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.
"bathroom bills" could be a range of very different policies. A law that says "trans women are men for the purposes of going to the bathroom and vice versa" is fine. A law that say "trans cannot go to public bathrooms" is not. As I said, don't give them preferential treatment (pro-trans), but don't hurt them specifically (anti-trans).
Same with workplace discrimination protections. "Being trans" is not a firable reason just like having 4 fingers isn't. However there are jobs where that might be a problem. For example lacking a thumb in an assembly line should be taken into account. If being trans can have a similar impact on a job (I can't find any example), the same should happen.
"Gender marker changes on documents" is way too broad of a question.
"Adoption rights" I don't know enough about how the adoption process works or why this is a trans issue.
"Gun rights" no civilian other than those with very regulated permits should have permission to own a firearm. Same as before, being trans has nothing to do with guns.
"Military service" this actually has something to do with trans, since some countries treat men and women differently in the military. Since it's a physically intensive job, they should be treated as their biological sex. Or even better, they should be treated depending on physical performance. But we both know that's not gonna happen anytime soon so no need to waste time on that.
"Public service" again, too broad of a question and idk what it has to do with trans.
"Prisons" prisons in general are very complicated and I don't know how to manage them. About trans, the best should probably be to keep them about biological sex. But of course listen to their complaints, if they complain credibly that they are sexually threatened, keep them in a separate section of the prison. But that goes even if not trans, there's lots of same-sex rape in prisons going on.
"Don't say gay" idk what those laws are about. It's illegal to say "gay"? Anyway, it should be about "not say trans" right? In that case, that's against free speech, you can't make it illegal to say a word.
"Social media" again, free speech. If it is covered under free speech, can post it. If not, can remove it. Or if it goes against the social media's policies. Those are private entities, not government agencies.
"Banning insurance" kinda weird question. If the procedure is banned, the insurance too. If not, not.
"HRT for adults/minors" this procedure is specifically for trans. It is not worth the political capital to prevent its ban. Do a survey and listen to the people. What decision would get more votes? Do that.
"Conversion therapy" I don't know what that means.
I answered a lot of questions way too fast, so might not be final decisions. But the summary still is: if it's something to benefit trans specifically, don't support it. If it's something that treats trans as inferior humans, don't allow it.
it's not preferential treatment. you want Kim Petras to use the men's bathroom? I guarantee that will go poorly. she'll be harassed by men who are confused why a woman is in the men's bathroom. and what about FTMs? you want to make Buck Angel use the women's room? dude is a jacked bodybuilder who looks like he could break you in half. that would absolutely terrorize women.
under Bostock v Clayton this is currently true, but the Trump administration has specifically declared that Bostock doesn't apply to Federal jobs - meaning they could fire a postal worker just for being trans. the religious Right has been pushing to overturn this decision, so they can refuse to hire trans (or gay) people in their (secular) businesses.
should someone who has fully medically transitioned be able to obtain a driver's license or passport that reflects their gender? I look like a woman, but my passport says M because of Trump's order.
because bigots think trans people are groomers, and want to make sure orphans only go to straight, god-fearing couples. we're not asking for special rights, we're asking to have the same right to adopt that you have. that's all.
would you oppose a law that specifically bans trans people in particular from owning guns?
women can serve in the US military. men can too. trans people cannot again, beside of Trump's executive order, which says we lack the "honor" and "integrity" required for military service.
can the government refuse to hire qualified postal workers, administrators, intelligence analysts or rocket scientists, just because they're trans? can the government fire all trans employees?
so let's say a trans woman transitions at 13, passes perfectly, and has a vagina. you want to put her in a prison cell with a bunch of violent men who will almost certainly rape her?
the laws make it a fireable offense for teachers to mention their gay (or trans) significant others, at school, or to discuss LGBT issues at all. in a recent Florida case, the school fired a trans woman schoolteacher just for referring to herself as "she."
conservatives are pushing for social media sites to block minors from accessing "adult content." they're also pushing to define any LGBT themes, such as pride flags, TV shows with gay/trans characters, or posts by trans people (including other minors) as "adult content." would you support blocking access to (for example) PhilosophyTube to those who prove they're 18+, just because that YouTuber happens to be trans?
hold the fuck on. you were saying it was an issue of "subsidizing" gender care. if a private insurer wants to cover HRT, that's not a subsidy. that's a policy decision. are you talking about banning HRT?
if you ban my HRT, I will smuggle it into the country. I cannot live without it. that's like banning antidepressants for suicidal people. I'll bring enough for my community, and I'll try to help as many of us as possible escape this hellhole.
so basically, you're fine with laws specifically punishing trans people, removing rights we had back in the goddamn '70s, as long as they're not actively putting us in concentration camps?
nah fam. fuck that. I'm not voting Democrat if that's what Dems are prepared to do. I might as well let Trump have a third term - it'd be the same.
if you take my rights away, I'll let them take yours away too.
It's way too many topics for a single comment. I'm not even gonna respond the ones we seem to agree on.
"Bathrooms" -> preferential meaning there has to be a law to handle the edge cases of trans. Just use the current laws. Peeing-recipients are based on genitals. Nobody is going to check if you're in the correct one anyway.
"Gender markers" -> again, special handling for trans: don't support.
"Gun" I already answered, has nothing to do with trans.
"Military" -> as I said, if men can and women can but trans can't, that's anti-trans. So makes no sense
"Public" 4-finger rule applies. If you can't do that to ppl with 4 fingers, you can't to trans
"Prison" as I said, if there's serious risk of being raped, separate, just like you would with any other prisoner
"Don't say" -> handle like any other free speech case
"Social media" are conservatives asking social media companies? Let them. Are they making it into law? Don't
"Banning insurance" idk what you read in my response but it's not what I wrote. Read again please. I'm saying that insuring it should be as legal as the procedure.
"HRT" smuggle if you want. The procedure is not the problem. The political capital needed to defend it is.
Btw I'm no democrat, not even American.
Idk where the concentration camp comes from. I'm saying treat them like any other person.
right, this is the major sticking point. you seem to think it's a "special right for trans people" but it's not:
there was never a law that gave trans people the right to HRT. we just asked our doctors, who researched, and agreed, and prescribed it to us. we used the same rights as everyone else.
it's not a "special right" for trans people to own guns. we have a 2A right to own guns, same as anyone else (since you're not American, you may not understand the controversy: see this - the government was trying to ban trans people from owning guns by classifying us as "mentally defective.") there's no "special right" for trans women to use the women's bathroom. there weren't any laws restricting who could use what bathroom at all until this moral panic started.
do Jews have a "special right" to practice Judaism? no! all people have the right to practice their religion. banning Judaism wouldn't be revoking a "special right," it would be taking a universal right away from a targeted group.
all of these bans work by removing rights from us that everyone else has. we've never been given special rights in the first place.
most trans people cannot survive without HRT. that's why the suicide rate was so high. banning it will kill many of us - those who can't get asylum abroad.
our deaths may be an acceptable loss to you. but I won't vote for a party that lets my people die for political points. I assume Palestinian Americans felt similarly in 2024 - if there will be genocide either way, who cares? why should I care about the country if either choice leaves me and my sisters dead or disfigured?