this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
832 points (94.9% liked)

Political Memes

9618 readers
1675 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Personally, I don't see a difference between combating fascism, and gender rights, gender affirming care, and recognizing people as the gender that they feel most comfortable as. I also don't see a difference between combating fascism and LGBTQIA+ rights in general.

Fascists would have all of those rights stripped away from people. So bring pro LGBTQIA+ and being against fascism, is essentially the same thing in my mind.

The thing about it is, you can be against fascism, but not pro LGBTQIA+, but it would be, in my mind, impossible to be pro LGBTQIA+ and not be anti fascist.

So anyone who wants to deny LGBTQIA+, gender affirming care, or the recognition of people's gender, but who is self-proclaiming to be against fascism, is either under some confused notion of what fascism would entail, trying to find some "middle ground" which doesn't really exist, or they're still fascist, but only if their way of life is what's being promoted under fascism, and we can it something other than fascism.

All of those people can suck my dick.

LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights.

EDIT: I want to add that I'm not LGBTQIA+. I just believe that anyone who is, should have the same rights to be just as happy, or as miserable, as everyone who isn't. I am an ally. I am a humanist.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't defeating fascism and standing for trans rights the same thing?

Same with eliminating religion?

These organisations aren't good for human rights. They aren't good for anything or anyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] philosloppy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

liberals gonna lib but what does the acceptance, or rejection, of science have anything to do with it? Plenty of fascists have had no problem embracing science as a method of political expediency and plenty of leftists have rejected scientific advance as a measure of political progress.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

"Let's meet in the middle and only oppress people 50%"

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 4 weeks ago

Ok, look, as long we PINKY PROMISE that we're going to stop at the VERY FIRST one of the "first they came for the..." marginalized groups, you gotta let us murderize JUST THEM and then bada bing, bada boom, fascism is cooked!

[–] socsa@piefed.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Honestly I am very much a supporter of pragmatism and strategic politics towards building unity on the left, even if it means sacrificing some issues in favor of more pressing ones. I hate purity testing and assume most people who engage in it are acting in bad faith. But I completely agree with this. A coalition without respect for basic human rights is just a nonstarter.

[–] deaf_fish@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago

It's also really weak to point at fascism and say "look they treat some people badly for no reason. On an unrelated note, we are also going to treat some people badly for no reason."

[–] piefood@feddit.online 4 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Not only Democratic politicians, I see it here in the Fediverse all the time. People seem to think that the Democrats winning is more important than human rights.

I just don't understood that kind of dogmatic thinking.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (14 children)

Because when the other side is explicitly promising a theocratic fascist dictatorship, you have to pick the lesser evil to even have a chance of things getting better without large scale violence.

A lot of things need to change to get to the point where we're not picking between two evils, but those changes have to start at local and state levels, and it takes time to propagate to the federal level.

Trans rights being side-tabled for a bit is better than them and every other "undesirable" getting sent to concentration camps.

It's not that we're simping for the Democrat leadership, it's that we're smart enough to realize it's currently a binary system and the other option is exponentially worse.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

You realize the left needs to win for us to have human rights? Your critique makes literally zero sense.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

If the left needs to win, then we can't vote for most democrats.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you talking about the party that isn't able to win, and also doesn't support universal human rights?

Maybe they would have more luck with the former, if they tried the latter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Winning an election is step one. Policies that benefit everyone (except maybe the very top) is next. Then win the next election and pull the country left. Then rinse and repeat. We didn't get here overnight.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

I think it's more that people think winning is more important than performative losing. It's not pragmatic to promote talking points that hurt your own cause.

For example, I'd wager that cutting hundreds of billions from Medicaid will hurt the general population AND the trans population far more than gender affirming care for kids or trans rights in sports would benefit trans people.

And consider this, every time we lose, it's going to get worse and worse and keep shifting the Overton Window to the right.

Are we supposed to pretend that strategy and tactics aren't applicable to politics? Winning the broader war wins many smaller battles by default.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)

Who said that??

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›