Transgender issues and discussions

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm not wrong. It wasn't a concern until the messaging was pounded into people's head via outrage media loops.

It's hard for a party to complete against one that picks a person like Trump as their candidate 3 times in a row.

Let me offer one simple tactic that might help:

Don't make "protecting democracy" your premiere branding focus and then lie about the mental state of the sitting POTUS. You can get away with one or the other, but together it won't work.

[BlueK]

No, I am talking about the experts who have said it was the most effective ad in the campaign.

You may be too young to remember the ad that Bush Senior ran in 1988 showing Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis looking goofy as hell riding around in a tank.

https://www.history.com/videos/tank-ride

They ran it non-stop and it ended up being hugely impactful on the race. It was just one dumb little video clip, but extremely effective in conveying a message ("this guy is a clown and not fit to oversee our military").

Of course, the Reagan Willie Horton ad was also extremely effective (sadly - racist undertones).

So you can fuss all you want about how one ad cannot possibly have a "significant" impact in a campaign, but that shows an ignorance of political marketing history.

The Willie Horton ad was in 1988 -- Bush Sr.

[Maximus]

Let me offer one simple tactic that might help:

Don't make "protecting democracy" your premiere branding focus and then lie about the mental state of the sitting POTUS. You can get away with one or the other, but together it won't work.

it is true, Ds werent engaged based on trump is terrible message

trumpers dont care about what trump does ,so not sure where you were going with that

Counted on the cross party vote who just stayed with trump

Kamala ran an ok campaign but shouldve had 4 more months and just promised BS to everyone

[falafel]

No, I am talking about the experts who have said it was the most effective ad in the campaign.

You may be too young to remember the ad that Bush Senior ran in 1988 showing Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis looking goofy as hell riding around in a tank.

https://www.history.com/videos/tank-ride

They ran it non-stop and it ended up being hugely impactful on the race. It was just one dumb little video clip, but extremely effective in conveying a message ("this guy is a clown and not fit to oversee our military").

Of course, the Reagan Willie Horton ad was also extremely effective (sadly - racist undertones).

So you can fuss all you want about how one ad cannot possibly have a "significant" impact in a campaign, but that shows an ignorance of political marketing history.

Now who loves a strawman? I have agreed over and over that the ad was effective and had a significant impact. Anyway, this conversation has run its course for me. Carry on everyone.

[LVAllen]

Obviously you folks missed the recent news confirming that the boxer has XY chromosomes, testicles, and male-level testosterone. That is by definition a biological male.

Did you miss the fact that she's suing over that claimed report?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...mosomes-claims

Also, that the claimed author of the report is not supporting it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/bo...elif-male.html

The report was said to be a collaboration between French and Algerian expert endocrinologists working at the Kremlin-Bicetre hospital in Paris, and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers.

The unverified report alleges that Khelif has male characteristics.

But Jacques Young, an endocrinologist at Bicetre Hospital in Paris who reportedly co-authored the document, has told DW in Germany that he feels his name is being used to spread false information.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did you miss the fact that she's suing over that claimed report?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...mosomes-claims

Also, that the claimed author of the report is not supporting it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/bo...elif-male.html

I just read both articles. Neither one refutes the claim with any evidence. The suit is old news.

[LVAllen]

I just read both articles. Neither one refutes the claim with any evidence. The suit is old news.

Wrong suit. The one you're probably thinking is older, when she named J.K. Rowling and others for online harassment. I have no idea how well that suit will do, but this is a new one.

We understand that Imane Khelif has taken legal action against individuals who commented on her situation during the Olympic Games Paris 2024, and is also preparing a lawsuit in response to the latest reporting,” an IOC spokesperson said. “The IOC will not comment while legal action is ongoing, or on media reports about unverified documents whose origin cannot be confirmed.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the new report. See for yourself.

https://reduxx.info/algerian-boxer-i...report-admits/

[Maximus]

Doesn't that cite the same doctor?

What a trash twitter account.

[Northwestcoug]

Here is the new report. See for yourself.

https://reduxx.info/algerian-boxer-i...report-admits/

If that is the true report, it's a good example of just how complicated intersex conditions can be. 5-alpha reductase deficiency is rare but the most penetrant deficiencies can present with only slightly abnormal appearing female genitalia.

Again, if true, the boxer very likely grew up for all the world (and herself) female, and then virilization kicked in with puberty. This happens to varying degrees, and some patients still have very female associated characteristics. As you can expect, gender identity is an extremely complex situation for some of them.

Most people would agree that since she is XY and has significant male characteristics, it would have been best that she not box as a woman. At the same time, most compassionate people would empathize with hers and others who through no fault of their own struggle with cultural concepts of gender.

[YOhio]

Good article on the issue. I think Dems in this thread way underestimate how important this issue was to a lot of voters. I don't think it was a manufactured issue, even though its impact wasn't broadly felt. But the instances where it was felt were pretty outrageous. It's an issue that goes to basic matters of fairness, judgment, and trust. Clearly a lot of voters didn't trust someone who wouldn't provide a clear answer on whether biological males should participate in women's sports.

For the past four years, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted a highly pro-trans agenda, starting with the embrace of “gender-affirming care” for minors with gender distress despite growing evidence these treatments are dangerous. They also overturned a Trump-era edict that only biological women can participate in women’s sports. And in April, Biden’s Department of Education broadened Title IX’s definition of sex-based discrimination to include “gender identity,” essentially requiring all schools receiving federal funds to admit biological males into women’s private spaces and sports teams.

What’s more, as a U.S. senator, Harris had her own baggage on the trans issue. In 2019, she promised taxpayer-funded sex-change surgeries for incarcerated illegal aliens. She supported the Equality Act, which would redefine sex in federal antidiscrimination law, requiring Americans to treat men identifying as women as women with the full protections of the law—from schools and shelters to hospitals and prisons.

Democrats’ pro-trans positions were unpopular with the average American voter. Polling shows that nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose males in women’s sports and sex-change procedures for minors. Many Americans were appalled to see Lia Thomas, a 6-foot-1 transgender athlete crushing female competitors at the NCAA swim championships. And many were surprised to see Joe Biden invite Dylan Mulvaney, the trans activist who tanked Bud Light, to a White House conversation where the president called state laws banning medicalized gender transitions “immoral.”

Meanwhile, influential figures like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk have expressed outrage over transgender athletes in women’s sports. Days before the election, Megyn Kelly, who stumped for Trump in Pennsylvania, addressed “the women who are thinking about voting for Kamala Harris based on abortion rights,” saying, “I want you to know that she cannot pass an abortion law that covers all 50 states. She neither has the power nor the votes to do this,” whereas Trump does have the power to remove “the ridiculous Title IX revisions that Joe Biden put in place.” In Pennsylvania, Kelly said Trump “will be a protector of women. And it’s why I’m voting for him.”

The Trump campaign spent roughly $215 million on political ads targeting Harris’s transgender stance. As one ad succinctly put it: She’s for they/them, he’s for you.

“Several years ago, we saw this transgender issue as a major way to break ground and win over swing voters, and even some soft Democrats,” Terry Schilling, a conservative strategist, told The Daily Wire this week. Schilling said he showed Trump “voter impact research” demonstrating that the trans issue “shifted tens of thousands of votes in Arizona” as well as 72,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2022. “We wanted to make sure that he knew that this is a winning issue,” Schilling added.

Some Democrats saw the writing on the wall. Bill Clinton was one figure who urged Harris to moderate on the issue, telling the Harris campaign, “We have to answer it and say we won’t do it,” referring to the inclusion of transgender athletes in female sports. But Harris ignored him at her peril.

In the end, abortion wasn’t the animating women’s-rights issue in this election cycle. What motivated Americans is a much more modern issue that presents a new and more immediate threat: the erosion of women’s sex-based rights and protections.

https://www.thefp.com/p/democrats-ka...on-trans-trump

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good article on the issue. I think Dems in this thread way underestimate how important this issue was to a lot of voters. I don't think it was a manufactured issue, even though its impact wasn't broadly felt. But the instances where it was felt were pretty outrageous. It's an issue that goes to basic matters of fairness, judgment, and trust. Clearly a lot of voters didn't trust someone who wouldn't provide a clear answer on whether biological males should participate in women's sports.



https://www.thefp.com/p/democrats-ka...on-trans-trump

Right on the money.

[YOhio]

Pretty passionate post on the issue.

Embedded Tweet

[Maximus]

Cmon yohio.

To ensenuate all trans women are teansitioning to go see them in locker rooms and expose themselves is ridiculous

If they want to support trump because of 1 million people in the USA are trans and maybe 3 dozen total trans people have ever played on a women's team , go for it



They repeatedly go after biological women who look manly and accuse them of being trans and fake women

For someone who says she only wants to keep trans out of sports , jk rowling sure loves to spread any and add anti adult trans propganda and hate and support such groups

[USUC]

Trans issues and how they are approached, understood, and discussed is at a crossroads. The browbeating that marked the trans rights activists until this point is over. More nuance and tact will be necessary. The vast majority of Americans have strong opinions on only two things relates to trans issues. That minor children and teenagers should not undergo potentially permanent treatment and that males at birth should not compete in women's sports. And those two things happen to be the primary focus of trans rights activists. To say anything against this has been verboten by the activist class. But they have now lost their ability to control the discussion.

Stuff like this is extremely counter productive to any discussion of trans issues.

Embedded Tweet