You have a good point, but I'd like to add that the group mentality is probably different from what a single bully would do or feel.

I think that this comes from these people being scared of not fitting in and from not having anything in common with the other people who don't fit it, so instead of uniting for a common goal, they can only find unity in being against something that they have in common not being. That's why they attack minorities of all kinds.

It also explains the hypocrisy. The individual isn't afraid of abortions, homosexuals or mexicans. Sometimes they need to accept those on an individual level, but they still go along with the anti-politics because it's not about themselves personally.

Facism isn't just based on simple hatred. It's mostly based on fear of not fitting in, because the individual is well aware of their own not fitting in.

When it was making rules against gender-affirming care for children, at least they could hide behind the (ludicrously false) "we're protecting the children!" argument.

They can't even do that here. There is just no justification for this beyond either "god doesn't want this to happen" or just basic cruelty.

A hate based ideology always needs an outgroup to discriminate against. It's really as simple as that.

This is how it was explained to me; I'll do the best I can to write it out in a way that makes sense.

You know how most left-leaning see MAGA as a cult of idiocy? Really Really dumb people easily motivated by propaganda, that if it weren't for trump and other republican bad actors, they would just otherwise be innocent idiots ready to be manipulated by someone else? There exists a subset of conservatives that believe idiocy and gullibility applies to both sides. Just like a simple farmer can get turned storm-the-capitol-terrorist by a few tweets and youtube videos, the theory is that an innocent dumb gay kid can be turned trans by a few tiktoks. They don't look at it like a rights issue; they don't believe that most trans people actually exist. They look at it like catering to a dangerous cult who manipulates their followers into self-mutilation and a terribly unhappy life.

The thing about making an argument in good faith, is that logic and reason generally always apply to produce the same conclusions if given the same set of facts. There are plenty of people out there perfectly content to make a bad faith argument for personal gain, and I'm not really talking about those people. The issue with trans rights is that it's very easy to make a good faith argument with only a minor dispute in facts that leads down a path of "treat the disease" rather than "give them rights" when solving in good faith for "protect the vulnerable".

Think about it this way, You probably wouldn't argue that law should cater towards the reality MAGA repubes believe the world to exist in, right?

They retool and reuse a lot of anti LGB arguments - they still hate gay people, they just know it doesn’t play well right now.

The “protect the children” crowd put out so many lies that it’s impossible to keep up with. Chuds pretend that kids can just walk into a clinic, say “I think I’m a boy/girl” and walk out with a hormone script and a surgery appointment, and because most people don’t know anything about transgender care they believe it. I don’t think your average person actually is that bothered by real trans people, they’re just lead to believe that 8 year olds are getting their penises lopped off.

Probably, but I think there's also a big element of "God hates you because my minister said so" or whatever.

Conservatives have an over active "ick" sensitivity.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-41186-006

deleted by creator

Oh absolutely, it's just meant to out us to every cop that sees our ID so they can decide to ruin our day. They won't actually admit that, though.

That justification gets even weaker when there's no fire in the lethal crash. They're not looking at burned skeletons, they're just looking at corpses.

Also! Skeletal differences are actually minimal in people who transitioned at a young enough age, so that wouldn't even be helpful in their case.

If a person is involved in a firey buscrash, it is helpful to the coroner to know what biological sex someone was born as to help with identification (different bone structures etc).

Yeah... no. The bone structures aren't that different. It's more likely that anthropologist can't identify the sex by bones alone than they can. I also can't think of a different reason for it, but there really doesn't need to be a reason for them to just be bigots.

Well, what is the function of having sex/gender on an ID? It's to make someone more identifiable, right?

That means that "verification" only needs to be visual. The purpose is to be able to tell, at a glance, that the ID and the person are a match. That's why eye color and height are on there too. Precise record keeping is for the court house and hospital records, not a driver's license.

By using sex and making that unchangeable it actually makes my ID less useful for identifying me.

That's an advantage that trans people who can 'pass' have, but not every person looks physically enough like their expressed gender and suddenly they're "a man in a dress" or something.

The article specifically mentions changing the gender and nothing about name. Lots of people get name changes for various reasons, but it’s a whole process.