It's absurd seeing people lecturing trans people and telling them they HAVE to support someone who opposes trans rights for president three years from now—or else fascism wins!—when there are other leaders who are still standing up for trans rights, from Illinois to Kentucky.
Faction that throws minorities under the bus can never meaningfully defeat fascism for how can you defeat something whose logic you agree with at least in part? Your heart ain’t in it!
PROTECT TRANS YOUTH! my uncle has made a petition to protect trans youth read and sign on chng.it/jtxMHHYVPk draw a target on your hand if you cant sign! It shows support.
Everyone gets to feel the way they feel, but I’d hope instead of writing off non-perfect candidates, we’d work with them to help them evolve. Obama was opposed to gay marriage in 2008 (!) but grew—after pressure—to become a champion. Newsom is changeable. That said, Pritzker is wonderful.
lmao
lmao Obama did nothing on gay marriage so that didnt help. And if your view of people who spout Nazi rhetoric is that they are just imperfect, you have no political view worth listening to. Ever.
Newsom is 'changing' in the wrong direction. www.erininthemorning.com/p/why-transg...
Obama betrayed us to fascism already. www.aclu.org/press-releas...
Also. Biden came out for gay rights before Obama. Rwally fucked up the dems narratives by jumping the gun there.
@govpritzker.illinois.gov is refusing to enforce the Illinois Human Rights Act against hospitals denying care to trans patients, he's Gavin Newsom with better comms instincts.
But Pritzker doesn't even have a trolling staff!
It’s all such twaddle. There’s no electoral advantage whatsoever in scapegoating transgender people on the Republican’s behalf. Like flogging crypto this is merely a way to show you are a craven dingdong so that some billionaire throws money your way.
trans people don't need pritzker to give them legal advice they need pritzker to enforce his own fucking laws against ucm/lurie/etc
Instead of ignoring Newsom’s actual record you should try educating yourself. Let me help..Newsom is not anti trans. And no one is telling anyone they have to vote for anyone. FFS. It’s 2025!
1. In September 2022, Newsom signed Senate Bill 107 (SB‑107) into law, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. It made California the first “trans sanctuary” state, protecting access to gender-affirming care for minors and blocking enforcement of out-of-state restrictions.
2. School Privacy Protections • On July 15, 2024, he signed the SAFETY Act (AB 1955), giving California educators discretion over disclosing a student’s LGBTQ+ identity and barring mandatory “outing” of students to their parents.
3. Transgender Inmate Housing • In 2020, Newsom enacted a law allowing transgender and nonbinary inmates in California to be housed based on their gender identity—but allows for exceptions based on safety or security concerns.
Additional LGBTQ+ Measures • Beyond trans-specific steps: • He issued Pride Month proclamations (June 2023). • Fined a school district $1.5 million for rejecting LGBTQ‑inclusive curriculum (July 2023). • Signed laws forbidding textbook bans of works referencing minority groups or LGBT individual
Show me another governor with this actual record. Pointing out in a podcast that 66% of Americans were against trans men participating in women’s sports is a fact. It doesn’t mean he’s anti trans. It means not hiding your head in the sand and using purity bullshit to help republicans.
www.erininthemorning.com/p/why-transg...
Ya .. ignorance is a choice. Enjoy
Are you really unaware of how much Newsom has done for trans right in California? You’re so twisted in knots over him acknowledging what 66% of Americans THINK that you have no idea who he is. He had an idiot on a podcast. So fucking what? His actions as governor say a hell of a lot more than that
Maybe more cis people (and I'm a cis people myself) should support people who support trans rights if they want to defeat fascism. Why is that never the false choice proffered? Why is it always marginalized people who are expected to throw themselves under the bus in service to everyone else?
Same, and I agree.
I don’t see as much patriarchy blaming as I used to.
1) a person doesn’t have a right to play competitive sports against people they have a significant biological advantage over. So being opposed to that is not opposing trans rights. 2) That was the number one issue according to exit polls in 2024 that drove former democratic voters to right wingers.
As a trans person, thank you for saying this.
You're very welcome.
Note: This is not an endorsement of any particular candidate. I don't endorse political candidates as a journalist. I'm just tired of seeing people talk down to trans people and blame them for fascism for daring to defend their own rights and dignity. It's shameful.
Further, why not pressure those politicians y'all like to support trans rights if they want your vote? You can do that, my fellow cis people! You don't just have to accept them throwing your trans friends under the bus as if their positions can't be changed by political pressure.
I agree with pressuring politicians to support trans rights so they'll do the right thing w their power. But I wouldn't support someone for President who *needs* to be pressured to support trans rights (in a primary; I'd reluctantly vote for them over an R). I want real allies in leadership.
Rights for all. Or there will no rights for any.
bsky.app/profile/tran...
I mean this guy is a billionaire in an election where the most effective message Democrats can run is "billionaires are bad," and he's STILL a way better pick than Newsom.
He can't be a fascist because he's one of ours and and he makes lame memes and er... that's it.
Nobody fucking said that. Thie only people talking about Newsom in ’28 are you idiots whining about people cheering on his trolling.
I support full trans rights and participation in society, unequivocally. But let's not act like Black ppl haven't been told to do exactly what you're complaining about for years, up to TODAY! Dems aren't where they are today if Black folks didn't leave shit on the table for the greater good.
Ideally, trans ppl get everything on the wishlist. But if realistically, 80% of that wishlist is what's on the menu, the only smart move is taking that deal bc it'll be easier to get that final 20% when you build off what's already been won.
Did that work? Or did it just gradually create a situation where you're under heavy risk of losing the rights you already one as both parties move further right?
It worked bc Black voter turnout has been instrumental to every Dem presidential win/Congressional control since Clinton. And I have no illusions that if Black voters didn't turn out, that Dems wouldn't have already thrown us to the wolves for convenience, and neither party is*that* committed...
To representing our issues. So do I expect reparations for Tulsa? No. Is that a trade off in order to get the sentencing guidelines for weed possession and crack v coke discrepancy revisited? Yes.
You're increasingly less likely to get either of those from either side. You're attempting to trade but the conversation has drifted so far to the right that those terms are slowly becoming unthinkable.
That doesn't work bc you're talking about wins that have already been bagged, not theoretical. We currently have weed legalization bc of Black activists. There's no rightward drift on that.
I mean that is just proving their point, though. Black people have sacrificed their vote for the "greater good" countless times and we still ended up here. Now's the time to stop falling for the same old Democrat grift that only benefits a few of us.
There are so many incremental wins for Black folks that brushed aside for this argument that's effectively "both sides are the same". Literally the ONLY reason we have weed legalization in this country is bc of Black activists!
Jesus Christ this is a ridiculous, self congratulating statement rooted in bullshit.
You dont gotta tell me about the work black people so for this country, I know. I'm not saying both sides are the same. But I am saying one sides evils, which there are many, do not have to be accepted if we want real change.
They vote in the lowest numbers, commit exponentially more crime, are statistically significantly less intelligent, and contribute by far the least per capita to the economy, yet the democratic primary process has created outsized influence for such a small group, saddling us w/ ppl like Hillary
And I'm saying that the change we've gotten already from backing the horse that's more in our favor wouldn't even have happened if we tried to sit out elections. Surrendering voting power until all your demands are met is a form of privilege that minorities & persecuted groups don't have
Preach. I don’t understand why that is so hard to see. There are books that discuss the history of civil rights if folks would bother to read them. This is why Black women vote the way we do-you don’t vote against your own self interests or you end up here No one agrees all the time.
The history of black civil rights is like 80% black communities outright rejecting compromise as defined by white leaders though. It's literally why marches, sit ins and riots happened. Literally.
The Civil Rights Movement is practically defined by decades of compromise and leaving shit in the table for a later fight. That's why we've had multiple "Civil Rights Act of xxxx" bills in this country's history. Each one built on the progress of the previous ones.
Youre right, being able to vote is. a privilege! And that's why I refuse to settle for anyone who deosnt recognize the humanity of my people. If our vote actually matters, the ball is in the parties court to actually earn it. There is no other option if they want it.
If, in the course of progress, every other marginalized group in this country has had to grapple with a piecemeal approach to full equality, does it make sense for the trans community to say that they will not support that same progressive push unless they get everything they want, right now?
I'm not gonna speak on behalf of other minorities, but as a black and trans person, my vote is entirety dependent on the party protecting both. Theres no rationalizing around that requirement from me and others like me. If you want our vote, you gotta concede.
Is 80% of the trans wishlist not a "concession"? Or does only full and immediate recognition count for you? Bc every other marginalized group in this country's history, including Black ppl, has had to accept piecemeal wins and build on those wins over time.
You say that like trans people have not existed for the past 50 years in this country, lol. We've been putting the party first in the same timeline as every other. This isnt even a purely "trans" stance. You'll find many leftist minorities are in unity with this hard line on human rights.
But they aren't really in yoir favor. You're just a token to them, a prop to be used and discarded whenever convenient. Jist like with us trans folks. Dema do not care about any of us. They only care aboit the wealthy donors who fund their campaigns and bribe them.
That's empirically not true. Right now, the wins are booked, regardless of what happens in the future, and it does no one any good to ignore these wins just bc "someone might reverse it later on."
And yet dems have for decades delayed and put off enshrining rights of minority's. Do not forget the words of MLK and his woes of the "white moderates".
The only way that argument holds water is by specifically ignoring the enshrined rights that have been argued, won, and defended against pushback. You don't need to tell me about the White moderates bc, even on here, I regularly call that out.
What happened to Roe?
In the UK the equivalent is Starmeristas telling everyone they can only vote Labour or they get Reform, which even though Starmer is presiding over several war crimes, wld be worse. It simply isn't true and those people are always concerned for themselves and happy to throw trans ppl under the bus.
Can you imagine that Dems will carve out this one stance of “okay” bigotry and call themselves progressive? It’s dangerous, but it’s also just really silly.
Shitty and nonsensical. Shitty and silly.
It would be a simple thing for, say, Gavin Newsom, to admit the error of his ways, apologize to trans people, and promise to do better. Who knows? It could even be a political winner.
Even if he did, it wouldn't matter. Once people on the left have written a politician off, there's no going back, even if the very survival of democracy and human rights is on the line. No politician can ever be perfect enough to please the vast differences of people on the left. We're screwed.
Hes still a dickhead who happily buddies up with right wingers, harms the homeless in the name of "safety" and his policy is generally pretty damn hostile to progressive movement. The transphobia is just the tip of the iceberg.
I’m no fan.
All of us matter or none of us do
Straw dog arguments. Are there Democrats telling people they have to support anti-trans candidates? Telling people not to vote is my issue. Siding with anti-Democrats?
Yes. www.erininthemorning.com/p/why-transg...
It's anti-democratic, but I can see the concern...voters are suckers for handsome men who think well of themselves. Newsom is smart, ambitious & confident, but can he run a successful national campaign? He can be tone-deaf & often seems to be a poster child for coastal elitism. But what do I know?
Kentucky of all places
Yes but Newsom's BMI is lower, you see.
Aaaaaamen
Do you know how the republicans got as crazy as they are now? They voted in the primaries for the craziest mofo, and even if he didn't win, they came back and voted in the general for whichever republican won. That got the more moderate republicans scared of being primaried. We have to do the same.