I've seen a depressing trend of Democratic politicians embracing anti trans talking points and compromising gender affirming care for young people. This is extremely concerning as states and the federal government are undermining access to care now more than ever. Democrats standing by trans people has far more dire consequences now than ever, yet we're being treated as politically disposable by people who used to campaign on lgbtq issues like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg.
I can't say I'm surprised. Liberal papers like the New York Times has been uncritically promoting unscientific transphobia for years that claims alternatives exist to gender affirming care. My guess is that people see a person transitioning as an unfortunate thing, desperately wishing there was another way. They ignore the fact that gender affirming care is both the best treatment for dysphoria, and one of the most successful treatments for any mental condition ever discovered.
To put it simply, making gender affirming care harder to obtain for kids will kill many of them. Kids being kept from care by their parents already drives people to suicide, and a slimy politician preventing supportive parents from helping their kids will do the same. Every time I see people claim these guys are our best shot at beating fascism, I die inside. I have no doubt that they'll eventually axe care for all adults like everyone who was originally "worried about fairness in sports" is currently pushing for. The only way they won't is if we make it a costly issue for them.
I get it, but conservatism has taken over by ratcheting the country to the right. They've been patiently putting people in positions of power from dog catcher up to the presidency for the last forty years.
Progressives aren't satisfied with ratcheting the country to the left. It's all or nothing.
The country never moves towards the left or anything closely resembling egalitarianism in any meaningful way. Gay marriage has been one of the few major wins in recent history, but that's not "ratcheting the country to the left". You could be the most staunch supporter of capitalism and "free markets" in the world, literally the opposite of egalitarianism, and still support trans and gay rights/be socially liberal.
The Democrats aren't satisfied until the country is completely to the right and they aren't interested in winning elections or seriously fighting MAGA - their focus is firmly on suppressing the left.
Progressives do not hold significant power in elected office or in the DNC. Bernie Sanders had two primaries rigged against him, and David Hogg was recently ousted from his position as Vice Chair of the DNC ~~for gender diversity reasons~~ because he was pushing progressive primary challengers.
Ken Martin also ensured DNC officer neutrality in future primaries this year, in order to neuter David Hogg not long after he committed to funding these challengers (which is likely why David Hogg refused to run for re-election). Democrats only have a problem with rigging primaries when progressives are the ones getting support.
Progressives are unpredictable and difficult to control, may be of the socialist variety, and disincentivize major donors - which the DNC and Democratic party rely on.
"Ending" slavery, suffrage, the New Deal, income tax, * gay rights... They were all steps to the left.
I'm not arguing that the democratic party as it stands is the vehicle to institute a just and fair society. But I did watch the Tea Party subvert and consume the republicans. It can be done to the democratic party as well. It has to be in tandem with regular wins, like how the conservatives did it.
*I can't believe I left out Roe v Wade
Slavery only increased under neoliberal policy. Where does our lithium come from? Slaves and child slaves. Our cocoa? In part, child slaves. Where do most of our goods come from? Sweat shops and exploited third-world countries. Our prison labor, which has absolutely exploded under neoliberal policy, is also by definition slave labor. Before Trump, over 40% of our agricultural labor force were undocumented immigrants - modern slaves.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd see how much suffering and exploitation went into every single item around you.
Ancient history, and none of these things besides suffrage truly represent the left, which is commonly associated with socialism and egalitarianism - the left was historically coined to describe socialists. And it's worth mentioning Democrats are further right than most European center-right parties.
You could even be a bigger fascist and authoritarian than Trump, including being a Christian, and be in support of gay rights. See Peter Thiel, self-proclaimed right-libertarian, who is the opposite of a libertarian in practice.
Democrats flying the rainbow flag is just as gross and meaningless as corporations doing it: it's branding. Except now the branding requires that we sacrifice trans people to appeal to ~~centrists~~ Republicans/old-school conservatives and try to siphon voters from MAGA. Meanwhile, gay marriage is likely going to quickly be dismantled like everything else, while Democrats stand silent.
Will this come in time to address the fresh water crisis? Will it come in time to address the climate crisis? How many trans people will die by suicide because it's "too radical" to support them even a little bit? How many people will die because of preventable disease? How many people will forego higher education? How many people will be laid off and rendered homeless until we establish UBI? How many child slaves will be sacrificed in the mines so we can have new iPhones every year? I could go on and on and on.
Progressives have been playing ball way more than you suggest. Enough. It's become a game of dodgeball where progressives can't throw, only take hits from the Democrats and everybody else. Shifting to the right is not an effective strategy for Democrats, not even a little bit. 1/3 of the country doesn't vote, why the fuck is nobody looking at that group?
Saw your edit:
A Supreme Court decision. Which was never codified into law by Democrats...
You're going to sit there and say you wouldn't have voted for fucking Lincoln because he didn't "really" end slavery?
I'd like to believe that I would be arguing for the abolition of all social, race, and class-based hierarchies, among other things, but this isn't then and I wasn't born in that time period.
Suppose I were born at that time, had access to a very good education, and possessed roughly the same spirit as I do now; I'd likely be politically active and influencing people like Lincoln as best I could.
Nobody is entitled to another's vote though, and I'll just leave it at that.
Edit - I thought on it and I feel it's necessary to amend this for those curious why I would respond in such a way:
If it came down to it, I'd likely vote for Lincoln. Regardless of some of his statements, he showed deep principles:
Very few involved with politics in the present day are even 1% as principled and vocal about what they believe to be right as Lincoln - he was so incredibly ahead of his time.
Well I would definitely 100% be supporting moderate pussy Lincoln because the Confederacy fucking sucks and I don't want their supporter to win.
Sorry to hear you were on the fence about it.
There were historically people calling Lincoln's abolitionist ideas not radical enough, so bite me.
You'd likely unquestionably vote for a self-proclaimed Zionist committing a genocide, and that was your point in reality - to shame me for having principles in general and in particular in regards to how I vote. You are free to push the Democratic party to the left or away from supporting genocide at any point instead of attacking me - I don't vote for genocide and my vote must be earned through representation.
It's basic democracy, the Democrats don't automatically earn or own my vote because they play at being socially liberal when it suits them.
I could imagine you arguing to Lincoln that he actually should be less radical, that he should compromise on his principle of seeing slavery as being wrong. Just allow a little slavery Lincoln... c'mon man.
Your principles result in death and suffering so yes shame you. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Your principles result in mass suffering and death, as well. It's just more neatly tucked overseas and out of sight. The US economy notably relying on child slavery? No big deal if nobody acknowledges it and the courts don't give a fuck. Large amounts of undocumented immigrant labor? Who cares if the Democrats never lift a finger for them? An open Zionist committing a genocide? But he's tirelessly working towards a ceasefire! Not to mention Ukraine, which Biden largely abandoned before leaving office... keep telling people to be less radical and to fall in line harder. It's working super well.
This country is a fucking joke. There is nothing feel good about voting, it is the absolute opposite of a representative democracy - while people like you settle more and more every cycle.
What did you really do prior to the election? Did you try to shift Democrat policy? Did you try to get Biden to address or reconsider his open, long-standing Zionism? Did you unquestionably support the Zionist in 2020 over Bernie? Did you push for a primary in 2024? Or did you mostly just sit online and shame people back then too? It's time to switch it up, in my opinion.
But I see you're busy calling anarchists tankies - your energy is directed towards fringe people online and not focused toward your preferred party and people who can make a positive difference in said party. It'd be fun to see you demand accountability from everyone equally, but there's no shame coming from me... just confusion...
Incorrect, my principles result in Lincoln ending racial slavery, averting countless deaths and suffering. Which you would refuse to do.
Lincoln wasn't a Zionist giving a religious ethnostate weapons to genocide and ethnically cleanse an occupied population with US taxpayer money. Israel made their ambitions for Greater Israel known prior to the election - they had no intention of stopping at Palestine. In all likelihood, he would've gotten my vote despite my modern distaste for his white supremacist views. Back then, I likely wouldn't have even known about those views. So in that case, it would've been a definite yes.
I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 because of his Zionism. I knew what Zionism meant long before Oct. 7th and the genocide. Pointing out Biden's Zionist views got me harshly downvoted and accused of antisemitism, no matter the timing or how much I wanted a Jewish man to be president.
There would have been no genocide if Bernie Sanders won in 2020 and the primary wasn't rigged against him. Zero. Zilch. Bernie had my vote, without a doubt.
Zionists or those complicit in genocide will never get my vote. There needed to be a primary because there were/are plenty of people principled against Zionism and genocide. Including the many disenfranchised Muslim/middle-eastern Americans who would never vote for a person slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people of their religion or ethnicity - with no signs of stopping.
If Kamala ran on not giving them weapons unless it was to defend themselves from e.g. Iran, that alone would have been a winning policy. Who the fuck cared about her not running any other substantive or progressive policies - that was all it took for her to earn my vote.
Instead of pushing for a primary, people like you accused me of being a single-issue voter and a purity tester for not wanting US taxpayer money to fund a genocide. Unfortunately, it's not just a single-issue - it was many issues that were ready to be set aside considering the circumstances. Kamala played chicken with the country and drove it off the cliff, without a single thought in her mind to brake - because she is insulated from the consequences i.e. she had a parachute.
She still hasn't admitted why she lost - the real reason, she just comes out of the woodwork every once in a while to blame everybody but herself. She isn't a serious actor.
No "buts".
Liberation cannot be done with giving it to everyone, provided that fascists get buried 6 ft under.
It's not liberation until it's for everyone. But we won't get there in one legislative fight, or even one legislative session, once and for all. It will always need to be fought for.
Conservatives won't turn down a smaller victory for one that's out of reach. That's why they're winning.
Ansolutely agree, people didn't turn to being pro-abortion instantly. But with a long and gradual strifle.
But we should be aware to never give up that which we already have.
🖕
Constructive and useful. Go fuck yourself.
They make a great point, but nope. Gotta make them feel stupid for thinking about the obvious problem with idealism.
You think basic human rights are idealism?
No wonder the Democrat's approval rating is so low. Your party is so spineless.
Nice twisting of the words as usual. Im not even american you imbecill.
I think believing that everyone can change their mind because you say so is idealism.