Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

Can you explain, for those of us who don't believe that trans is something real, what you mean by "actual trans people"?

Do you believe that people are somehow literally born in the wrong body, or do you think it's a mental health condition, or is it something else?

This is a question I've asked of many believers in trans, but I've never been given an answer which adequately explains exactly what it is that believers believe in.

It's just so lazy to say that we must all be Trump supporters.

It is so interesting that rather than engaging in reasonable points we've just reduced to mudslinging.

And I still haven't been told what it is about my views that Democratic women such as @Danja2010 find abhorrent?

When you can't engage without insults it's indicative that there is no valid argument.

Would you like to engage with @Hellofabore's point that since many regular posters weren't even posting on the Trump threads, you can't reasonably conclude that most regular posters support him?

My recollection of threads where Trump is discussed is that that very few posters here support him. Same in this thread. How much support is there for Trump snd his policies in general?

oh dear. So you make a generalised statement about active posters on this board yet feel the need to point out that I made a magic assumption. No. Not really, I just look at who has and who hasn’t posted and having previously read the opinions of those who are not participating can draw a pretty well informed guess.

But hey, just to use the phrase you love to use - you do you.

Well then it seems that you are the one who has that skill considering you are responding to my respond to your statement :

"Many, if not most, active posters on this board have supported Trump - for his election, and particularly the EO just released."

This seems to be based more on your own personal prejudiced view ‘active posters on this board’ that has led to this mischaracterised generalisation than an accurate observation.

Honestly, I had no clue they would shorten his life and was stunned to find out when he told me.

Stunned, panicked. I have never felt more loved and supported in my life and the idea of losing him freaks me out. I've never had that feeling before.

I don't believe children should have any hormone intervention. I also believe parents who push for hormones need their own therapy.

I know a few parents whose identity is extremely wrapped up in their kids being " trans ". I find this very disturbing.

Medical intervention as adults I support. BUT I believe they need a lot of therapy intervention prior to in order to determine if this is the best course of action.

My partner lived as a butch lesbian for years. He transitioned at 30. For him it changed his life for the better. He would say it saved his life and I have no reason not to believe him.

That said I met him years later. He had long lived as a man, looked like a man, it's honestly jarring to see old photos of him.

I only know him as a trans man. We tell people I found him in the discount section of tinder with a sign that said " some assembly required." Lol

I don't know all the answers but for now I believe it's the best scenario for those who experience genuine distress from gender dysmorphia.

But because of the health implications I believe it should be a last option, but an option none the less.

I think if someone is prepared to go through all the therapy, paperwork, hormones, surgeries, then they likely have given this a lot of thought and consideration.

I believe we can protect children, protect women, and protect trans people.

I think in 5 years things will be back to how they once were..

Possibly not. This is a pretty big switch

How would you know that quite a lot of other people have avoided the Trump threads and have just been flicking through them?

From looking at who is posting in them.

Oh good grief. Went way over your head, that, didn't it, Jessa?

No. You sit down and "have a cup of tea" instead of patronising me and the other women here, who are WAY more well-informed than you are.

That is exactly what you're supporting. That is the whole fucking point.

I'm aware you've been questioned alot on this thread @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 so happy if you're ready to leave it.
But I wonder if your thoughts about trans medical and surgical care have changed with the child transition scandal?
My feeling is that trans surgical and endocinological treatments have always, at least since the 1930s, been driven by hubris, by clinicians asking "can we do this?" rather than "should we do this?" Curiosity over how far modern medicine could effect feminising changes on a male person's body (or vice versa) rather than desire to treat a carefully diagnosed pathology. The extension of this into experimental treatments for children is, IMO, of a piece with the adult trans medicine that preceded it.
I was struck, earlier in the thread, by the calm way you acknowledge that your partner's trans related treatments will shorten his life.
I'm a nurse and I find it hard being part of a healthcare system that dispenses these life-shortening treatments for the sake of aesthetic outcomes. If this EO, by emboldening people to speak more freely, leads to changes in standard trans care, as more and more clinicians refused to be involved with life shortening treatments, how would you feel about that?

A return to class politics is long overdue.

the idea of indigenous people with prior rights doesn't fit comfortably into the other "it's open doors, so everybody else just has to budge up" narrative.

Yeah, that's going to cause some cognitive dissonance for Dems.

There's also the Dem idea that we should live in integrated societies with Black people and white people as neighbours, children bussed if that's what's needed to desegregate schools, etc. Integration at least superficially seems incompatible with the notion of indigenous land rights and the separatism that inherently follows from a tribe having land that is theirs and no one else's. If I was indigenous and hearing all this talk about integration, I would be wondering if my tribe's ability to live together as a tribe was under threat.

If you think deeper, you can make the distinction between "white flight" away from the descendants of the people your ancestors enslaved and indigenous land rights to protect a people and their culture from colonisers. You can distinguish between segregation that serves to keep Black people subordinate to white people, and separatism that serves to keep an at-risk culture safe from obliteration by the surrounding dominant culture. You can make a nuanced argument that Black-white integration doesn't also mean loss of tribal sovereignty. You can frame all of this in terms of racial justice: not treating Black people like inferiors who should live in the nasty part of town and respecting tribal sovereignty are both about righting historic and ongoing wrongs committed on the basis of race. But, this involves long-form articles, nuanced discussion, and people reading beyond the headline. It's clear from this thread alone that people will judge Mark Zuckerberg as a misogynist and EOs as tearing up people's rights without even reading the full podcast or EO. Getting that distinction between segregation and separatism across to indigenous voters will be very hard, because indigenous voters are no more likely to read beyond the headlines than anyone else.

By contrast, the GOP need only say "yes, we'll recognise your tribe" whilst continuing to tout their usual individualist argument that the Govt shouldn't be trying to tell you where you can live and which school you send your kids to. That individualist argument is completely compatible with indigenous land rights in an immediately obvious way, no deep thinking required, because both are predicated on the values of sovereignty and freedom from Govt interference. It's hence going to be a lot easier for the GOP to convince indigenous people to vote for them if land rights and tribal recognition are a voting issue.

The difference between us is I believe there are actual trans people.

I respect them enough to address them by their preferred pronouns.

I don't think people should be deliberately rude to make a point. I don't think they should be precluded from jobs because they are " mentally unstable".

I don't refer to them as " men in dresses".

Do I think there is a whole social contagion going on? Absolutely.

My concern is genuine trans people are being demonized due to a few assholes.

They were here long before these issues, and will remain long after.

I hope they remain safe and respected throughout. I hope they have access to the medical care, hormones they need.

I don't think it's all or nothing. I don't think it's a fetish by perverts any more than I think most men are pedophiles.

I think there are bad people and good people and it's that simple.

The bad people who aren't trans will go back to being men and assaulting women.

It'll be like Demi Lovato saying she's no longer non binary because it was too frustrating to correct people.

People who are actually trans would give anything not to be. It's a long road and it's hard.

I think implementing laws to protect women is a good thing.

I think being casual and blase when it comes to kids is also a good thing. Not angry, not ignoring them, just casual.

I think in 5 years things will be back to how they once were..

Trans people will still be here. I don't think declaring they don't exist helps anyone though.

Oh, and yes, I agree with the point about immigration. It's not impossible to hold those ideas together, but it requires some nuance that many seem to struggle with.

I suspect that part of the political realignment that is going on in the west is that we'll see class divisions and class solidarity become more important than ethnic or racial divisions. That's what I think we are seeing now with the changes in Hispanic voting patterns, and black males - those populations having a higher percentage of working class individuals, and they are all moving towards supporting similar policies and political leaders as white working class people. What we will see in the end is a much more broad working class solidarity across party lines. Which, arguably, is a return to earlier civil rights era patterns.

The next 10 or 15 years will tell the tale.

A woman said something some men didn't like. They harassed her online, as men everywhere do, using insults against her appearance. Rather like how TRAs harass women who say things they don't like and use insults about how we look, even threatening violence. This is a day ending in Y.

The harassment of the Bishop shows that for all women, men behaving in a civilised way is conditional upon us toeing their line. It shows that all women, regardless of political alignment, are subject to this. It shows that there are misogynists of all political alignments who will do this to all women who step out of line. It shows that rank and position and authority are no protection from this or any other male abuses, for any woman. Even a queen can be subjected to rape.

In other words, the harassment of the Bishop of Washington demonstrates the continued need for feminism to be a political movement for the liberation of women as a sex class from male oppression.

That makes sense, thanks.
They - and any indigenous peoples - are also an awkward anomaly in the Left/Liberal view of immigration etc. There's a lot of guilt and performative apologising to the First Nations but the idea of indigenous people with prior rights doesn't fit comfortably into the other "it's open doors, so everybody else just has to budge up" narrative.

So @Danja2010 are you going to tell me which of my views are abhorrent to Democratic women?

Or to put it another way, it's actually saying the anti-discrimination law must be followed, the exceptions being made are no longer allowed.

Here is a transcript of Zuckerberg's conversation with Joe Rogan: https://singjupost.com/transcript-of-mark-zuckerberg-on-joe-rogan-podcast/?singlepage=1

The rock I live under is on where, thanks to my autism, I get complained about a lot more by women at work than I do by men. Their own female socialisation coupled with how they expect me to behave based on assumptions about my female socialisation mean that they cannot deal with my level of directness coming from a woman. The workplace would be easier for me if it swung a little more masculine.

There is nothing in that interview that suggests that Zuck wants women out of the workplace. To the contrary, he wants us in the workplace:

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Look, I think part of — the intent on all these things, I think, is good. I do think that if you’re a woman going into a company, it probably feels like it’s too masculine. There isn’t enough of the energy that you may naturally have. It probably feels like there are all these things that are set up that are biased against you. That’s not good either because you want women to be able to succeed and have companies that can unlock all the value from having great people, no matter what their background or gender.

But I think these things can always go a little far. And I think it’s one thing to say we want to be kind of like welcoming and make a good environment for everyone. And I think it’s another to basically say that masculinity is bad. And I just think we kind of swung culturally to that part of the kind of the spectrum where it’s all like, okay, masculinity is toxic. We have to get rid of it completely. It’s like, no, both of these things are good, right? It’s like you want feminine energy. You want masculine energy. Like, I think that that’s like you’re going to have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that that’s all good.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: But I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung towards being this somewhat more neutered thing. And I didn’t really feel that until I got involved in martial arts, which I think is still a more much more masculine culture. And so not that it doesn’t try to be inclusive in its own way, but I think that there’s just a lot more of that energy there. And I just kind of realized it’s like, oh, this is —

JOE ROGAN: Like how you become successful at martial arts. You have to be at least somewhat aggressive.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Yeah.

Tell me, did you listen to that Joe Rogan episode or read the transcript before you judged what Zuck said?