| |
| ▲ | rawgabbit 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The reality is that the US is divided on gender issues. Full stop. It is a distraction and a useful one for MAGA. Among the Democrats, we keep getting tripped up by it and nominate candidates who don't realize the political land mine that it is. I am for gender equality, for racial equality, for renewables, for nuclear energy. But please win the election by prioritizing talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, economic disopportunity, and naked corruption. After winning the election, then you can address gender issues along with the full slate of Democratic platform priorities. | | |
| ▲ | zardo 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How are you supposed to know which Democrat secretly supports trans rights? | | |
| ▲ | Sabinus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Dems are supposed to be able to talk frankly about their beliefs without the left wing of the party destroying them. There shouldn't be political consequences from within the Dem coalition for saying "I don't think we should have trans people in professional women's sports".
Since the Dems can't talk about the policies, the right wing gets to take up all the attention on them. | | |
| ▲ | aaAaaAai 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Some Democrats do. Kara Dansky of Women's Declaration International, for instance. |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Democrats were NOT talking about transgender issues. Conservatives were. Democrats talking about jobs, economic disopportunity, and naked corruption gets no votes, because republican voters are not motivated by those. They are using those as talking point against democrats, but that is about it. |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's all about propaganda. Rightwing media is incredibly well funded and a big portion of that reason is because rich people have been using propaganda to boost their industries since almost forever. Republicans in the late 60s were the party of the EPA. What changed? People like the Koch brothers dumped literal millions into rightwing outlets big and small to talk about how awesome it is to burn oil. A similar thing happened with smoking. Rush Limbaugh, even as he had lung cancer, was talking about what a myth it was that smoking caused lung cancer almost right up until his death. Whenever you find highly monied interests, you can find a right wing propagandist that will tell you black is white. And the insidious thing is that they don't spend their entire broadcast talking about the glories of oil or smoking. No, the best ones just insert it in as little throw away lines while talking about feminazis, gay people, trans people, black people, mexicans, etc. That's effectively how the propaganda works. Get people highly tuned up on an emotional topic and then just slip in here and there lies that you don't even think about. As a kid, I listened to probably a thousand hours of rightwing talkshow hosts because of my parents. Once I started viewing things with a more critical mind it became beyond obvious what game they are playing. Unfortunately, not everyone picks up on this game. | | |
| ▲ | chazzalpha 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The propaganda machine is powerful, precisely because the ultra-wealthy who fund it want the people to fight a culture war instead of a class war. The wealthy have been successfully astroturfing right-wing anti-democratic movements for decades, to the point that fascism is making a comeback. Climate-change denial was one of their earlier experiments, and anti-trans psyop is their most recent. The result is the same, creating false divisions among the masses who have more in common than they realize. The world is burning before our eyes. It is unconscionable to use the rights and the bodies of the marginalized to put out the fire. What would be the point of making a better society if it requires leaving the most vulnerable behind? How would that even be a better society? We must be cognizant of who the real enemy is and never do the oppressor's work for them. Billionaires have class solidarity; for our planet’s survival, we must build solidarity as well. Fight the class war, and you fight climate change, transphobia, and all threats to life and liberty. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > the ultra-wealthy who fund it want the people to fight a culture war instead of a class war We're capable of fighting more than one political war at a time. All evidence points to the donor class actually being vested in these culture war issues. Democrat donors prioritise Gaza and trans issues. MAGA donors prioritise Israel and Bible thumping. The Adelsons aren't donating to GOP candidates to distract anyome class issues, they're donating because they have non-economic policy preferences to push. |
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the right isn't going to wake up and start caring about climate change if everyone just shuts up and lets them discriminate against the hate group of the moment No. But a lot of people in the center will listen to academics again if they don't think they're being lectured on a new definition of bigotry every fifteen minutes. Also, from what I can tell, the issue of trans rights caused issues in the centre when it lept to kids' sports. Even the bathrooms were mostly the edges of the political spectrum screaming at each other. But when it touched kids' sports, a lot of folks got off their couches, and that was–given the stakes–a sort of needless battle. | | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > No. But a lot of people in the center will listen to academics again if they don't think they're being lectured on a new definition of bigotry every fifteen minutes. I get annoyed by some performative language games too, but I just don't see any evidence that your broader claim here is true. > Also, from what I can tell, the issue of trans rights caused issues in the centre when it lept to kids' sports. Most people are willing to acknowledge that the sports issue is a bit complicated, but it's also such an incredibly niche issue and so much lower stakes than everything else. People got off their couches for the sports thing because it's a "safe" environment in which to express hatred towards an out group. You can tell that it was never about sports by the actions taken by the loudest complainers on the issue (enshrining housing and employment discrimination, weird laws about forcing teachers to report violations of religious principles to parents, creepy nonsense like the bill to make lists of all trans people or mass cancel all of their drivers licenses etc.) |
| |
| ▲ | tac19 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > climate change is a bigger issue - so why can't we focus on it? What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction. To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change. To refocus the public on climate change and take the wind out of the fringe issue. Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue, when compared to climate change. You can't blame the right-wing for the number of people who filled the streets for BLM... during a pandemic where we were supposed to socially distance. It cost us doubly. And not one important left-wing voice stood up and said so. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction Here's the reality: very few people actually believe climate change is an existential problem. As you say, this is abundantly signalled by very few folks being willing to compromise on other beliefs to advance it. Want to build infrastructure? Cut taxes? Suddenly, people can put their differences aside. Want to do anything on the climate? Everyone has a policy bogeyman to attach, whether it be union requirements and gender issues or immigration and religious tests. | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a Guante lyric I really like about this topic that I think highlights how I feel about your argument: "Those who turn hoses on water protеctors Are those who cage "Stop Cop City" protеstors And enforce the brutality of the border Same ones who enforce bans on drag performers Same ones who enforce bans On crossing state lines for abortions Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses Are the same that burn everything For the bosses" I don't think we totally disagree, but I come down differently on where to point the blame. > What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction. I mean, that did happen. > To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change. That was said, along with housing prices/inflation/corruption. > Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue Here's where you're really, really losing me. You're: 1. Pivoting to a totally different issue 2. Ignoring the role of the media in promoting the most controversial takes and presentation of both issues. It sucks to blame people for having values when the real problem is for-profit engagement-based media. 3. Ick - it really rubs me the wrong way to see people say "BLM wasn't an important issue when compared to climate change". That seems really easy to say if you're not under routine threat of state violence, but BLM was a reaction to a very real epidemic of state violence against black people. To those people, that kind of immediate threat IS as big a deal as climate change. If anything, criticize the branding of "defund the police" (which was so bad I half wonder if it was a psyop). Moreover, part of my original point was that climate change isn't a separate thing - it's a problem because the same systems that use wedge issues to divide us all benefit from the unsustainable status-quo. The realpolitik take on this seems so short sighted - it takes for granted that some progress can be made on climate change by ignoring our values, while also ignoring that alienating the affected groups makes it harder to change our society enough to do anything about climate change. | | |
| ▲ | tac19 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > 1. Pivoting to a totally different issue No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important. That might be difficult to accept, because it feels like saying other issues aren't important. But that's not what i'm saying at all. What i'm saying is, if something is about to destroy the entire world, then every other concern is a distraction. What does it matter what bathrooms we use, or if the police are using violence too much, etc? Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real. Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about. You are showing exactly why we have been less effective at convincing people than we could have been. Because even you are diminishing the importance of climate change. Why should "they" give up any freedom, or luxury, in the name of climate change, if we give ourselves permission to assemble in public during a pandemic for a BLM protest, that let's face it, accomplished little. | | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important. You're using a very superficial argument and ignoring several of my points. If your literal home is on fire, is putting it out or running to safety less important than climate change? If you need to change an entire economic system to solve climate change, can you cavalierly ignore inconvenient members of that system that might be needed for a sufficiently motivated coalition? If you're worried about distractions, how can you blame the victims instead of the people committing the distraction? > What does it matter what bathrooms we use It ISNT about the bathrooms - that's the propaganda framing that you seem to have uncritically accepted. It's about random people trying to live their lives, and being denied housing and employment because of who they are. It's about the fact that we're talking about these people ONLY because of the propaganda machine. > if the police are using violence too much Must be nice that you apparently don't face the sharp end of this. To avoid triggering you with the "P" word, I'd suggest that your life experience is not universal and you should consider trying to understand a little bit about other peoples' lives. > Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real. And ignoring our values isn't going to convince those people, and those people will still think we're a bunch of woke idiots because their media has captured their minds. > Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about. [all sorts of citations needed for unsupported reasoning] | | |
| ▲ | tac19 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't ignore any of your points. If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change.
Don't distract everyone by claiming that fire is the most important thing, worthy of gathering during a pandemic about. This isn't about propaganda, well not in the sense you're using it. The argument, which you seem to disagree with, is the importance of focusing on
a single existential issue, and ignoring everything else. To actually prove to people that are doubters, that WE actually BELIEVE what we're saying.
That this really is the key thing to be worried about. Everything else you're saying all amounts to the same argument, that climate change isn't important enough to take focus away from these other
important issues. We just fundamentally disagree. And I contend your attitude is exactly why we have had so much trouble convincing the
doubters that we're serious about climate change... when we're so willing to give just as much (if not more) energy to these other "distractions" | | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Your argument basically boils down to "Climate change is the most important thing, so action on any other issue is bad." I don't see you responding anywhere to the general categories of criticisms I raised: 1. Climate change isn't one thing - it's a systemic problem in a system with lots of problems.
2. It seems ludicrous to assume that suddenly people will listen to us about climate change if we ignore other issues, ESPECIALLY because doing so would make us (or at least, me) moral hypocrites. We haven't even discussed direct causal issues, like political corruption. I honestly think no meaningful action is possible in the US on climate change until we have major reforms of our electoral and media systems - where does that put me in your oversimplified schema?
3. You're completely ignoring my argument about immediate needs. This is actually kind of funny: > If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change. The fire in this metaphor IS a social problem! Putting the fire out IS a social movement!! I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, but either way - here's hoping we can do something meaningful about climate change. Have a good day. | | |
| ▲ | tac19 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Social action has a price, both in effort, attention, and goodwill; there is
no free lunch. If you are blind to the COST of social action you will fail
to realize how you are hurting our chances of fighting climate change. If you honestly believe that it is an existential crisis, then you must accept
that NOTHING WILL EXIST if we fail to address climate change. So any social gain
we make fighting fires will be wiped out anyway if we fail to deal with
climate change. That you don't see this, and that you are willing for all
these other issues to share the stage with climate change, is a big problem.
You want to blame the media, and the right-wing, and perhaps other things for
the lack of progress, without fully comprehending your own part. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed? I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Trans rights ain't even that popular; most people are okay with "you think you're someone else? Well, fine, no skin off my nose". OTOH, the majority of people globally aren't okay with "It must be a crime if you don't treat me as a member of the opposite sex". The identity politics, of all forms, sucked out much of the air from the room leaving precious little left for discussing things like climate change. Whether we like it or not, human attention is a limited resource. If you're going to allow a few vocal nutters to direct the course of your discussion, then you can't very well complain, now can you? I mean, that's what leaders are supposed to do - direct the discussion. When the opposition says "They want to let men into women's changing rooms", then you say "No, we don't support that at all". I mean, voters find some things distasteful - you have to choose which of those things you are going to argue for, and which you are going to back down from. Diluting your message so that you mention a little bit of everything is just dumb politics, because human attention is a limited resource! | | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I made my position clear in other comments, so I'll leave it at that. I do not find your arguments persuasive. | |
| ▲ | Peritract 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Yes. That's what rights are. If we don't support them for one person, we don't have them for any person. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Yes. That's what rights are. If we don't support them for one person, we don't have them for any person. That's not the question that was asked. The question is whether it is wise to dilute your message when the message is warning of existential threat? The binary question of fighting for a rights was never contended. The question was weighting that specific right against an existential threat. There's more nuance here than you're willing to admit (hence the resounding loss of the left). |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Literally conservatives did that. THEY made this focus of the debate. Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It is ultimately irrelevant, because people like you then obsess over imaginary democrats positions democratic party never really had. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It does indeed matter - they were the ones who were insufficiently convinced of their nominees messages. Not convinced enough to vote for them, at any rate. The opposition does not matter when your "supporters" don't vote for you because the message they received is different from the message you think you transmitted. | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Conservatives focus on the points that splinters the liberals, and vice versa the liberals try to focus on points that splinters the conservatives. Liberals are very split on the trans issue, so it makes sense to focus on that. It was a bad move to put themselves in such a position that they can't defend when conservatives attacks it, that was moving too fast and therefore we ended up with a conservative government. You can say it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability of the liberals position, but you can also say that it was the liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular with a large part of their supporters so they are now in a vulnerable spot. | | |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Conservatives focus on the points that splinters the liberals, and vice versa the liberals try to focus on points that splinters the conservatives. Liberals are very split on the trans issue, so it makes sense to focus on that. Not true. Conservatives are creating this point, because it makes their base afraid and more radical. It has nothing to do with what liberals do or don't do. It is not about splintering liberals, it is about creating a weak enemy so you can beat him. Liberals have two choices: join trans hate and gain no votes or do not join trans hate. > it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability I think conservatives are to blame, because they picked someone weak to bully him and use as political cudgel. Also because they lie. > liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular Except that it did not happened. There was no comparable democratic pro-trans campaign. You are just doing that funny thing where if there is a single person opposed to conservative agenda, then conservatives are absolved of everything. > we ended up with a conservative government. Conservative movement becoming fascists personality cult is the issue. In an alternative universe, there could have been pro-democratic lawful conservative government. Conservative did not had to imply what it does today. And conservative movement turning into what it is now is fully fault of conservatives. |
|
| |
| ▲ | array_key_first 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "It must be a crime if you don't treat me as a member of the opposite sex". This is a thing that basically does not exist. This is, again, more right-wing culture war bullshit that was cooked up in a meth lab. It's not real. Can you get fired if you purposefully antagonize your boss at work? Yes. That's always been the case. Guess what, if I call my boss a jackass I'm probably getting shown the door, and that's not even a pronoun. Can you get in trouble for discriminating based on gender and sexual orientation? Yes, and that's been the case for a while. Nobody is getting into legal trouble because they don't personally believe trans women aren't "real" women, whatever "real" might mean to them. Nobody, not a soul. It's just a non-issue. What's going on is there is a set of people who are basically just doing nothing who are under constant new and innovative threats from the right. And, when they say, "hey, don't do that", we somehow have the gall to point at them and yell "Culture war! Culture war!" It's not that people's goodwill is being burnt on trans people. It's that the right has been playing to the populist messaging they have in order to continue their crusade. While the economy is burning down, and the climate is worsening, and we are entering wars, they are trying to convince you the problem is some set of people who are doing nothing. And, that the solution is simple: beat down this set of people. This includes immigrants, trans people, gay people. Of course, it's just not true. But humans are stupid. We're already pre-wired to be uneasy around people we don't understand who are different from us, especially visibly different. And, humans understand and have high confidence in simple solutions. I mean, God, look at the border wall. Will that work? Did that work? Of course not. But it's such a simple, almost child-like understanding of the problem that people had very high confidence in it. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > What's going on is there is a set of people who are basically just doing nothing who are under constant new and innovative threats from the right Trans people haven't done nothing, there are many reforms that have moved the trans issue a lot that were pushed by trans people, that is not nothing. The right isn't innovating anything by rolling back those, they are just being conservative which is in their name. You could argue those reforms are good, but you can't argue it is the right that is changing things here, the right just undo change they don't do the changing on these issues. And you can't fault the right for trying to win the election. You have to try to win the election as well, throwing it away by sticking to unpopular policies such as trans in sports is just ignorant. It isn't just the right that doesn't want trans in sports, it is a large majority of the entire population that doesn't want that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | asmsecnd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the US, it was the left who decided to push gender identity into law and policy, with no regard to the adverse consequences of doing so. That the right decided to capitalize on this for political reasons is just them taking an opportunity that was basically handed to them on a plate. Interestingly it's a bit different in the UK. Both the main left and right parties had been promoting gender identity based policy for years, and it was only though the dedicated efforts of feminists who pointed out all the problems with this, and particularly the negative impacts on women and girls, that it recently started to be reversed. | | |
| ▲ | empyrrhicist 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you and I live in the same information universe, since I disagree with literally every thing you've said here. Unfortunately I don't have the energy to productively try to disabuse you of (what I believe are) delusions, misinformation and ignorance, so... have a nice day I guess. | | |
| ▲ | asmsecnd 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps we have received different information on this topic. I am curious why you disagree though, as I consider my perspective to based in verifiable fact. For example, in the UK, it was Theresa May's right-wing Conservative government who planned to reform the law to make it easier, and with fewer medical requirements, for people to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate. They had a public consultation too. This move was supported by the left-wing Labour Party. And in recent years, legal action and advocacy by feminist groups has been a highly significant factor in policy changes around this area, most notably For Women Scotland who took their legal challenge all the way to the UK's Supreme Court, winning the case with a statutory reinterpretation of the Equality Act. |
|
|
|
