• BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    19 days ago

    Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?

    Nope. They are very different things. I’m all for trans rights, but I don’t bring it up in every conversation I have about politics. That’s not setting aside my morals or abandoning them.

    Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?

    • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      18 days ago

      They didn’t mention trans rights because they didn’t want to alienate the Republicans that they’re courting. They would rather shit on progressives than lose a conservative vote.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        It’s not only Republicans voters that plan to vote for the Democrats that would be alienated by a “woke” candidate, for some it would be enough to just not go out and vote and I’m willing to bet that more people would do that than the number of people that would be convinced to vote by raising the issue.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        Why do you think that it’s shitting on progressives? Can someone not mention during a speech but still work to pass legislation in support of trans rights when they have the power to do so, after an election where they need votes that may be turned off by the issue? Nobody came out against trans rights. An omission on the topic isn’t anti trans.

        If not talking about an issue now may mean more voters so that real change may happen, even if that means courting republicans, why is that a bad thing?

        It’s possible to support something without talking about it one time.

            • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              Based on Republicans passing over 500 anti-trans bills the last several years and Democrats haven’t done shit except talk about it. Democrat version of protecting their rights is telling them they’re free to use whatever restroom they want, while ignoring that they don’t have access to affordable Health Care or housing and may live in abject poverty while using that preferred restroom.

              • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                When did Democrats ever have the power to change any of that? Can’t force change without control of Congress which didn’t happen. While it seems like a weak consolation, gender neutral bathrooms is progress. Nobody as the unilateral power to make any of those changes.

                What do you think could have been done over the last 4 years that would have been real change?

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?

      In this climate, when we are under direct and active attack? Fucking yes.

      I’m all for trans rights, but I don’t bring it up in every conversation I have about politics.

      Gotta love the overinflated ego, but you aren’t trying to win an election to run a fucking country, your conversations aren’t relevant.

      Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?

      If you prioritise winning over bigots over your morals, and are willing to further compromise the safety of marginalised people for the sake of furthering your career - you are just as much of a bigot, and again - have no moral, only self interests.

      Claiming that supporting trans rights will get trump elected is flat out manipulative bigotry, and makes you a liar, because you’re not all for trans rights, you’re only for trans rights when it’s convenient for you.

      You are being the “white moderate” that causes more harm than the outright bigot does, because you pretend to support the cause, but are happy to tell others to wait for their liberation until it’s more convenient for you.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        19 days ago

        Do you know what the word hypothetical means? While you’re searching for that, loik up what a false equivalence is as well, so that maybe you can stop using them.

        It’s possible for a person to not mention something during a speech and still fight for that cause. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.