Easy for you to say that. The political party running this country ran on a platform of the eradication of me and my friends. I can't legally/safely use public restrooms in several states, including some which have paid bounties for reporting. Things will continue to improve for the wealthy and powerful, but in a lot of ways have become worse for the poor and vulnerable.
When I was a kid, there was this grand utopian ideal for the internet. Now it's fragmented, locked in walled gardens where people are psychologically abused for advertising dollars. AI could be a force for good, but Google has already ended its ban on use in weapons and is selling it to the IAF, and Palantir is busy finding ways to use it for surveillance.
Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
> Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people.
We have as much (if not more) documented historical evidence of gender non-conformance as we do homosexual behavior. To me, "eradicating transgenderism" is a threat no different than if someone were to endorse "eradicating homosexuality".
Back in the 1980s, both homosexuality and gender non-conformance were considered "ideology", and likely thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred during the AIDS crisis because of the federal government's efforts to encourage stigma, keep people in the closet, and a complete failure to treat AIDS as a genuine healthcare crisis. What we're going through now may not be as dramatic as the 80s AIDS crisis, but there are clear comparisons, and people in my community will suffer and die because of lack of access to medical treatment.
There are/were maybe a dozen trans athletes in college sports. No one is performing surgeries (or causing irreparable damage) to minors. Personally, I don't care what people call me as long as they're respectful. I want to live my life without the government trying to control my personal choices, or ban life-saving treatment that is endorsed by multiple major medical institutions.
> It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
Fair, but the fact that no one denounced it after he said it on stage at CPAC is a tacit endorsement.
Evidence of gender non-conformance? What does that even mean? Evidence of men who like to dress like women? Men can dress like women if they like (much as they are welcome to sleep with other men). The issue is that act does not actually make them women. That's the ideology ("Trans women are women."). They're men dressed like women. They are not, and cannot be, women. A woman is an adult female human. An effiminate man is not a woman.
There is a very, very small fraction of humanity that suffers sex organ deviations. Those few cases can make sex classification more difficult at birth (though they are almost always either XX or XY), but those few cases do not provide cover for men who dress like women participating in women's sports, using women's bathrooms, or other female privileges. With the exception of a small group of activists, all of America agrees with this, including many prominent trans-females -- this position IS the right side of history.
And you're wrong about the growing number of trans athletes at all levels of sport. And you're most certainly wrong about surgeries on minors. You'd have to be living in a cave to believe otherwise.
Saying their identity is "ideology" is part of the problem. There's plenty of violent movements that can be framed as just "eradicating ideology", when in reality that is just a culture, condition, religion, or trait that you don't understand or accept.
"Sex" for you is determined by genitals and chromosomes, right? Can you show me any instance where a transgender man believes he has a natural penis or XY chromosomes?
Uhuh. Let me guess, you're a heterosexual white male?
the Republicans have been very explicit about making my existence a crime since the 1980s. These are the despicable people who made jokes about my friends dying of AIDS, who now want to make just mentioning my marriage 'sexualized content' and therefore prosecutable. Oh, and by the way, they want to eradicate my marriage, which had to be repeated because it was rescinded by a court decision affecting me and 3,997 other couples.
I want to be very clear, so let me say this: you are wrong, and have no idea what it actually means to be on the receiving end of discrimination.
When I was a kid, there was this grand utopian ideal for the internet. Now it's fragmented, locked in walled gardens where people are psychologically abused for advertising dollars. AI could be a force for good, but Google has already ended its ban on use in weapons and is selling it to the IAF, and Palantir is busy finding ways to use it for surveillance.