Here are some new poll results from Gallup:
Even Democrats are down. What explains this? Is it just the effect of unending propaganda from the MAGAnauts spilling over to everyone? Or is it yet more evidence that Americans have suddenly shifted right on cultural issues?
Kevin, where is your fancy line that evens out the graph over time. I bet support is not going down. At least I sure hope so.
I can make two hundred USD an hour working on my home computer. I never thought it was possible, but my closest friend made seventeen thousand USD in just five weeks working on this historic project. convinced me to take part. For more information,
Click on the link below... https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
Best guess is Simpson’s Paradox— Latin American immigrants tend to be more socially conservative and are a growing proportion of the population.
The lurch downwards has occurred during a time of reduced immigration. I think if Latino immigration were what was mainly driving this phenomenon, we'd have seen evidence much longer ago.
And are they a suddenly larger part of the population of Republicans?
Well, I have seen a number of articles and polls indicating Republicans are gaining ground with Latino voters. Based on Trump and his outright Latino hatred I find that inexplicable, but I think it is true that Latinos are more socially conservative.
Yes - Latinos are said to be more socially conservative. That was given as one of the reasons behind the success of Prop 8 in 2008. At least that was my recollection, but when I went to go find a citation for that I came across:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
Do not forgot: many Hispanic people are devout Catholics. Despite the Catholic Church being distinctly progressive on economic issues, it is 100% immovable on abortion.
On gay rights, Pope Francis has shown a bit more tolerance, but most of the Church establishment has reacted with horror.
So if you throw abortion and homosexuality in a single bucket, the Catholic Church is as far right as can be.
They also wrote it to be as confusing as possible to voters, some online ad campaigns actually saying it did the opposite.
LGB support is probably holding about as firm as abortion. My guess is this is the only question people could voice unhappiness over TQIA+ prominence.
Not exactly politically correct, but probably true. Republicans have correctly zeroed in on a group that is small and not easily able to defend itself. Another reason to throw all of them out of office, the Republicans, that is.
While Republicans have obviously targeted these groups I don't think the poll Kevin posted really supports his conclusion. Independent support hasn't changed and Democratic support is only marginally down and probably within the margin of error. Republican support has gone down. Nothing really surprising here. Several times in the last couple of weeks Kevin has arrived at broad conclusions about cultural shifts based on very limited data. Such generalizations based on weak evidence is not typical of the Kevin Drum I have followed over the years and certainly not a trend I support.
Yeah, the fact that independent's support hasn't changed makes the small down tick in Dem support look like noise. This is all Republican bigotry.
Anyone who says 'LGB' is a troll, because that hasn't ever been without drag or trans.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/11/06/how-has-the-lgbt-acronym-evolved/
The TQ is an ahistorical movement, when they aren't transing the dead.
Robert Reich on five elements distinguishing fascism from mere authoritarianism,
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-five-elements-of-fascism
It's spill-over from the news about transgendered children and transgendered athletes.
I ran across a factoid a little while ago, alas not sure where, which was that out of almost 200,000 student athletes in a state, a handful were trans. Que the outrage and bathroom bills and....
Gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. so ramp up the culture wars.
On the other hand, out of almost 200,000 student athletes, a handful win scholarships, win top honors, even win places on the varsity team.
What's your point? Mind explaining, since I don't see what it is?
Just that school athletics also involves "just a tiny fraction" of the eligible population. Yet we grant it outside scrutiny and importance. In a typical high school, for example, there are a total of 7 young women on the varsity cross country team (plus maybe an alternate). This out of potentially hundreds of students.
Athletics is inherently "elitist." Usually, performance enhancing drugs are banned, so is it so discriminatory to ban performance enhancing X and Y chromosome combinations? I can see your answer will be "YES! This is the very definition of unfair discrimination."
So you're saying it's okay to ban trans athletes for an unfair advantage because scholarships and other material advantages are at stake? Or is it just the trophies themselves? You still haven't made yourself clear.
You also don't seem to realize that this isn't a 'trans rights' issue when this is really a human rights issue. And you're going to have to have a very good reason to curtail those rights. Does the above count? I don't know since you don't seem to be very effective at communicating what you mean.
It's OK (in the opinion of most) to keep biological males out of female sport. We have female sport for a reason, and I would posit it is a very good reason.
There is a conflict of rights when it comes to women's sport. Do you value the rights of transgender people over the rights of women, is the question. Most people do not, and that's why public opinion is shifting against the LGBTQIA2S
No one has the right to inspect someone else's genitals.
And yet, that is exactly what you're purporting as 'women's rights'.
You didn't answer the question.
ScentOfViolets is a troll. Best to just ignore her.
Far more than there are trans kids.
But hey! Ramp up that fearmongering.
Optimistically it is the Dems growing their coalition (perhaps temporarily), and the Republicans huffing their own BS even more than usual.
However, a more fluid, rather than fixed, understanding of sex and sexual orientation could erode support from those who got over the biases of their upbringing by seeing gays and lesbians being forced to choose between a phony marriage, loneliness, or having a same sex partner, and they had enough empathy to accept same sex couples as less bad than the alternatives. They never cared for bisexuals who weren't content to stick with their hetero side; since they had one, there was a moral choice to be made, so they should make it. These peoples' limited tolerance for homosexuals was facilitated by the centrality of marriage to the gay rights conversation, with greater monogamy an implied trend. These reluctant quasi-allies preferred simple binaries and very slow change, and they were accommodated by a slow walked legal and political process (remember civil unions?) so they were mostly ok with Obergefell and Winsdor when they came around.
Over time, they had their doubts about transgenderism validated when some trans activists were shown to have let ideology get ahead of biology and psychology, making them ripe targets for the fomented moral panic coming from the right.
I wish their worlds were big enough to integrate all the ways our identities develop and to be inclusive of people they don't quite understand, but it is not surprising that they see the growth in trans and poly visibility as the slippery slope they had previously worried about, and were told that such worries were paranoid. Far more young people identify as lgbtq than just 10 years ago, and they can't deal with that, because they thought they had made room for a rather small minority who had no other way of being happy, and now they are being asked to change their model of the universe is a bigger way and they just won't.
TL;DR
America can only accept so many different minority groups as human at any given time. And unfortunately, we reached our limit a year or two ago and so - sorry everyone who hasn’t made it out of second or lower class citizenship yet but - equality and decency for you is gonna have to wait a bit longer.
If it was just trans visibility that would be one thing, but many people are concerned about pediatric medical transition and men in women's prisons and sports.
Dana Rivers killed two women and their teenage son (a lesbian couple) and has finally been found guilty, in a case the judge said was the most depraved of their career. Dana is a transwoman and has been moved to a women's prison.
"Concerned"
Noted, all the concerns revolve around misogyny.
How is it “misogyny” when it’s in reference to a man dressed in women’s clothes?
It's the old hoary chestnut of "we gotta protect the womenfolk" but it's from something that is extremely rare and never documented as actually happening. If you really wanted to protect women you'd allow the 2nd amendment to be repealed.
Men in women's prisons could be viewed as misogyny, in that women are expected to be human shields for men (violent men) who may be at risk in the men's prison. So yeah, I guess we agree on this point, Crissa.
Gallup is one of the oldest polling organizations around, but I'm not convinced that their methodology has kept up with the times. Also, during the 2016 and 2022 elections they seemed to be skewing rightward, although not quite as badly as Rasmussen..
The polls that Kevin keeps posting dont support the notion that Americans are SHIFTING RIGHTWARD!!
But, this is certainly a narrative and marketing campaign with some legs. We will see this a lot up until the election. Just like we do every election. Every election, America is always lurching to the right....or so we are told.
Apparently the polling error is on the order of 3%. Higher when responses are separated by political party. So I wouldn't read much into the small bump in Democrat responses this year.
In my own opinion, I feel it’s pretty safe to say that the movement for trans rights has been co-opted by extremists. Instead of seeking a measure of accommodation that, I suspect, could have attracted majority support, the extremists pushed for very unpopular measures, such as irreversible medical treatments for minors and the inclusion of biological men (trans women) in women’s sports.
And they haven’t just pushed this agenda, they’ve labeled anyone who dares to dissent as evil transphobes. They’ve accused the NYT of aiding and abetting genocide for running a minuscule number of articles that slightly push back on the trans rights extremist narrative. Check out the recent summation by Erik Wemple @ the WP. It’s quite the eye-opener.
Even the LGBs are increasingly cognizant of a need for a divorce from the QTs.
Trans rights extremism has backfired spectacularly; I’m only surprised that the poll movement actually appears rather small. I’m afraid that may only be the beginning of an actual cratering of support.
the extremists pushed for very unpopular measures, such as irreversible medical treatments for minors and the inclusion of biological men (trans women) in women’s sports.
These "measures" are only unpopular because the right is using its powerful megaphones (first and foremost Fox News) to amplify them way beyond their real world impact. Only a tiny proportion of the population has sought medical treatment associated with gender transitioning (How about we leave them alone to lead their lives as they see fit, advised by their healthcare professionals? It's. Not. Your. Problem. Nor Rupert Murdoch's). Only a microscopic proportion of the population will ever be affected by a trans woman athlete who benefited from pre-transition testosterone levels growing up.The right plays the public like a fiddle when it comes to social issues. Always have.
One heard very little of the "controversies" regarding trans Americans five or six years ago. And hardly anything at all 10-12 years ago. Why do you think it's become an explosive "crisis" (according to some)?
Republicans don't want people talking about economic inequality, or lack of universal healthcare, or the country's horrendous record on transit, or its tragically high rate of child poverty, or what have you. That's why.
It's diversion diversion diversion 24/7 with this crowd. Don't be duped.
The funny thing is, if we just let children begin puberty blockers as children, the male-to-female transgenders won’t develop the testosterone levels and musculature that allegedly gives them an advantage in women’s sports. But no we can’t do that either!
@jasper_in_boston -- You hear about it more now because it is happening far more frequently now. Far more children are being transitioned medically now than 12-15 years ago, probably 30X more. Some stats:
From 2017 to 2021, the # of GD diagnoses tripled. Before that I can find some stats from Sweden that shows GD diagnoses increase 12X in female children from 2007 to 2015.
The number of children (under 17) *initiating* treatment with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones increased from 2500 to 5500 from 2017-2021 (and I'm sure it is higher now).
Considering the likelihood that a child going through these treatments will end up infertile and anorgasmic, and that children can't really provide informed consent for these treatments, I wouldn't call this a fake "moral panic."
But you're ok with parents sending their children to Christian psycho summer camps where they can be molested into fearing god and voting Republican as a way to cope with their incredible anxiety disorders?
How in the world did you draw that conclusion from what Pittsburgh Mike wrote? are you projecting, or what?
He's denying parents the ability to find the medical care they think is best for their children, care that affects a very small number of people, while parents whose decisions that cause actual massive harm to children are thought to be virtuous and culturally defining by a huge number of people.
Perhaps he thinks both these things are wrong but it's hard to imagine any sane person would think the one rises to a point of national controversy while the other is hardly mentioned.
And it's not even the better contrast, I would suggest the bulk of the wingnut media coverage of transgender care for children is to obscure that the leading cause of child death in the US is gunfire.
It's a vanishingly small issue compared to the rest of the issues of some kind of harm that is accomplished but it's the only one that isn't caused outright by conservatives and worrying about, allowing yourself to get sucked into a debate of some kind on the merits only helps them keep it alive and helps Donald Trump back into the White House.
The only reasonable point is to dismiss the argument out of hand because it only exists as corruption.
And let's not forget the national push to repeal child labor laws so your kid can work from midnight to 6am in a meat packing plant before catching an hour nap before staggering off to school where the curriculum is gym, math and praying.
Is there a push to outright repeal such laws? Or just loosen them up a bit to allow older teenagers to work more? Back when I was growing up the labor laws for high school kids were much honored in the breach and many of us worked more hours and later at night than we were legally allowed to.
At least 11 states so far,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/18/child-labor-laws-targeted-lawmakers-11-states-seek-weaken/11682548002/
so it doesn't seem like a coincidence.
They say it's for their own good.
And to fill a cheap labor shortage.
So they don't have to pay adults more.
Wow, people love making up shit.
About 3000 children or teens have been killed or injured by gunfire so far this year. We're about half-way through, so let's call it 6000 per year.
5500 children or teens have started puberty blockers or cross sex hormones, which will lead to some very serious medical side effects.
The numbers aren't all that different.
Now, for some reason, cld seems to think
1 -- I support laws preventing parents from transitioning their minor children. Actually, I'm mostly opposed to these laws. In general, I don't support laws restricting any sort of choice in medical care, and certainly not for adults. I am concerned that parents are being misled into thinking medical transition will help their children, when in all likelihood it won't help, and if their children are part of the majority who will get over their GD as they grow up, then transition will severely injure their children.
2 -- Cld also seems to think I'm a Trump supporting Republican. I've voted in every Federal election since I turned 18, in 1974. I voted for two Republicans in that time -- once for Arlen Spector as a reward for his deep-sixing Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, and once for Pittsburgh Mayor against Luke Ravenstahl, who was (and remains) a moron.
Let me apologize for mischaracterizing you while maintaining I stand by my point.
Risk of death by gunfire affects all children, not just a few and you can't see a doctor about it afterward.
That the science is undecided is absolutely true, but engaging 'the controversy' can't help, it can only throw fuel to the people whose real purpose is to find helpless victims they can focus a mob on and cause a mass distraction. It's a placebo issue, like the anti-abortion movement, it helps no one but brings a lot of vicarious harm they can claim they're not responsible for, which brings in a lot of money for conservatives.
This is something that is a deeply personal issue for those involved and with a lot of science that is complex and developing, and, because it is such a minority with so little impact on any aspect of public life only those involved have any real business worrying about it, certainly not conservative politicians and we shouldn't fall for engaging with them on this on it's merits as if conservatives were serious.
Mother of a transgender child who transitioned at age 25 here, and what you say is just cruel, Pittsburgh Mike.
And this is because of the secondary sex traits -- Adams apples, breasts, beards, voice pitch.
You have no right to decide this for other parents and their children. None at all.
If your child was blocked at the onset of puberty and then went on to cross sex hormones, she would be unable to orgasm, ever, in addition to being sterilized. Marcie Bowers (who has done more vaginoplasties than anyone, at least in the United States) has said (on video) that "just about all" the natal males given Lupron at Tanner 2 were anorgasmic. Is it more important to look good or to feel good? It's a tough situation. There's no easy answer.
You're a little older than I am, but we have a lot in common. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm deeply concerned about what's happening to children with gender issues.
Uh huh. But the suicides of transgender people who develop as their biological sex into adulthood and then can’t afford to undo it doesn’t matter at all in a Pittsburgh Mike analysis.
The studies that show transitioning children reduces suicidality are frequently suffer from selection bias, and short followup periods. The reason European health systems have moved away from medical transition for children is that it doesn't help them psychologically, and comes with severe downsides.
Here's an article about long term follow ups comparing suicides by sex reassigned people with a control group matched by birth year and gender -- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885&type=printable . It shows a 19X higher rate of suicide in the sex reassigned group compared to the control.
Here's an article showing, in Table 5, that suicide attempts by transgender people who are treated with cross sex hormones are essentially the same as those who wanted the treatment but were unable to get it ( https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-GNC-Suicide-Attempts-Jan-2014.pdf ).
If an adult wants to go down this road anyway, they should fully have the right to do so, and to do so without resulting discrimination. But my suspicion is that some parents are being bullied into acquiescing to their child's transition based on incorrect claims about its reducing their suicide risk, and that would be a shame.
Again, having lived through the suicide risk in my own child, you offering statistics that mix apples and oranges.
Adult transition means you are more likely to be bullied in public because you look different. Adult transition also indicates unsupportive and potentially cruel and rejecting family, increasing a person's loneliness, depression, and suicide.
So I think you take numbers that mean something and manipulate their meaning to suit your own confirmation bias.
And you do that with other people's lives, not your own. How pathetic that is.
You're allowing conservatives to weaponize your own good intentions against you.
Neither of these papers deals with transgender care of minors.
The first deals with a sample population of adults followed from 1973-2003 and was written in 2010.
Transgender care has advanced quite a lot since then and all these people were adults when they attempted transitioning during a period when the entire subject was in its' infancy.
The second dealing specifically with suicide among adult transgender people comes with plenty of caveats,
As I've already noted, Pittsburgh Mike seems to have a reading comprehension problem.
Yes, there has been a rapid increase in gender dysporia diagnoses and cases undergoing hormonal treatment in recent years. This hasn't just popped up as a political fiction.
So by your own admission, a minute fraction of a percent of all children. Tell me why this again this is an issue, seeing as you've refuted your own talking point?
It's definitely not a moral panic. The United States is out of step with many European countries on the topic of pediatric medical transition.
Finland, Sweden and England have all pulled back from using puberty blockers on children for gender issues. Norway and France seem like they will follow. These are not right wing countries.
The evidentiary basis for transitiong kids is astonishingly weak.
No, they're unpopular because they're bad ideas. The health departments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and the UK have all moved away from the idea of treating children with puberty blockers or cross sex hormones. They've done so because there are seriously side effects to these drugs, and because there is no evidence that treatment with these drugs alleviates any of the psychological distress that the children are suffering.
This is false.
You may feel that its bad and you may dislike these people. But your summary of how those 5 countries are handling these types of health matters is completely wrong.
As in the US drugs and hormone treatments remain as a treatment option. All of these countries recommend well rounded care for this condition which can include psychological treatment as well as the drug or hormone treatment.
try to be informed
Here's an article talking about countries that have severely cut back access to gender affirming medical care for children in the NYT ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/health/puberty-blockers-transgender-children-britain-nhs.html ). With a little google-fu, and Chrome translate, you can read the original studies. I have, and they do indeed indicate those countries are no longer regularly using puberty blockers and X-sex hormones with children.
In the US, on the other hand, the affirmative care model pretty much means any child can get access to X-sex hormones with parental approval, and indeed, 5500 children began treatment with these in 2021 alone.
I don't dislike any class of people, trans or cis -- not sure where you got that. I do think that transitioning children, when the vast majority of gender dysphoric children will outgrow their dysphoria without medical intervention, is usually a mistake. Call me crazy, but if a child will outgrow their dysphoria without hormone treatment, that's better than sterilizing them.
So, no cites then. Also, your NYT cite doesn't say what you say it does. No, banning puberty blockers in red states is not evidence for any sort of scientific justification for doing so.
Since you had to have known that, I can only assume you're trolling. One more such offense and into the troll rolodex you go.
You really don't know how to use Google from Chrome?
Norway -- https://ukom.no/rapporter/pasientsikkerhet-for-barn-og-unge-med-kjonnsinkongruens/sammendrag
Key quote: Ukom recommends "that puberty delaying treatment (puberty blockers) and hormonal and surgical gender confirmation treatment for children and young people are defined as experimental treatment. This is particularly important for teenagers with gender dysphoria."
Sweden -- https://news.ki.se/systematic-review-on-outcomes-of-hormonal-treatment-in-youths-with-gender-dysphoria
"Data on the effects on psychosocial health are lacking but there is some evidence that hormonal treatment may impact on bone maturation. The researchers conclude that hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria in this age group should be regarded as experimental treatment rather than standard procedure."
UK -- https://apnews.com/article/uk-transgender-puberty-blockers-abd9145484006fea23de6b4656c937da
"The National Health Service said Friday that “outside of a research setting, puberty-suppressing hormones should not be routinely commissioned for children and adolescents.”"
The above is not "trolling". This is trolling:
The cited NYT article talks about Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and the UK. I'm not sure which of these you think are red states.
You don't read so well for comprehension do you? Tell me how this 'refutes' the current medical practices on this issue. Posting cites that don't say what you think they do seems to be a thing with you ... gee, I wonder why /s.
The articles you linked dont support the conclusion that you are drawing.
You argue that these are 'bad ideas' with 'serious side effects' and claim that various countries have recognized that these are bad, dangerous ideas and have stopped offering procedures/treatments. But the articles you link make no such claims. The articles talk about establishing standards of care and are extremely clear in that they are not abolishing the procedures as you imply.
You may be legitimately confused, Google experts often are. But its also possible that you are being knowingly deceptive. I suspect the latter.
I never said that these countries "stoped offering" these procedures, I said they were restricting them.
The Times article states that the UK is limiting puberty blocking drugs to research use only (that's the headline). It states that Sweden has restricted the use of puberty blockers to "clinical trials."
I never claimed that it was impossible for children to get X-sex hormones in these countries, just that they are moving to cut back their use severely. As far as I can tell, that's simply true.
There are no such restrictions on the use of puberty blockers in the US to research or clinical trials and indeed, the stats show the use of puberty blockers and X-sex hormones has continued to increase at a very rapid rate in the US.
You can continue to make fun of my reading comprehension, but it's very clear from the Times article and the actual documents that these countries are significantly limiting the use of these drugs with children, and the US is not.
Oh really? Gee, who said this: No, they're unpopular because they're bad ideas. The health departments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and the UK have all moved away from the idea of treating children with puberty blockers or cross sex hormones. You're one short step away from being an entry in my troll rolodex. At this point, You're going to have to acknowledge what you say now is not what you said then and admit the miscommunication is all on your side.
It's true, they are sharply limiting access to puberty blockers, they are no longer offering "gender affirming care" but are prioritizing psychological exploration and support, due to increasing numbers of detransitioners and patients suffering significant side effects from the treatments. In Sweden they say they will only use puberty blockers as part of a controlled clinical trial, but AFAIK they have yet to set one of those up.
Trolling is linking to the NYT article. Trolling is saying you never meant anyone to read said article itself ... _without_ explicitly saying so first.
Exactly, if you are sterilizing children, your evidentiary base had better be rock solid. In the case of gender dysphoria, it's not.
The change is that those countries now prioritize psychological support over medical transition. They have decided that puberty blockers should only be used as part of a carefully controlled clinical trial, because here we are decades into this and we STILL have no good long term data.
Links would be a useful thing to include.
This is inaccurate:
“These "measures" are only unpopular because the right is using its powerful megaphones (first and foremost Fox News) to amplify them way beyond their real world impact.”
The trans extremists started this by gifting the Right an abundance of ammunition. Yes, the Right has responded, in many cases, in an authoritarian manner. But the idea that extremism on the Left played no role in the situation is an obvious and counter productive blind spot.
There is also an assertion in your post that the impact of trans extremism is minimal. But that’s a wildly unfair attitude to take towards women. Where exactly did their rights go? How is it in any way fair to disregard the lifetime (in many cases) of training and effort made by elite female athletes with the casual dismissal that just a few of them will be impacted by competing against biological men (trans women)? That attitude is arguably misogynistic, and it’s an ugly look for the Left to adopt.
Check out this article from the Guardian: “UCI hits brakes and will revisit transgender policy after Killips’ victory”:
“Victory by Killips at the Tour of the Gila in New Mexico quickly led to widespread criticism of the UCI’s transgender policy, with the three-time Olympian Inga Thompson accusing it of “killing off women’s cycling”, and Canada’s Olympic cross-country silver medallist, Alison Sydor, saying it was “no different functionally than doping” as Killips had the advantage of going through male puberty.”
This is not an illusory issue created solely by Fox News; it’s an overreach on the part of extremists that Fox News is cynically exploiting to benefit the Right.
But when women themselves point out these problems, problems that should be treated with actual debate and calm reasoning, they are sometimes treated like villains. JK Rowling recently stated that, for asserting her belief in biological sex and the importance of separate Categories for biological women, she and her family have received enough death threats to wallpaper their entire house (and I’m guessing they have an awfully big house). Assuming that her statement is accurate, those issuing Rowling and her family death threats should receive universal condemnation from the Left and the Right alike. Instead, I’ve heard crickets.
But people do notice these things, and people have certainly noticed and turned against the kind of extremism described above. The policy positions can be debated, but it’s the trans extremists themselves who claim that any attempt at debate is tantamount to genocide. Their word. And that’s a doomed movement. They can only bully the public for so long before finally brining an entirely justified condemnation down upon their own heads. And, since it looks like the Trans extremists will never moderate, the only question may be how much the other LGBQs, or how much of the Left itself, they bring down with them.
Thank you.
Yes, I think you are right.
Let's see: Things which aren't happening, plus 'what about the women'
Full on misogyny and fearmongering.
Add in removing drag and trans people from queer history and you' e gone full nazi.
Are you denying that a man won a women's bike race? Kilips should not be competing against women.
Males are exposed to testosterone in the womb at 12 weeks gestation, after birth at 1-3 months ("mini-puberty" which is a relatively recently discovered phenomena, but explains the difference in growth charts between boys and girls) and then finally at puberty the testosterone ramps up and stay high. You can't roll that back. We have women's sport for a reason, and it's not to validate the identities of men.
Well said. Thanks.
The common refrain by all closeted bigots when the subject of rights and equality come up.
The persecuted group is always to blame for overstepping their bounds. If they just would have accepted their second or third class status, the bigots wouldnt have had to get all upset at them.
I mean...black kids going to school with white children?? The nerve of those people. Just accept your water fountains and leave us alone. Support for civil rights is cratering amongst my friend group and its going to be even worse for these negroes if they dont get back in line. Stop forcing me to fight you on this! You only have yourselves to blame for my anger!
Dont even get me started on these women and their outrageous demands for medical care. You can vote and have your own bank account, now get back to making dinner and remember that you are to blame for your inability to find medical care in many states.
Stop forcing me to fight you on this! You only have yourselves to blame for my anger!
Exactly.
Black athletes were blamed for unfair advantage when they first wanted to compete in white dominated sports. So much so that professional leagues barred them from competing. What’s old is new again.
This is a text book example of a straw man argument.
Fuck off, troll.
This is the kind of response that designates the trans rights extremists as extremists.
No, it's a textbook example of telling a troll to fuck off for being a troll. Now fuck off.
+1
If this is what transactivist "reasoned argument" looks like, I'm unimpressed.
And yet, you don't explain why Austin's comment was a 'textbook example of a strawman argument.' Points though for the made-up word 'transactivist' instead of correct appellation 'Human rights advocate'.
Yet another troll with no sense of how ridiculous they look to others when they make these kind of remarks.
“And yet, you don't explain why Austin's comment was a strawman.”
No explanation necessary this case. My observation is self-evident.
Sometimes, we can simply call a spade a spade.
No, it's not self-evident. And you _still_ haven't justified it. The fact that even now you refuse to do so is a more than adequate reason for calling you a troll. See what I did there 😉
Now kindly fuck off back to the rock you crawled out from under.
Literally it is not such an example.
A straw man argument is one which mischaracterizes or pulls out a tiny facet. This does neither, showing a historical parallel.
In my own opinion, I feel it’s pretty safe to say that you're just repeating extremist talking points with zero evidence. You're the extremist in this argument.
Good to see you let your rampant bigotry freak flag fly. Just confirms that conservatives are truly awful people.
Well, no irrevocable treatments are done to kids.
So your entire point is based upon a lie.
Puberty blockers are not a harmless reversible pause as advertised. They lock in a gender identity that may have been transient. In the before times, a supermajority of cross-sex identified kids desisted with the onset of puberty, at which time a majority of them figured out they were gay.
This is no longer the case, and yet many liberals think this is the way to go? We used to tell gay teens "it gets better." Now we tell pre-gay kids that their gender nonconformity means there is something *wrong* with their bodies but no worries, the doctors will change their sex when they get older.
We can't, and it's cruel to imply that we can.
The whole trans hysteria came on the scene just as suddenly as the OMG SADDAM HUSSEIN IS GOING TO BOMB AMERICA hysteria was pushed in 2002-2003. Out of thin air just like then and thankfully a lot of America is pushing back against this.
I once again suggest that there's widespread polling bias going on here, via participation and by design (weighting). Gallup, in particular, made some changes in 2021 and I have no idea how they transcribed their data to match, because honestly, they don't match. (Maybe I'll do a separate piece to show how they have incongruent data...nah.)
On the specific question of same-sex:
Unweighted/weighted responses:
Conservative: 287 (41%) / 273 (40%)
Moderate: 244 (35%) / 238 (35%)
Liberal: 165 (24%) / 173 (25%)
Just looking at the weighting, one thing is clear: It still resulted in the same percentages.
But then look at what Gallup showed in its most recent political ideology poll:
Very conservative/Conservative: 38%
Very liberal/Liberal: 29%
They go from a 9pp gap to a 15pp gap. Is that a proper design of a poll that is significantly political?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Two thoughts:
1. As LGBTQ+ has gained more widespread acceptance, such relations have become much more visibly portrayed in TV and film. The regression could then be a simple expression of the difference between openness to the concept in theory and in practice. In this respect it could perhaps be viewed as an expected part of an accustomization process.
2. It's just typical fuzzy data. Did we have cause to worry around 2011 when polls from all three groups went down?
"Senator, this is a hockey stick!"
Also Ted Cruz sucks.
People who always hated homosexuals now have permission to admit it again.
Stop asking. Polls are a disaster. They are weapons now.
I realize they've been asking it this way for a while, but "morally acceptable" is a measure of something different than "is it a crime". I might answer that abortion is not a morally acceptable outcome while at the same time not caring at all what women actually do. It's none of my business. The religious folks have been busy complaining about all sorts of things they don't like. Even the catholic church, which has a definite gay problem, is out there saying it is immoral.
But I still think its just now more acceptable for people to say it out loud. And good for them. Don't lie to me. The actual % of people who think it is morally acceptable is probably closer to 40% overall.
Just like 20 years ago.
All this poll says is the number of people who self identify as Republican or Democratic who also agree with LGBT rights went down. It might be that more R’e and D’s overall are now self identifying as independents for whatever reason and the people doing so are more likely to be cool with LGBTs than the harder core R’s and D’s still willing to call themselves R’s or D’s.
Perhaps just tired of incessant "Wokeness." Maybe term "civil union" would have been better than "marriage?"
I do not want to see a man and a woman "making it"on the street corner, consequently I do not want to see two men or two women doing it either. Take it into the bedroom where it belongs. Be kind, pay your taxes and just live your life.
Stay out of peoples faces.
I fail to see anybody but heterosexual couples making out in like 90% of American counties.
I think the fear that you have is unwarranted but you do you boo. Just stay the fuck out of our cities then with your bigotry.
I see the 13 year olds have entered the chat.
Tired of 'wokeness'?
So... what is tired of wokeness? Because if woke means 'aware of injustice and inequality'... You want to enforce injustice and inequality? What is your point?
Tired of lefties pointing out everywhere they think they have found injustice and racism.
Ah tired of folks challenging your hegemony.
To evaluate this data properly we'd need to know the results for: American's Views of the Morality of Heterosexual Relations by Political Party.
I'd guess that numbers in general would be higher but would show similar variances over time.
So, no one said this: support is sharply up and by the same amount for all groups in a short 20 years. If the trend continues (tho that’s not certain) all three would support same sex relations by over 60 percent, up to over 90 percent. I might be so lucky as to live to see that day.
The decline among Republicans looks big enough to be real, but the decline among Democrats is of similar size to declines that have happened before and is probably just statistical noise.
You we’re expecting indefinite, monotonic increase? So what was it then with Democrats in 2001, 2008, 2012, 2017, and 2019? (Mk I eyeball so perhaps off a year here or there).
As for the recent, looks larger than the error margin, change in Republican response, (and Democrat if that dip is indeed statistically significant) I’ll toss-out one idea for consideration: m(onkey)pox.
Speaking of which: https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/31429158/la-county-sees-concerning-jump-in-monkeypox-cases
I just want to cast my vote against the gratuitous and non-helpful inclusion of "T" in the traditional LGB constellation. Also, the rabid trans activists who demonize anyone not sufficiently "supportive" of their demands.
It's my feeling that the way people want to engage in sexual relations is fundamentally different from their choosing which sex they want to be. I would classify it more like body integrity dysmorphia.
You're has been noted and given the consideration it deserves, Miss Grundy.
Is the correct response "TROLL"? I've seen this used here a few times.
It doesn't make sense to team up LGB with the TQ etc and I think grouping them all together is one of the reasons that "LGBTQ" is not polling well.
Noted, you want to deny the entire history of queer rights.
Do you know what crime the patrons of the Stonewall Inn would be arrested for?
Aha! It's that dreaded 'T'.
It's kinda like you're denying history for some slanted reason,
See, here's that "transing the dead" thing I was talking about. People who were there, like Fred Sargeant, will tell you that Marsha P Johnson self identified as a transvestite and a "real boy." She's on video saying this. She's also on video saying she didn't show up that night until the riot was well underway.
The riot at Stonewall started when a butch lesbian, probably Storme' DeLarverie' was resisting arrest and called out to the crowd "why don't you do something?"
The novelty of homosexual marriage has waned and is no longer shown on news broadcasts, removing the joyous celebrations these unions provided to the lovers from viewers. When Americans do not see and experience this joy they recall Puritanical mores of condemnation still lurking in their unconscious minds that the culture of rape stimulates with its bigoted portrayals of these loving people.
I think it's just noise.
Also you can disapprove or dislike something but not want to ban or restrict it. In America you are not required to like blacks or jews, you are simply required not to single them out for detrimental treatment in public life.
Some of this might be a post-Dobbs effect. Momentum from getting abortion rights tossed out has led some people to take aim again at same-sex relationships.
Yes, the issue of the day which Republican politicians are using to excite the tribal instincts of the White Christian Supremacist faction is now transgenderism. Since Republican politicians can't openly support racism, they focus on other issues which nevertheless call attention to how White Christians, with their view of "Christian" morality, continue to lose control (except when the Supreme Court intervenes).
I support everyone's sexual rights. But honestly? I'm getting tired of it being in my face 24/7 via the news media and popular entertainment media. I really don't want a saturation of ANYONE's sexual preferences.
Then write a letter to FOX.
...Are you sending angry letters to quiverfull tv shows?
Drift - this time through the article, the picture at the top was "Woodbridge Lake In Irvine At Sunset" As we (California at least) have just come out of, or had a brief reprieve in, a rather serious drought, I was curious about the lake and its origin(s). Fittingly perhaps for Southern California, it is artificial. And as to the source of the water:
https://www.wva.org/page/21440~422725/lakes
It would be one thing if it were part of some sort of ground water recharge system, but being clay-lined makes that sound unlikely. Nor is there any mention of it being used as a reservoir. Basically, it (they, there are two) is a giant recreational, no-swimming, pool.
People are generally idiots and propaganda works.
Well, yes. When it's everywhere, all of the time, and unchallenged.
I'm sad to say you are correct. Folks have been spamming my local NextDoor with all sorts of OMG crime is outta control stores and how the current Commonwealth Attorney is too soft on crime. Folks are eating up the statistical malpractice being used in the posts.
Gee, why isn’t anyone surprised by this? The population is getting older. No one under 25 can rent a car, or under 21 can buy cigarettes or alcohol. It is entirely consistent that anything to do with what anyone wants to do under the age of 25 is a hotly contested issue, and gets thrown into some weired morality vortex that causes movies and games to get rated, explicit language tags attached to music, and and don’t even get me started on genitals on statues or toys.
I will invoke "Rick's Rule of A Million," which is that large numbers of people will accept anything as true once they've heard it a million times.
I just want to say I think the athlete thing is a valid point that trans activists should accept.
It may dismay a few people but conceding this will bring a lot of the hot air down quickly with little effort.
School athletics are highly visible in their communities and the few trans people who really want to be on a sports team drives the negative impression. There are other ways of running around shouting.
I appreciate that the idea that the girls sports team is being victimized by a transgirl after infinite numbers of trans people and other LGBTQ people have been driven to suicide and destitution is maddening and offensive, but the real point here is that we can't actually control our biology, --not yet, anyway.
So, this is not the hill to die on, and it's an easy one to leave. Leaving it helps more than dying there.
Men in women's sport and men in women's prison are losing topics. Pediatric transition is complicated, but things really are changing in multiple countries, in America the medicine is eminence based rather than evidence based.
That doesn't seem like a fair description. Transgender care today is orders of magnitude better than it ever could have been for previous generations.
While European countries are characterizing it in a way to emphasize the study of it is still in an early stage and no criteria are set in stone there is nothing in what they've done or said that suggests it's incorrect.
Multiple of the countries that pioneered pediatric gender transition are pulling back, after conducting systematic reviews of the evidence and finding that the treatments are still experimental and unproven.
The big NIH study recently, finally, had it's first publication of results (Chen et al 2023, NEJM). They neglect to mention what happened on 6 of the 8 things they proposed following, and mention just in passing that the most common adverse reaction to gender transition was suicidal ideation. They had 2 deaths from suicide in 315 patients. That's horrific. That's 50 times the background rate of suicide for that population.
Gender affirming care is not lifesaving care. The numbers aren't there.
what does adult advantage have to do with children, though?