What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Pretty sure I am.

Of course you are. You think it's morally repugnant for females to want single-sex spaces that exclude all males regardless of how those males feel about it. You think it's morally laudable for males to force themselves into female spaces and override female boundaries and consent, if doing so makes those males feel good about themselves.

I very strongly disagree with your moral compass.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, yes, it's completely "bigoted" <snip>

you could have just stopped there.

 

[wareyin]

I think my views are completely discriminatory, and I think that's a good thing. I'm unapologetically opposed to allowing males to use female single-sex spaces where females are partially or fully unclothed or are particularly vulnerable.

I think that's an entirely reasonable position for females to take. I also think that males who are heavily invested in getting access to those spaces for males don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about females at all, and could very reasonably be considered misogynistic bullies.

I have never spoken with a bigot who thought that their bigotry was anything but entirely reasonable, so I am not surprised that you do as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Republican: "Men shouldn't compete with women in sports"
Democrat: "The number of athletes this impacts is small, and the hormone therapy a trans athlete will be on will destroy most of the 'advantage' they had from being born male."

The Democrats are lying to you about this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So much so that even Canadian "not hard-core conservatives" are likely unaware that "the hormone therapy a trans athlete will be on will destroy most of the 'advantage' they had from being born male.

No, it won't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You love to pretend none of us have ever been in a public bathroom before.

How much time have you spent in a female restroom, wareyin?

We don't walk around naked in there, lady, and nobody is legalizing crimes like flashing or peeping which are already illegal. In your bigotry you're demanding a state sanctioned harassment that would end up harming any woman who doesn't fit your specific idea of what a female should look like.

I don't care what a female looks like. I care only that they're female. Males are not females.

We’ve already seen multiple instances of "born female" women being barred from or harassed in bathrooms because they didn't look feminine enough for some self appointed underwear inspector.

We've also seen multiple instances of females being sexually assaulted by males in traditionally feminine clothing, being intimidated by them, having males expose their penis and testicles to females in the female shower or spa, post videos and pictures of themselves maturbating in female restrooms, etc.

Apparently that isn't a problem for you, and you don't seem capable of understanding why it's a problem for most females.

You're so gung ho to police other people's bodies that you're asking for people to inspect your own partially or fully unclothed body before allowing you to take a dump.

Nope. Humans are really, really, really good at identifying the sex of other people from faces alone. And despite your pretense, the overwhelming majority of males with transgender identities don't come anywhere near passing. So what you're demanding is that females surrender all reasonable boundaries, be robbed of consent, and be exposed to higher rates of risk than we already are from males... all so that some males can feel better about themselves.

You prioritize male feelings above female safety, dignity, and consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

you could have just stopped there.

I'd rather be bigoted against males who want to transgress female boundaries than by a misogynist who thinks male feelings are more important than female safety.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have never spoken with a bigot who thought that their bigotry was anything but entirely reasonable, so I am not surprised that you do as well.

Right back at you. You clearly think it's entirely reasonable to give males the right-by-law to invade female intimate spaces solely on the basis of their subjective feelings about themselves, and without any consideration to the safety, dignity, and consent of females.

You think I'm a bigot because I don't think males should be given the *right-by-law* to use female single-sex spaces. I think you're a misogynist because you want to *remove the right of consent* from females and let males violate our boundaries so they feel good about themselves.

 

[wareyin]

Good lord but I am sick of people trying to make every thread around here about their anti-trans anti-science nonsense.

 

[d4m10n]

Even then, you had to substantially pad the numbers with soft support just to find that 1/4 of Harris voters, all while ignoring the overwhelming 81% of Republicans who actually drive this view.

Not ignoring Republicans, but it is counterfactual to characterize those Harris voters as part of the Republican base.

You are using push polling from a new digital magazine that was founded specifically to argue that Democrats have become too radical.

Whereas you are using higher quality polling from...?

If the overwhelming majority of women don't support your law, shoehorning in loaded "depriving females of female-only spaces" ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

You are wrong about at least three things here:

1. It is not my law, I've already stated my opposition to federalizing this issue
2. More females supported the proposed law than opposed it, with nearly 1 in 5 abstaining
3. Taking away single-sex spaces is a factual matter, rather than a claim about popular support among service users

You can advocate for federal agents inspecting people's genitals before allowing access to the bathroom all you want, but don't expect the rest of us to not think you're a weirdo for doing so.

See #1 above.

ETA: Speaking of weirdos, I don't really know who brought "inspecting people's genitals" into play in this discussion but I'm fairly sure it wasn't @Emily's Cat. Whoever did that seems a bit out of pocket, in the Gen Z sense.

 

[dirtywick]

Good lord but I am sick of people trying to make every thread around here about their anti-trans anti-science nonsense.

there’s very few topics that conservatives can stake a position out on that hasn’t been shown to be comically hypocritical since trump took office. anti trans they’ve been pretty consistent on. it’s like comfort food

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, this has become the trans thread now. I'm out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good lord but I am sick of people trying to make every thread around here about their anti-trans anti-science nonsense.

Then stop bringing it up to accuse other posters of being evil.

 

[d4m10n]

there’s very few topics that conservatives can stake a position out on that hasn’t been shown to be comically hypocritical since trump took office.

Much less off-topically, are there any other issues where progressives are more out of step with registered voters than, say, double mastectomies for physically healthy teens? Seems like that's the sort of mistake Democrats might want to avoid making twice in a row.

 

[dirtywick]

Much less off-topically, are there any other issues where progressives are more out of step with registered voters than, say, double mastectomies for physically healthy teens?

not sure that's much less off topically, but you are the thread police so i'll trust your judgement.

probably not, i think the progressive platform is probably way more reasonable and beneficial to most people than the conservative one. like, if i can borrow my own phrase, comically so. if it wasn't for the well funded propaganda network that heavily favors conservative view points that ultimately benefit the oligarchs slowly stripping the copper piping out of the foundations of the country i'd say most people would agree with that.

but ultimately i think the leagues can handle it, not really a national issue to me. i don't give it much thought.

 

[dirtywick]

i mean, really, such a minor and unimportant issue to almost everyone is the worst offense the progressive agenda has committed. oh man, geez lol

 

[d4m10n]

i mean, really, such a minor and unimportant issue to almost everyone is the worst offense the progressive agenda has committed.

Somewhat surprised that you'd concede this point so quickly.

Surely there are some aspects of progressivism even less likely to enjoy popular backing?

 

[dirtywick]

Somewhat surprised that you'd concede this point so quickly.

Surely there are some aspects of progressivism even less likely to enjoy popular backing?

idk it's the one you offered, seemed reasonable enough. seems to be the biggest mistake on earth the dems made according to every conservative ever who won't stop talking about it after a decade.

if you have another choice i'd consider it. what do you think?


i was also hoping we could circle back to emily cat's thoughts on jan 6 being a part of an election fraud plot. she never answered that one, got distracted by the trans and all. unless getting conservative opinions on important issues is too off topic.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You love to pretend none of us have ever been in a public bathroom before. We don't walk around naked in there, lady, and nobody is legalizing crimes like flashing or peeping which are already illegal. In your bigotry you're demanding a state sanctioned harassment that would end up harming any woman who doesn't fit your specific idea of what a female should look like. We’ve already seen multiple instances of "born female" women being barred from or harassed in bathrooms because they didn't look feminine enough for some self appointed underwear inspector. You're so gung ho to police other people's bodies that you're asking for people to inspect your own partially or fully unclothed body before allowing you to take a dump.

Derail aside, I'm glad this trolling came back around, because you didn't properly answer me last time. Maybe the second time's the charm.

It's worth noting that unlike some other topics, you and I are on exactly the same page here. I'm hoping I can use this common ground to approach the areas where we differ. With the following, I'm not trying to sway you or convince you of anything, I'm asking why you're taking the stance you are. Your argument here, and in other posts to Emily's Cat, is purely ideological. You aren't reading any tea leaves in your defense of trans people. You aren't consulting polls or counting votes. You aren't doing it to get Dems in power or for some other kind of political capital. You're defending trans individuals because it's the right thing to do. It's good to have moral principles.

Yet such an ideological stance is somewhat unlike you. More than anyone else in the thread you've argued for ditching principles when they become electorally disadvantageous. Strictly put, the second they become disadvantageous, which is what a lesser evil always gets you. But here, I'm assuming that even if a majority of voters favored trans discrimination, you'd still oppose Dems doing that, even if it'd be to their advantage to get on the bigotry bandwagon, right? I'm curious to know how far that would extend. Is there a poll number beyond which you'd advocate for Dems to support repressive laws just to get into power, or is that your hill to die on? Are there moral stances which you could never actively vote for, in any circumstance, even if the alternative is worse?

 

[d4m10n]

seems to be the biggest mistake on earth the dems made according to every conservative ever who won't stop talking about it after a decade.

Assuming Democrats win in 2028, it won't be by winning over self-identified conservatives but by somehow capturing undecideds without losing too much of the bloc who voted for Biden and Harris. That said, many here have an unfortunate tendency of turning the discussion here back to conservatives and their motives. I assume this is just out of habit rather than malice.