Harris-Walz / Dems

[NovaSaber]

Well, you're factually wrong on the gender-affirming care one.

There is literally no evidence that being "too supportive of trans rights" has cost anyone any election, and in fact a few cases of the opposite where a candidate who vocally supported trans people won and/or where a particularly outspoken bigot lost.


I also fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of ever compromising on anything that is a clear-cut moral issue, which both LGBT rights and opposition to war crimes are.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I won't argue, except to separate out "supportive of trans rights" (broadly) from "medical intervention" (specifically), which I was taking some pains to do. If you still disagree, we can leave it at that.

 

[abates]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

 

[MrBlud]

Going ahead and being as "bad" as the opposition says you are doesn't sound wise to me.

You’d think!

But it has netted Trump two electoral victories, A shamelessly Partisan Republican Supreme Court and Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate.

Conversely, it also gave FDR four terms.

So it seems to work quite well.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

I don't think *I* understand it, either, but I've heard it enough to say it's a thing. Especially when discussing minors (who don't generally get nose jobs, either, and I could see controversy there if they did...). I should note that if the parents are okay with it, it's less of an issue, and it may well be more of a "bogeyman" than a thing that happens often, anyway. It's certainly the case that a lot of fuss has been made over transgender women in sports despite very few actual transgender women competing. (I still note that no such fuss is made of transgender men competing against biologically-born men.)

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

You’d think!

But it has netted Trump two electoral victories, A shamelessly Partisan Republican Supreme Court and Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate.

Conversely, it also gave FDR four terms.

So it seems to work quite well.

I was thinking about this reality (more Trump than FDR) even as I was typing that... and the fact is that I have no good response to it.

I still can't get behind supporting it for Dems. Violates my sense of "integrity," I guess.

 

[Pocket]

I think we all need to keep in mind that we're still discussing an election for mayor of New York City. At least for the immediate term, his position on nationalized health insurance or the war in Iran are far less relevant to the electorate than, say, his position on plastic straws.

 

[MrBlud]

Following through on what you campaign on seems to be popular.

Be that raising taxes for billionaires or forcing female corpses to carry a baby to term.

Republicans are quite big on doing that. As Trump’s horridly partisan Bill passing today showed.

Democrats had control of three branches and the best they jive out was the Heritage Foundation plan for Healthcare reform…

 

[NovaSaber]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

Also, how is "leave the standard of care as what it's been for decades, instead of caving to right-wing bigots' attempts to change it" either "far left" or "extreme"?

It's literally the most neutral stance it is even possible to have on the subject.

A "far left" idea (that is still not "extreme") regarding it would be something like "make puberty blockers as easy to get as it is possible anything that requires a prescription to be, and lower the minimum ages for hormones and surgery to 14 and 16 respectively".

Or even farther "left" and maybe actually "extreme" would be doing what this comic suggests:

I should note that if the parents are okay with it, it's less of an issue,

Why? Why should the parents opinions make even the slightest difference?

If it's not legal to do it against the parent's objections, then the law is not protecting the rights of the child from shitty parents.

And that's the most important thing that any law regarding children's rights absolutely must do; protect them from predatory/abusive adults, including their own parents.

and it may well be more of a "bogeyman" than a thing that happens often, anyway.

It is essentially impossible for anyone under 16 to get hormones or for anyone under 18 to get surgery, and still rare for anyone under 18 to even get hormones.

But transphobes want to ban even puberty blockers for minors, which is the same as banning them entirely because, you know, they don't have a point if someone's already past puberty.