1235
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
1235 points (98.7% liked)
World News
42705 readers
3022 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also to add, there is an unfortunate number of Liberals who are quickly walking back any support for trans folk.
We call those shitty people where I come from.
Not only do these people fail as allies and as compassionate human beings, but they're also very stupid if they don't see that defending trans rights is the front line of the fight against fascism right now, and we all need to be there fighting it. They're not going to stop at taking rights away from trans people. It'll be you next.
I feel like (official) racial equality needs to be in there, I just don't know where.
They can't see that attacks on trans rights are also attacks on cis rights. I think that's part of the reason why Rep. Zoey Zephyr and Rep. SJ Howell were so effective at stopping a couple pieces of anti-trans legislation in Montana yesterday. They talked about the fact that the legislation would potentially effect cis people as well as the fact that it'd take "parental rights" away from parents. They also did it in a way that created a narrative which both cis and trans people can identify with, creating a common ground to further convince people that the legislation was wrong. And it was successful. They got a number of Republican lawmakers to switch sides, despite the fact that the GOP prides itself on being in lockstep. They even had a Republican lawmaker make a stand too, saying that the people introducing this legislation were basically just wasting everyone's time.
People say, "trans rights are human rights" and they're serious. We embody the extreme of gender non-conformity that cis people occasionally dabble in, and when you start taking away our rights, you start taking away cis rights too.
Can you give some links what these "pieces of anti-trans legislation" were going to do? Not familiar with that yet.
Here's an article on the two bills that got voted out in Montana: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/powerful-speeches-from-trans-dems
Most of the anti-trans legislation is as bad or worse; Texas has a couple nutjobs trying to make being trans illegal as a whole.
Of course they're stupid; they're Americans.
Unfortunately it‘s not a struggle between left or right anymore but up and down instead. Especially in the US.
So it’s still left vs right
The problem is that in the US you don’t have a left party. Just a right one and a fascist one
It's always been a game for the poors, this ol' crab-bucket squid game bullshit. Seems like the only way out is to scare the tippy-top to their core. (No spoilers!)
In what way are liberals walking back support for Trans? I’ve seen the comment from Gavin Newsom about athletics, but does that mean he has walked back all support? Or just in that one area?
Walking back support in one area is walking back support.
It ain't that complex. As soon as concessions are made, the far right demands more because there must always be an enemy to crush completely for the in-group. Who will then pick a new enemy when it comes politically convenient.
So in your opinion it’s an all or nothing thing? Like, you can’t question one area without going full bigot?
In many ways it is. The actual science on trans athletics supports policies like those sports agencies have typically used - allowing people to compete if they've been on certain hormonal treatments for a specific period of time. Cis athletes also have advantages and disadvantages, relative to each other, based on testosterone level. Trans women on HRT are well within that range of performance. In many sports, trans women are actually at a disadvantage to cis women, due to the fact that trans women tend to have lower testosterone levels than cis women.
In other words, the science is completely against sports bans. There is no logical reason to do them. The truly scientific solution is to consider sports on an individual basis, and let the sport figure out what advantage/disadvantage trans folks might have. Then, if that advantage/disadvantage is well within normal player ranges, then competing is fine. If not, if it's an individual sport, maybe a handicap system. If it's a group sport, well maybe rules about how many trans people can be on any one team. Etc. You start at a position of aiming for fairness. Then you only prevent people from competing if a clear advantage can be justified. In other words, the complete opposite of blanket sports bans.
With sports bans, you're not meeting someone halfway on an issue of great scientific debate. You are simply caving to irrational bigotry. People think trans people are gross, so they want to hurt them. That's really the root of this. And you can't compromise with someone that isn't actually trying to craft good public policy. Two people can compromise on tax rates or the generosity of government benefits. But how do you compromise with someone that just wants to hurt other people? Their desire to hurt others isn't going to end. They'll just want more. Compromising with bigots only emboldens them.
Also for god fucking sake it’s fucking evil to harass individual athletes who are abiding by those rules and participating in a sport they love. The fact that I scroll past virulent hatefests against Lia Thomas on Facebook, or that Imane Khalif’s personal medical history is apparently everyone’s personal business is gross and evil.
I certainly agree that it should be up to the sports agencies to do what is most fair for the athletes. And congress should not get involved unless they are failing to do so.
I just think that reasonable people have concerns about this specific issue, and it is not fair to treat somebody like a bigot for expressing concerns. If I had a daughter who was losing to a team with a 6 foot 2 trans female, or competing with that same person for scholarships or even a place on the team, I would absolutely be piss. No amount of studies would make me feel ok with this.
And to act like Newsom is a bigot just for telling these people that he hears their concerns is a sure fire way of losing support from people that would otherwise be right on your side. This is how Trump Jr gets elected in 2028.
How many transgender girls play in any high school sport in your state? Or I guess, played last year because I think they’ve all been banned.
I had a student on puberty blockers. She was tiny. No “advantages” I could see.
Ultimately, it should be case by case, working with the doctors and individuals.
No.
If you fall back in front of the far right they will take that ground and demand more, as they always have done, and as they always will do. It's how they win, it's how they are winning, on trans rights, on immigration, on racial supremacy. Do not give them an inch. It's not "all or nothing" it's "give the bigots nothing".
Ok, but what if you are not giving into demands, but stating your feelings that just happen to align, in that one area, with the right?
My point is that Trans issues have many different areas. Saying they’re wrong in one area does not mean you are abandoning trans people entirely and just as bad as the bigots that want harm done to them.
Just want to say, I don’t know all of what Newson has said, just read some articles that had 2 or 3 quotes. It’s hard to know what his overall opinions are, though.
I honestly cannot fathom how you can be looking at the situation of the US currently and not realising how wedge issues based on lies and bigotry work and the absolutely deletrious effect it is having on minorities.
I suppose you'll still be equivocating and making excuses when it's gone past travel bans (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/marco-rubio-state-transgender-visa-b2704734.html), erasure of LGBT literature (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/banned-books-lgbtq-transgender-black-people-of-color-pen-america-rcna193879), banning of social and medical transition (https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map, https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/texas-not-for-freedom-house-bill-could-ban-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-adults/ar-AA1AjTF5), the creation of specific crimes for the existence of transgender people (https://msmagazine.com/2025/03/03/montana-hb-446-criminalizes-trans-existence-social-contagion/), the removal of protections in law (https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/23/trump-administration-moves-reject-transgender-identity-rights) and we're in camps waiting to be "purified".
Why are you falling for wedge issues that are designed to wipe out a group of people in a way that absolutely parallels actions taken by Nazis? Is a discussion about 10 athletes out of hundreds of thousands that important?
My entire point is that it is not “all or nothing”. You can say the debate on male/female athletics is a complicated one where both sides have valid point and also think literally everything else you posted is disgusting and should never be considered.
If we’re being honest, this sounds very reminiscent of how republicans in the early 2000s would take objections to the war as “not supporting the troops”. Or the way people that criticize Israel for their treatment of Palestine are called antisemitic when they fully support the Jewish people.
You can believe different things about each debate without being a full on bigot that wants to open concentration camps for trans children.
The thing is you don't align with the far right. At least I hope you don't anyway. The far right either hate trans people, or they do not give a shit about them either way. They are using trans people as a political football to sow exactly this type of division. Yes, trans people in sport is an unresolved problem. No, I do not want the right wing to be the ones to resolve it. If you align superficially, you still don't want to cede to them. Bear in mind "align" only goes as far as saying "we can agree about this one sentence", not this whole issue.
Godwin's law is fucked these days so let's just use the third Reich as an analogy. You may agree that Germany has a legitimate territorial claim on Alsace-Lorraine. Does that mean you should let the Nazis take it? No, you fight them and then resolve it when someone more reasonable is asking. The reasons why should be obvious, and so should the analogy. It's not about whether the extremely superficial claim is "correct", it's about why they are saying it and what they plan to do if they get enough people to agree with them.
In this case, where the war is one of ideas, you're not a bigot if you agree in a very superficial way, but it's completely redundant to be talking about trans women in sport when all trans people are being stripped of their rights and it looks like things are getting worse. A year ago we were hoping (again) for the first female president; long overdue. That's not an issue anymore, as women are now being erased from history.
Thank you for making this post.
You've outlined exactly why allowing the far right to resolve perceived social issues isn't the way forward, especially when it comes to any sort of "minority" (which seems to be anything that isn't non-immigrant white Christian cis straight men) issues.
Thanks for saying so, I'm glad that the message came across.
Here’s what happens. A republican says 100 things, and 90 of which are batshit crazy and undeniable bullshit, but 10 of them are reasonable.
If we completely ignore the 10 reasonable things, then we lose all credibility in the argument when pointing the bullshit of the other 90 things.
I genuinely believe there are people out there that only hear the 10 reasonable things the republicans say and then see somebody like you completely dismiss those things and conclude that YOU are the unreasonable one. These people don’t pay attention the way you and I do, but still have the same voting power (if not more depending on the state they live in).
Your unwillingness to partition issues and treat them based on their individual merits will only lead to the opposition gaining more support and power.
I am not sure what you don't understand about the statement that walking back support is, in fact, walking back support.
Sure, but your comment is implying it’s an all or nothing situation. Walking back is walking back and nothing else matters.
There’s are multitudes of trans issues, and questioning one does not mean you are questioning all of them.
If somebody thinks people born male shouldn’t be competing in non rec league sports against people born female, that doesn’t mean they should be treated the same as people that want to ban drag shows and ban accepting lgbt children and all the other blatant bigotry coming from the MAGA cult.
If you can’t accept the nuance in the conversations then there will be no conversation.
What conversation do you want exactly?
If you want to pretend there is nuance you will be fully aware that the evidence that supposedly supports banning trans athletes, which is an initial step of control used to further limit transgender people by e.g. preventing them for entering the country, are meta studies based on comparisons of cisgender men and cisgender women, right?
There isn't a nuanced debate to be had and I'm sick of pretending that people like myself who just want to live our lives are a subject for debate.
So yes, worrying about tens out of hundreds of thousands of athletes when there isn't clear evidence of an advantage is bigoted and not calling that out leads to situations where conservatives and the far right try to introduce bills like that which was recently struck down (thankfully) in Montana.
Now, question for you - why is it so important to you that a minority of people should have their basic humanity and ability to participate in society be questioned in the way that transgender people are? Why do you support that? Why do you consider that to be an okay thing to do, when the consequences of allowing it are so plain to see?
Well, this is a conversation for sure. Brushing somebody off that doesn’t have the same experience as you is no way to keep people on your side.
I honestly have never heard of a study on trans athletes, so I don’t even know what you’re referring to. And if you’re saying there are biological differences between cisgender people and trans people, this is not an argument I have ever heard and is the exact example of nuance in the conversation I was referring to.
So, here’s my thinking if you are open to hearing it. I am a very liberal and compassionate person. I have always been. I absolutely support trans people, and if one of my children came out as trans I would be happy for them and support them. The hate that comes from republicans towards trans people (even children) disgusts me. But I have never understood the debate on athletics.
First, if you’re saying that legislation is largely unnecessary because the governing bodies of the sports leagues are already handling it, I totally agree. Those legislations are more about pointing a finger at trans people and shaming them than it is about protecting young athletes.
Second, you phrase it as “banning trans athletes”. This sounds different than the debate I have heard. There are plenty of rec leagues or clubs where your sex/gender shouldn’t come into play. And other leagues just depend on sex, not gender identification. Nobody should be saying a trans woman can’t play in a “male” league.
Now, it seems like you’re saying people born male should be allowed to compete in any competitive league according to their gender. This is where I disagree (and the governing bodies of the leagues should enforce this).
It seems like there are thousands of years of evidence that people born male have an athletic advantage over people born female. This is the entire reason male and female sports have always been separated. For you to say there is no evidence of an advantage goes counter to what seems obvious.
If I had a daughter that was in a competitive sport, I would be upset if she was losing to somebody that had obvious biological advantages of being born male (size, strength, etc).
With all that said, when I hear somebody like Newsom bring up the athletics debate then I hear somebody say liberals are “walking back any support for trans folk”, I feel like this is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t know if Newsom had other negative things to say about Trans people, which is mostly why I asked the question initially.
My understanding of HRT is that it it changes your muscle density, among other things. Although studies have shown they may still retain higher levels of muscle mass and strength. Anecdotally, a friend of mine is no where near as strong as they were before HRT. I know they were quite shocked when they realized they could no longer lift things they were once able to carry before transitioning.
They weren’t liberals then. They were just going along with what they thought was more popular at the time.
wait, are you telling me the liberals weren't steadfast absolute allies? that they didn't really believe in helping us, or anything else, ever?