Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

I’m scared now I’ve realised this

1000 replies

Pickandmixmood · 29/10/2024 11:00

I was thinking that the US public wouldn’t vote for Trump now that it is so apparent he is such a fascist. It’s terrifying to realise that they already know that and that is why they are going to vote for him.
I’m scared for the world.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
40
nolongersurprised · 01/11/2024 23:18

What makes you think people who've transitioned don't experience sexual desire?

yoire conflating “people” with “children”. Notbad is talking about children. A boy who has had puberty blockers in early puberty followed by cross sex hormones will never have an orgasm.

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:19

izimbra · 01/11/2024 23:07

"no one can claim that a vote for Harris/Walz and the Democrats is protective of women’s rights, that’s a tragically laughable claim."

Other than banning transgender women from participating in women's sports, what other legal sanctions against transgender women would you like to see that would actually 'keep women safe'?

"Thousands of children in the USA have undergone medical transition and have been sterilised and rendered asexual. "

You do understand 'asexual' means 'someone who does not experience sexual attraction towards others'. Is that what you meant to say? What makes you think people who've transitioned don't experience sexual desire?

Edited

Other than banning transgender women from participating in women's sports, what other legal sanctions against transgender women would you like to see that would actually'keep women safe'?

Legislate that sex is most important, not gender. Allow women to be entitled to single sex spaces and be allowed to exclude men, however they identify. It’s not “legal sanctions against transgender women”. It’s protection of women’s spaces from males.

You do understand 'asexual' means 'someone who does not experience sexual attraction towards others'. Is that what you meant to say? What makes you think people who've transitioned don't experience sexual desire?

Because children who have been puberty blocked at Tanner stage two do not experience libido and have no ability to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm. At best they are sexually dysfunctional, at worst they will never experience any form of sexual pleasure or desire.

This is the reality of medically transitioning children. Democrats want this. Tim Walz wants Minnesota to be a state that children can come and obtain this.

nolongersurprised · 01/11/2024 23:20

Nanny0gg · 01/11/2024 23:17

He is against Roe v Wade

He will not back its reintroduction

Biden was going to make reproductive rights a federal matter not state. I hope Kamala continues that thought

So - why the fuck didn’t Biden actually DO this?

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:21

XChrome · 01/11/2024 23:12

Ew. What a truly sick, twisted individual he is. There is no way anybody can dispute that with any credibility.

It's all over the news all day here. As is this:

www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-allegations-michael-wolff-podcast-1978434

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:22

izimbra · 01/11/2024 23:16

@NotBadConsidering Sorry - another couple of questions - have you ever personally spoken to a transgender person about their experience of transitioning? Do you have any friends or family who've had the experience of dealing with persistent gender dysphoria? Just wondering about your personal experience of this issue.

Yes I have spoken to many children and young people. I know for a fact they are not informed of the reality of medical transition at a young age.

Oodiks · 01/11/2024 23:31

Deja321 · 01/11/2024 22:04

Why won't you acknowledge bidens behaviour? Do you think it is acceptable?

Do you acknowledge no new wars under trump? Why did they say he would start ww3?

I'm voting for the current Presidential nominee not the previous one.

I don't know who they are or why they say he would start ww3, but he I do know that he would be terrible for the environment, both the natural and the political one.

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:41

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:36

The article doesn’t explain why successive Democrat presidents since 1973 have done nothing to enact stronger federal protections and doesn’t explain how the election of Harris will somehow be different.

izimbra · 01/11/2024 23:41

@Deja321

"Do you acknowledge no new wars under trump?"

Ahem. From 'ForeignPolicy.com'
"These pieces all rest heavily on the claim that Trump launched no new wars. That’s true as far as it goes. But it was certainly not for lack of trying. Trump might not have started any wars, but he massively inflamed existing ones—and came close to catastrophic new ones.
Let’s review the record. Despite inveighing against “endless wars,” Trump massively escalated the country’s existing wars in multiple theaters, leading to skyrocketing casualties. In Afghanistan, he substantially upped the amount of airstrikes, leading to a 330 percent increase in civilian deaths. In Yemen, he escalated both U.S. counterterrorism activities and support for the devastating Saudi-led war against the Houthis. According to the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there were 2,243 drone strikes in just the first two years of Trump’s presidency, compared with 1,878 in the entire eight years of the Obama administration.
Trump also came very close to tweeting the country into a nuclear war with North Korea in late 2017 and early 2018, a completely self-inflicted incident that seems to have been bizarrely memory-holed. Trump “didn’t merely threaten to attack North Korea if it possessed the ability to strike the U.S.,” wrote the Intercept’s Jon Schwarz. “He ordered the Pentagon to develop new plans, over the resistance of then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to do so.” According to former Pentagon official and Asia security expert Van Jackson, who wrote a book about the crisis, “The world was closer … to nuclear war, at that time than any time, since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it was totally avoidable.”
In 2018, Trump bowed to Washington’s neoconservative hawks and withdrew from a working nonproliferation agreement with Iran, resulting in Iran scaling up both its provocative activities in the region and its nuclear program. According to current U.S. assessments, Iran could now make enough fissile for one nuclear bomb in under two weeks, should it decide to do so. Under the agreement Trump abandoned, it would’ve taken Iran at least a year.
The list goes on: Trump put the U.S. on a path to “great-power competition” with China, incited a failed coup in Venezuela, and increased support for reckless, repressive clients around the world. Indeed, Trump was seen as such a dangerous interventionist that Congress passed the first war powers resolution in history to try to end his support for the Yemen war. Less than a year later, Congress passed a second resolution to brush him back from a potential war with Iran after he OK’d the assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Soleimani. Both measures passed with Republican support, making opposition to Trump’s militarism one of the very few areas of bipartisan agreement during his administration."

The Trump Administration Embraces the Saudi-Led War in Yemen

The Trump administration will now resume U. S. munitions supplies to Saudi Arabia to help it defeat Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen’s civil war after Congress failed by a narrow margin to block the controversial sale of $500 million worth of bombs. The...

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-trump-administration-embraces-the-saudi-led-war-yemen

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:43

XChrome · 01/11/2024 23:12

Ew. What a truly sick, twisted individual he is. There is no way anybody can dispute that with any credibility.

It's fascinating what can be so openly said now. It really wasn't that long ago that a person would be shunned for such musings. In fact, think back to the republican response to Jan 6 - Trump was condemned by his own. An about face then happened when they started to re-write the events, but I'd say that was really the last time public condemnation occurred.

nolongersurprised · 01/11/2024 23:45

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:36

The article describes how abortion access has been defined by the Supreme Coirt and the separate states. It doesn’t explain why Biden didn’t try to codify anything at Federal level, of how a Harris government would achieve this

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:48

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:41

The article doesn’t explain why successive Democrat presidents since 1973 have done nothing to enact stronger federal protections and doesn’t explain how the election of Harris will somehow be different.

Sorry, must've linked wrong one and have closed everything now.
A president doesn't have the power to just make a federal law that the individual states must adhere to.
Access wasn't codified and no one believed Roe would fall. Pelosi said as much in s interview I saw.
However, if I get a chance I'll post a better link.

izimbra · 01/11/2024 23:49

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:41

The article doesn’t explain why successive Democrat presidents since 1973 have done nothing to enact stronger federal protections and doesn’t explain how the election of Harris will somehow be different.

Because until the Republicans became completely radicalised on abortion, which has happened fairly recently, it wasn't considered a particularly partisan political issue. Since it has become a profoundly partisan issue it's been very difficult for the Democrats to legislate on. And up until fairly recently Roe was considered settled law and there wasn't the urgency to codify it.

I think if you haven't taken an interest in the rise of the alt right and the Christian Nationalist takeover of the GOP you can't really understand the current politics of abortion.

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:51

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:48

Sorry, must've linked wrong one and have closed everything now.
A president doesn't have the power to just make a federal law that the individual states must adhere to.
Access wasn't codified and no one believed Roe would fall. Pelosi said as much in s interview I saw.
However, if I get a chance I'll post a better link.

A president doesn't have the power to just make a federal law that the individual states must adhere to.

Which is why it’s speculative that abortion rights will worsen under Trump or be improved under Harris.

However, Democrat administrations have enacted executive orders or meddled with processes implementing gender ideology to the detriment of women and children.

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:53

izimbra · 01/11/2024 23:49

Because until the Republicans became completely radicalised on abortion, which has happened fairly recently, it wasn't considered a particularly partisan political issue. Since it has become a profoundly partisan issue it's been very difficult for the Democrats to legislate on. And up until fairly recently Roe was considered settled law and there wasn't the urgency to codify it.

I think if you haven't taken an interest in the rise of the alt right and the Christian Nationalist takeover of the GOP you can't really understand the current politics of abortion.

And up until fairly recently Roe was considered settled law and there wasn't the urgency to codify it.

It has never been considered settled law and many legal experts were not at all surprised it was overturned. It was something that was always a risk and needed codifying decades ago but no one did. I am not someone who doesn’t understand the current politics of abortion.

XChrome · 01/11/2024 23:54

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:21

The woman who tried to sue Trump for raping her when she was 13 claimed it had been at one of Epstein's parties and that Epstein also raped her at that event. She also had an anonymous witness to back up her story. The suit was dropped in 2016 after, predictably, considering what was at stake for Trump, she received death threats.

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:55

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240315-in-history-ruth-bader-ginsburg-foresaw-threat-to-us-abortion-access

Ginsburg cautioned against the idea of thinking that the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which declared abortion was a constitutional right, was enough to guarantee women's reproductive freedom. Ginsburg was a lifelong staunch advocate for abortion rights and gender equality, but from her early days she had criticised the Supreme Court's handling of the abortion issue.
She believed that the Roe v Wade case had based the right to abortion on the wrong argument, a violation of a woman's privacy rather than on gender equality. This, she thought, left the ruling vulnerable to targeted legal attacks by anti-abortion activists.

In History: How Ruth Bader Ginsburg foresaw the threat to abortion access in the US

In one of her final interviews, the Supreme Court justice and women's rights pioneer predicted that US abortion rights could be revoked and warned the poorest would pay the price

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240315-in-history-ruth-bader-ginsburg-foresaw-threat-to-us-abortion-access

XChrome · 01/11/2024 23:58

Mumtobabyhavoc · 01/11/2024 23:43

It's fascinating what can be so openly said now. It really wasn't that long ago that a person would be shunned for such musings. In fact, think back to the republican response to Jan 6 - Trump was condemned by his own. An about face then happened when they started to re-write the events, but I'd say that was really the last time public condemnation occurred.

You're right. The GOP has abandoned the last vestiges of their pretence of having any human decency. It's all out hog- wallowing in hate now.

Mumtobabyhavoc · 02/11/2024 00:01

Astute comments by previous posters.
Criticism goes back to Obama when a super majority was held, but again the sense of urgency wasn't there.
It was a debate on the strength of case law at the time. Clearly the Fems gambled and lost.

Excellent point re take-over of the GOP, which my earlier post attempted to explain (my first post?).

theconversation.com/as-president-harris-could-not-easily-make-roe-v-wade-federal-law-but-she-could-still-make-it-easier-to-get-an-abortion-225619

Mumtobabyhavoc · 02/11/2024 00:09

XChrome · 01/11/2024 23:54

The woman who tried to sue Trump for raping her when she was 13 claimed it had been at one of Epstein's parties and that Epstein also raped her at that event. She also had an anonymous witness to back up her story. The suit was dropped in 2016 after, predictably, considering what was at stake for Trump, she received death threats.

Yes, and I've read several reports now. Notably, it seems Trump and Epstein shared a bit of rivalry putting notches in their belts and spent a good amount of time together. Trump was well aware women were very young and underage at Epstein's parties, yet he still visited. It's curious Epstein kept photos from the parties in his safe.
Their falling out seems to be over the property both wanted. Trump out bid Epstein then flipped it to a Russian oligarch which has the appearance of money laundering. Wonder if Trump was party to that?

izimbra · 02/11/2024 00:18

NotBadConsidering · 01/11/2024 23:55

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240315-in-history-ruth-bader-ginsburg-foresaw-threat-to-us-abortion-access

Ginsburg cautioned against the idea of thinking that the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which declared abortion was a constitutional right, was enough to guarantee women's reproductive freedom. Ginsburg was a lifelong staunch advocate for abortion rights and gender equality, but from her early days she had criticised the Supreme Court's handling of the abortion issue.
She believed that the Roe v Wade case had based the right to abortion on the wrong argument, a violation of a woman's privacy rather than on gender equality. This, she thought, left the ruling vulnerable to targeted legal attacks by anti-abortion activists.

Edited

RBG's self centred refusal to retire when she should during Obama's presidency has destroyed a large part of her legacy.

NotBadConsidering · 02/11/2024 00:19

izimbra · 02/11/2024 00:14

"Criticism goes back to Obama when a super majority was held"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

There's been so much repetition of unacknowledged GOP framing on this thread.

Roe was considered settled law for decades so there was no urgency to legislate.

Roe was considered settled law for decades so there was no urgency to legislate.

You have repeated this. But I have pointed out an example of how RBG did not think so at all. Why did no one listen to her?

nolongersurprised · 02/11/2024 00:20

izimbra · 02/11/2024 00:14

"Criticism goes back to Obama when a super majority was held"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

There's been so much repetition of unacknowledged GOP framing on this thread.

Roe was considered settled law for decades so there was no urgency to legislate.

Roe Vs Wade was overturned 2 1/2 years ago. What did the Biden administration do then to try to rectify things?

The Harris message boils down to : Reproductive rights for uterus-havers and egg-owners keep getting worse, no matter who is in power. So you must vote for us if you care about women.

NotBadConsidering · 02/11/2024 00:20

izimbra · 02/11/2024 00:18

RBG's self centred refusal to retire when she should during Obama's presidency has destroyed a large part of her legacy.

So she warned for decades Roe vs Wade was inadequate, and no one did anything, but she was self centred for retiring when she wanted to? Okay.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.