Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

I don't follow Matt Walsh and he has nothing to do with FWR so no. If you follow him and don't like his tweets then stop following him.

I am hoping that the hyperbole will die down in the coming weeks, once the drama of Trumps return is subsumed by actual politics. I am not hopeful that his presidency will be a good thing for the world, but we have to wait and see what unfolds.

Lies will continue to be spun on X and in both the 'legacy media' and on social media. Some of these will be unwitting lies coming from people who are being misled and manipulated, others will come from the manipulators. The bad faith actors are operating on all sides of the political spectrum.

However, the majority of the people, when they are presented with facts and reasoned argument, are kind and generous of thought. It is important to remember that. Much of the hyperbole is designed to disrupt this.

Many democrats have lost the plot (the clip doing the rounds last week about the humiliation of the 'genital inspections' being proposed in a bill about single sex sports). This sermon may have been on a par with this and be worthy of push back.

Of course the woman doing the preaching should not be ridiculed for her appearance or sexuality. It is fair to critique her message. It is important to do so with balance. Are trans people really likely to be killed due to Trumps proposals? Should trans people learn to live their lives happily without the need/demand for identities being validated by others. These questions are worth exploring and suggestions that there is a moral imperative not to critique does not come from a truly moral stance.

There are plenty of misogynists out there, and the GOP is known for its sexism. Nothing has changed there. The majority of people will feel uncomfortable by unfair persecution of women and/or trans people. America isn't going to just see women/trans people differently because of what Trump and the GOP are saying.

Very brave I thought.
I've been wondering recently what I would actually have the guts to do if I found myself living in a world I felt strongly was going the wrong way and where dissent was squashed quickly and aggressively. (Off the back of reading a book set in pre-war Germany.)
And maybe this is the only thing people could do in that situation. Speaking up publicly for what you believe and doing it early. Well done her.

You just disagreed with youself.

We used to have a user name who switched people running it randomly just to cause mayhem. Interesting.

Ok, now we’ve established that, can you explain what you meant by “support Trump” in your OP. You admit it doesn’t mean support him in everything he does. But you think it’s more than agree with him on this one particular thing, this executive order.

So I’ll ask again: what are you accusing people of? What does “support Trump” mean in your OP?

The message from the bishop though can be seen as catastrophising the current situation by using the words ‘fear for their lives’ without context. In what way?

From being attacked? From suicide? From dying due to lack of medical treatment because they have been turned away from life saving treatments, and I don’t refer to gender affirmation treatment as life saving for clarity, due to discrimination ? In what way do they face death that other groups do not that they have been especially mentioned?

Unfortunately, just leaving it without context, either intentionally or unintentionally, leaves the statement being perceived as just the amplification of activist mantras. And if a respected bishop has just said this at an inauguration prayer service, then it will indeed raise generalised fear for the groups involved.

Some people have resorted to pointing out the gun situation in the USA. The thing is about that as a discussion point is that the violence revolving around guns is a much wider issue where just about everyone carries, and rightly, a fear about that. And did that fear lessen at all during Biden’s presidency?

She is wrong, because these children do not complete suicide at a higher rate, they paper does not show that, and it’s not remotely simply to show that any mental health change is a result of one single thing.

I never understand why people are so desperate to make these children suicidal when they’re no different to other children with mental health issues disorders. It’s as though it’s a tool to use.

Yes, I do.

You included a KJK tweet by mistake with no actual thought process, and can't back down.

You linked to a paper about 'suicide attempts'. Not 'suicide rates'. Which as we know, have been self reported rather than hospital or medical reported.

Can you post a link to your evidence about 'suicide rates'?

The hysteria continues 🙄

She’s not wrong about trans people being at risk either, despite what you may know about UK suicide rates. In the US there has been a demonstrable increase in suicide rates of young trans/non-binary people in states that have enacted anti-trans legislation. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5

It's ridiculous to say that there have always been transsexual children.

Transsexual children are a recent invention, designed to help middle aged men who transition, by supporting the myth that those middle aged men were always trans, even when they were very young children. The purpose of the existence of transsexual children is to sanitise transsexualism and to turn it into something wholesome that even children can be involved in.

Or as one TRA put it, children "demystify it and take the sex right out of the trans experience.”

Lying to confused children about reality is not compassionate either.

So you believe that expressing support for one executive order that was written by a feminist lawyer and signed by Trump, hereby bounds everyone who expresses that support for that one thing to everything he is, was, and ever will be and everything he has done, does and will do?

You’re not convincing me either. I think you’re just another “look who you’re aligned with” purity spiral poster like the umpteen before.

Was it coordinated? I would expect the commentators you mention to feel as they do and express it and that this would be done quickly after the event. No need to coordinate.

Given the massive harms visited on women and children by having this damaging agenda forced onto a largely-unconsenting public, you can expect some commentary.

I thought Trump was uncharacteristically restrained in his response to this.

The sermon was inappropriate. She was there to conduct a holy service, but she used the opportunity to make political points knowing he had no right of reply. It's somewhat astounding (the hypocrisy) given that all the major religions frown (to one degree or another) upon same sex relationships; religious teaching has made acceptance difficult for same sex relationships.

History is leaving people like this woman behind. She's clearly very annoyed about that.

Tax again? We all now know that undocumented migrants in the USA do in fact pay tax. Thanks to PP for pointing this out.

You said 'It seems the clarion call has gone out to the rest of the Trump X minions, as they are all tweeting the same sentiments - including Kellie-Jay Keen and Donald Trump Jnr.'

And her response wasn't 'tweeting the same sentiment'. But yet you just had to include her for some reason. I'm trying to work out if you really think Trump put out a call to KJK in the UK to tweet about her thoughts on the satireness or otherwise of the tweet or whether you are just here to stoke division.