By allowing and tolerating these “few” democrats to hold anti-trans positions, the party is indicating that trans rights are negotiable. That means they are not allies.
Your argument is, trans politicians like the democrat mentioned in this post, are not trans allies… because you can cherry pick individuals that voted against the Democratic Party and with the Republican Party for anti trans legislation written solely by republicans.
So blatantly disingenuous.
Your obvious effort to sow apathy among trans voters then blame trans democrats for having to compromise with republicans who then have the majority of votes from lack of pro trans voter turnout.
I’m blaming the party, not McBride. She’s ok. You’re twisting my stance to make it disingenuous, when I’ve only spoken about the party as a whole and the likely presidential candidate for 2028.
You’re cherry picking examples of people who voted against the democratic party to blame the entire Democratic Party including McBride of being of not being trans allies.
Your bar is somewhere around introducing legislation? I have a higher bar. I want Newsom ejected from the party for his comments, and the fact that he wasn’t means it’s an anti-trans party.
So you’re ok with going to bars with Nazis in it because it’s not explicitly a Nazi bar? You’re refusing to engage based on the merits of my argument. I’m done with this conversation.
Here’s some of my evidence:
https://www.semafor.com/article/05/16/2025/in-states-some-democrats-back-anti-trans-bills
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/03/newsom-transgender-athletes/
https://www.them.us/story/senate-democrats-ndaa-chuck-schumer-tammy-baldwin-trans-healthcare-ban
https://www.them.us/story/tom-suozzi-seth-moulton-new-york-times-trans-people-blame-election-2024
By allowing and tolerating these “few” democrats to hold anti-trans positions, the party is indicating that trans rights are negotiable. That means they are not allies.
Your argument is, trans politicians like the democrat mentioned in this post, are not trans allies… because you can cherry pick individuals that voted against the Democratic Party and with the Republican Party for anti trans legislation written solely by republicans.
So blatantly disingenuous.
Your obvious effort to sow apathy among trans voters then blame trans democrats for having to compromise with republicans who then have the majority of votes from lack of pro trans voter turnout.
I’m blaming the party, not McBride. She’s ok. You’re twisting my stance to make it disingenuous, when I’ve only spoken about the party as a whole and the likely presidential candidate for 2028.
You’re cherry picking examples of people who voted against the democratic party to blame the entire Democratic Party including McBride of being of not being trans allies.
Think of it like ACAB for politics. Most cops are decent people, but all cops are bastards. Most democrats aren’t anti-trans. The party is anti-trans.
Your examples all show the individuals voting against the Democratic Party for Republican legislation.
Meaning the Democratic Party is pro trans, Republican Party is anti trans according to legislation they create.
But you claim the opposite of your examples.
Trying to scapegoat all democrats including trans politicians like McBride that only exist in the Democratic Party.
Your bar is somewhere around introducing legislation? I have a higher bar. I want Newsom ejected from the party for his comments, and the fact that he wasn’t means it’s an anti-trans party.
So you’re intentionally sowing apathy among pro trans voters and thus helping the anti trans republicans win elections.
All because Newsom held a different stance than the Democratic Party?
Make it make sense
So you’re ok with going to bars with Nazis in it because it’s not explicitly a Nazi bar? You’re refusing to engage based on the merits of my argument. I’m done with this conversation.