Okay hang on. As usual Rowling is saying the quiet part out loud not just for the UK but for the US. There’s a bunch of people that demand solidarity from trans folks yet continue to treat the idea of trans rights as a “luxury belief.”
Replies
Reading between the lines here, she doesn't see why trans people should be allowed to survive and thrive since she herself is such a miserable old bint? Is the luxury in question "happiness"?? 🙈
sep 2, 2025, 4:11 pm • 5 1 • view
I would love to have a luxury belief. I instead have to deal with a client at work that treats me like he owns me because he is correct that my boss will prioritize their contract over my job; a job I am severely underemployed at. Implying transness is a luxury should come with an instant
sep 2, 2025, 5:31 pm • 7 1 • view
what the fuck are you talking about from everyone with literally any sense. Unfortunately, those people refuse to learn even 1/10th of one percent of what is necessary to understand that and reply, so we are abandoned on our own to try and cut through the noise.
sep 2, 2025, 5:31 pm • 7 1 • view
"The idea that transness is a luxury belief is absurd considering the harsh poverty, the blatant discrimination, and the terrible life outcomes the trans community faces writ large". Easy, short, sensible. Not a single "ally" will say it.
sep 2, 2025, 5:32 pm • 11 3 • view
I suppose it’s the same perverse mindset that believes black people not wanting to be lynched by white racists is a “luxury”, for example.
sep 2, 2025, 3:48 pm • 15 1 • view
Literally the term "bleeding heart liberal" was coined to denigrate anti-lynching advocates.
sep 2, 2025, 7:13 pm • 10 2 • view
That’s right on point. Thank you.
sep 2, 2025, 7:48 pm • 4 0 • view
I don’t need theoretical analysis for this one: if you watch establishment dems and their adjacent allies’ response to how shitty the dems snd their designated candidate are on trans issues, their rejoinder is “BUT FASCISM.”
sep 2, 2025, 3:17 pm • 154 16 • view
This, to me, indicates that their support of trans rights, much less trans people in general, is contingent on not having something “more pressing,” than their allies’ human rights to deal with. This is a profoundly undemocratic position to hold.
sep 2, 2025, 3:17 pm • 158 18 • view
The basic rights of our allies are not luxury beliefs but the core of any solidarity movement. If you can’t see this, you have bo business trying to take the lead in this moment nor do you have any business telling us what to do with our political power.
sep 2, 2025, 3:17 pm • 313 75 • view
If you’re reading this snd preparing to ask “would you sacrifice a presidential win for trans rights,” I’ll save you some time: yes the fuck I would. Fascism in blue is still fascism and we should be clear that an anti-trans candidate is a fascist candidate.
sep 2, 2025, 3:17 pm • 323 78 • view
The stupidest thing is that there’s no need to sacrifice a win. Voters lose respect for wishy-washy fence-sitters. But voters have respect for strength of convictions when those convictions are voiced plainly and *unequivocally*. Equal protection and equal rights under law *are not* negotiable.
sep 2, 2025, 6:28 pm • 1 0 • view
Why is the question always that, and not the other way around, would they risk not winning by not supporting trans rights? Why do they think they can just throw away the part of the voters who consider this an important subject to defend?
sep 2, 2025, 3:26 pm • 23 0 • view
Because they barely believe in the existence of trans people, let alone that they and their allies constitute a considerable voting bloc.
sep 2, 2025, 3:28 pm • 15 0 • view
which is insane because "trans people and their allies" is a pretty substantial block of reliably Democratic voters and that's if we only count LGBT voters they legitimately cannot win an election if they lose our loyalty
sep 2, 2025, 5:03 pm • 6 1 • view
& that loyalty is just everyone who believe *everyone* deserves human rights! which many liberals believe they do, until those rights for others look like something they don’t like, which seems to be the problem. they’ve bought the messaging of “men invading women’s spaces” & “criminal homeless”.
sep 2, 2025, 5:19 pm • 4 0 • view
It is however from what I can tell not a rich block of voters.
sep 2, 2025, 6:04 pm • 0 0 • view
And it’s a convenient minority to blame if they don’t win by courting republicans who will never vote with them.
sep 2, 2025, 4:02 pm • 12 0 • view
Yup :/
sep 2, 2025, 4:14 pm • 3 0 • view
Trans ppl barely exist to them, but are the grave danger to our society according to them too The convenient minority, now where did I see that before
sep 3, 2025, 6:06 am • 4 0 • view
yup
sep 3, 2025, 6:08 am • 3 0 • view
they don't realize that the progressives come closer to winning, without party help, than most of the "mainstream" candidates who get full support. They STILL believe the lie some people are more electable. There is no middle ground between people saying "let people live" and the others
sep 3, 2025, 1:17 am • 3 0 • view
So you think trumpism will be a net positive for trans people?
sep 2, 2025, 3:29 pm • 1 0 • view
If your candidate would rather lose the election than support trans people, then they weren't a very good candidate.
sep 2, 2025, 10:22 pm • 2 0 • view
I think following Trump with Newsom would be a net negative for trans people and have plenty of evidence to show as much, yes.
sep 2, 2025, 5:04 pm • 6 0 • view
I doubt seriously if Newsom will even be among the top contenders by the time the 28 primaries roll around (if we get to have them). In the meantime he and his social media team are taking the war to trump. I'm all for it. And no Newsom would not be my pick.
sep 2, 2025, 5:36 pm • 1 0 • view
Good, that's all you needed to say from the start. Agree he sucks, mention you won't vote for him if he runs in the primary and that you expect your fellow democrats to do the same so he'll never be the candidate.
sep 2, 2025, 5:42 pm • 6 0 • view
A lot of people aren't even worried that he'll win the nomination, they're concerned that the normie libs on this damn app aren't opposed to that idea and seem eager to support him in spite (sometimes even *because*) of his anti trans views this discourse would be over if they just say they aren't.
sep 2, 2025, 5:42 pm • 4 0 • view
What’s it like to have nothing of value to say? “Pick a better Democrat to run” “So you think Trump will help?” You’re fucking STUPID
sep 2, 2025, 4:24 pm • 9 0 • view
Don't know of you're talking to me but this isn't remotely what I said. I posited the question to the op asking if he thinks continuing trumpism would be a positive. It certainly wouldn't be.
sep 2, 2025, 5:34 pm • 1 0 • view
A person critiqued Dems and you asked if Trump would be favorable. The fact you have to lie about what you said is almost as gross as your insistence that trans people accept less rights.
sep 2, 2025, 9:10 pm • 3 0 • view
That’s exactly what you did though.
sep 2, 2025, 9:07 pm • 2 0 • view
Maybe everyone should get on board with trans rights so we can stop trumpism
sep 2, 2025, 3:49 pm • 19 0 • view
I pointed out its highly unlikely Newsom will even be in the contenders for the 28 primaries. But right now he and all too few others are taking the fight to trumpism. In no way is that endorsement of him. I'd not for Newsom for a variety of reasons including his stance on homelessness,Trans rights
sep 2, 2025, 5:41 pm • 0 0 • view
Oh yeah, that's totally the logical alternative to finding a better Dem candidate in the three years ahead of the election. It's obviously Newsom or Trump, there are no other options. Newsom isn't even running at this point, you daft troll.
sep 2, 2025, 3:50 pm • 25 0 • view
Reading comprehension not your strength apparently. Common sense we'll have plenty of good candidates going forward. Newsom won't even be a top contender so stop the pearl clutching, not a great look.
sep 2, 2025, 5:43 pm • 0 0 • view
Great job being totally irrelevant, have fun with that.
sep 2, 2025, 8:47 pm • 3 0 • view
So why did you ask your stupid rhetorical question?
sep 2, 2025, 6:03 pm • 7 0 • view
If both candidates go to election with the policy "fuck trans rights" what materially is the difference? Also you're doing the thing! This thread is about you specifically! If only you could read!
sep 2, 2025, 4:23 pm • 14 0 • view
If the ism you're particularly fond of treats trans people the same, then what's the fucking difference?
sep 3, 2025, 3:33 am • 1 0 • view
Oh look, you did the meme! You know the one, the "disingenuous internet annoyance": Person A: I like oranges. Person B: so you hate oranges?!? You're being Person B, here. Everyone dislikes Person B, bc they don't read & just want a fight/attention, wasting everyone's time w/ bad faith bullshit.
sep 2, 2025, 3:57 pm • 19 0 • view
Oh gee dad thanks for pointing that out.
sep 2, 2025, 5:37 pm • 0 0 • view
It's super weird for you to call strangers "dad", bud. Please stop that, it's creepy.
sep 2, 2025, 6:49 pm • 5 0 • view
If a candidate won't stand up for trans rights, why would I believe they'll stand up for any other marginalized population? Trans rights = human rights - ALL humans
sep 2, 2025, 4:54 pm • 9 0 • view
someone today is saying that we would rather all be put in the ovens (that horrible argument AGAIN) than vote for Newsom, and I'm like ... are those our choices? because that's their framing, not ours. They're siding with the people running the ovens.
sep 2, 2025, 3:18 pm • 94 6 • view
What's absolutely mind-boggling is that they're saying this when he's not even running, let alone a frontrunner, and he would have to beat out other Democratic candidates first. These people are literally saying *they don't want a better candidate*, and are gleefully wishing death on those who do.
sep 2, 2025, 3:48 pm • 80 6 • view
Right?!? If your response to hearing the trans community say that Newsom is a non-starter that it’s too bad and they deserve to be eradicated then you aren’t someone I want to be under the tent with. Just pick someone else to get behind. There are other options.
sep 2, 2025, 4:01 pm • 29 0 • view
yep, in a nutshell
sep 2, 2025, 4:41 pm • 1 0 • view
He's never run for president before because middle America finds him deeply unsettling!
sep 2, 2025, 3:59 pm • 6 0 • view
He's also never run for president before because he's been working to obtain governance experience, which is a normal and career trajectory.
sep 2, 2025, 5:52 pm • 0 0 • view
This.
sep 2, 2025, 4:58 pm • 1 0 • view
They have plenty of time to adjust their platform to win the human rights for everyone voting block. bsky.app/profile/your...
sep 2, 2025, 4:01 pm • 10 2 • view
We are already seeing "Don't do purity tests!" about people who haven't said they are running in '28. They aren't purity tests. You don't get on a bus going the wrong way. These are basic points they have to meet for us to support them
sep 3, 2025, 1:15 am • 3 0 • view
It is as if people don’t understand that “first they came for” is a critique of the narrator. “I did nothing because I was not an X.” Is the issue of the poem. You don’t get to pick and choose at your convenience who actually has human rights.
sep 2, 2025, 3:52 pm • 8 0 • view
Her statement feels like a super bad reading of Marlow's hierarchy of needs too. Like it's been weaponized that you can only ask for basic needs to be met (not human rights of course) and anything like community care or self-actualization is considered "luxury".
sep 2, 2025, 6:10 pm • 3 2 • view
Funny how LGBT keep getting lumped in with the “petit bourgeois” for wanting to live free of hate crimes.
sep 2, 2025, 3:43 pm • 24 2 • view