Owned opposition

The lemmy bingo card. Get called a Nazi, Get told to go back to Reddit, Get taunted due to something about your host domain, Get told you actually hate some group you actively are defending, etc

Forum users are famously bad at discussing nuanced topics. Anything that requires more thought than brainlessly taking the polarized stance leads to infighting.

Sex != Gender

But gender is also a protected class.

So gender discrimination

I had a draft message that was basically “Before I bother, I want to make sure you engage in good faith. Can we agree on things like your DNA affects your hormones which effect you body development”, and a few other really really basic pillars that cannot be reasonably debated. I had to leave so left it as a draft…

But uh. In the other thread, you already claimed HRT takes full effect instantly in your They do, actually statement. Also your stance implies a pre-18 start for HRT which is a whole other bucket of nuance. You already started nitpicking grammar like a 2012 internet troll. You already started accusing the other dude of feeding into the “Nazi agenda”. I just know that you are incapable of good faith discussion on a topic that is inherently touchy without letting your emotions take over.

So I won’t bother engaging further, enjoy having the last word.

I happens literally every time.

Ah yes, the only possible reason anyone could oppose any possible aspect of any possible trans issue at all is if they are a transphobe. There is no reasonable opposition to any proposed trans issue at all theoretically ever even once at all ever. It’s always actually simply hate.

Good job. Have fun on my loser list.

I guess you didn’t play in sports as a kid? Or maybe somewhere other than the US. Or, frankly, maybe it varies from practitioner to practitioner, I don’t really know.

Growing up I was required to get annual physicals in order to play. That included a very brief genital inspection. My point is these are not some barbaric molestation of kids. It’s routine in many hospitals around the world.

I edited nothing

Cutting out a very relevant piece of near by context in an otherwise well formatted quote is in fact editing something out. It wasn’t 3 pages over or irrelevant, it was in the same paragraph you edited.

I’m kind of with you but I think it’s bad faith to claim “reproductive anatomy” in that bill was in reference to getting an ultrasound of their ovaries. It is clearly in reference to them checking their exterior genitals.

“signed by the student’s personal health care provider”

Inspected by a doctor. Who will be ‘visually inspecting’ their genitals for normal health reasons anyways.

Why did you choose to edit that out?

Kinda like weight classes?

I wish people The Good Side were open to more nuanced conversations on this topic. There are many reasons why you could oppose trans athletes in girls sports that have nothing to do with transphobia but when that conversation is placed next to the foghorn of hate from The Bad Side, nuance dies.

sports are some sacred thing whose purity must be protected

With that framing, I agree. But that’s a strawman. Most people don’t care for the romantic vision of a “pure” sport but rather, the general idea of keeping sports fair for kids. 1/2 the rules in all sports are about keeping things fair. Age buckets, weight ranges, gender, a system of leagues (ex varisty vs JV) to sort players on skill level, and so on.

So if you assume that there are biological differences between men and women that affect fairness within a competitive sport and if you feel those differences largely do not go away until after some form of medical transition and if you think sports are important in kids lives & keeping them fair is important - then you vote the way blue WA did.

That’s great, but just because you happen to be informed & engaged doesn’t mean the people that aren’t are stupid.

I’m in favor of a wealth tax as a corrective measure, which is how this prop was structured, but on as a broader recurring tax I am against it. If I was less informed on this prop or otherwise held a stronger “If it’s wrong to do it recurring then it’s wrong always” position, then I would have voted against it. It doesn’t take much effort to empathize with why people would be against new tax structures.

The current most scalable way to do that is to give cities a budget to plant trees everywhere they can.

I would love a $Billion in green energy research, but 1000 cities getting $Million budgets to plant thousands of trees and maintain them over the next 15 years would be better

We should start buying farms in the Califoirnia Valley where they are essentially abusing water rights - and plant massive forests. It would take a fraction of the water to accomplish this and reduce desertification. Eat some of the smog from LA & SD, give the millions of residents a desert forest to camp in, and so on. Expensive plan but one I would vote for.

people are really stupid

Wrong. People are generally intelligent.

Propaganda is just very effective, even against intelligent people, and most people don’t have the extra time/energy or desire to investigate each prop. Which is a structural failure to not prioritize it, but that’s the point. There are systems in place to make political research feel both not important and also very exhausting. You live in a society full of very intelligent people, a slice of those intelligent people use their positions of power to add layers upon layers of friction to the political system so that they can retain their power.

You are not surrounded by idiots, but, you ARE ruled by criminals.

The fact that it’s even close says enough

Removed by mod

It’s not a smear campaign when it’s just an actual thing that happened.

Hasan hivemind is alive and well I see

The root comment didn’t even know who Hasan was tf you mean “already known”.

Dude is a dog abuser, and it’s relevant.