367
submitted 1 month ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/usa@midwest.social

In the face of ‘eradication’, one trans activist is preparing to fight – and she’s sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybody’s problem

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 91 points 1 month ago

Democrats have forgotten their history. They like to say that trans rights are a "distraction." They forget that not only were trans people some of the first victims of the Holocaust, but that liberal papers like the NYTimes similarly dismissed Nazi antisemitism as a "distraction" as well. They predicted that, just like Trump and trans people, Hitler was just using Jews as a scapegoat to get elected. They thought that despite widespread antisemitism in Germany, it was just a campaign distraction. They thought there simply weren't enough Jews in Germany to make real oppression something worthwhile for the Nazis to pursue.

In pre-Nazi Germany, Jews represented about 1% of the population. That is the same portion of the population that trans people represent in the US today.

[-] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 67 points 1 month ago

Democrats were pretty cool about protecting trans people. But thanks to non-voters and $hill Stein voters (along with tens of millions of “low information” Trumpledorks), Trump has all three branches of government at his disposal.

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 79 points 1 month ago

Considering Democrats are now complaining that their protection of trans people cost them the election, I wouldn't say they were all that cool to begin with. They use trans people as a political tool and then toss them aside the second it becomes inconvenient for them to support trans rights. Just look at how the Democrats have "defended" their newest trans colleague.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago

Specific people in the Democratic Party have made those complaints. The party has not. Your comment is no different than stereotyping a group for the actions of individuals.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 34 points 1 month ago

Has the party as a whole done anything to say otherwise? Silence is a different kind of choice.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You’re claiming the Democratic Party hasn’t supported the trans community?

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 31 points 1 month ago

When the leading candidate avoids the issue, gives less representation to trans people than the preceding candidates, and says "states rights" in response to growing repression of trans people when pushed to say something in an interview, I think its fair to say the Dem leadership has abandoned us. Individual dems are better, but the leadership clearly doesn't care.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

If you want to turn on the Democratic Party you’ll get a stronger GOP. Your move.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

The GOP just swept the nation. All three branches of government. Both houses. Seems to me supporting the Democratic Party made the GOP stronger already. Maybe we need a new party.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You think democrats didn’t get enough votes because they had too much support? That doesn’t make sense.

3rd party is guaranteed to fail with first past the post. But it sounds like you’re arguing in bad faith in favor of the GOP. So maybe that’s what you want.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

I'm saying that you're wasting your time supporting a party that's incompetent. Don't support a third party. Destroy the Democratic Party. Below it the fuck up. Let the Democratic party die a brutal death. Start our own party.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Saleh@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And here we go again, gaslighting people that they should lick the boots of the party elites as they kick them, because they kick them a bit less than the other party. This thinking has brought Trump not once, but twice now.

I would have thought after the second Trump win the "lesser evil hurr-durr" strategy would be reconsidered. US Liberals only use marginalized groups when they are deemed "useful" the moment they are not, they are abandoned. US Liberalism is white supremacy with colored-hair and a piercing and an arts degree instead of a business degree. But it is still white supremacy through and through.

And as the marginalized groups grew tired of this, they are now fiercely attacked, often in openly racist ways by the same people who claimed to want to prevent Trump for his racism and bigotry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frezik@midwest.social 22 points 1 month ago

I'm saying they're willing to throw them under the bus as soon as it gets difficult. Being silent while a few members do so explicitly isn't being an ally.

load more comments (41 replies)
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

They really haven't. They tend to take a neutral stance at best, rather than positively affirming trans rights. This was one of the things that killed them in the election. Despite being a decade in to the recent Republican war on trans people, Democrats have never bothered to develop a set of coherent talking points that they can defend trans rights around. When was the last time you heard a centrist Democrat say, "trans women are women, trans men are men. Their healthcare is medically necessary and life-saving. Trans women belong in women's restrooms and trans men in men's. Republicans are currently guilty of attempting a genocide."

That's the kind of talking points they should be using, a full-throated defense of trans rights that can directly stand up against Republican hate mongering. Instead, if they respond at all, they respond in a pathetic mincing way that tries to "both sides" the issue. Instead of vocally coming down firmly on the side of trans rights, they'll say things like, "these are complex issues...." or "these issues are a distraction..." You would never see a Democrat say that antisemitism is "a distraction" or that defending abortion rights "are a complex issue."

With some notable exceptions, Democrats have completely failed to actually have strong support for trans rights. Republicans are anti-trans and pro-trans genocide. Democrats are neutral. And this really hurt them in the election. Republicans supported full trans elimination. And Democrats could only respond with non-committal mealy-mouthed mumbling about the complexity of the issue. Voters saw that they really didn't stand for anything. Kamala didn't really believe in anything when it comes to trans rights, and the voters punished her for it. Voters want people who actually believe in something, not an empty suit that is just following polls and focus groups.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Joker@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 month ago

Just hours after Willis’s interview with The Independent, House and Senate negotiators revealed a bipartisan compromise spending bill that would ban military health insurance from covering transition care for children. On Wednesday, 50 House Democrats who previously denounced that provision voted in favor, and key Senate Democrats said they would reluctantly back it too.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

What did they get in return?

It's politics, they got something, what was it?

It doesn't say? Huh. I wonder why.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

They got to fund the military.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mattw3496@fedia.io 32 points 1 month ago

The problem with democrats is that they always hold progressive action overhead like a carrot. "Vote for us, we'll establish trans rights/universal healthcare/codify roe v wade!".

Then they don't do it because they want to use it as a fundraising and election platform next go around. If they just did things when they had power people would be more willing to vote for them.

And yes, I know that there are Republicans and independents blocking progressive action. But that doesn't excuse the DNC from doing what I described above as well as constantly shitting on popular progressive candidates.

Not really, like their supposed protection of black people their protection of trans people is contingent on how the minority behaves.

That's not support, that's blackmail.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Username checks out

Not really, like their supposed protection of black people their protection of trans people is contingent on how the minority behaves.

"Behaves"?? You mean votes? Yeah it is contingent on how people vote. See gestures to everything

No, behaves. Liberal darling Tim walz called the national guard on the Floyd protests long before any semblance of violence happened.

If any minority protests a Democrat, they go back to their kkk roots faster than you can say southern strategy.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

What the governor called out the National Guard to protect bystanders and property? In case things went south fast?

Fascists, obviously. Well now I'm glad we lost. Whoever won will surely be much better for that.

Speaking of - since they lost, why the long face? Shouldn't we be celebrating? Hooray the sucky Democrats lost! They're the worst! Down with the Democrats! Yaaaayyyy

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago

Itt: liberals still fever-dreaming that Democrats (as a corporate party, not the voters) are on the side of marginalized communities.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 36 points 1 month ago

Voters: Not enough votes for Democrats, letting the people who want to convert trans people and make hormone therapy illegal and God knows what else come to power

Republicans: Hey now that we're in power, we're going to convert trans people and make hormone therapy illegal and God knows what else

Voters: You guys really fucked this one up, I can't trust you

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago

How could Democrats do this??

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago

Literally this:

Eric Andre meme

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

When Kamala Harris was the AG for California she was forced to defend a lawsuit where a trans woman in prison for murder wanted the state to pay for reassignment surgery. I was told that by supporting Harris I was transphobic and I should just admit it.

Here's what I'll admit: trans people who didn't support the Harris ticket as if their life depended on it fucked up.

Seriously, "fuck Democrats"? Okay Dude, I can see you don't want to be cheered up - c'mon Donny let's go get us a lane.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The democrats did this to all of us. When you facilitate genocide for over two years, while calling the people protesting it violent antisemites, you lower voter turnout.

When you get elected by people who need healthcare, housing, and student loan relief, and you end covid protections, you lower voter turnout.

When you get elected by people expecting police reform and freeing the immigrant camps, and you increase deportations and endorse diverting covid funds to police budgets, you lower voter turnout.

When you get elected by promising to protect abortion, and then do fuckall even after the SCOTUS leaks their ruling early, you lower voter turnout.

Nobody except for the democrats had the power to change the outcome of this election. They had to chose between overwhelmingly popular policy and losing, and they chose to lose.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

We largely couldn't in the first place, but thanks for the heads up. There was a hope, sure. But little trust due to little action.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

It's a matter of degree. I felt a heck of a lot more protected than I had previously. Action? Not as much as there should have been but hardly zero.

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

hardly zero.

Yeah, like I said: little. It felt like they were content to do enough to get credit and then kick the can down the road until they were forced to do more. Now we enter an era that will likely strip back what progress has been made. In four years we'll be pushed back forty.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] caveman8000@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Nobody can trust the Democrats to protect anyone but the investors

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

just because they abandoned you and blamed you for losing the election? naaah they're fine. too bad they're gonna have zero power now.

[-] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They never really could. The Democratic party likes to claim issues like same sex marriage and trans rights as if they had anything to do with it. Same sex marriage had to be fought for in the courts during a democrat reign. They used trans rights as a big talking point for 2024 yet made little attempt to safeguard them during the previous 4 years. They ignore their base then take credit for all their accomplishments. They now use lgbt issues as an anchor to avoid promising any meaningful changes. It's the same thing the Republicans have been doing with abortion. All I'm saying is, Bernie2028.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Theatre Of Identity on both sides of the aisle in the US was always bullshit to try and get more votes, if done differently:

  • Most of the Democracts don't really care about Equality (especially not in the Wealth domain, though they pay lip service to the fight against a few non-Wealth inequalities), they care about themselves and the ultra-rich.
  • The Republicans don't care about America or The American People, they care about themselves and the ultra-rich.

Mind you, this is a pretty common pattern in other countries with electoral systems that boost a pair of "center" parties - there will be a "Right" one preaching some kind of nationalist pro-nation message and a "Left" one preaching anti-discrimination along racial/gender/sexual-orientation (but never wealth) lines, but they both serve the interest of the same people and will even get together to pass legislation that increases their own salaries, reduces the effectiveness of the fight against corruption or benefit some large well entrenched "regime" corporations who (by an amazing coincidence) employ in highly paid positions lots of politicians when they retire.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Just wait for the next administration lol

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
367 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2206 readers
192 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS