Wow, you're saying the conservative Supreme court prejudiced against the trans community ruled against said community? And that the currently prejudiced HHS made an anti-trans report?? *shocked Pikachu face*
The way you're framing it is that it's pro-trans activism that is causing the prejudice, which is not how that works. That's been literally every single civil rights movement has been framed by the oppressors. "Well if the gays/blacks/women weren't so uppity, maybe things would be better for them!" Fuck off
If those Colorado anti-trans initiatives are just statutory and don't amend the state constitution, couldn't the Democratic-controlled state legislature just repeal them next year if they pass?
Tbh, not if they clearly curtail human rights. If a majority of voters passed stripping Black people of voting rights, it should be reversed legislatively asap (in a world that doesn't go to the courts first).
You're not welcome here. You've been banned and your subscription refunded.
Please let that serve as a notice to everyone. Even if someone is a paid subscriber, they must still abide by our community's standards and expectations. If you can't do that, then you don't belong here.
That is very, very kind of you! Not every day that an unfortunate situation resolves itself so nicely, so thank you for making our day! Have a lovely weekend!
About those anti-trans ballot measures: I think many people who are not anti-trans support a ban on elective gender reassignment surgery for minors, even if they don't support a ban on trans athletes competing with others of the gender they consider themselves to be. I would seriously consider supporting such a measure, and I genuinely have trans friends and vehemently oppose discrimination against them. As for increasing the penalties for child trafficking, whether it's presented as part of an anti-trans package or not, is there anything wrong with the measure itself that warrants opposition to what sounds like a very popular idea, purely based on who's advancing the measure and in what context? I'd like to know, because Democrats do themselves political harm by opposing common sense-sounding measures if there's no really good reason to do so.
Everyone just needs to let trans people make their own decisions about their bodies, along with their doctors and counselors, and in the case of minors, with their parents. No one else's opinion is relevant at all. Nobody is going to perform surgery on a minor without parental consent. These bans are nothing more than motivation for a political base that is ignorant and hateful. What other aspects of healthcare are regulated like this, other than abortion, which is used in the exact same way (base motivation)?
One of the most difficult aspects of being trans is that puberty and its associated changes occur in the body before a human being is old enough to make their own healthcare decisions to stop that unwanted change. That is why trans kids are so desperate for care early in their life.
I'd suggest connecting with actual trans people and hearing their stories. Documentaries, something to educate yourself about their journeys.
None of these decisions are rushed. Trans kids do not just wake up one day and want to alter their bodies and change their mind the next day. These are measures taken after years and years of counseling and conversations before anything is done. In many cases, allowing trans kids to transition is literally life-saving.
I highly recommend the documentary Southern Comfort, it’s accessible and moving. It also features trans people who have transitioned at middle age or older.
And the Covid pandemic really cracked eggs for a lot of closeted trans people, like a former classmate and coworker of mine who came out as trans women either during the pandemic or right after.
It would be helpful to have the actual numbers. Anyone know how many gender reassignment surgeries were performed in the USA in, say, 2025? 2024? And how many of those surgeries on minors? I suspect the latter number is low single-digit and perhaps even Zero.
(Lets also see the relative numbers for female to male, as well as male to female reassignment surgeries, for comparisons’ sake.)
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is another issue like non-citizen voting: lots of rhetoric and emotional turbulence for a non-issue.
Now for a sense of comparison and proportion, perhaps we can get the number of homeless in America? The number of personal bankruptcies caused by medical expenses? The number of measles deaths per year? Covid deaths? Veteran suicides? Firearm deaths? Mass shootings?
And yet somehow trans issues, especially that of trans women in sports, and the probably-nonexistent gender reassignment surgeries for minors, are allowed to eclipse most of the above issues.
I would like you to go tell your trans friends that you tried to persuade other liberals on the internet to support a ban on gender-affirming care for minors and see how they react.
Of course they should have to agree for it to be legal at all, but I'm saying that many people who support full rights for trans adults would oppose allowing anyone to do gender reassignment surgery on children. I said I would seriously consider whether to vote for such a measure if I were presented with it, and I am not going to suddenly say I wouldn't. I don't know how I would end up voting on it. I would always oppose legislative bans on trans athletes competing or competing with the gender they feel they are.
Here’s my take as someone who is a Berkeley liberal:
Children should have a healthy upbringing no matter whether they end up being straight, gay, lesbian, trans or non-binary. No child should have to be forced to be a certain way as a result of abuse.
But emotions are complicated, especially when a kid is 5 or 6 years old and can make indecisive decisions about anything from having one hobby here, another hobby here and dreaming about being an astronaut only then to later dream about being an actor. And then there are boys who may ask, “What about these clothes” to their parents if they are looking at girl’s dresses. If a parent kindly says, “these are for girls,” many boys will likely move on to something else.
But this is why child development is crucial. Children are not in any position to be able to go through these gender surgeries if they won’t face any particular sequences. Multiple countries in Europe have already put a stop to this due to complications with surgery and hormones. More importantly, what happens in the puberty phase when children are becoming adolescents and becoming teenagers. This is arguably one of the most emotionally painful phases in anyone’s life and it’s important not to complicate more.
Take singer Demi Levato. She went from being to into men to then becoming into women, then came out as non-binary to then saying she’s into guys in the end. It’s complicated but Levato has more freedom to find herself as an adult.
We really ought to be careful and not make premature views on what we think about kids being until they have the time to mature.
As someone who knows parents who designated their boy a girl at age 6 because they liked playing with dolls/dress-up and weren't into stereotypical "boy" things no I don't really trust parents on this issue either.
Who is and isn't "legitimately trans" isn't the issue. The issue is whether the decision to pursue an elective, major medical procedure causing irreversible changes to a minor should just be decided by primarily parents , especially when the medical literature support for it is uneven at best, and I'd contend that's being generous.
The U.S. pediatric establishment is literally all by itself on this issue, unless you want to claim that the medical boards of famously culturally liberal Scandinavia have been captured by the evangelical Christian lobby.
Re the sports issue, restricting people to competing against the sex they were assigned at birth would result in trans men competing against women. Do a google search on Mack Beggs to see the results. It seems to me that most anti-trans militants never think about trans men at all, because they don't feel threatened by them.
You're right. The obsession about trans people is due to some kind of phobia about emasculation. People who believe in male supremacy think it's natural for people to want to be or become men.
This is why it’s helpful to have an intelligent discussion on how to not exclude trans athletes but to be fair to the men and women athletes who are competing.
I'm not sure it has to be dealt with. A substantial chunk of the discourse on the topic is our own internal infighting in how we should respond to republican's talking about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it made up a majority.
We're beating ourselves up for no benefit. There's no electorally good answer, because we'll piss off some subset of the people willing to vote dem with either a pro or anti stance.
We can just... not talk about things. If candidates are asked about it, do the typical politician tactic of labeling the subject a distraction and shifting to something else. It's completely textbook. Our candidates realistically do not need to engage on the subject in a substantive way.
I am curious about the increase in penalties for trafficking. Specifically, the penalties are already extraordinarily harsh. And no serious person could argue we don't have enough ways to punish such people.
So the question now remains: What is the real agenda of that bill? Or is it just ballot candy?
Since it's a separate measure, I think the only question is whether it itself is OK, and it's also fine for the Democratic Party and LGBTQ organizations not to take a position on it if it does not have any objectionable language.
I don't want to get too much into policy but how many people who began gender reassignment as minors turn around and say they regretted it when they become adults? I think the number is vanishingly small. I don't think the general public understands this issue (not that the general public understands much of anything).
No, they don't. I think a good argument can be made that gender reassignment surgery for minors with parental consent is a decision for parents and doctors, but I definitely question the seemingly reflexive opposition to even a strengthening of penalties against child trafficking. Isn't that pretty questionable strategy?
Which issue, though? Penalties for child trafficking doesn't seem that complicated, yet according to the report, that measure is being opposed not on its own substance but due to how its sponsors are trying to sell it.
Specifically the issue of what interventions are appropriate for minors, but there are related topics that at least deserve a conversation, for example whether transgender girls can compete fairly in women's sports. I'm not even sure what my own position is on this, if I'm honest. I suspect that we're all in agreement that what adults do with their own bodies is none of any of our business and it goes without saying that government sanctioned discrimination against trans people should not be tolerated.
EDIT: The poll is about the new CA-01 lines, not the special. So can ignore lol
That CA-01 special poll has Dems over 50% with just McGuire and Denney. I know it's a McGuire Salegui but would be a bombshell since it should still be using the 2024 configuration that had a Trump margin of 25.9% and LaMalfa won with a 30.7% margin. Would be an enormous swing if that holds up in the 8/4 runoff and puts McGuire in Congress early.
Before he was famous he ran a karate studio in my hometown (Sherman Oaks CA), on Ventura Blvd. That is one less vote for Steve Hilton or Chad Bianco. See, I told you we won't have an all-CAGOP runoff for Gov... (LOL/RIP)
Actor Nicholas Brendon, Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, also died today — same age that Matthew Perry was. He wasn’t conservative but battled his own demons (alcohol and drugs) during and after the show.
His passing is sadder than Norris’, as a fan of the show.
Many thanks for shining a light on these insidious, anti-trans initiatives in CO. These evil attacks on a vulnerable community by the GOP and its awful Christo-fascist ‘churches’ here will be met with a determined resistance and a successful fight to turn them all back. I’m so sick of these ‘crusaders’ trying to dictate who among us can live their lives openly and freely. Most of these people casting stones probably have more skeletons in their closet than the average person.
I remember my dad, A general practitioner in then rural Michigan for over 40 years, talking to my mother over breakfast one morning in the early 60s, saying he could tell just by the toys and the way they played and interacted with people, the first time a child was brought into the office, that they were gay. He was known for his diagnostic skills and very rarely wrong! If I remember correctly, the conversation started with how wonderful my mom's hair looked after her appointment with her gay hair dresser. I see no problem with parents seeing the same things in their children, and authorizing gender affirming care. Especially if their physician is on board with it too. It is all about subtle patterns. I might want to think twice about sex change surgery for minors until they reach the age of majority.
Meanwhile, this issue should never been front and center of any political discussion, just as abortion should never have been put in the political area. Both issues should be an individual decision and only brought to the fore, because of religious people trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, and not even every religious person even! Just their expression of wielding their power hungry selves on others! Fanatics of all religious beliefs are dangerous whether Islamic, Christian, Shinto, Buddhist or Hindu and shouldn't be tolerated by any society. The fanatics are responsible for almost every horrifying war in history! Our Founding Fathers were so aware of this when they ordered separation of Church and State! Church in this context representing any organized religion.
110% agreed. Separation of church and state is important. One other reason why: let’s say, for example, we become a Christian nation. Which kind? Catholic? Protestant? Orthodox? Let’s say, we pick Protestant. Which kind? Anglican? Baptist? Lutheran? Episcopal?
I wonder if the “Christian nation” people ever consider that. Religions are not monoliths.
God, is there a single NY-17 Dem candidate who isn't awful? Cait Conley went after Emily's List and has only been a Democrat for a short time, Beth Davidson has no charisma, Peter Chatzky made weird comments, and while I love Effie Philips-Staley, I fear she may be too left-wing for the district. And among candidates who didn't run, Sean Patrick Maloney's 2022 campaign was a disgrace (people I know who campaigned for him said he didn't even show up and was in Europe when he should have been campaigning), and Liz Whitmer is a blatant nepotism case for the Governor of a completely different state. This is just embarassing. At this rate Mike Lawler is going to win again because all our candidates suck.
I'm planning to vote for Effie Philips-Staley because I am pissed off at our options (might as well vote for a progressive since I am one), but was no one else available? Why couldn't Pete Harckham have run, he's my State Senator and he's been fantastic.
This is a genuine question to Techno00 especially but others as well--Chatzky has said lots of weird stuff & Conley might as well be a Republican. But is Davidson's alleged lack of charisma such a sin in the greater scheme of things? I almost always support the most progressive VIABLE candidate & Philips-Staley is far back in polling. Is it because you think Davidson couldn't beat Lawler? She does seem much better than Conley or Chatzky.
As that great progressive guru Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had".
;>)
Harckham could be a very strong candidate but surely he would have announced before now if he were going to run--he's not exactly young & probably doesn't want the aggravation of the fight against Lawler & (if victorious)the constant schlepping to DC.
Agreed. A candidate doesn't need to be charismatic in order to warrant our support. Americans being obsessed with charismatic candidates, while ignoring who they actually are and what they stand for, is how we got Trump.
In an ideal world you’re right. However, we just saw Americans fall for charisma over policy not once, but twice and almost 2 times in a row, so I think if anything we should be putting MORE emphasis on charisma/media presence, not less, as Democratic supporters. NY17 is basically an auto flip regardless of who we run because of the current political environment, but if that changes in the fall or in future cycles, that factor could mean the difference between winning and losing.
We like to underplay the possibility that voters are complete idiots who don’t care about policy or politics because we as Democrats do, deeply, since we have high levels of education, but that’s not and hasn’t ever been true for the American voting electorate at large, so maybe it’s better to focus on nominating the best messengers, not those who have a deep understanding of policy issues.
I have no dog in this fight fwiw. Conley I dislike because of her attacks on Democratic backbone party groups. Davidson I feel doesn’t have the “it” factor/bio to persuade undecided voters. Philips-Staley feels too far left, the millionaire feels too out of touch to connect to voters and the rest are footnotes. They all have big flaws that Lawler can exploit, but none of them have enough baggage to lose in this blue of a year.
I’d lean Davidson since we seem to do well nominating legislators (John Mannion), but I expect Conley to win the primary and be a massive problem for Democrats in our majority and messaging caucus. With the media going to her as the “Democrats are too far left” hit piece token member for every piece of legislation like they love to always do with Fetterman in the Senate.
In the modern age very few people will ever see a Congressional candidate speak (especially in the NYC media market). Heck most of the time the candidate doesn't even speak on their TV ads. I think charisma is over rated on things other than President and to a lesser extend, Senator, Governor and big city Mayors.
The concern re: Davidson is that a candidate with no charisma cannot inspire enough people to vote. That sounds ridiculous, but Lawler wrongly paints himself as a moderate and I worry if voters see little difference between the two, Lawler will win off incumbency/the inaccurate belief that he’s a moderate.
FWIW Effie’s stance on the forbidden topic worries me, not because I disagree with it, but because Lawler has made that a huge part of his identity and there are voters in NY-17 of whom it’s basically a single-issue vote.
At any rate, I do agree that Davidson having little charisma is not quite as bad as the other candidates, and I’d rather have boring than scandal-plagued. My other concern, though (which I should have mentioned, admittedly) is that she was 5 points behind in the one poll they did. That could speak to candidate weakness as a whole, I think.
I'm not talking about specifics of the conflict, I'm talking about it affects the district. Although I can further edit the comment to be more impartial. Or David Nir can remove it if he feels it toes the line too much.
Awful seems like a strong term. I admit that, even though I li e in the district, I'm not following the race extremely closely. I'm a little burned out on politics at the moment. However, if the national mood is the same in November as it is now, I think a flawed (but not awful) candidate will beat Lawler. 2022 and 2024 were bad years Dems and our candidates were weak, yet it's not like Lawler blew them out completely.
I do agree Lawler is more vulnerable now than in prior cycles. As Dragonfire said though, I'm also thinking about future cycles -- we need to be able to find candidates who can consistently hold these seats for later. A flawed candidate can win today, but can they win in 2028? Can they win in a potential future red wave?
Not to butt in, but Governor Whitmer, Big Gretch as she is fondly refer to by those in the UAW here in Michigan has done a great Governor for Michigan over the last 8 years. She has done so much for everyone especially women, fighting and getting Reproductive Freedom for All here into the Constitution and keeping those rights for us until we could get it on the ballot. She has looked out and made sure of minority improved health outcomes, worked getting her legislative inishitives through mostly a split legislative branch, she has championed free College and Trades education and gotten it passed, plus free lunches for all public school students regardless of income. Funded Snap benefits stopped payments during the last shutdown, when Trump refused to pay them. Fixed and still fixing the "Damned Roads"! Free preschool for every Michigan Child. And all while batting her eyes at Dementia Donnie and avoiding any fallout from his vengeance campaign from falling on the State of Michigan! If Liz has learned even some of her mother's political skills, you really could do a lot worse! Just saying! Not really my business, except for forming national policy.
Sorry but I don’t think someone being someone else’s relative makes them automatically just as good. Andrew Cuomo was the son of the fantastic Mario Cuomo, but Andrew was a corrupt conservaDem. This is why I hate nepotism.
I was referring to the political skills she may have learned from her mother. I really have almost no knowledge of your district. I am old enough to remember Mario just surface wise, and I really remember all the charges and allegations brought against Andrew. Just as an old political observer, first I always like to judge people on their own abilities and record, character and integrity being foremost. I also know that often the children of Charismatic bordering on narcissist people rarely live up to the quality of their parents. I think of Don and Eric Trump, George HW Bush, and look no further than Robert Kennedy Jr! Of course, those are all children of male politicians. I wonder if the pattern would hold true with the children of female politicians? Chelsea sure turned out Ok. I can't think of very many examples of grown children of the women pols.yet. The difference between the influence on the behavior of and outcomes for children is much different from each other. Therefore, I withhold my judgement on the children following in the footsteps of their mothers. Now, enough deep thinking for the day, I have to start dinner, eat, and clean up the kitchen after. Have a nice evening, yourself.
This anti trans legislation isn't addressing a real problem, it is an attempt to pivot away from the real problem that a Republican administration has been fucking children.
Do you know what's sad about this comment? I couldn't tell if you were saying "acting like children" (true) or literally fucking children (which Trump and likely others in the admin have been doing). WTF is happening to this country?
Trump walks back his endorsement of Hope Scheppelman, goes back to endorsing Jeff Hurd in CO-03. Looks like Trump gave Scheppelman a job in his administration.
Just for those not aware, Hurd won in 2024 by 5 points 51-46-3 (R-D-L) and Trump won it by 10. Fairly obvious that this is a sign Trump was worried about losing this seat and if Trump +10 districts are of any concern to Republicans, they’re in a world of political hurt right now. This seat shouldn’t be in play and should be an automatic hold for the GOP. That he felt he needed to intervene to avoid a primary here as necessary to hold the seat says it all really.
Starting to wonder if all polls are going to miss badly this year due to the entire polling industry using 2024 as the baseline model for 2026 elections. I don’t think I’ve seen any polls with a more Democrats than Republicans voting electorate yet, but it obviously will be in November, even in a 2022 mild blue year scenario.
The R registration surge has been real has the last of the ancestral Dems have now either died or switched and young liberals identify as indies, but I'm very curious as to what the real makeup ends up being the next two elections. I reckon it will be far closer to 50-50 if not back to small D edges.
Citing disloyalty, all 24 Dover Democratic county committee members have been removed. The Democratic mayor endorsed Jack Ciattarelli for governor last year.
Been thinking about the WI Supreme Court race and VA referendum. Just donated $5 to Chris Taylor and another $5 to the VA Dems. (Also gave $3 to Chris Rabb in PA-3 and $4 to Bob Brooks in PA-7).
Next time I donate some money, what are some important races I should give to, other than the ones I just mentioned?
The further down the ballot, the more impact your dollars have. If you can find some state legislative candidates you're passionate about, would recommend that.
Seems reasonable. Democrats getting to mid 40s is entirely doable in Texas. Cornyn and Paxton both polling below that because their infighting is still going on.
Talarico has to do the hard part of getting to 50%, but this is a decent and realistic starting point before the general election has begun in earnest.
60 days, right? It also doesn't look good when Hesgeth is asking Congress for $200 billion and they are looking to reconciliation as the only possible way that passes.
Your likes and posts are nothing but anti-trans schlock. I doubt you have anything meaningful add to this discussion.
Also, quotes around LGBTQ is a major red flag.
Look buddy, normally I wouldn't fall for such obvious bait but if you wanna come for me, so be it. I posted a whole thesis on how "the other side is winning" is bullshit with evidence. Here it is: https://substack.com/profile/219681650-alex-hupp/note/c-227307482?r=3msjg2&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web. Feel free to read if you like. Or you can continue to lose yourself in the anti-trans echochamber that is your Substack likes & follows. Up to you.
Wow, you're saying the conservative Supreme court prejudiced against the trans community ruled against said community? And that the currently prejudiced HHS made an anti-trans report?? *shocked Pikachu face*
The way you're framing it is that it's pro-trans activism that is causing the prejudice, which is not how that works. That's been literally every single civil rights movement has been framed by the oppressors. "Well if the gays/blacks/women weren't so uppity, maybe things would be better for them!" Fuck off
She's a complete troll. Just let her do her thing and she'll go away eventually.
(Yes I'm intentionally misgendering her.)
Those two ballot measures (I109 and I110) are nothing but anti-trans hatred.
If those Colorado anti-trans initiatives are just statutory and don't amend the state constitution, couldn't the Democratic-controlled state legislature just repeal them next year if they pass?
Or amend them?
Tbh, not if they clearly curtail human rights. If a majority of voters passed stripping Black people of voting rights, it should be reversed legislatively asap (in a world that doesn't go to the courts first).
I've seen your internet history is largely dedicated to being anti-trans, and I'm not going to engage with a single-minded bigot tbh. Bye.
The fact that you claim to be "LGBTQ" (your quotes, not mine) while your entire existence is transphobic trolling...
The community would never claim you.
You're not welcome here. You've been banned and your subscription refunded.
Please let that serve as a notice to everyone. Even if someone is a paid subscriber, they must still abide by our community's standards and expectations. If you can't do that, then you don't belong here.
I just became a paid subscriber to make up for it. I probably should have been anyway. :)
That is very, very kind of you! Not every day that an unfortunate situation resolves itself so nicely, so thank you for making our day! Have a lovely weekend!
This seems like a reasonable response to a reasonable and open debate.
About those anti-trans ballot measures: I think many people who are not anti-trans support a ban on elective gender reassignment surgery for minors, even if they don't support a ban on trans athletes competing with others of the gender they consider themselves to be. I would seriously consider supporting such a measure, and I genuinely have trans friends and vehemently oppose discrimination against them. As for increasing the penalties for child trafficking, whether it's presented as part of an anti-trans package or not, is there anything wrong with the measure itself that warrants opposition to what sounds like a very popular idea, purely based on who's advancing the measure and in what context? I'd like to know, because Democrats do themselves political harm by opposing common sense-sounding measures if there's no really good reason to do so.
Everyone just needs to let trans people make their own decisions about their bodies, along with their doctors and counselors, and in the case of minors, with their parents. No one else's opinion is relevant at all. Nobody is going to perform surgery on a minor without parental consent. These bans are nothing more than motivation for a political base that is ignorant and hateful. What other aspects of healthcare are regulated like this, other than abortion, which is used in the exact same way (base motivation)?
One of the most difficult aspects of being trans is that puberty and its associated changes occur in the body before a human being is old enough to make their own healthcare decisions to stop that unwanted change. That is why trans kids are so desperate for care early in their life.
"entering an athletic category that is not for them." 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
Very revealing comment.
I'd suggest connecting with actual trans people and hearing their stories. Documentaries, something to educate yourself about their journeys.
None of these decisions are rushed. Trans kids do not just wake up one day and want to alter their bodies and change their mind the next day. These are measures taken after years and years of counseling and conversations before anything is done. In many cases, allowing trans kids to transition is literally life-saving.
I do not know or care who Cory Cohn is, because I think for myself. Googled and got nothing. Must be a very influential voice in the community!
I highly recommend the documentary Southern Comfort, it’s accessible and moving. It also features trans people who have transitioned at middle age or older.
And the Covid pandemic really cracked eggs for a lot of closeted trans people, like a former classmate and coworker of mine who came out as trans women either during the pandemic or right after.
We must protect the sanctity of middle school junior varsity kickball!!!!!!!!
Hormone supplementation is reversible; gender reassignment surgery is not. I support unlimited gender reassignment surgery coverage for adults.
It would be helpful to have the actual numbers. Anyone know how many gender reassignment surgeries were performed in the USA in, say, 2025? 2024? And how many of those surgeries on minors? I suspect the latter number is low single-digit and perhaps even Zero.
(Lets also see the relative numbers for female to male, as well as male to female reassignment surgeries, for comparisons’ sake.)
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is another issue like non-citizen voting: lots of rhetoric and emotional turbulence for a non-issue.
Now for a sense of comparison and proportion, perhaps we can get the number of homeless in America? The number of personal bankruptcies caused by medical expenses? The number of measles deaths per year? Covid deaths? Veteran suicides? Firearm deaths? Mass shootings?
And yet somehow trans issues, especially that of trans women in sports, and the probably-nonexistent gender reassignment surgeries for minors, are allowed to eclipse most of the above issues.
Forgive me, but I do think that’s bizarre.
It's not bizarre; it's Republican Playbook 101.
Precisely! And I propose that we refuse to play.
I would like you to go tell your trans friends that you tried to persuade other liberals on the internet to support a ban on gender-affirming care for minors and see how they react.
If you mean me, no, I didn't try to convince people to support anything.
Could you explain why minors should not receive gender reassignment surgery? You're being kind of vague.
If you're asking me, it's because it's irreversible, and it's questionable to allow minors to make irreversible decisions.
Question: what if their parent or legal guardian agrees?
Of course they should have to agree for it to be legal at all, but I'm saying that many people who support full rights for trans adults would oppose allowing anyone to do gender reassignment surgery on children. I said I would seriously consider whether to vote for such a measure if I were presented with it, and I am not going to suddenly say I wouldn't. I don't know how I would end up voting on it. I would always oppose legislative bans on trans athletes competing or competing with the gender they feel they are.
Here’s my take as someone who is a Berkeley liberal:
Children should have a healthy upbringing no matter whether they end up being straight, gay, lesbian, trans or non-binary. No child should have to be forced to be a certain way as a result of abuse.
But emotions are complicated, especially when a kid is 5 or 6 years old and can make indecisive decisions about anything from having one hobby here, another hobby here and dreaming about being an astronaut only then to later dream about being an actor. And then there are boys who may ask, “What about these clothes” to their parents if they are looking at girl’s dresses. If a parent kindly says, “these are for girls,” many boys will likely move on to something else.
But this is why child development is crucial. Children are not in any position to be able to go through these gender surgeries if they won’t face any particular sequences. Multiple countries in Europe have already put a stop to this due to complications with surgery and hormones. More importantly, what happens in the puberty phase when children are becoming adolescents and becoming teenagers. This is arguably one of the most emotionally painful phases in anyone’s life and it’s important not to complicate more.
Take singer Demi Levato. She went from being to into men to then becoming into women, then came out as non-binary to then saying she’s into guys in the end. It’s complicated but Levato has more freedom to find herself as an adult.
We really ought to be careful and not make premature views on what we think about kids being until they have the time to mature.
As someone who knows parents who designated their boy a girl at age 6 because they liked playing with dolls/dress-up and weren't into stereotypical "boy" things no I don't really trust parents on this issue either.
What would you define as someone legitimately being trans then?
Who is and isn't "legitimately trans" isn't the issue. The issue is whether the decision to pursue an elective, major medical procedure causing irreversible changes to a minor should just be decided by primarily parents , especially when the medical literature support for it is uneven at best, and I'd contend that's being generous.
The U.S. pediatric establishment is literally all by itself on this issue, unless you want to claim that the medical boards of famously culturally liberal Scandinavia have been captured by the evangelical Christian lobby.
Re the sports issue, restricting people to competing against the sex they were assigned at birth would result in trans men competing against women. Do a google search on Mack Beggs to see the results. It seems to me that most anti-trans militants never think about trans men at all, because they don't feel threatened by them.
You're right. The obsession about trans people is due to some kind of phobia about emasculation. People who believe in male supremacy think it's natural for people to want to be or become men.
But strangely enough, they’re not howling their protests about trans men using their bathrooms or locker rooms. What’s up with that?
Because men are not afraid of "women" looking at their willies.
This is why it’s helpful to have an intelligent discussion on how to not exclude trans athletes but to be fair to the men and women athletes who are competing.
I'm frankly tired of the topic, but since it keeps being raised, it has to be dealt with by Democrats.
I'm not sure it has to be dealt with. A substantial chunk of the discourse on the topic is our own internal infighting in how we should respond to republican's talking about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it made up a majority.
We're beating ourselves up for no benefit. There's no electorally good answer, because we'll piss off some subset of the people willing to vote dem with either a pro or anti stance.
We can just... not talk about things. If candidates are asked about it, do the typical politician tactic of labeling the subject a distraction and shifting to something else. It's completely textbook. Our candidates realistically do not need to engage on the subject in a substantive way.
Especially since 0.8% of US adults are trans. Is it really worth it for that small of a population?
They have to at least have a ready answer, though.
Same here. I had only offered commentary because you added what I think to be an honest and civil discussion amid this exhausting topic.
Frankly, Democrats need to be laser focused on the economy, inflation, improving healthcare, etc. Those are the real imperative issues.
This measure would also preclude cis girls from playing on boys teams, even if they're good enough and the boys team wants them.
I am curious about the increase in penalties for trafficking. Specifically, the penalties are already extraordinarily harsh. And no serious person could argue we don't have enough ways to punish such people.
So the question now remains: What is the real agenda of that bill? Or is it just ballot candy?
Since it's a separate measure, I think the only question is whether it itself is OK, and it's also fine for the Democratic Party and LGBTQ organizations not to take a position on it if it does not have any objectionable language.
I don't want to get too much into policy but how many people who began gender reassignment as minors turn around and say they regretted it when they become adults? I think the number is vanishingly small. I don't think the general public understands this issue (not that the general public understands much of anything).
No, they don't. I think a good argument can be made that gender reassignment surgery for minors with parental consent is a decision for parents and doctors, but I definitely question the seemingly reflexive opposition to even a strengthening of penalties against child trafficking. Isn't that pretty questionable strategy?
My take away on all of this is that the fact that we, on a well-informed, liberal site are debating this issue shows how complicated it is.
Which issue, though? Penalties for child trafficking doesn't seem that complicated, yet according to the report, that measure is being opposed not on its own substance but due to how its sponsors are trying to sell it.
Specifically the issue of what interventions are appropriate for minors, but there are related topics that at least deserve a conversation, for example whether transgender girls can compete fairly in women's sports. I'm not even sure what my own position is on this, if I'm honest. I suspect that we're all in agreement that what adults do with their own bodies is none of any of our business and it goes without saying that government sanctioned discrimination against trans people should not be tolerated.
It's election day in South Australia; for us the polls will close in the early morning hours on Saturday. The last poll has Labor at 40%, One Nation at 22%, and the Liberals at 16%. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-20/one-nation-remains-ahead-of-liberals-in-sa-election-newspoll/106476832
Just want to highlight one of the stories from this election, the headline: Election campaigning in an ankle bracelet, Nick McBride wants a third term in MacKillop. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-15/battle-for-mackillop-at-2026-sa-state-election/106449774
The MP from the story above is a former Liberal who switched and is now an Independent.
I'm just a Canadian, standing in front of an Australian, asking him to please get their right wing party to change their name.
But they're classically liberal as I'm sure they'll tell you.
Funniest comment ever
So as Democrats what are we hoping for in this SA election ?
Labor
EDIT: The poll is about the new CA-01 lines, not the special. So can ignore lol
That CA-01 special poll has Dems over 50% with just McGuire and Denney. I know it's a McGuire Salegui but would be a bombshell since it should still be using the 2024 configuration that had a Trump margin of 25.9% and LaMalfa won with a 30.7% margin. Would be an enormous swing if that holds up in the 8/4 runoff and puts McGuire in Congress early.
The memo talks about a June primary and November general, so presumably it's under the new lines.
Oh this is about the new CA-01 lines, not the special. That's my bad.
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/chuck-norris-dead-walker-texas-ranger-dies-1236694953/
Obituaries: Prolific conservative action star Chuck Norris has not died, but has merely decided to nap infinitely.
That’s a good closer/addendum on Chuck Norris jokes
He was a bigot and a warmongerer, and a bad actor lol.
Before he was famous he ran a karate studio in my hometown (Sherman Oaks CA), on Ventura Blvd. That is one less vote for Steve Hilton or Chad Bianco. See, I told you we won't have an all-CAGOP runoff for Gov... (LOL/RIP)
And remember, Norris got his ass whooped by Bruce Lee in The Way of the Dragon.
It's a real shame Bruce Lee didn't live as long as Norris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlTyJhbTxxo
Actor Nicholas Brendon, Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, also died today — same age that Matthew Perry was. He wasn’t conservative but battled his own demons (alcohol and drugs) during and after the show.
His passing is sadder than Norris’, as a fan of the show.
Terrible. Michelle Trachtenberg died recently too, and iirc she was also on Buffy.
Yeah :(
Trachtenberg's passing hit me even harder than Brendon's. Just sad.
Many thanks for shining a light on these insidious, anti-trans initiatives in CO. These evil attacks on a vulnerable community by the GOP and its awful Christo-fascist ‘churches’ here will be met with a determined resistance and a successful fight to turn them all back. I’m so sick of these ‘crusaders’ trying to dictate who among us can live their lives openly and freely. Most of these people casting stones probably have more skeletons in their closet than the average person.
I remember my dad, A general practitioner in then rural Michigan for over 40 years, talking to my mother over breakfast one morning in the early 60s, saying he could tell just by the toys and the way they played and interacted with people, the first time a child was brought into the office, that they were gay. He was known for his diagnostic skills and very rarely wrong! If I remember correctly, the conversation started with how wonderful my mom's hair looked after her appointment with her gay hair dresser. I see no problem with parents seeing the same things in their children, and authorizing gender affirming care. Especially if their physician is on board with it too. It is all about subtle patterns. I might want to think twice about sex change surgery for minors until they reach the age of majority.
Meanwhile, this issue should never been front and center of any political discussion, just as abortion should never have been put in the political area. Both issues should be an individual decision and only brought to the fore, because of religious people trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, and not even every religious person even! Just their expression of wielding their power hungry selves on others! Fanatics of all religious beliefs are dangerous whether Islamic, Christian, Shinto, Buddhist or Hindu and shouldn't be tolerated by any society. The fanatics are responsible for almost every horrifying war in history! Our Founding Fathers were so aware of this when they ordered separation of Church and State! Church in this context representing any organized religion.
110% agreed. Separation of church and state is important. One other reason why: let’s say, for example, we become a Christian nation. Which kind? Catholic? Protestant? Orthodox? Let’s say, we pick Protestant. Which kind? Anglican? Baptist? Lutheran? Episcopal?
I wonder if the “Christian nation” people ever consider that. Religions are not monoliths.
They don't, because just like the Puritans of yesteryear, they want to impose their own brand of Christianity on everyone.
I largely agree with you.
God, is there a single NY-17 Dem candidate who isn't awful? Cait Conley went after Emily's List and has only been a Democrat for a short time, Beth Davidson has no charisma, Peter Chatzky made weird comments, and while I love Effie Philips-Staley, I fear she may be too left-wing for the district. And among candidates who didn't run, Sean Patrick Maloney's 2022 campaign was a disgrace (people I know who campaigned for him said he didn't even show up and was in Europe when he should have been campaigning), and Liz Whitmer is a blatant nepotism case for the Governor of a completely different state. This is just embarassing. At this rate Mike Lawler is going to win again because all our candidates suck.
I'm planning to vote for Effie Philips-Staley because I am pissed off at our options (might as well vote for a progressive since I am one), but was no one else available? Why couldn't Pete Harckham have run, he's my State Senator and he's been fantastic.
A few more weeks till the filing deadline...
This is a genuine question to Techno00 especially but others as well--Chatzky has said lots of weird stuff & Conley might as well be a Republican. But is Davidson's alleged lack of charisma such a sin in the greater scheme of things? I almost always support the most progressive VIABLE candidate & Philips-Staley is far back in polling. Is it because you think Davidson couldn't beat Lawler? She does seem much better than Conley or Chatzky.
As that great progressive guru Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had".
;>)
Harckham could be a very strong candidate but surely he would have announced before now if he were going to run--he's not exactly young & probably doesn't want the aggravation of the fight against Lawler & (if victorious)the constant schlepping to DC.
Agreed. A candidate doesn't need to be charismatic in order to warrant our support. Americans being obsessed with charismatic candidates, while ignoring who they actually are and what they stand for, is how we got Trump.
In an ideal world you’re right. However, we just saw Americans fall for charisma over policy not once, but twice and almost 2 times in a row, so I think if anything we should be putting MORE emphasis on charisma/media presence, not less, as Democratic supporters. NY17 is basically an auto flip regardless of who we run because of the current political environment, but if that changes in the fall or in future cycles, that factor could mean the difference between winning and losing.
We like to underplay the possibility that voters are complete idiots who don’t care about policy or politics because we as Democrats do, deeply, since we have high levels of education, but that’s not and hasn’t ever been true for the American voting electorate at large, so maybe it’s better to focus on nominating the best messengers, not those who have a deep understanding of policy issues.
I have no dog in this fight fwiw. Conley I dislike because of her attacks on Democratic backbone party groups. Davidson I feel doesn’t have the “it” factor/bio to persuade undecided voters. Philips-Staley feels too far left, the millionaire feels too out of touch to connect to voters and the rest are footnotes. They all have big flaws that Lawler can exploit, but none of them have enough baggage to lose in this blue of a year.
I’d lean Davidson since we seem to do well nominating legislators (John Mannion), but I expect Conley to win the primary and be a massive problem for Democrats in our majority and messaging caucus. With the media going to her as the “Democrats are too far left” hit piece token member for every piece of legislation like they love to always do with Fetterman in the Senate.
"However, we just saw Americans fall for charisma over policy not once, but twice and almost 2 times in a row"
For president. Many members of Congress lack charisma.
In the modern age very few people will ever see a Congressional candidate speak (especially in the NYC media market). Heck most of the time the candidate doesn't even speak on their TV ads. I think charisma is over rated on things other than President and to a lesser extend, Senator, Governor and big city Mayors.
The concern re: Davidson is that a candidate with no charisma cannot inspire enough people to vote. That sounds ridiculous, but Lawler wrongly paints himself as a moderate and I worry if voters see little difference between the two, Lawler will win off incumbency/the inaccurate belief that he’s a moderate.
FWIW Effie’s stance on the forbidden topic worries me, not because I disagree with it, but because Lawler has made that a huge part of his identity and there are voters in NY-17 of whom it’s basically a single-issue vote.
At any rate, I do agree that Davidson having little charisma is not quite as bad as the other candidates, and I’d rather have boring than scandal-plagued. My other concern, though (which I should have mentioned, admittedly) is that she was 5 points behind in the one poll they did. That could speak to candidate weakness as a whole, I think.
If a topic is forbidden, why are you discussing it?
I'm not talking about specifics of the conflict, I'm talking about it affects the district. Although I can further edit the comment to be more impartial. Or David Nir can remove it if he feels it toes the line too much.
I get it, OK.
I'd definitely back Davidson: she's sensible and has some pretty good momentum. not really sure charisma matters all that much here.
Awful seems like a strong term. I admit that, even though I li e in the district, I'm not following the race extremely closely. I'm a little burned out on politics at the moment. However, if the national mood is the same in November as it is now, I think a flawed (but not awful) candidate will beat Lawler. 2022 and 2024 were bad years Dems and our candidates were weak, yet it's not like Lawler blew them out completely.
I do agree Lawler is more vulnerable now than in prior cycles. As Dragonfire said though, I'm also thinking about future cycles -- we need to be able to find candidates who can consistently hold these seats for later. A flawed candidate can win today, but can they win in 2028? Can they win in a potential future red wave?
2028 is likely to be a Democratic year, the way things are going, but who knows with the American people the way they are?
Not to butt in, but Governor Whitmer, Big Gretch as she is fondly refer to by those in the UAW here in Michigan has done a great Governor for Michigan over the last 8 years. She has done so much for everyone especially women, fighting and getting Reproductive Freedom for All here into the Constitution and keeping those rights for us until we could get it on the ballot. She has looked out and made sure of minority improved health outcomes, worked getting her legislative inishitives through mostly a split legislative branch, she has championed free College and Trades education and gotten it passed, plus free lunches for all public school students regardless of income. Funded Snap benefits stopped payments during the last shutdown, when Trump refused to pay them. Fixed and still fixing the "Damned Roads"! Free preschool for every Michigan Child. And all while batting her eyes at Dementia Donnie and avoiding any fallout from his vengeance campaign from falling on the State of Michigan! If Liz has learned even some of her mother's political skills, you really could do a lot worse! Just saying! Not really my business, except for forming national policy.
Sorry but I don’t think someone being someone else’s relative makes them automatically just as good. Andrew Cuomo was the son of the fantastic Mario Cuomo, but Andrew was a corrupt conservaDem. This is why I hate nepotism.
I was referring to the political skills she may have learned from her mother. I really have almost no knowledge of your district. I am old enough to remember Mario just surface wise, and I really remember all the charges and allegations brought against Andrew. Just as an old political observer, first I always like to judge people on their own abilities and record, character and integrity being foremost. I also know that often the children of Charismatic bordering on narcissist people rarely live up to the quality of their parents. I think of Don and Eric Trump, George HW Bush, and look no further than Robert Kennedy Jr! Of course, those are all children of male politicians. I wonder if the pattern would hold true with the children of female politicians? Chelsea sure turned out Ok. I can't think of very many examples of grown children of the women pols.yet. The difference between the influence on the behavior of and outcomes for children is much different from each other. Therefore, I withhold my judgement on the children following in the footsteps of their mothers. Now, enough deep thinking for the day, I have to start dinner, eat, and clean up the kitchen after. Have a nice evening, yourself.
This anti trans legislation isn't addressing a real problem, it is an attempt to pivot away from the real problem that a Republican administration has been fucking children.
Of course. But Democrats have to deal with it.
Do you know what's sad about this comment? I couldn't tell if you were saying "acting like children" (true) or literally fucking children (which Trump and likely others in the admin have been doing). WTF is happening to this country?
I take your point, but when I wrote it I was thinking of the verb, lol.
Trump walks back his endorsement of Hope Scheppelman, goes back to endorsing Jeff Hurd in CO-03. Looks like Trump gave Scheppelman a job in his administration.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/03/20/trump-switches-endorsement-back-to-jeff-hurd-says-hope-scheppelman-is-ending-run-in-colorados-3rd-cd/
Is this not... bribery?
Would that be in any way out of character for him?
Just for those not aware, Hurd won in 2024 by 5 points 51-46-3 (R-D-L) and Trump won it by 10. Fairly obvious that this is a sign Trump was worried about losing this seat and if Trump +10 districts are of any concern to Republicans, they’re in a world of political hurt right now. This seat shouldn’t be in play and should be an automatic hold for the GOP. That he felt he needed to intervene to avoid a primary here as necessary to hold the seat says it all really.
R+2 sample.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2034973835020103692
Generic Ballot Crosstabs by Emerson (A)
🟦 Democrats: 49.2%
🟥 Republicans: 41.5%
⬜ Not sure: 9.3%
——
• White: GOP 47-45
• Black: Dem 67-16
• Hispanic: Dem 53-32
---
• Male: GOP 47-46
• Female: Dem 54-37
• Non-binary: Dem 100-0
---
• Indie: Dem 49-31
• Dem: Dem 94-3
• GOP: GOP 88-7
---
• Age 18-29: Dem 62-25
• Age 30-39: Dem 57-31
• Age 40-49: Dem 47-42
• Age 50-59: GOP 47-46
• Age 60-69: GOP 52-42
• Age 70+: GOP 49-45
——
1,000 LV | 3/16-17 | R34/D32/I34
So I guess we're still a R+2 country huh?
Starting to wonder if all polls are going to miss badly this year due to the entire polling industry using 2024 as the baseline model for 2026 elections. I don’t think I’ve seen any polls with a more Democrats than Republicans voting electorate yet, but it obviously will be in November, even in a 2022 mild blue year scenario.
The R registration surge has been real has the last of the ancestral Dems have now either died or switched and young liberals identify as indies, but I'm very curious as to what the real makeup ends up being the next two elections. I reckon it will be far closer to 50-50 if not back to small D edges.
And sorry I meant that comment more for 2028 than this year, where I think Ds will have a clear turnout advantage.
Those non-binary numbers are quite binary!
Good news.
https://x.com/wildstein/status/2034988086963142818
Citing disloyalty, all 24 Dover Democratic county committee members have been removed. The Democratic mayor endorsed Jack Ciattarelli for governor last year.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/local/morris-democrats-oust-entire-dover-democratic-committee-for-disloyalty/
Kevin/Nick Tagliaferro on Bluesky just posted something about that. Fantastic news, the less DINOs the better.
Very strange - nginx for me. I guess I need to use a VPN to see this in Germany. How were they removed?
county party voted to remove the treacherous leadership of dover democratic municipal committee
I'm having the same problem with the New Jersey Globe, I'm confused as to why they've decided anyone outside of the U.S shouldn't read them.
They bet on the wrong horse in the wrong year.
Been thinking about the WI Supreme Court race and VA referendum. Just donated $5 to Chris Taylor and another $5 to the VA Dems. (Also gave $3 to Chris Rabb in PA-3 and $4 to Bob Brooks in PA-7).
Next time I donate some money, what are some important races I should give to, other than the ones I just mentioned?
imo Sherrod Brown for Senate
The further down the ballot, the more impact your dollars have. If you can find some state legislative candidates you're passionate about, would recommend that.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/20/congress/texas-senate-talarico-cornyn-paxton-poll-00837336
TX-Sen, March 12-17 poll, Impact Research:
Talarico 43, Cornyn 41
Talarico 44, Paxton 43
Worth noting the poll is a Talarico internal.
Direct link here. n=900 of likely general election voters fielded from 3/12-3/17. MOE=3.3%. 86% of respondents by phone in English and Spanish.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019d-0a8b-d107-a19d-ee8f04c70000
A good start!
Seems reasonable. Democrats getting to mid 40s is entirely doable in Texas. Cornyn and Paxton both polling below that because their infighting is still going on.
Talarico has to do the hard part of getting to 50%, but this is a decent and realistic starting point before the general election has begun in earnest.
No problem with the infighting between Cornyn and Paxton. Anything to help Talarico win the seat.
How much more does it take to trigger the War Powers Act and require an AUMF: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-iran-ground-troop-preparations/
60 days, right? It also doesn't look good when Hesgeth is asking Congress for $200 billion and they are looking to reconciliation as the only possible way that passes.