They already suffer mental illness. These laws have nothing to do with it. And as we know empirically, over 90% of GD cases among minors resolve naturally in adulthood.Nevertheless, another study shows they suffer mental duress when subjected to these laws, but that does not effect you.
Or maybe that study doesn't show causality either.
I think you know you're wrong on this, and for some baffling reason you just find it less embarrassing to double down on a ridiculous take than to say "No, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a segregationist."What does that have to do with this decision being similar to Plessy?
Do you agree with @j brown's body that a pro-trans civil rights decision, supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, is the same as segregation?@Gatsby to minorities: Know your place and you'll be fine. Don't get uppity. Keep your head down and stay in the closet. The less visible the better.
These people are utterly incapable of defending their arguments on the merits. They HAVE to frame trans people as coming for your children and mutilating them (false). It's really no different, intellectually, than what RFK Jr is doing with vaccine policy.
You just can't explain fact to them in a manner that they can absorb. You can throw a metric ****ton of peer reviewed research at them, and they just stare at you like a wall and then repeat their previous arguments.
I think the Democratic Party positions on some of those topics are fine and on some of those topics should change.For the record, these were the policies in the OP:
- Foreign Policy
- Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
- Public Health Policy (e.g. Vaccines)
- Social Security
- Civil Rights
- Economy
- Immigration
- Foreign Policy
- Political Corruption
- Climate Change
- Infrastructure
- Regulations
- Unions / Labor / Workers Rights
We're talking about trans rights because the right (including @Gatsby) cannot defend Dems going to the right in these areas.
They don't have to move toward the Right. just toward a saner Center.I'm told that Dems should move to the right, because it's a winning strategy. Should Dems move to the right of Biden on the following issues:
- Foreign Policy
- Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
- Public Health Policy (e.g. Vaccines)
- Social Security
- Civil Rights
- Economy
- Immigration
- Foreign Policy
- Political Corruption
- Climate Change
- Infrastructure
- Regulations
- Unions / Labor / Workers Rights
Bonus Question #1: What does that coalition look like? The base would undoubtably change from what it currently is. Do they pick up disaffected MAGA voters to replace Progressives?
Bonus Question #2: Would progressives still be blamed for Dems losing after they were formally removed from the coalition?
....
The Myth of the Moderate Republican
Liberal Republicanism’s collapse didn’t spring from some loss of decency in an age of polarization, but from the transformation of class struggle in America.jacobin.com
The Increasingly Dangerous Myth of the 'Moderate Republican' | Common Dreams
The current notion of a "moderate Republican" is an oxymoron that helps to move the country rightward. Last week, every one of the GOP's so-called "moderates" voted to install House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who won with the avid support of Donald Trump and got over the finish line by catering to suwww.commondreams.org
They don't have to move toward the Right. just toward a saner Center.
This post woould be a better fit in the Theology or Conspiracy theory forum because facts are not present.The specific reason that the courts said they are protected is that they are covered under existing sex discrimination laws. Not because the courts gave any credence to your "gender identity" theology. For example, if you wouldn't fire a woman for wearing a dress to the office, then you can't fire a man for wearing a dress to the office. If you wouldn't refuse to hire a man for being married to a woman, then you can't refuse to hire a woman for being married to a woman. OK, fair enough. That's sex discrimination, nothing more.
Take it up with the Supreme Court.This post woould be a better fit in the Theology or Conspiracy theory forum because facts are not present.
The specific reason that the courts said they are protected is that they are covered under existing sex discrimination laws. Not because the courts gave any credence to your "gender identity" theology. For example, if you wouldn't fire a woman for wearing a dress to the office, then you can't fire a man for wearing a dress to the office. If you wouldn't refuse to hire a man for being married to a woman, then you can't refuse to hire a woman for being married to a woman. OK, fair enough. That's sex discrimination, nothing more.
I can't stress enough that in THIS case, the ruling was IN FAVOR of trans people. It LIMITS discrimination against them. It had a 6-3 majority including all four of the Democratic-appointed justices at the time. And yet you are comparing it to segregation and pregnancy discrimination. Just incredible. Nothing is ever good enough for trans extremists. Ever.The court once ruled that women who could not receive healthcare for illnesses arising from pregnancy were not discriminated against. A ruling so out-of-touch with today's world that most people have forgotten about it, until now.
It’s not just about private identity, it’s about how that identity interacts with things like sports, prisons, shelters, restrooms, scholarships, healthcare, etc. If identity determines access to these, then it affects other people too.
Were the boys pre- or post-pubesents?
Please, this is nonsense. Think about the size, speed, and weight differences that begin in young adulthood. As I said above, blithely ignoring these risks makes your commentary unserious.
I like Beshear, I don't know much about Laura Kelly, but Dems haven't had much luck with female candidates lately. Duckworth would be great, but withAs a swing voter, I would hope for someone like Andy Beshear KY or Laura Kelly KS on the democratic side in 2028. Both won in a deep red state which means independents were attracted to them. But my number one choice would be the spunky senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. But first comes the midterms. This should be the democrat’s number one priority. Right now, it looks like a status quo election where in the house either party could gain or lose 1-5 seats. The senate is the same, either party probably gaining or losing a seat. No more.
That makes it sound like you have a 300lb 8th grader in mind ?So what do you do about the occasional 300-lb 8th grader who wants to play football with his much smaller classmates?
Sports involve some risk of injury. Girls get hurt playing against other girls all the time. And there are big size differences among girl athletes, too.
I don't know where you live, but the schools around here are not dominated by these trans-hulks you seem to see everywhere.
That makes it sound like you have a 300lb 8th grader in mind ?
Both male?They exist.
This 7-Foot, 440-Pound High Schooler Dwarfed Every Opponent
This kid is nicknamed "Junior", but don't let that name fool you.fanbuzz.com
Say Hello To This 7-Foot High School Football Player
John Krahn is now striving to lose weight -- both to aid his current team and his future prospects.www.huffpost.com
Both male?
Hillary Clinton may have been the most knowledgeable. But her problem was she came across as an aloof, elitist, know it all with a fake smile. I usually refer to 2016 as obnoxious, rude, uncouth vs the aloof, elitist know it all. At least this is how many swing voters saw the two candidates which independents went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. How many independents stayed home due to their dislike or distaste of both major party candidates, we’ll never know.I like Beshear, I don't know much about Laura Kelly, but Dems haven't had much luck with female candidates lately. Duckworth would be great, but with
the same downside as Kelly. I don't know why the US is afraid of electing a woman, Hillary Clinton was the most prepared candidate we have had in years, but she couldn't get the votes. Hillary actually knows what the nuclear triad is, unlike the man who currently sits in the office.
So he wouldn’t have been playing against girls ?Same kid. He dominated the search. But there have been others.
So he wouldn’t have been playing against girls ?
At least this is how many swing voters saw the two candidates which independents went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. How many independents stayed home due to their dislike or distaste of both major party candidates, we’ll never know.
That's all dogmatic drivel to cover for the stupid positions of the Far Left Dems. You don't know anything about the "detriment of the people," only about the detriment of your side.The political center is an illusion. It's an arbitrary point between two arbitrary points. The center between Obama and Trump is a million miles from where the American people are in general. And if Republicans move to the right, the center shifts again.
Why doesn't the center ever shift to the left? It's because Dems and Republicans hold hands on certain issues, to the detriment of the people and the benefit of special interests. Thus, the center keeps moving to the right. And here we are, with Trump as president.
Your proposal is therefore... fundamentally stupid.
Yep, same old Mad Lib song: if they're not on our side, they're just stupid. Keep singing that song and you'll keep losing.It needs to be said: Independents aren't centrist, they aren't where the two parties converge, they don't share the same opinions, and they are not the epitome of pragmatic compromise. Some are to the left of me, some are to the right or Trump. Some are just contrarians. These are not people that should be catered to because it's impossible mission.
I remember people saying, "I'm not voting for Dems or Republicans, I'm voting for RFK Jr."
Because they're freakin' weirdos, not serious people.
You literally didn't vote for the Democrat or Republican.I remember people saying, "I'm not voting for Dems or Republicans, I'm voting for RFK Jr."
Because they're freakin' weirdos, not serious people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?