lesbian couples even posting pics of them voting.

Anyone who denies that the anti-women policies of Biden/Harris didn't play a very major part is very, very, very deeply in denial. This issue has awakened women all over the world. Handmaidens are in denial.

They lie and exaggerate. There is no possible way to make being trans 'illegal'. Honesty and facts don't matter to these people.

No, you mean anti-women. You call it 'anti-trans' so you can cloak your misogyny.

HRC is very anti-women/pro-trans captured, and don't want the Dems to change tack, so of course they will say that. 12 million (from 2020 election numbers) of Democrat voters sat this one out. Feminists were faced with voting for a misogynist who grabs women by the pussy, or a party that puts males in female only intimate safe single sex spaces and males stealing the medals and sporting places and scholarships of girls and injuring them, as happened to a girl who is now partially paralysed by a male spiking the ball really hard at her. It was a MAJOR issue. The Democrats own polling group showed post-election that it was number three (3) for reasons people voted Trump in swing states.

Keeping your head in the sand and denying that women and feminists are angry at the loss of our rights won't help. The Dems will stay out of office till 2036 unless they change their misogynistic course now. LISTEN to women! Learn the lessons! We want our rights back, and we won't stop until we get them! Learn what happened in Scotland, and the pushback in the UK in July. Now the US. LISTEN to women! Learn the lesson!

A few pages ago you mentioned that Texas made being trans in public illegal. Do you have a link for that? I'm in the US but I never heard about that!

Edited to add that Google doesn't show me anything.

Off to bed now, will pick up later

Why do you need me to say it again?

Yes, to be fair there is no need for you to repeat that you are a genderist who doesn't understand what a problem it is for people.

An article about one ad which mainly plays on immigration fears is not convincing to me.

The ad was the Kamala is for they/them one. How does that play on immigration fears exactly? Not saying you're wrong, just want to understand.

Why do you need me to say it again?

Views on gender are already changed. The number of trans kids I meet that are at risk of homelessness has halved since I started educating youth in extracurricular settings 14 years ago.

An article about one ad which mainly plays on immigration fears is not convincing to me.

So what you're saying is that you don't think the Democrats need to modify their approach to sex based rights v "trans rights" at all @PinkChesnut?

No. I mean anti-trans laws.

These laws are not about women at all. They just cloak it in that to make you support it.

Just so you have the evidence I am referring to here

archive.ph/2024.11.16-004201/www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kamala-harris-trans-gender-democrat-election-campaign-kvzqz9d6c

"With the race against Harris on a knife-edge, the change of tack was a gamble. Opinion polls showed that transgender issues were among the least important issues driving voters.

But Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s chief pollster, began testing the anti-trans ad and found that it cut through strongly with men but also with <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/afxd1/www.thetimes.com/article/white-women-donald-trump-democratic-party-8jv628b38" rel="nofollow" target="blank">suburban womenn. This crucial voting bloc, who had deserted Trump for Joe Biden in 2020, were pivotal to Harris’s hopes of victory.

When it began airing in September, the ad had an instant impact.

Harris’s team struggled to muster a response. Campaign staff initially dismissed the Republican attacks. A Democrat ad to counter the “they/them” attack tested poorly and never ran.

The Trump ad gained momentum when the radio host Charlamagne tha God drew attention to it on his show, The Breakfast Club, which is influential with the black voters courted by both candidates. The ad prompted an on-air debate about LGBT rights and the fixation with gender ideology on the far-left.

“That was nuts… When you hear the narrator say Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners, that one line, I’m like ‘Hell no, I don’t want my tax-payer dollars going to that’,” Charlamagne said. “That ad was impactful.”

Trump’s team used clips from Charlamagne’s show to cut another ad, piling on the pressure. Asked about the issue in an <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/afxd1/www.thetimes.com/article/key-takeaways-kamala-harris-interview-fox-news-xxx9zlrrz" rel="nofollow" target="blank">interview with Fox Newss in October, Harris offered only a limp response.
“I will follow the law, a law that Donald Trump actually followed,” the vice-president said. Harris’s campaign insisted that her message of unity would win out, despite feedback from activists on the ground that the anti-trans message was resonating with voters. There were calls from senior Democrats, including Bill Clinton, the former president, to rebut Trump’s claim more forcefully.

“Even the Democrats knew this was a killer for them,” Schilling said. “This is not rocket science. This is Politics 101. They are trying to change America’s view of gender, and that’s so deep-seated.”

The campaign was right that the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the pace of change on views of gender — slightly more than half (55 per cent) of voters said that support for transgender rights in government and society had gone too far, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 people who cast ballots nationwide."

You mean PRO-WOMENS RIGHTS laws?

Looking forward to your killer argument.

I made it clear what I would do, and I did it I explained in detail why I think your survey two weeks before the election doesn't contradict the evidence I think is more telling.

The question, is whether you can actually refute that point I made, rather than vaguely complaining that I made it @PinkChesnut