I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent, articulate reason for conservative opposition to trans if it doesn't impact their own existence. I don't know if it is satisfying or miserable to go through life constantly looking for someone or something to resent or hate instead of channeling that same energy into activities that yield produc…
I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent, articulate reason for conservative opposition to trans if it doesn't impact their own existence. I don't know if it is satisfying or miserable to go through life constantly looking for someone or something to resent or hate instead of channeling that same energy into activities that yield productive results. Either way, you know what they say about idle hands and the Devil. The Christian Right might be well served to talk less and listen more.
I am discouraged by the Morning Shots the last few weeks frankly on this topic. I get today's post about the politics of it without comment. Posting about the war over Rowling, well, that's just something else. The comments give me some hope, and some of it is well above average in talking about it, but some of it is - well, you cannot expect everyone to snap out of transphobia immediately.
"Trans/gay is not normal and it is a choice to live that way. You can do what you want, but you don't get to make me acknowledge, approve, and treat you is if you are normal. You don't get to make me include you in my world."
They don't want to know a person is trans, because then they have to decide if sharing a bathroom is going to be a problem, if they want their kid to play with theirs, etc. It's just stupid petty bullshit.
I've always considered "Mind Your Own Business" to be a bedrock conservative principle. People who call themselves "conservatives" and yet are obsessed with interfering with other people's business and private lives don't respect words or other people, and make my brain hurt.
Here is a conservative argument (a non-MAGA, non-religious conservative argument) and this argument extends beyond the limited issue of trans. This argument also highlights the core difference between conservatism (which is illiberal) and classical liberalism.
I am going to give you the bullet point version, because this is a comments section.
(Disclaimer: I am presenting this argument, I am not saying that it is a good argument or a valid argument or that I agree with it):
The maintenance of society requires a certain degree of social cohesion and a certain shared world-view. Increasing levels of diversity and variance undermine the cohesion of society, increase social friction (including violence and susceptibility to outside actors/subversion), increase societal and economic costs and foster Us v Them dynamics within the society.
The more uniform the society and its members, the better. The more uniform understanding of social and sexual relations are, the better.
Uniformity is best exemplified/stated in larger social acceptance. This can change over time, BUT legal and norm changes should FOLLOW public opinion and not lead public opinion. Gradualist change that follows opinion is superior to rapid change that leads opinion as it is less disruptive to society as whole.
This necessarily means that variance from accepted norms should be avoided or suppressed until such time as societal norms substantively change for the good of society as a whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
This is not pretty and it can be attacked from several directions. I have also not provided support for the argument, only the assertions/claims. It is, however, the core of the actual argument if you break it out rationally (which few of the people involved do).
I think one of the things aggravating the right, and some others, is the speed at which some of these societal changes are happening. In the last decade we have legalized gay marriage, and have embraced a whole new class of citizens, a new minority in the transgender issue. And then we have all the pronouns that in many cases are being insisted on, or the offender is subject to cancellation and slander. Some of the proponents of these demand everyone do as they say or they can be labeled as bigots or bad and shamed. I am a liberal guy, and sometimes I feel like things moving really fast here.
People being people, and conservatives being conservative, there is absolutely bound to be pushback, which is very self-evident. This may get someone mad, but it seemed for a while I was constantly reading about drag queen story hours all over the country. I feel this is just putting a target on peoples back for culture wars. One other example is the trans swimmer that won the title recently. I believe they had been taking hormones for 12-18 months. I completely agree with the women that had to compete with that person. That is not fair. More research needs to be done.
If we tell people we are right and they are wrong and they better just get over it, well, we will get just what we have got. As Mercer characterized, if something is forced down peoples throats, ours included, we will push back. We have to be aware of reality.
If you think things are moving too fast in a forward direction, as a woman I’m getting whiplash at how fast things are moving backwards. I see my rights being taken away at high speed. I don’t want to go back. I won’t go back.
As a woman, I concur. If you don't think it will affect you because you're not of childbearing age... think again, especially if you have any young female relatives. My family is currently living through a tragedy that seems to be moving in slow motion. My niece has gotten some bad news regarding the baby she is carrying (and who is very much wanted). There is no amniotic fluid and the kidneys are malformed and the growth is 4 weeks behind. As a HCP, I can tell you that survivability is very poor. She is at about 19.5 weeks (but not really, growth is behind and the kidneys are not working), She sees a specialist today that can give her a diagnosis and a prognosis and very little else because she lives in a No-Exception State.
I am not telling you or anybody else to wait their turn. I was simply saying that just because we want something to change does not mean it just magically does. It took 100 years to get from the Emancipation proclamation to the Civil Rights act, and even now another 50+ years later we are still fighting for equality for non-white folks. The constitution ensured that black folks had rights too all those years. That did not work out too well because society had not caught up with the constitution. Don't get mad at me, I am on your side. I am just pointing out reality- you are talking about major societal change. Your yelling at people that you are right and they can go F--- themselves will get you almost nowhere.
Homogeneous societies are more stable. That ship has sailed; it never really existed in the U.S. We are stuck trying to figure out how to get along. E pluribus unum.
That ship has never really existed, except in very narrowly defined ethnic societies/states but the argument is based upon the ideal and the innate desire of people to surround themselves with others who are like them (and so not actually Other).
That is why I do not say the argument is a good or valid argument.
Yeah, it’s a weird paradox, that there’s an underlying assumed value of homogeneity that creates unavoidable tension in a society born of many ethnicities. I think it will always be a tug-of-war between competing values, in our tumultuous situation. Tiring.
The story of civilization is actually the story of how we have become better at managing (not accommodating) diversity--if not always in all ways or for more than short periods of time.
This is a fascinating topic for discussion. And relevant to many more countries now, with migration on the march. I’m intrigued with your distinction between managing and accommodating. I think it’s very important, even as I grapple with what it means. Paradigms matter! There’s a bumper sticker.
Accommodating has the connotation of tolerance (rather than acceptance) and inequality--generally of some lack or irregularity in the part of what is being accommodated.
Managing recognizes that diversity is diversity and is not engaged in necessarily making value judgments--that these differences have to be navigated and things directed so as to enable difference with respect for that difference--part of the larger project of recognizing the dignity of your fellows.
Words are important, connotation is sometimes more important than denotation.
One of the problems with rhetoric and its study and use is that rhetoricians are often in the mindset or perception that they are playing game--and we are--what is missing is the recognition that we are playing klin zha kinta and not just klin zha.
Sorry could not resist making the Star Trek reference there LOL. Klin zha is Klingon :"chess," klin zha kinta is the game with live pieces--and the pieces die.
We can see this phenomena, in part, in Tim's experience and in his book.
Okay, I’m going to study this some more, after I feed the dogs. Some how it needs to be put in “for dummies” format, if the masses are to benefit. (Including myself!). But I do think you’re on to something important. Unfortunately, our culture is dedicated to the simplicity of thought, needing complex issues to be black/white, either/or. Shades of gray are too hard! But I still think it’s do-able.
Makes you wonder, under such a framework, when various equal rights would have been achieved in this country. Maybe WWII would have been enough of a change with women working to get them the vote. Maybe. Really hard to imagine Jim Crow not still being the law in the south without the VRA being imposed on them. And gay marriage? Maybe by the time we have a colony on Alpha Centauri.
That is the essence of conservatism (even in its best and more ethical iterations).
During the Civil War, the thought was still (until near the end of the war) that slavery should go away gradually rather than by federal fiat--and that it would probably last until (they thought) around 1900.
I doubt there will be any intelligent and articulate reason forthcoming. The opposition rises from an anti-science, anti-reason posture, like the idea that Bill Gates was putting something in covid vaccines. It's Trump's brand.
If you hear that intelligent, articulate reason, pass it on. Perhaps it would likewise explain their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, two other personal, private issues.
MAGA goes after the things that liberals are trying to protect because MAGA understands that the way to REALLY make someone hurt is not to go after them directly, it's to go after the things that person cares about. Like sexual/racial minorities in the case of what libs care about. If libs want equality and equity, MAGA simply bashes on sexual/racial minorities and make sure the rich never get taxed too hard so that we keep wealth/racial/sexual inequality in place. It's about social dominance and punishing their enemies by punishing the people that their enemies are trying to help.
I think it's fear. Trans is a status no one would choose for themselves; it's something to be dealt with. But they believe we all are "grooming" their kids to do that very thing, choose gender disphoria. It's right out of the Pizzagate/QAnon playbook.
It’s cold, calculating power. They have no ethical basis. The trans issue is a tool for power. Goodness knows, the right wing is marinating in their own definition of perversion. The Bakers, the Falwells. The only way they can enjoy pleasure is if that pleasure is illicit.
Maybe at the top, but among the devotees it's fear: in this case fear that their hope for their children to have staid but happy lives might be dashed by being lured into the trans life-style--and they think it *is* a life-style.
People fear what they don’t understand so othering what they don’t understand becomes a reflexive coping mechanism. The knowing manipulators sew the seeds of otherness to encourage grievance and fear, powered by anger and hate. It’s an ugly brew that has worked to self-bestow power over people for thousands of year. The only answer to hate is love and if you can’t manage love, practice safe tolerance- just don’t give them the power to hurt you or the ones you live. It can be a fine line.
Exactly. The principle we're all supposed to care about is "we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And it drives me INSANE when politicians spend their time saying, "except for these people we think have cooties." And they know it drives me and people who agree with the freaking Declaration of Independence absolutely insane. Well, I say, that's UnAmerican. We all agreed to certain principles to be part of this country. We're not related by ethnicity or religion. All we have to unite us are those principles. That's all we have! Stop throwing them in the trash because you think certain people are icky!
From February 2017 until November 2020 I carried a sign just about every week in front of the US Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. On one side was the notation, Dump Trump, He is Un-American.
I concur with your sentiments, but feel compelled to point out that most of the people about whom you are speaking never "agreed" to the principles "to be a part of this country"; they were born here and may not, even now, have read the Declaration of Independence, or certainly not understood what it means and stands for.
Agree. I think there should be a qualification to vote: You have to pass the citizenship test that immigrants have to pass to become naturalized Americans. If you don't know what the Declaration says, and what it means, you don't get to vote.
I was flabbergasted at the title of the graph. "Percentage who say society has gone too far in accepting people"? I thought Jesus had a very clear stance on accepting people.
I competed with a few trans women in the various sports I participated in during the 1980's and 90's. -- mountain biking, soccer, and distance running. But to my knowledge there were very few trans women and the thing is, they did not excel in their sport so no one cared. I assumed that the testosterone suppressors they took leveled the playing field. And frankly, so what if some trans people are more competitive? How much does that have to do with their being trans? Trans or not, a lot of women cleaned my clock. And IMHO Renee Richards is dreaming.
Relax. The Republicans are not going to "get the vote of every soccer mom whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen". Luckily, most women are much more sophisticated than that.
There were similar dire predictions with same sex marriage. “People will want to marry their dogs!” Amazingly, a lot of Americans know how to think critically. We barely outnumber those who can’t or won’t, but the righteous path often isn’t the easy path.
Oh wow! I remember that "marry your dog" scare tactic. How funny. My Jack Russell terrier would have divorced me by now--i don't give in to enough of his demands! (He is a very critical thinker!)
College scholarship-level athletes might be an issue (you’re not going to transition the superior sizes of hearts and lungs and the concomitant advantages) but I don’t even know that for sure.
I'd rather liberal causes be pointed at things that actually have a likely chance of happening. The number of trans women participating in athletic events is incredibly low, and the number who are actually significantly competitive in same is lower still.
The idea of hairy-legged trans competitors winning women's events is pretty offensive to many, as the polling suggests, whether one if personally affected or not.
If you don't want hairy-legged trans competitors winning women's events, then forcing *trans men* into competing as their identified-at-birth gender would be the most counter-productive thing you could possibly do. That's what happened with Mack Beggs, who wanted to wrestle against boys but was required to compete with girls. He won the Texas state high school girls' wrestling championship for his weight class two years running.
"The vote of every soccer mom whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen."
So what, like 400 people?
Also, color me skeptical that the soccer moms are going to vote for the party asking them to hand over their daughter's menstrual records and requiring invasive genital checks to prove they aren't trans.
Maybe sports should be re-organized on a different basis than by segregated genders. Some options: majors, minors like baseball; handicapping, like golf.
I'm quietly confident that for every soccer mom the far right gains whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen, they will lose at least half a dozen other voters who both find the whole topic either irrelevant to their own lives or just plain silly and choose instead candidates in the middle or on the left who actually are addressing their wants and needs. I don't see a pathway to victory for the right in fighting more culture wars instead of fewer of them when most people are focused upon so many other, more pressing issues in their daily lives. Time will tell.
I’m also somewhat confident that for every such soccer mom, there are 100 trans suicide attempts, and 1000 trans kids thinking about suicide. Laws and policies basically come down to drawing lines, and I’d draw the lines in a way that tried as much as possible to keep trans kids alive.
I have much sympathy for the kids and parents of kids who might lose a sporting event to a trans kid, but I have far more sympathy for the struggles of trans kids and their parents. I would still, even if the numbers were reversed, and there were 100 angry moms for every 1 trans suicide attempt.
I have a friend w/a trans youngster at home. She’s given up traveling with her husband b/c her child is so fragile, she’s afraid of what she might come home to.
I can’t even imagine the lifelong mental & emotional burden a parent of a trans kid must carry when they grapple with the statistics. It’s heartbreaking.
I don’t pretend to have an answer about which teams trans people should play on, or the degree to which certain hormones affect athletic performance; but I’m not going to make some trans kid’s life miserable because I’m afraid my little darling might miss out on athletic glory. And shame on people who do.
I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent, articulate reason for conservative opposition to trans if it doesn't impact their own existence. I don't know if it is satisfying or miserable to go through life constantly looking for someone or something to resent or hate instead of channeling that same energy into activities that yield productive results. Either way, you know what they say about idle hands and the Devil. The Christian Right might be well served to talk less and listen more.
I am discouraged by the Morning Shots the last few weeks frankly on this topic. I get today's post about the politics of it without comment. Posting about the war over Rowling, well, that's just something else. The comments give me some hope, and some of it is well above average in talking about it, but some of it is - well, you cannot expect everyone to snap out of transphobia immediately.
The term "christian right" is an oxymoron. Christ must be dizzy from turning over in his grave so many times.
Well, He's not actually there anymore, but I take your meaning. 😂
Their reasoning IMO -
"Trans/gay is not normal and it is a choice to live that way. You can do what you want, but you don't get to make me acknowledge, approve, and treat you is if you are normal. You don't get to make me include you in my world."
They don't want to know a person is trans, because then they have to decide if sharing a bathroom is going to be a problem, if they want their kid to play with theirs, etc. It's just stupid petty bullshit.
Never stopped anyone.
To be technical, it stops a ton of people all the time. We just don't notice those who go with 'live and let live' the way we do those who don't.
I've always considered "Mind Your Own Business" to be a bedrock conservative principle. People who call themselves "conservatives" and yet are obsessed with interfering with other people's business and private lives don't respect words or other people, and make my brain hurt.
Thanks to Pizzagate/QAnon, they believe they are defending "the kids."
Here is a conservative argument (a non-MAGA, non-religious conservative argument) and this argument extends beyond the limited issue of trans. This argument also highlights the core difference between conservatism (which is illiberal) and classical liberalism.
I am going to give you the bullet point version, because this is a comments section.
(Disclaimer: I am presenting this argument, I am not saying that it is a good argument or a valid argument or that I agree with it):
The maintenance of society requires a certain degree of social cohesion and a certain shared world-view. Increasing levels of diversity and variance undermine the cohesion of society, increase social friction (including violence and susceptibility to outside actors/subversion), increase societal and economic costs and foster Us v Them dynamics within the society.
The more uniform the society and its members, the better. The more uniform understanding of social and sexual relations are, the better.
Uniformity is best exemplified/stated in larger social acceptance. This can change over time, BUT legal and norm changes should FOLLOW public opinion and not lead public opinion. Gradualist change that follows opinion is superior to rapid change that leads opinion as it is less disruptive to society as whole.
This necessarily means that variance from accepted norms should be avoided or suppressed until such time as societal norms substantively change for the good of society as a whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
This is not pretty and it can be attacked from several directions. I have also not provided support for the argument, only the assertions/claims. It is, however, the core of the actual argument if you break it out rationally (which few of the people involved do).
Thanks for doing this. Laying out a potential argument like this cleared a few things up for me.
I think one of the things aggravating the right, and some others, is the speed at which some of these societal changes are happening. In the last decade we have legalized gay marriage, and have embraced a whole new class of citizens, a new minority in the transgender issue. And then we have all the pronouns that in many cases are being insisted on, or the offender is subject to cancellation and slander. Some of the proponents of these demand everyone do as they say or they can be labeled as bigots or bad and shamed. I am a liberal guy, and sometimes I feel like things moving really fast here.
People being people, and conservatives being conservative, there is absolutely bound to be pushback, which is very self-evident. This may get someone mad, but it seemed for a while I was constantly reading about drag queen story hours all over the country. I feel this is just putting a target on peoples back for culture wars. One other example is the trans swimmer that won the title recently. I believe they had been taking hormones for 12-18 months. I completely agree with the women that had to compete with that person. That is not fair. More research needs to be done.
If we tell people we are right and they are wrong and they better just get over it, well, we will get just what we have got. As Mercer characterized, if something is forced down peoples throats, ours included, we will push back. We have to be aware of reality.
If you think things are moving too fast in a forward direction, as a woman I’m getting whiplash at how fast things are moving backwards. I see my rights being taken away at high speed. I don’t want to go back. I won’t go back.
As a woman, I concur. If you don't think it will affect you because you're not of childbearing age... think again, especially if you have any young female relatives. My family is currently living through a tragedy that seems to be moving in slow motion. My niece has gotten some bad news regarding the baby she is carrying (and who is very much wanted). There is no amniotic fluid and the kidneys are malformed and the growth is 4 weeks behind. As a HCP, I can tell you that survivability is very poor. She is at about 19.5 weeks (but not really, growth is behind and the kidneys are not working), She sees a specialist today that can give her a diagnosis and a prognosis and very little else because she lives in a No-Exception State.
I am not telling you or anybody else to wait their turn. I was simply saying that just because we want something to change does not mean it just magically does. It took 100 years to get from the Emancipation proclamation to the Civil Rights act, and even now another 50+ years later we are still fighting for equality for non-white folks. The constitution ensured that black folks had rights too all those years. That did not work out too well because society had not caught up with the constitution. Don't get mad at me, I am on your side. I am just pointing out reality- you are talking about major societal change. Your yelling at people that you are right and they can go F--- themselves will get you almost nowhere.
Homogeneous societies are more stable. That ship has sailed; it never really existed in the U.S. We are stuck trying to figure out how to get along. E pluribus unum.
We have too much pluribus and not enough unum - American history documentary filmmaker ken Burns.
That ship has never really existed, except in very narrowly defined ethnic societies/states but the argument is based upon the ideal and the innate desire of people to surround themselves with others who are like them (and so not actually Other).
That is why I do not say the argument is a good or valid argument.
Yeah, it’s a weird paradox, that there’s an underlying assumed value of homogeneity that creates unavoidable tension in a society born of many ethnicities. I think it will always be a tug-of-war between competing values, in our tumultuous situation. Tiring.
The story of civilization is actually the story of how we have become better at managing (not accommodating) diversity--if not always in all ways or for more than short periods of time.
This is a fascinating topic for discussion. And relevant to many more countries now, with migration on the march. I’m intrigued with your distinction between managing and accommodating. I think it’s very important, even as I grapple with what it means. Paradigms matter! There’s a bumper sticker.
Accommodating has the connotation of tolerance (rather than acceptance) and inequality--generally of some lack or irregularity in the part of what is being accommodated.
Managing recognizes that diversity is diversity and is not engaged in necessarily making value judgments--that these differences have to be navigated and things directed so as to enable difference with respect for that difference--part of the larger project of recognizing the dignity of your fellows.
Words are important, connotation is sometimes more important than denotation.
One of the problems with rhetoric and its study and use is that rhetoricians are often in the mindset or perception that they are playing game--and we are--what is missing is the recognition that we are playing klin zha kinta and not just klin zha.
Sorry could not resist making the Star Trek reference there LOL. Klin zha is Klingon :"chess," klin zha kinta is the game with live pieces--and the pieces die.
We can see this phenomena, in part, in Tim's experience and in his book.
And here I thought a degree in rhetorics was just pointless. You have proven that wrong.
Okay, I’m going to study this some more, after I feed the dogs. Some how it needs to be put in “for dummies” format, if the masses are to benefit. (Including myself!). But I do think you’re on to something important. Unfortunately, our culture is dedicated to the simplicity of thought, needing complex issues to be black/white, either/or. Shades of gray are too hard! But I still think it’s do-able.
Makes you wonder, under such a framework, when various equal rights would have been achieved in this country. Maybe WWII would have been enough of a change with women working to get them the vote. Maybe. Really hard to imagine Jim Crow not still being the law in the south without the VRA being imposed on them. And gay marriage? Maybe by the time we have a colony on Alpha Centauri.
That is the essence of conservatism (even in its best and more ethical iterations).
During the Civil War, the thought was still (until near the end of the war) that slavery should go away gradually rather than by federal fiat--and that it would probably last until (they thought) around 1900.
Ya.
Again, it is an argument--not necessarily good/valid nor nice. There are a lot of bad things (by our standards) embedded in it.
I doubt there will be any intelligent and articulate reason forthcoming. The opposition rises from an anti-science, anti-reason posture, like the idea that Bill Gates was putting something in covid vaccines. It's Trump's brand.
If you hear that intelligent, articulate reason, pass it on. Perhaps it would likewise explain their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, two other personal, private issues.
MAGA goes after the things that liberals are trying to protect because MAGA understands that the way to REALLY make someone hurt is not to go after them directly, it's to go after the things that person cares about. Like sexual/racial minorities in the case of what libs care about. If libs want equality and equity, MAGA simply bashes on sexual/racial minorities and make sure the rich never get taxed too hard so that we keep wealth/racial/sexual inequality in place. It's about social dominance and punishing their enemies by punishing the people that their enemies are trying to help.
I think it's fear. Trans is a status no one would choose for themselves; it's something to be dealt with. But they believe we all are "grooming" their kids to do that very thing, choose gender disphoria. It's right out of the Pizzagate/QAnon playbook.
It’s cold, calculating power. They have no ethical basis. The trans issue is a tool for power. Goodness knows, the right wing is marinating in their own definition of perversion. The Bakers, the Falwells. The only way they can enjoy pleasure is if that pleasure is illicit.
Maybe at the top, but among the devotees it's fear: in this case fear that their hope for their children to have staid but happy lives might be dashed by being lured into the trans life-style--and they think it *is* a life-style.
Which is all rather ironically hilarious if it wasn’t so unpleasant: “normative” heterosexual men are the most dangerous animal out there.
Indeed.
People fear what they don’t understand so othering what they don’t understand becomes a reflexive coping mechanism. The knowing manipulators sew the seeds of otherness to encourage grievance and fear, powered by anger and hate. It’s an ugly brew that has worked to self-bestow power over people for thousands of year. The only answer to hate is love and if you can’t manage love, practice safe tolerance- just don’t give them the power to hurt you or the ones you live. It can be a fine line.
Exactly. The principle we're all supposed to care about is "we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And it drives me INSANE when politicians spend their time saying, "except for these people we think have cooties." And they know it drives me and people who agree with the freaking Declaration of Independence absolutely insane. Well, I say, that's UnAmerican. We all agreed to certain principles to be part of this country. We're not related by ethnicity or religion. All we have to unite us are those principles. That's all we have! Stop throwing them in the trash because you think certain people are icky!
Agree. Those politicians and their constituents need to hear from us more that their rhetoric is unAmerican.
From February 2017 until November 2020 I carried a sign just about every week in front of the US Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. On one side was the notation, Dump Trump, He is Un-American.
To the right, America is about making money, more money, any way you can, and keeping it. "Freedom" means no regulations on business (see railroads).
And no taxation for programs that give benefits to "those" people not like us.
I concur with your sentiments, but feel compelled to point out that most of the people about whom you are speaking never "agreed" to the principles "to be a part of this country"; they were born here and may not, even now, have read the Declaration of Independence, or certainly not understood what it means and stands for.
Agree. I think there should be a qualification to vote: You have to pass the citizenship test that immigrants have to pass to become naturalized Americans. If you don't know what the Declaration says, and what it means, you don't get to vote.
Boy, that is sure the truth! Unfortunately.....
It could be said that we “agreed” to the principles, when we partake of the fruits of freedom. It’s the essence of the social contract.
Thanks for the compliment. At least you have something worth reading. But I will try not to do it again. ;-)
I was flabbergasted at the title of the graph. "Percentage who say society has gone too far in accepting people"? I thought Jesus had a very clear stance on accepting people.
Jesus isn’t their savior; he’s their weapon in service to power.
Well put!
Who is this Jesus fellow? He sounds dangerous, subversive. Does the FBI know about him, is he on a watch list?
:P
It's like that old Woody Guthrie song, "Jesus Christ":
This song was written in New York City/
Full of rich men and preachers and slaves/
If Jesus were to preach here like he preached in Galilee/
They would lay poor Jesus in his grave.
Just thought of a catchy bumper sticker:
"Jesus was Antifa"
My God - heads would explode!
How about "Team Antifa," with Jesus at one end and Dwight Eisenhower at the other?
Capricorn, ate organic food, spoke of peace and love....
One of those damn hippies. Sounds like he should be in jail or living in San Francisco :P
Bet he was one of those anti-materialistic communist/socialist people. A plague upon humanity.
I competed with a few trans women in the various sports I participated in during the 1980's and 90's. -- mountain biking, soccer, and distance running. But to my knowledge there were very few trans women and the thing is, they did not excel in their sport so no one cared. I assumed that the testosterone suppressors they took leveled the playing field. And frankly, so what if some trans people are more competitive? How much does that have to do with their being trans? Trans or not, a lot of women cleaned my clock. And IMHO Renee Richards is dreaming.
Relax. The Republicans are not going to "get the vote of every soccer mom whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen". Luckily, most women are much more sophisticated than that.
Really? There's one transgender person in school sports in South Dakota - and it's a transgender boy. Grow up.
There were similar dire predictions with same sex marriage. “People will want to marry their dogs!” Amazingly, a lot of Americans know how to think critically. We barely outnumber those who can’t or won’t, but the righteous path often isn’t the easy path.
Oh wow! I remember that "marry your dog" scare tactic. How funny. My Jack Russell terrier would have divorced me by now--i don't give in to enough of his demands! (He is a very critical thinker!)
My dogs are female, so they’re not interested.
When is that going to start, do you think? We aren’t losing so far.
That’s like two moms, seriously.
College scholarship-level athletes might be an issue (you’re not going to transition the superior sizes of hearts and lungs and the concomitant advantages) but I don’t even know that for sure.
It’s just another bigotry.
I'd rather liberal causes be pointed at things that actually have a likely chance of happening. The number of trans women participating in athletic events is incredibly low, and the number who are actually significantly competitive in same is lower still.
The idea of hairy-legged trans competitors winning women's events is pretty offensive to many, as the polling suggests, whether one if personally affected or not.
Sounds like they should grow a thicker skin and learn that life’s not always fair.
[My bad, that only goes for folks offended by Roald Dahl]
Sports and sports leagues are designed to be something like fair, unlike life.
Sounds like they should grow a thicker skin and learn that life’s not always fair.
[My bad, that only goes for folks offended by Roald Dahl]
If you don't want hairy-legged trans competitors winning women's events, then forcing *trans men* into competing as their identified-at-birth gender would be the most counter-productive thing you could possibly do. That's what happened with Mack Beggs, who wanted to wrestle against boys but was required to compete with girls. He won the Texas state high school girls' wrestling championship for his weight class two years running.
It looks like it's a different problem with each direction of trans. if all trans were woman to man, we would probably not have such a stink.
"The vote of every soccer mom whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen."
So what, like 400 people?
Also, color me skeptical that the soccer moms are going to vote for the party asking them to hand over their daughter's menstrual records and requiring invasive genital checks to prove they aren't trans.
Maybe sports should be re-organized on a different basis than by segregated genders. Some options: majors, minors like baseball; handicapping, like golf.
In actuality, probably not even that many. It's a minority of a minority of a minority of a minority.
I'm quietly confident that for every soccer mom the far right gains whose daughter has lost an athletic event to a trans teen, they will lose at least half a dozen other voters who both find the whole topic either irrelevant to their own lives or just plain silly and choose instead candidates in the middle or on the left who actually are addressing their wants and needs. I don't see a pathway to victory for the right in fighting more culture wars instead of fewer of them when most people are focused upon so many other, more pressing issues in their daily lives. Time will tell.
Agreed. That was also David Frum's argument on Charlie's podcast last week.
They will certainly continue to lose *young* voters.
I’m also somewhat confident that for every such soccer mom, there are 100 trans suicide attempts, and 1000 trans kids thinking about suicide. Laws and policies basically come down to drawing lines, and I’d draw the lines in a way that tried as much as possible to keep trans kids alive.
I have much sympathy for the kids and parents of kids who might lose a sporting event to a trans kid, but I have far more sympathy for the struggles of trans kids and their parents. I would still, even if the numbers were reversed, and there were 100 angry moms for every 1 trans suicide attempt.
I have a friend w/a trans youngster at home. She’s given up traveling with her husband b/c her child is so fragile, she’s afraid of what she might come home to.
I can’t even imagine the lifelong mental & emotional burden a parent of a trans kid must carry when they grapple with the statistics. It’s heartbreaking.
I don’t pretend to have an answer about which teams trans people should play on, or the degree to which certain hormones affect athletic performance; but I’m not going to make some trans kid’s life miserable because I’m afraid my little darling might miss out on athletic glory. And shame on people who do.
Does to me, and I think a take like this deserves a lot of respect, especially from those who might disagree with it (well, from the left, that is).