Sorry no. We're only having this debate in the first place is because of Newsom. No one cares that I won't vote for anti-choice Dems because we've made that a baseline now. The trans community deserves the same consideration. And you get there by drawing moral lines.
Justice for Barbara!
so he thinks people aren't mature enough to transition at 25, but they're old enough to date him at 19? hmmmm
People who say they didn't vote Dem because "woke" = rational, should be appeased, taken in good faith, treated with respect & understanding. People warning not to ditch trans people, or risk losing votes = horrible creatures, betrayers, the cause of all our problems, worse than MAGA, barely human.
But there are only a handful of people who use that language, the vast majority of Dems do not, and Kamala didn't campaign that way. What more could Dems honestly do? Not use those words EVEN HARDER? It seems like nothing can satisfy critics, which leads me to think it's not about the words at all.
And my point was that, with every bad thing we know about Trump, if voters chose him because Kamala kept talking about "birthing persons" (which, again, didn't happen), I feel comfortable calling them bigots. For some reason, you'll take THEIR position seriously, but not mine.
No one is forcing you to use the term "birthing person." Dems rarely use the term. Kamala didn't campaign on it. Right wingers found a handful of examples and magnified it. What more do you expect Dems to do to distance themselves? And how does playing into the false narrative help Dems?
I think the unfortunate answer is that many Americans are simply bad people, and that he really does represent their views. They might actually outnumber us. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to give in to their false narratives.
So a lot of us would rather try to fight against false narratives that feeds bigotry, and protect marginalized people in this fraught moment, rather than play along with their phony premises and capitulating to their bigotry.
This is the new "economic anxiety" lie that they tried to use to explain why people chose Trump. It's a fig leaf to cover the real and obvious answer: bigotry. But we can't acknowledge it's really about bigotry, because to do so offends bigots, so..."woke language," it is.
"Literally no human outside of a doctoral program in sociology at Cal says 'heteronormative' in a conversation." Then why are we pretending that it's something Dems campaign on? What more can they do than they are already doing to not use that language?
You're projecting again, you gaslighting bigot. I tried addressing your concerns in good faith, until your motives were revealed to be against trans people in general. What gender slur did I use against you, bigot? No one's forcing you to keep replying. You could just block me if you can't take it.
I did a double take reading that, I thought it said you spoke with disgraced BOB Menendez.
Nah, I was having a genuine discussion (at least on my part, even as you peppered me with insults and false assumptions) about your position. Then you talked long enough to expose that you're a bigot by resorting to typical anti-trans talking points, after which I spoke to you accordingly.
Only bigots think "bigot" is a slur. This discussion started off about abandoning "woke terms," but soon revealed itself to be about abandoning trans people. Enjoy your fellowship with people who decided that fascism was preferable to basic human compassion. I'm sure they won't come for you next.
Pritzker: To the members of the press who are assembled here today and listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story.
They took a job away from a hard working white male illustration.
If you only think the majority is deserving of respect, security, opportunity and a voice, you are the fucking problem.
Thanks for finally taking the mask off instead of continuing to pretend that you care about trans people. You are a bigot. Consider how your bigotry might cost Dems future elections. bsky.app/profile/park...
In the context of 100's of anti-trans bills across the country in recent years, focusing so much on Title IX and using terms like "trans supremacy" doesn't foster much faith in your commitment to trans rights.
80% of the country doesn't even know what title IX is, let alone hate changes to it. There are also less than 10 trans athletes in the NCAA (which has a process of regulation to maintain fairness). Let's stop magnifying a very small issue.
Also, it's not about a difference of opinion. It's about you conflating trans women with men in drag and sexual predators, your blaming them for the failures of the Dem party, and using a term like "trans supremacy" for all of this. Those are clearly bigoted opinions, which I correctly labeled.
This is rich, coming from the person who throughout this convo has called me: ignorant arrogant stupid selfish Among others.
But you DO believe Trump is bad, even though most Americans disagree? And it's necessary to correct their false impressions, rather than play along with them? BTW, the last poll I saw had Trump's approval rating 12 points underwater. Weird how that's possible, even while Americans are thriving.
Your solution seems to be to abandon trans people entirely, because of the false perception that people have about Dem "surrender to the trans," rather than try to correct the false perception.
You think you're listening, but you're just regurgitating dishonest right wing framing. Kamala didn't campaign on trans issues. If people "feel" that that's what happened, it's because they were susceptible to the coordinated tactic by conservatives that portrayed her that way.
No, I got the point loud and clear. You are a bigot.
She still won the vast majority of minorities. And white women are not a reliable voting bloc for Dems. And none of that changes the fact that Harris didn't talk about trans issues, let alone make it a major campaign issue.
Did you forget the litany of names you called me throughout this convo? Or how you conflated trans people with drag queens and sexual predators? A small taste of your own medicine (really, just calling out your bigotry), and you cry victim.
Silly me, I assumed that you were addressing me, since it was a reply to my post. Secondly, I also assumed that supporting LGBT & minority rights were bedrock Dem values. You've shown me that I was mistaken--that it's conditional, transactional, and fosters resentment against those groups.
So now Trump's presidency is a boon, and the majority aren't worse off? You are such a staunch bigot that you're willing to make a fool of yourself twisting into knots trying to justify your hatred. I guess if everyone is so happy with Trump, there's no need to worry about Dems electability, right?
Yep, there's that TERF rhetoric, conflating trans people with sexual predators and "men in drag." Consider how your bigotry might be causing Dems to lose elections.
FYI, Kamala barely mentioned trans people during the campaign. If her lukewarm support for trans people cost her the presidency, the problem is bigotry, not trans people.
So those feminists are justified for abandoning Dems for not addressing their concerns, but minorities who do the same are all the bad things. Fair! And the "trans supremacy" attack is TERF bullshit. I had a feeling it boiled down to you being an anti-trans bigot, but I'm glad you confirmed.
I'm a minority and know many other minorities who do use that language at times to describe our experiences. For a long time, our concerns weren't taken seriously, and we've had to come up with new ways of explaining things. Now we're being punished for it. Many minorities are also academics, BTW.
The logical endgame of the cruelty and selfishness of modern conservatism is to declare caring about other people to be a sin.
Still waiting for examples of Dems caving to progressives.
Good. So then at what point did progressives force Dems to take on their unpopular positions, costing them the election?
I'm not a socialist, wasn't part of the 2016 convention and can't stand Stein. I was actually a fairly normie Dem, but this business of catering to bigots and turning our backs on (if not outright attacking) the vulnerable has radicalized me. There's a point when chasing "the center" loses the base.
Oh, how abhorrently selfish and arrogant of me to assume that the Trump presidency is working out poorly for most Americans. Of course you're right that their choices are above reproach, and they can't be held responsible like any other adult. If anything, their actions are MY fault.
I can't help but notice how you have all these terrible words to describe me. Stupid, selfish, ignorant...Meanwhile, anti-woke people are given every benefit of the doubt, and treated with kid gloves. And I'm supposed to believe you're going to stand up for me when it counts?
And I'll add, the forbidden words are mostly terms related to the interests of minorities. So to go after these words in particular, at a time when minorities are under attack, raises red flags. Minorities are a major part of the Dem party, and guess what? We don't like that feeling abandoned either
Also, it's interesting how people who promote inclusive language are "toxic," "bullies," and "dictators." Those who oppose inclusivity, however, are being reasonable, and we must always put their feelings first.
Again, when did this coercion happen? I'm not a big student of history like you, so hopefully you can provide generous examples.
Yes, but the post I was replying to claimed that Dems have lost trying to cater to the left. So examples that include popular legislation that is not strictly the domain/demand of the far left, only undermine their point.
Or are you saying that these are policies progressives forced Dems to commit to, and were a mistake?
So which is it? Did you waste time catering to the wishes of progressives, or did you enact policies that are broadly popular?
All of those things, except for student debt relief, are mainstream Dem positions.
That's not actually what I believe. I always vote for the Dem candidate. I'm pragmatic like that. It's just interesting how the left are framed as petulant and unreasonable, but people who vote against their own interests because of "woke" are sacred precious lambs whose feelings must be catered to.
When have you "catered to progressives"? The only time you pay attention to us at all is to lecture or scapegoat us.
They didn't attempt a violent coup because of the left. They aren't destroying US science & academia because of the left. They're not embracing open racism & nazi ideology because of the left. They are adults, making choices, doing things of their own volition, and they bear the responsibility.
And always twirling, twirling, TWIRLING towards freedom.
Their issue seems to specifically be about terms used to describe/explain the experiences of marginalized people. Curious!
Gotta love how the left is characterized as crazy for defending the language they use to express their experiences, but the people who are driven to Trump because of "woke buzzword" are treated as rational actors.
Yes, because that's the thing that's causing all this. Infrequently used buzzwords are the thing we should be focused on right now. If only Dems stop using certain words, voters wouldn't be left with no other rational choice than to embrace authoritarianism.
It takes lots of mental gymnastics. I thought we were over pretending that this kind of criticism is done in good faith, and not an obvious attempt to keep certain groups and topics out of the public sphere.
So any past utterances of the forbidden words, no matter how trivial, will be held against Dems in perpetuity? Kinda makes this request to drop those terms seem pretty pointless. It's almost like those against inclusive language can't be appeased.
Those terms aren't commonly used by politicians or candidates, unless they're 1) GOP and trying to paint the Dem as out of touch, or B) a local progressive politician serving a prog community. If it was really such a widespread issue nationally, there'd be plenty of clips and quotes to refer to.
I agree, but of course, that's not the angle this particular criticism is coming from. It's a barely-veiled way to bash "identity politics," and to drive marginalized people and their concerns from public discourse entirely. It's frustrating seeing so many people play along when its so obvious.
But the thing is, that language is not commonly used. How can Dems stop doing something that is not happening with any kind of frequency? It's a small segment of the base, and focusing criticism on them magnifies the thing you object to and make it seem much bigger than it is.
And then come people like you and Tom, who are only legitimizing this paper thin line of attack and giving it oxygen.
No, I don't care about the words. They're just words. That's the point. I care that there are millions of Americans who embrace Trump (supposedly) because of certain words that are almost never spoken, except in rightwing propaganda. As if it's a legit concern, worth throwing our country away over.
People on the left like me have always had to be good sports and support the consensus candidate. I used to get mad at the small minority of leftists who didn't vote. "If we don't shut up about our issues, the GOP wins!" But now I'm reaching my own breaking point. I'm tired of being told to shut up.
This entire debate has made me less interested in winning elections and more disenchanted with America and Americans. If certain uncommonly used terms can drive you away from those values, and turn toward Trump, so be it.
Do you believe that there are people who care about helping the homeless, but will vote against policies or politicians who mean to help homeless people, if they use the term "unhoused"?
Thank you! Imagine believing you're a champion for democracy, and then choosing to focus so much of your ire against inclusive language (a red herring for their real target: inclusivity itself), rather than...you know...
What prominent Dems regularly use that language? Someone else's "proof" was text from a proposed bill from 2023, where the term was relevant in context. But if we're going to cite years old examples, and few if any recent ones, what can Dems even do to counter this narrative?
You did it! You uncovered the reason Harris lost! Low info voters are notorious for combing through legalese in proposed congressional bills. The use of "birthing person" alongside terms like "women," and "maternal" in a bill to help mothers clearly tipped the scales toward Trump.
And....those politicians presumably get elected, yes? Seems it's not such a big barrier to their particular constituents.
I'm more angry at the so-called centrists and allies poo-pooing certain words than I am at the open bigots who are at least honest about hating the people, rather than the words they use to describe themselves.
Something the median low info voter is no doubt super tuned in to. This is dumb. Certain terminology is useful or even necessary in a legislative context. If you want to participate in politics, folksy colloquialisms ain't cutting it. Laws require precise language.
You exaggerate its prominence. The fact is that it is NOT common at all, so focusing so much time and energy on it only helps the right. They are the ones who bring the topic up nonstop. I wouldn't know about 80% of this crap if not for the very loud complaining from right wingers making it a thing.
I was going to vote for the Democrat who wanted to give immigrants a pathway to citizenship, since that aligns with my sincerely held values. But then I saw a post on Twitter from someone with no connection to the candidate who used the word "Latinx," and now...I just feel so politically homeless!
Yeah, I'm on the very far left myself, but I can understand how certain uncommonly used words could drive an otherwise good-hearted, rational, persuadable person to embrace fascism. Any resulting misery is better than hearing the word, "microaggression."
This imagined enemy will show their face eventually, I'm sure.
After which you would act like it was a common behavior, and the reason Democrats lose.
Because it's a narrative driven by the right, and it's not about language, it's about silencing discussions of particular subjects. Will conservatives really start supporting gay rights only if we stop using "LGBTQIA"? Will getting rid of "unhoused" make them care about homeless people? Get real.
What's wrong with wanting to not leave people out? Caring for others is not a bad thing. I don't see how it could possibly offend someone.
Language about trans people needs to be specific because their legal rights and medical autonomy are constantly being undermined. If there is another vulnerable group who is being targeted for discrimination or whose needs are being ignored, I am more than happy to include them.
Again, by your own estimate it accounts for hundreds of thousands of people, so there's no need to frame it as "the rare trans man," let alone act like you conveniently know how this singular person feels about the issue.
That's an interesting angle. What groups do you think are being left out?
Bingo! If you need further proof, the right is currently in the process of turning "compassion" and "empathy" into negatives, even characterizing them as sinful. They object to not just the language, but the very concepts, so there are no special combination of words they would accept.
So? 0.1% of Americans still equals hundreds of thousands of people. It comes down to a choice between using certain language in a legal or medical context in order to include and protect the rights of a vulnerable group...or making another group of people feel icky because of a word they don't like.
Why?
This is the problem--you're arguing with a straw man. The people you're objecting to are rare. No one in this thread has spoken to you that way. And elected Democrats generally do not talk like that. You're magnifying a very small group of people online and acting like it's mainstream Dem praxis.
I think he'd have been dismissed as an "immoral coastal liberal elite" by most of his current supporters, if not for his open bigotry.
The term in question is almost exclusively used in legal and medical contexts, which necessitates exact language. It's not used in everyday speech. I agree that Dems shouldn't make it easy for the GOP to steamroll us, which is why it's useful to call out their lies instead of accepting them.
We can just call out the bad faith tactics rather than play along with them. Because there is no legitimate complaint being made. The actual policy they're attacking helps women. The right treat this niche issue as the vanguard of women's rights while they try to implement A Handmaid's Tale.
Read the passage in dispute. The right are acting outraged at the left on behalf of women, by citing a policy designed to help women, because of the use of one term. Their own policies include banning repro rights, and even talk of repealing suffrage, among other horrors. Its an obviously BS attack.
Women are not being "erased" by the ADDITION of a particular term. The criticism is dishonest and is being done in bad faith. They aren't defending women. Their policies materially oppress them. You don't have to fuel the phony narrative by accepting it as legit issue.
Nope! The headline is, to be generous, misleading. In the quoted passage, the word "mother" is used, as well as "maternal," twice. A single usage of "birthing person" is used. The criticism is made in bad faith. "Mothers" aren't being "canceled." The program in question was designed to help them.
Well, that solves the issue of trans kids in sports, but what about all the cis girls who are denied their basic human rights by OTHER cis girls who simply perform better than them? It's an egregious suppression of their right to stand at the victors' podium. That's how sports works, right?
How interesting that she wants whistleblowers to reveal their identities, but thinks it's perfectly fine for the masked, anonymous secret police to abduct Americans.
Shouldn't Dem leadership adhere to this same standard? Why weaken the party's chances of winning by attacking a fellow Democrat? And why is it acceptable when they do it unprovoked, but it's only "divisive" when progressives defend themselves from friendly fire?
I actually remember seeing you in a pre-election TV appearance in which you downplayed Harris' neglect of trans issues when asked about it. Obviously a strategic choice on your part to not draw attention to her negatives during such a consequential election.
Yes, and the villain could be Barbara Minerva! Fill in some backstory of her being a rival of Lara's, it's the perfect way to connect all 3 characters.
Thank you for this. That mashup has been floating around in my brain for ages.
What are you talking about? Are you a bot or a troll?
They clearly said addiction PLUS lack of empathy, not that addict = Nazi. Also, if you're so sensitive about labeling people, why then turn around and tell OP they are "almost as bad" as Nazis?