In Video, Trump Vows To Target Doctors Treating Trans People If Re-Elected

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-vows-stop-gender-affirming-care-minors-re-elected-president-rcna68461

 

Not unexpectedly, Trump has jumped onto the "Demonization Train" against the trans community, vowing even to make transition for minors illegal nationwide, and to use all the resources of the Feds to come after us and our doctors.  You can expect that every gain we've made in the last two years will be ended.  He hasn't talked about "rounding us up," but nothing would shock me at this point.   ☹️

 

Carolyn Marie

[VickySGV]

I think he is older than I am, and subject to the same risks of health calamities that I am.  I just lost another couple of high school classmates over the past week, they were people who had met the now me.  Oh well, he can talk and play one-up on his rivals until a year from now. 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I've always wondered if Trump was a shill for the New World Order... Now I'm more certain.  There's so much bad that has happened in the last two years.  A drunk chimpanzee could run a Republican campaign and win.  This is a setup, like the two parties are playing good-cop-bad-cop.

 

  

[Marcie Jensen]

7 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 A drunk chimpanzee could run a Republican campaign and win.  This is a setup, like the two parties are playing good-cop-bad-cop.

I agree. To both points. I would only that while the drunk chimpanzee part applies to both parties, it's a grave insult to chimpanzees.

[MiraF]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:15 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

He hasn't talked about "rounding us up," but nothing would shock me at this point.

I agree. The only reason he is doing this is because it is popular amongst republicans, who want to genocide us.

I wonder if there has ever been a populist demagogue who ran on a platform of genocide before... Hmmm... Maybe someone who liked white supremacy and organized the burning of the first library for gender research in an attack that may have caused the death of the first transgender woman known to have undergone sex reassignment surgery... Who could I be talking about?

[awkward-yet-sweet]

11 hours ago, MiraF said:

I agree. The only reason he is doing this is because it is popular amongst republicans, who want to genocide us.

I disagree with this part.  Anti-trans stuff is popular among politicians, but not Trump's base.  I live in a deep-red area.  I think my state went nearly 70% for Trump, and my county was something like 85%.  Being trans just isn't an issue here, and when I was assaulted last year the justice system was strongly in my favor.

 

Republican candidates are hurting their chances of election with this stuff.  The base will still vote for them on other issues, but the constant trans focus is a source of base voter frustration. And the undecided voters are really turned off by it. 

 

Given the mood of the general population, I don't fear roundups or genocide.  What I fear is this country getting firmly into the hands of the Democrat party if they are allowed to play "hero.". Hopefully people will learn the true nature of both parties and reject the entire thing. 

[KathyLauren]

3 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Anti-trans stuff is popular among politicians, but not Trump's base.

 

3 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Republican candidates are hurting their chances of election with this stuff.

 

I sure hope you are right.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@Katie23 I find the drag queen stuff really irritating at this point.  I don't care if people want to wear strange and flamboyant fashions, but the publicity given to drag shows, drag queen story hours, RuPaul, etc is too much and has caused a ton of negative blowback on the rest of us because it plays right into the hands of wacko politicians.  

 

And of course, the constant association with the Democrats and their socialism, regulations, and taxes.  If I had a nickel for every time I have had to explain to local people how I am not a Democrat voter....

 

The problem is when LGBTQ+ folks appear to be "other.". More than anything, I blame that for my assault last year.  I dont have issues when people understand that we are their normal, average, friendly neighbors. 

 

[MiraF]

10 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I disagree with this part.  Anti-trans stuff is popular among politicians, but not Trump's base.

Trump isn't looking to be popular amongst voters, he's looking to be popular with TV republicans. This doesn't just include politicians, it includes people like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson. That is Trumps real base, these are the people he wants to endear himself to.

 

10 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Republican candidates are hurting their chances of election with this stuff.  The base will still vote for them on other issues, but the constant trans focus is a source of base voter frustration. And the undecided voters are really turned off by it. 

 This is true, and it makes me happy every time I hear about it. That said, we can't be too confident.

 

10 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Given the mood of the general population, I don't fear roundups or genocide.

In a different post, I talked about how genocide is something that is currently happening and not a hypothetical future scenario, here is the main point:

 

The definition of genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is:

"

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

"

 

Genocide is happening now, regardless of "the mood of the general population".

[MiraF]

3 hours ago, Katie23 said:

We need to rise up and differentiate ourselves from drag queens, and make it clear that there is a huge distinction.

I disagree. Any attack on drag is an attack on all LGBTQ+. We are a diverse collection of groups, and as an individual group any subsection of LGBTQ+ has relatively little power, only as a collective we can survive the current anti-LGBTQ+ attacks.

 

Laws that say this:

"

exhibits a gender identity that is different from the performer's gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, or other accessories that are traditionally worn by members of and are meant to exaggerate the gender identity of the performer's opposite sex

"

Don't mean we should try to distance ourselves to avoid getting hit, they mean we should work more closely together to fight them.

Being grouped together is good because it forces us to unite. If the attacks by the United States on gay men in the 60's had been accompanied by ambivalence about lesbians, I don't think the Stonewall riot would have even happened. (For those not in the know, the first pride parades were the anniversary of the Stonewall riot).

 

This is not a problem that unique to LGBTQ+; any movement that is opposed to the people who are abusing and accumulating power has to remain united at all costs.

Here's a poem about the reactions of German intellectuals and clergy to the Nazis' actions as they rose to power called "First they came…":

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—

and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Marcie Jensen]

This may get lengthy. Please bear with me, and apologies in advance if anything I say or point out annoys anyone. There have been a lot of good points raised here, and the fear is not only understandable, but very real. I share many of those fears, BTW.

 

@MiraF The poem you cite is an English translation of a post was prose confessional by the German pastor Martin Niemoller. He was initially a NAZI supporter but changed his ways. (We had to study his works in seminary. It is interesting how his theology evolved...) And, yeah; he was one of us pesky Christians who actually practice inclusion similar to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rachael Held Evans, John Cardinal Dulles and, dare I say Jesus of Nazareth himself.  It's an excellent choice to make your point and holds true to this day.

 

That said, using the UN's definition of genocide is a bit problematic for the United States as under title IX, U.S.C. 1091, the definition of genocide is defined as, "violent attack with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." And, here in the USA, the violence part is essential under the law. As the round ups and mass executions aren't happening, the genocide argument is hollow, although I will admit freely the potential does exist and is growing every day.

 

Additionally, the hate mongers in politics are not limited to the GOP. One only needs to look at the comments of Maxine Waters, AOC, Ihlan Omar and president Biden himself to confirm this. These include race baiting--going back to 1974 in Biden's case, anti semetic comments, and calling their political opponents various names as well as vilifying opponents/members of the opposite party with neither evidence nor justification.

 

As for Trump, well, yes the man is a demagogue. Yes he is of remarkably low intelligence. He is also unelectable. Period. He elicits the same irrational hatred from many democrats as Hillary Clinton does from republicans. And with greater justification. As to what he said in hid latest grandstanding speech, he can rant all he wants, but, his proposed agenda is not very likely for a couple of really big reasons. First, it violates the the Civil Rights act of 1968 and would not survive a court challenge, Second, and more importantly it violates the constitution in several places including the First Amendment. Additionally, Trump's very own appointments to SCOTUS would probably work against him as they are all strict constitutionalists. As such, it looks as if the feasible way Trump could enact this is through an executive order, which would be lost when challenged in the courts.

 

I agree that the trend regarding anti-trans legislation is disturbing and frightening for us all. I would however remind us of something said in another thread--sorry I can't recall who said it--that over 92% of all proposed legislation never reaches the floor for a vote, and that virtually all of these new laws are proposals only. And if enacted, would face significant legal challenges they would not be able to survive.

 

The only other thing I would say is that rhetoric and hand wringing are not what is needed right now. Rather, a coordinated plan to stop this sort of thing combined with an effort to convince the rest of society that we are just as "normal" as everyone else is what is needed. Rhetoric and name calling, while satisfying, are not the answer. I learned in high school debate many decades ago from a wise coach that anyone who resorts to name calling and invective has no valid argument. Feel free to disagree with this, but, regardless, it is fact.

 

Trump can be frightening, but he's more like a gadfly than a force of nature, meaning an annoyance only.

[KathyLauren]

44 minutes ago, Katie23 said:

Perhaps 92% of the proposed legislation never reaches the floor

 The campaign is less about passing legislation and more about normalizing oppression.  It doesn't matter to them if the laws don't pass, because ordinary people will hear about the attempt and will absorb the concept as part of their "normal" environment.  Then they will support oppressive candidates in the next election or even take oppressive action on their own.

 

The best way I can fight this trend is to be out and visible, normalizing the perception of us as good neighbours and community members.

[Ivy]

I suppose it's not technically "genocide" until the roundups, and the gas is turned on.

 

While I might not personally face much hate (or whatever) to my face, there is not really much support either.  It's mostly tolerance.  As for the Democrat party, I suspect much of the "support" there is based on opposition to the GOP.

 

And for the courts, I'm skeptical that the SCOTUS would help us.  I mean, the constitution doesn't specifically give us protection.  So at best it could go back to the states -- which is what we have now.  (look at the voting rights cases)

 

Regarding the "drag show" and related BS, the most watched "news" source looks for the craziest examples of "transgender" stories and throws them out to their already receptive followers as what we are thought to be like.  [Z cup boobs, naked "man" in locker room, etc.]  And a large part of their followers believe it -- even if they might know some of us personally.  

There are people I interact with on a regular basis that are polite, but I'm not so sure how they would act if it came down to it.  They could be under pressure themselves not to be associated with us.  Remember how supporters of civil-rights were treated in the 60's as (N word) lovers?

 

It's not only TFG.  Governor DeSantis is actually putting these things into practice, where as TFG is only running his mouth.

[Astrid]

56 minutes ago, KathyLauren said:

 The campaign is less about passing legislation and more about normalizing oppression.  It doesn't matter to them if the laws don't pass, because ordinary people will hear about the attempt and will absorb the concept as part of their "normal" environment.  Then they will support oppressive candidates in the next election or even take oppressive action on their own.

 

The best way I can fight this trend is to be out and visible, normalizing the perception of us as good neighbours and community members.

 

Kathy, these are such perceptive words and sound advice on how to address it. Thank you for them. 

 

Right now, we here seem to be a "disunited stetes of America", with seemingly a majority of us in our respective silos,  neither side listening to their opponents.  May we find ways to build avenues of communication.  

[Carolyn Marie]

@Katie23 you might contact the state LGBT groups, the Transgender Law Center, or the TLDEF (Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund) with your experiences and see if they can take up the issue, if they haven't already.  Another option is your state ACLU office.

 

Carolyn Marie

[MiraF]

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

That said, using the UN's definition of genocide is a bit problematic for the United States as under title IX, U.S.C. 1091, the definition of genocide is defined as, "violent attack with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." And, here in the USA, the violence part is essential under the law. As the round ups and mass executions aren't happening, the genocide argument is hollow, although I will admit freely the potential does exist and is growing every day.

Using the UN's definition of genocide in the United States is a bit problematic only if I'm trying to convict somebody. Just because in isn't technically genocide according to US law doesn't mean it isn't genocide.

 

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Additionally, the hate mongers in politics are not limited to the GOP. One only needs to look at the comments of Maxine Waters, AOC, Ihlan Omar and president Biden himself to confirm this. These include race baiting--going back to 1974 in Biden's case, anti semetic comments, and calling their political opponents various names as well as vilifying opponents/members of the opposite party with neither evidence nor justification.

Yes, the Dems aren't perfect, but they are a million times better than the republicans. I'd rather have a hundred Bidens that said something antisemitic in 1974 than one genocidal DeSantis.

 

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

As for Trump, well, yes the man is a demagogue. Yes he is of remarkably low intelligence. He is also unelectable. Period.

That doesn't matter, because DeSantis isn't. Trump is a litmus test: if he is shouting that we need to end transgenderism, it's because he thinks that position is so popular that if he doesn't support it, he will lose in the primary. His demagoguery is convincing people who previously just voted Trump because of his cult of personality that anti-trans is a cause worth voting for.

 

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

First, it violates the the Civil Rights act of 1968 and would not survive a court challenge, Second, and more importantly it violates the constitution in several places including the First Amendment. Additionally, Trump's very own appointments to SCOTUS would probably work against him as they are all strict constitutionalists.

The supreme court is going to generally vote along partisan lines. They overturned Roe v Wade for their republican overlords, and they will approve this too. Even if one of them grows a pair and says no, the others will still pass it. It is 6-3 for the republicans, they can afford a dissenter.

 

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I agree that the trend regarding anti-trans legislation is disturbing and frightening for us all. I would however remind us of something said in another thread--sorry I can't recall who said it--that over 92% of all proposed legislation never reaches the floor for a vote, and that virtually all of these new laws are proposals only. And if enacted, would face significant legal challenges they would not be able to survive.

That may be true generally, but I found a source that said about 15% of anti-trans youth bills have become law in the US. We are the target of a coordinated attack, statistics that are true generally are not going to apply to us.

 

11 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Trump can be frightening, but he's more like a gadfly than a force of nature, meaning an annoyance only.

He's more like a locust than a gadfly - one is an annoyance, but a swarm is an existential threat.

 

10 hours ago, Katie23 said:

Perhaps 92% of the proposed legislation never reaches the floor, but keep in mind, this is a bit different. I see a well-coordinated effort across multiple states all at the same time. [...] They may not have the Federal power, but if they get enough states to enact legislation, they win.

This is what they want. once they win at the local level, winning at the national level is peanuts.

[Marcie Jensen]

@MiraF Regarding Joe Biden, I wasn't referring to antisemitic remarks., (those belong to Ihlan Omar and some others) I was referring to blatant racism in a speech he made on the Senate floor in 1974. In this speech he came out against bussing to end segregation in the public schools stating that he was against school integration because, in his own words he didn't want his children "growing up in a jungle." That's but one example that's largely forgotten as are his political mentors included such people as James O. Eastland, Cory Booker and Strom Thurmond who was a member of the KKK for decades. Also, keep in mind that thee democratic party brought us, and supported, such friendly folks as George Wallace and perpetuated most of the Jim Crow legislation in the South that lasted from the reconstruction period to the 1980s. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties in any significant way on any issue. 

 

As for US legal definitions not mattering, we're going to have to disagree. They do matter in the United States regardless of what any of us like or dislike.  That's just a fact, and facts are neither true nor false; they simply are. And it's a fact that UN definitions do not apply to the USA, just as US definitions of law do not apply in Canada or any other country. And rightly so. 

 

And as for Roe, as early as the original decision was made, numerous legal scholars have argued that it was poor legal precedent as early as the 1970s including Leon Derschowitz who is pretty liberal. And, in the recent Roe decision, as I understand it, what SCOTUS to a rigid constittutionalist view and returned the decision to the states as there was no federal jurisdiction. My personal beliefs on this don't come into play here. The practical solution is for congress to enact legislation on the abortion issue, but they won't because it's a potential political firestorm and a really good wedge issue. As to how SCOTUS is going to vote on any anti-trans legislation that comes before, it might be a good idea to wait and see before casting judgement. The record of this court has been all over the place; particularly the votes of Roberts and Kavanaugh.

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I couldn't give a rat's rump about the UN or its definitions.  Perhaps the legal definition in the USA matters...I prefer to just look at the meaning of the word.  Genocide = the killing of a type of people.  Usually organized killing.  We don't have that in the USA yet, and we can prevent it.  One of the easiest ways to avoid it is for people to stop being "trans" as their primary form of identity.  I'm a lot of things before I'm intersex/trans...and those things matter more to me than my gender and sexuality. 

 

I see a future and a hope for everyone in the concept of local independence and our identity as each other's neighbors.  It was that "neighbor" identity that supported me after being assaulted.  In general, who we vote for in November may vary, but our goals are the same.  We want peace.  We want prosperity.  We want friendship, family, and contentment.  We might disagree about the policies that protect these things, but we have the same goals because we're humans. 

 

I think the USA is probably too big to secure what we want, but having an identity as local neighbors can produce the cooperation we need.  Yes, diversity is strength...but it can only be strength if we have on overriding unity.  We don't have that as Americans, but we can have that locally as neighbors with a sense of "We Live HERE."  Locality can override race, gender, sexuality, and other factors.  At least, it seems to work where I live.   I want to work for a life in which Trump and Biden don't matter anymore...where the Supreme Court and both parties are relics of the past. 

 

[VickySGV]

35 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

think the USA is probably too big to secure what we want, but having an identity as local neighbors can produce the cooperation we need.

 

We are now up to 22% of the U.S. population who know they know a Trans person as a neighbor per the Williams Institute  here in CA.  This is one of the reasons I urge Trans/Enby to go out and volunteer for community service projects.  Do the work as a helpful person and maybe somewhere down the line, let them know you are Trans after they have seen the wonderful person hard at work or better yet have a friend of a friend let the others know that they know, and respect a Trans person.   It is one way I do it. 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@VickySGV Yep.  I imagine 22% might be a bit high outside of urban areas, but it is becoming more common.  In my rural area, only a small number outside my family know exactly who/what I am.  To the rest... they mostly see my attachment to my family and faith community.  Boy/girl doesn't matter as much.  My friend is a bit more obviously trans.  But hanging out with me and my family, she's accepted too.  Part of being seen as nonthreatening is being seen as "normal," which means being linked to a mainstream, positive, or "in" group.   

[MiraF]

6 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Regarding Joe Biden, I wasn't referring to antisemitic remarks., (those belong to Ihlan Omar and some others) I was referring to blatant racism in a speech he made on the Senate floor in 1974. In this speech he came out against bussing to end segregation in the public schools stating that he was against school integration because, in his own words he didn't want his children "growing up in a jungle." That's but one example that's largely forgotten as are his political mentors included such people as James O. Eastland, Cory Booker and Strom Thurmond who was a member of the KKK for decades.

I did not know that, thank you for informing me. That said, people change and the Joe Biden we have today is still a million times better than the republicans, at least with regards to the laws he supports and the statements he makes.

 

6 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

James O. Eastland, Cory Booker and Strom Thurmond who was a member of the KKK for decades. Also, keep in mind that thee democratic party brought us, and supported, such friendly folks as George Wallace and perpetuated most of the Jim Crow legislation in the South that lasted from the reconstruction period to the 1980s. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties in any significant way on any issue. 

I am not going to disagree on Eastland, except to mention that the republicans supported him over their own candidates at one point, and I couldn't find anyone by the name Corey Booker who was born before 1969, but using Strom Thurmond to say the democrats are as bad as the republicans is just... He thought the democrats were worse than the republicans and said they had "abandoned the people" so he left the democrats and joined the republican party. He thought the democrats were too anti racism to be in the same party as them. Here is a quote about him from Wikipedia that really makes me crack up every time I read it: "With the Voting Rights Act passing into law by a slightly larger margin than the Civil Rights Act, Thurmond's opposition to civil rights had proven as effective as a Republican as they had been as a Democrat."

Generally, around the period you seem to be referencing, the positions of democrats and republicans flipped on several matters, and it is misleading to use that period to claim the two are similar. Democrats who didn't leave the party usually had massive changes of heart, for instance George Wallace claimed to no longer support segregation and said he had always been a "moderate" on racial matters. Later in life, he apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist, and publicly asked for forgiveness from black Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't forgive him, and neither should anyone else, but him having to do this to stay in power as a democrat suggests a positive trend in the politics of the party overall.

[MiraF]

5 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I couldn't give a rat's rump about the UN or its definitions.  Perhaps the legal definition in the USA matters...I prefer to just look at the meaning of the word.  Genocide = the killing of a type of people.

Here's a block of text from Wikipedia for you:

"

While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers such as the British and Spanish empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territories frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Asia. According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.

"

TLDR: when the guy who made up the word genocide made up the word genocide, he wasn't talking about killing people.

This: "Genocide = the killing of a type of people" has never been, and will never be, true.

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, MiraF said:

TLDR: when the guy who made up the word genocide made up the word genocide, he wasn't talking about killing people.

This: "Genocide = the killing of a type of people" has never been, and will never be, true.

Yes words are important.  But let's not forget that we are talking about a real situation, not a bunch of hypothetical ideas. 

[Davie]

Why is the GOP escalating attacks on trans rights?

Experts say the goal is to make sure evangelicals vote. 

This is their reason for allowing children to die?

[KathyLauren]

8 minutes ago, Davie said:

Why is the GOP escalating attacks on trans rights?

Experts say the goal is to make sure evangelicals vote. 

This is their reason for allowing children to die?

An interesting and surprisingly hopeful article.  Thanks for posting the link.