Republicans' war on transgender people: Omnibus thread

[k9bfriender]

@Banquet_Bear

…good GOD I hope we aren’t going to have another “should we allow trans people in sports” debate.

No, we are discussing the Republican’s war on transgender people, and how this is just one more attack on them.

One poster is trying to figure out how to best target transgendered people, while leaving the rest alone, and we are pointing out that hate rarely manages to stay contained to only those you want to hurt.

The hope is not to cure their hatred, the hope is simply to show that their hatred will be turned around and bite them in the ass, too. There’s no hope of making them see The Other as humans to be respected, that ship sailed long ago. The only hope is to appeal to their own selfishness and self-preservation, and show that there will be unintended consequences, no matter how tightly they try to direct their hate.

[Atamasama]

@Banquet_Bear

…the way that many sports were already doing it until transphobic rhetoric started to take hold in the last year or so. It isn’t a major issue.

It’s a solution looking for a problem. Because it’s a solution certain people really want implemented. And that’s because those people hate trans people, either because they don’t believe trans people really exist, or are disgusted by them and don’t want them to exist. So let’s pass a law making it difficult for them to exist, and certainly to make them feel unwanted, but justify it as women’s rights or some other bullshit that sounds noble.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

Who is this ‘one poster’ you’re referring to?

[Banquet_Bear]

@k9bfriender

No, we are discussing the Republican’s war on transgender people, and how this is just one more attack on them.

…its literally a debate on if “there should be an open-to-all category, where the first-place runner gets a gold medal” Its a sports debate.

@k9bfriender

The hope is not to cure their hatred, the hope is simply to show that their hatred will be turned around and bite them in the ass, too.

Debating the ins and outs of whether or not cis people are lying about being trans to compete in sports isn’t going to show anyone that “their hatred is going to turn around and bit them in the ass.” There is a reason why these debates are pretty much banned from the rest of the boards.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Banquet_Bear

its literally a debate on if “there should be an open-to-all category, where the first-place runner gets a gold medal” Its a sports debate.

I didn’t think that was a debate; I thought everyone was okay with an open-to-all category, and the only debate is about having another category.

[Banquet_Bear]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I thought everyone was okay with an open-to-all category

…nobody has even advocated for “open to all” categories, let alone “think they are okay.”

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Banquet_Bear

…nobody has even advocated for “open to all” categories, let alone "think they are okay.”

Well, (a) put me down for that now, if I hadn’t made it clear already; and (b) AFAICT, what kicked off all of this was a bill that “would not exclude students of the female sex from participating on athletic teams designated for males, men, or boys.” Which I guess they were okay with, and which, again, I am, too.

[running_coach]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@Banquet_Bear

…nobody has even advocated for “open to all” categories, let alone "think they are okay.”

Well, (a) put me down for that now, if I hadn’t made it clear already; and (b) AFAICT, what kicked off all of this was a bill that “would not exclude students of the female sex from participating on athletic teams designated for males, men, or boys.” Which I guess they were okay with, and which, again, I am, too. -

Open-to-all would pretty much exclude everyone who was born as physically female.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@running_coach

Open-to-all would pretty much exclude everyone who was born as physically female

And, at that point, we (a) say “so?” Or we (b) debate the specifics of some second category, if, again, the demand is there for that.

[Banquet_Bear]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Or we (b) debate the specifics of some second category, if, again, the demand is there for that.

…or how about we don’t debate that at all, acknowledge that the purpose of the bill is part of a much larger plan to exclude trans people from society, and we worry about that instead.

[k9bfriender]

@Banquet_Bear

its literally a debate on if “there should be an open-to-all category, where the first-place runner gets a gold medal” Its a sports debate.

It’s not so much a debate as one poster making it as a proposal, and the rest pointing out how stupid of an idea it is.

Would you rather such ideas simply go unchallenged?

@Banquet_Bear

Debating the ins and outs of whether or not cis people are lying about being trans to compete in sports isn’t going to show anyone that “their hatred is going to turn around and bit them in the ass.”

The idea is to point out that their daughters would be affected by this as well.

@Banquet_Bear

There is a reason why these debates are pretty much banned from the rest of the boards.

When did that happen?

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Who is this ‘one poster’ you’re referring to?

That would be the poster that is trying to make this legislation that is based on hate into something workable.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@k9bfriender

That would be the poster that is trying to make this legislation that is based on hate into something workable.

But you said: “There’s no hope of making them see The Other as humans to be respected, that ship sailed long ago.” That’s, y’know, merely false.

[Atamasama]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

That’s, y’know, merely false.

It’s very sweet of you to think you can cure bigotry with logic, but it’s not the case.

[running_coach]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@running_coach

Open-to-all would pretty much exclude everyone who was born as physically female

And, at that point, we (a) say “so?” Or we (b) debate the specifics of some second category, if, again, the demand is there for that.

We’re already (and have been) there. We have men’s and women’s divisions. Maybe the terms will be redefined/reworded but the concept should remain.
Maybe “bio-male/bio-female”?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Atamasama

It’s very sweet of you to think you can cure bigotry with logic, but it’s not the case

No, I’m saying that, AFAIK, everyone here already sees them as humans to be respected.

[Banquet_Bear]

@k9bfriender

Would you rather such ideas simply go unchallenged?

…I think a simple “thats a fucking stupid idea, there is no need for it, nobody is asking for this, it doesn’t fix anything, fuck the fuckity off with your stupid fucking idea” is challenge enough. We don’t need to debate the details.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

That’s, y’know, merely false.

They have genocidal intent. They want to exclude trans people from society. The time for debate ended a while ago. They have committed to a course of action. Its either fight them, or watch as trans people stockpile their medicine, go into hiding, and have to flee their states.

Things are REALLY bad right now.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Banquet_Bear

They have genocidal intent. They want to exclude trans people from society.

If I tell you that I’m okay with including them in the ‘open-to-all’ category, am I then to be described as having “genocidal intent”?

Am ‘I’, in your opinion, the ‘they’?

[Dissonance]

@Sitnam

According TO HERE, Transgendered people make up 1.6 Million, not even 1/2 of a percentage point of our population. That is 1/2 of a percent of EVERY AMERICAN. That includes the loud hippie chick in Seattle, it includes the quiet boy working a gas station in Alabama.

Very bold of the GOP to assume though that transgendered people only vote for liberal candidates.

They don’t even care about transgendered people who actively advocate their positions, much less vote for them; they consider them abominations. See Blaire White - or on second thought, maybe don’t actually watch the video for the sake of your own mental health, but here you go:

Trans Republican brutally smacked down by fellow conservative in panel...

She supported Donald Trump in 2016 and, like many conservative LGBTQ people, she claims that anti-conservative bias is more prevalent than anti-LGBTQ bias.

She appeared in a panel discussion about LGBTQ rights with three other Republicans, which devolved quickly.

“I don’t know how much you know about me, but I’m probably the most vocal anti-children transitioning person on the internet,” White said.

“Good!” interjected self-described “America First, Recovery, and the unborn” activist Lauren Witze.

“Well, I-” White tried to continue, rattled.

“Great! The best thing you can do for us is grow out your mustache and tell people not to live like you,” Witze said. Even rightwing commentator Karlyn Borysenko in the upper-left appears shocked by Witze’s statements.

[iiandyiiii]

I don’t believe this, I think your last question is not in good faith. “How do they do an investigation?” is not a serious inquiry.

[Banquet_Bear]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Am ‘I’, in your opinion, the ‘they’?

…absolutely, 100% NOT. You’re fine. I’ve got no issue with you.

The point here is how the debate shifted the goalposts. And we’ve gone from “hey, maybe we should debate this trans sports thing” a couple of years ago to bans on trans affirming care and over 300 trans gender bills in the pipeline today.

In the UK right now things are even worse. And the US is about a year and half behind where they are.

The “sports debate” is about normalising a public debate on how trans people should exist in society. Its easy to get caught up in it. I know I have. But it isn’t important right now. The details don’t matter. Hardly any trans people participate in sports, they aren’t “winning” to any extent that it matters. There aren’t hordes of cis men pretending to be women so they can get titles. It a non issue.