I didn’t leave the left. The left, left me.

[GenerativeAIBot]

Stop me if you have already heard this the last few days, I am trying to make sense of how I feel about Trump and other right leaning wins:

“Woke” issues being pushed to where they have been, has empowered the right by giving them something real and legitimate to campaign against. Something more than their usual transparently false bogeymen.

In general, Authoritarianism, compelled speech, no debate. Specifically men in women’s sports, in women’s changing rooms, unfettered immigration, being asked to ignore the evidence in front of our eyes.

This is happening across the world, Italy, France, Germany, USA, UK.

I remain entirely committed to progressive taxation, a social safety net, collective bargaining, workers rights, public schooling and health services as well as the rights of everyone to live contented, unmolested lives.

I reject identity politics in their entirety. For example, I consider terms like “Woman of colour” to be the epitome of divisive, racist, sexist thought patterns that seeks to infantilise people and move their locus of control from internal to external. Disempowering people and making them victims.

I didn’t leave the left. The left left me.

Reasonable?

I think the cognitive dissonance is more prevalent in Trump voters than on the left', e.g. I have friends and family who might be caught up in Trump's 'mass deportation on day 1' but Trump is really sticking it to the 'libs' so I'll vote for him.

No one is 'goading' you. The attack in your deleted response was due to finding the question difficult and it exposes the flaw in the easily repeated 'safe routes' response, which no other comparable country or Labour for that matter, will propose.

Once people look at viable options rather than things that are not feasible then the issue being faced can be looked at.

‘Every single person in the US could vote for Trump and I would still believe that I was right and they were wrong, based on his character, his criminal record and his policies’

Your words.

And now you accuse 72 million Americans of ‘wrongthink’

Orwellian…

ES, I try not to get sucked into arguments with you because I have frequently come across you here and I find you as I previously described although you find that a personal attack. I find your attempts to pin people down and demand answers something of an attack but there we go.

it exposes the flaw in the easily repeated 'safe routes' response, which no other comparable country or Labour for that matter, will propose.

But that is just not true. The safe routes do currently exist, but only to people from very few, specific countries. Why do you think that is?

And why do you think it's not feasible to provide more safe routes?

So you don't want to " open the borders and let everyone in", but also think that every person " fleeing conflict " should be allowed refuge. How do you make this work in reality? In some countries it's illegal to be gay, some countries don't allow women to speak, some countries will condemn you to death for changing religion, some countries will stone you as punishment for adultery, some countries don't allow you to speak against the government. That's millions of people globally facing persecution and death. If you don't want to let everyone in, how do you decide whose cause is more noble? Whose life is more valuable?

You were deleted as it was a personal attack and perhaps reflect on your posting style which leans on doing just that.

You may get worked up about straight forward questions but that's just a flaw on the left, it doesn't make the problems go away.

No comparable country will solely use safe routes as a way to deal with this, can you name one?

Where did I say every person?

how do you decide whose cause is more noble? Whose life is more valuable?

That is what this country currently does by inviting in Ukrainians but leaving out many others.

The problem is that people think there will be a 'flood' of asylum seekers the moment you provide safe routes. This is scaremongering, pure and simple.

People are more likely to vote for someone they despise than vote for someone who despises them.

In the exit polling, particularly in the deep red states, the number who felt the candidate they voted for cared about them was really low. His favourable ratings were high. In the blue states, the number who felt Harris cared for them was much higher, even amongst Trump voters.

When people were asked if they voted for their candidate or against their opponent, the number of people who voted against Trump, was much higher than the number of people who voted against Harris.

People very much voted for Trump despite the fact they believed he didn't care about them. For example, he has been really vocal on how he feels about Latina immigrants, and yet he got their vote.

Also “we want women’s rights to be respected but would have voted for Trump” - man found liable for sexual abusing and defaming the victim.

deemed acceptable to be a Communist (like Mao or Pol Pot)

In what world is that the case?

ES, I'm not worked up, but I often find that people accuse others of their own flaws.

No comparable country will solely use safe routes as a way to deal with this, can you name one?

Where did I say 'solely'?

UK currently provides safe routes to asylum seekers but only to those from specific countries. That should change.

It was actually, I happen to agree with the sex based segregation of sport as it is something that can be done effectively. I also think the prison issue should've been easily dealt with as we already segregate prisoners for a variety of reasons.

It's the accessing woman's spaces that is the difficult part for me as, as you've admitted yourself, there's no way to effectively police it and I'm uncomfortable with labelling everyone from one particular section of an already marginalised group as potential rapists and perverts. I think that sort of rhetoric only inflames the issues, legitimises hate and compounds the issue (as one of the main reasons I've heard from trans women around this is that fear of abuse and violence from men is why they are uncomfortable using male spaces).

Maybe the trans community need to do more to forge links with women's groups to combat male violence (as all groups should do imo) and to call out bad behaviour from within their ranks but equally, I think society as a whole needs to be far more accepting of trans people in general.

I'd also argue that the strict two-sex, binary view of human identity, isn't something that has been in place throughout human history and only really took hold with the rise of monotheistic religions and only within those communities that adopted it. Prior to and outside of that things were/are a lot more fluid as the neolithic paintings and figurines of third sex people or Philo of Alexandria's descriptions of trans people during the early Roman Empire shows.

Well you were deleted for personal attacks, so no I'm fine with the questions I've posted.

I know people react as you did as it undermines what they are after and they tend to lash out. Again that's not my issue.

You can add more people to safe routes if that's what you want but it won't stop deaths in the channel as you won't be able to offer that to everyone who'd like to take it up.

Hence the question, how many would you have to provide this to to meet the number of people who would like to do it?

Absolutely. Being woke - lost it for them. They completely focussed on the wrong thing, they wanted to be the 'in' party. I will never forget that man boxer who beat women up in the boxing ring, was rewarded with a gold Olympic medal, and we all watched it on TV and could NOTHING about it. The left deserved to lose this election and i expected them to lose.

As I and others said earlier, we have been perfectly able to police female only spaces for decades. Until the last 10 years. So it was completely doable. Its only the last 10 years people suddenly think it can't be done.

Gay men and transwomen have said they have zero problems in male spaces. The worst they get is a smirk, apparently. One transwomen even filmed themselves in the male urinal. Zero problems. They are completely safe. The issue of safety is a red herring. Its about validation as a woman. That, is why they want in on female only spaces. Lastly, we females are not human shields for males in dresses. If male on male violence is a problem (and its not for transwomen) that is for males to solve. You don't breach womens boundaries and safe spaces and insert a male because that male fears violence in the males. You don't put a fox in the hen house because other foxes are picking on him.

And no, males in dresses are not 'marginalised' in any way. In fact, they are the most powerful, privileged and protected sacred caste there is. They are more of a sacred caste with more power than 'c1s' males. Its deeply insulting to suggest a male in a dress is suddenly marginalised. Untrue and deeply insulting and offensive to women and girls, the actual marginalised oppressed class.

I'm uncomfortable with labelling everyone from one particular section of an already marginalised group as potential rapists and perverts. I think that sort of rhetoric only inflames the issues, legitimises hate and compounds the issue (as one of the main reasons I've heard from trans women around this is that fear of abuse and violence from men is why they are uncomfortable using male spaces).

All men are potential rapists, potentially harmful, whether they are trans is irrelevant. When someone (and women everywhere will thank you) invents a way to tell the difference from a man who means no harm from a man who does, all men have to stay out.

I know plenty of lovely men whom I'm confident would never harm a fly, even if they woke up tomorrow and declared themselves trans, they have to stay out too, as their mere presence in those spaces may make a woman/girl uncomfortable.

I'm sorry but I despair at the 'trans women can't use the men's as they feel uncomfortable' line. Can you not see the irony? Why are they uncomfortable. Because they are with... men? That's how women fucking feel!!! Lobby the men to accept gender non-conforming men in their spaces, don't shit over the women who fought for those sex based spaces in the first place.

but it won't stop deaths in the channel as you won't be able to offer that to everyone who'd like to take it up.

Just because you're trying to make it sound like it would be a huge influx of people instantly doesn't make it true. And providing safe and legal routes while tackling the people smuggling gangs would absolutely reduce the number of deaths in the channel.

And you haven't provided any kind of answer to the question.

I object to "women of colour" for so many reasons it hurts but...
It reduces us to gross appearance
it paints coloured people as victims
it presumes only coloured people receive racism
What colour?
What shade?
North African's (say Egyptians?)
South Africans?
Australians?
This is the kind of thing that triggers my thinking that some people have too much time to self-analyse, in a dissecting way, matters that others don't have the time to reflect on because their lives mean all their thoughts are focused on surviving.

I don't have one female friend, whatever their race who would be bothered with this sort of consideration.

Same with toilets. None care! What matters is being able to get to a toilet in time to not get soiled. As long as I don't have to share a cubicle with anyone regardless of their sex, then I'm happy.

It feels like such a privilege to me to have room in their reflective mind for such thinking when there are so so many issues so much more of a concern for a majority of people.

Is it the reason why Trump made it?

Sounds an awful lot like what Bernie said last week. However - you may find that in the last 7 years, the transgender and immigration issue has got a lot bigger in peoples minds. Every time a nurse or a school girl is forced to share a room with a male - or an asylum seeker attacks someone, it gets bigger,not smaller.

Except the number of times those things are happening is statistically insignificant. How about focusing on the number of times a school girl isn't forced to share a room with a male? Or the number of times someone is attacked by someone who isn't an asylum seeker? Or even the number of time an asylum seeker is attacked, Those numbers are much higher. But the media (and social media) amplifies those extreme examples to whip up support for their particular stance.

For example, the price of solar panels and electricity storage has plummeted by more than 95% in the last 20 years. We are perfectly capable of utilising that price technology, yet we are not.

The payback period remains largely the same, in part because electricity is much more expensive than it used to be.

What is it you want to know?

You will just get both channel crossings plus deaths and you can throw millions at 'tacking the people smuggling gangs' but you won't get far as the number of people who will want to make money from it is pretty much endless

When you incarcerate a few, what then? No one else takes the vast profits to do the same?

This whole "marginalised" thing is so deeply offensive and really takes the piss. @Shakeoffyourchains As a feminist said: "Only men could oppress women for thousands of years, then turn around, put on a dress, and complain that they are the the most marginalised group in society" - Kara Dansky

You have friends and family who have entered a country illegally? How did they vote

@BoredZelda

and there is undoubtedly a common sense solution to the trans fight if both sides would just sit and talk to each other

Your belief in the existence of a common-sense solution is not supported by evidence.
We have been discussing it for years. No solution has presented itself that would be acceptable to transwomen and their supporters.

That's correct. I disagree with the 72 million Americans who voted for Trump.

Disagreeing with people isn't 'Orwellian'.