Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

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


Carolyn Marie

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Ivy said:

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

Absolutely spot on! Genocide DOES equal killing people in the real world. History is full of examples including, but not limited to, the Trail of Tears, the entire 30 years war, the Crusades, the Jewish pogroms of Tsarist Russia, Stalin's purges, the more than 6 million who died in NAZI concentration camps, the actions of Pol Pot and most recently what the Serbs did to the Bosniacs (although they called it ethnic cleansing.) The point being that in actuality genocide always involves mass killings. It always will.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

The point being that in actuality genocide always involves mass killings. It always will.

And the mass gun violence in The United States of America.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Davie said:

 

Yes.

 

Further, Weyrich coined the term "moral majority" and was involved with Jerry Falwell Sr.'s kingmaking campaign. But it was never about morality. It was not even about abortion. And these days, it's not about the trans population. It's about sensationalizing and scapegoating some issue or population to galvanize voters to elect selected representatives who will quid pro quo further oppress the oppressed and further erase the disenfranchised. 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/08/abortion-us-religious-right-racial-segregation

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Davie said:

And the mass gun violence in The United States of America.

If you are equating the mass shootings in the USA as genocide, which is your right and I support that, the facts simply don't fall in your favor. Here's why: the shootings appear to be random, meaning there doesn't seem to be any specific group being targeted. Second, while absolutely horrific (particularly in the case of school shootings), the numbers are so few in regard to the general population that they don't rise to the level of genocide, meaning that one particular group is being singled out and the shooters are all so called "lone wolves" from across the ideological spectrum. As all of my Georgia relatives would say, "that dog just won't hunt."

 

Please don't misunderstand. I think all mass shootings are wrong. Period. And my heart goes out to the families of the victims. That said, it isn't genocide.

 

One other interesting piece of trivia. Virtually all of these shootings take place in gun free zones. Ever wonder why that is?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Vidanjali said:

Further, Weyrich coined the term "moral majority" and was involved with Jerry Falwell Sr.'s kingmaking campaign. But it was never about morality. It was not even about abortion. And these days, it's not about the trans population. It's about sensationalizing and scapegoating some issue or population to galvanize voters to elect selected representatives who will quid pro quo further oppress the oppressed and further erase the disenfranchised. 

Very well put!!!

Link to comment
  • Admin
3 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Please don't misunderstand. I think all mass shootings are wrong. Period. And my heart goes out to the families of the victims. That said, it isn't genocide.

 

One other interesting piece of trivia. Virtually all of these shootings take place in gun free zones. Ever wonder why that is?

 

That is simply untrue, @Marcie Jensen.  California is the only state that fits with your statement.  The definitions of "mass shootings" differ by the site or organization which collects the info, but the stats are consistent as far as numbers/state.  You can see for yourself.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

 

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state/

 

I don't usually join in these threads in order to let every member have their say, but I can't let your statement go unchallenged.

 

Carolyn Marie

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Absolutely spot on! Genocide DOES equal killing people in the real world. History is full of examples including, but not limited to, the Trail of Tears, the entire 30 years war, the Crusades, the Jewish pogroms of Tsarist Russia, Stalin's purges, the more than 6 million who died in NAZI concentration camps, the actions of Pol Pot and most recently what the Serbs did to the Bosniacs (although they called it ethnic cleansing.) The point being that in actuality genocide always involves mass killings. It always will.

This doesn't support your argument. every time there is a mass killing of a specific group, it is genocide, but not every time there is genocide there are mass killings. The Native American reservations are a great example: the natives were given unfarmable land, they were forced to abandon their traditions, they were evicted from their homes, and they were forced to assimilate into western culture, and all this was with the explicit goal of destroying their culture and way of life.

 

"Genocide = the killing of a type of people" is false in the same way that "tall people = people", all tall people are people, but not all people are tall people. In the language of formal logic, mass killings -> genocide, but genocide -/> mass killings.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Ivy said:

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

And in this very real situation, the republican party is trying to genocide trans people out of existence.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

 

That is simply untrue, @Marcie Jensen.  California is the only state that fits with your statement.  The definitions of "mass shootings" differ by the site or organization which collects the info, but the stats are consistent as far as numbers/state.  You can see for yourself.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

 

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state/

 

I don't usually join in these threads in order to let every member have their say, but I can't let your statement go unchallenged.

 

Carolyn Marie

This will be my last post in this thread as I don't want to say something I will later regret or be less than civil.

 

Thank you @Carolyn Marie. I stand corrected. I looked at the three sites you referenced, as well as about a dozen more from all over the spectrum. They ranged from the FBI to the Oregon legislature to the Office of Justice programs to the Washington Post and beyond. The cumulative data was utterly inconsistent and, as you point out, differs by definitions, the political leanings and/or vested interest of the site in question. The conclusion I drew from this is that while the numbers were fairly consistent, the data interpretation was not, and depended almost entirely on the politics of the organization doing the testing.  That makes it logically impossible to draw any conclusions about the role of gun free zones in mass shootings. My sincere apologies for making that particular statement.

 

However, that doesn't mean that mass shootings rise to the level of genocide as no specific group of people in the United Stares is being specifically targeted for violent extermination. The shooters fall across too many political and ethnic groups, as do the victims. Further, and it deeply hurts me to point this out, the numbers involved are simply too small in regard to the population as a whole to allow them to rise to the genocidal level. Could the intent of the shooters, their ultimate goal, be genocide? Perhaps, but we have no evidence to support this no matter what we may feel individually. It's a sad commentary on the current state of society and civilization that mass shootings are so common.

 

I realize that many will not agree with what I've posted and that's fine. Each of us is free to believe what we want, but when we ignore or dismiss different viewpoints, we do so at our peril.

Link to comment

Mass shootings don't equate to genocide... because it isn't just one kind of people getting shot.  Shootings seem to affect folks of different ethnicities, genders, etc. so the effect is spread around.    I've noticed that a lot of the shootings happen in California and New York, places with more strict gun laws...so more gun laws won't solve the problem.  Criminals don't obey the law - shocking, I know.  🙄  Funny thing, in the rural area where I live, everybody is armed to the teeth.  But we don't have shootings here, which counters the idea that the the mere presence of firearms causes violence.

 

If we want to prevent violence, I think we have to reduce the overall stress level.  The constant legalism and political agitation is a big cause.  The "us vs. them" mentality causes street violence, family violence, and political violence which can ultimately lead to genocide. 

 

We won't find our answers in the state.  We've looked to the state for solutions for the last 40-50 years, and what has that brought us? 

 

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I've noticed that a lot of the shootings happen in California and New York, places with more strict gun laws...so more gun laws won't solve the problem.

False. There are higher rates of mass shootings in US states with more relaxed gun control laws:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

If what you said is true, how come there are far fewer mass shootings in countries with robust gun control laws?

Myth: Gun violence happens everywhere. The NRA often points to incidents of gun violence abroad to argue gun laws are ineffective and such widespread gun violence is not unique to America. However, the evidence tells a different story.

Fact: While most countries experience occasional incidents of gun violence, the gun violence epidemic is a uniquely American experience. The United States has the highest level of gun violence across developed nations, with a gun homicide rate 26 times greater than that of peer nations.14 This number is even higher among young Americans, who experience a gun homicide rate 49 times greater than that of other developed nations.

Source:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/

 

PS:

10 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

One other interesting piece of trivia. Virtually all of these shootings take place in gun free zones. Ever wonder why that is?

Myth: Mass shooters are likely to target gun-free zones. Gun lobbyists often deploy this myth to deter legislative efforts to limit gun carrying in certain locations that are considered particularly sensitive or unsuitable for guns, such as schools, houses of worship, or government buildings. However, the overwhelming majority of fatal mass shootings in the United States occur in locations where guns are allowed or not explicitly banned, such as in private homes or public locations.

Fact: Most mass shootings occur in areas where guns are permitted. The gun lobby often claims that 98 percent of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, but research has thoroughly debunked this. Of the 156 mass shootings that occurred from 2009 to 2016, only 10 percent occurred in gun-free zones. The majority of these shootings—63 percent—occurred in private homes.

Source:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Funny thing, in the rural area where I live, everybody is armed to the teeth.  But we don't have shootings here

From an article about mass school shootings:

"

While seemingly random, experts say these shootings typically have one thing in common: they mostly happen in small, rural towns.

 

Back in 2018, the Associated Press reported that of the 10 deadliest school shootings in the U.S., all but one happened in towns with fewer than 75,000 residents. Most of them were in cities with less than 50,000 people. Uvalde's population fits these criteria, sitting at 15,860.

"

The reason people don't see shootings in their rural neiborhoods is that you are in small towns. LA accounts for 10% of the California population, and rural towns account for 6% of the population. If there is a mass shooting in LA, 10% of Californians get to say, "there was a mass shooting in my city", and if there is a mass shooting in a rural town, 0% of Californians get to say, "there was a mass shooting in my town", so even though there are more mass shootings per capita in rural areas, less people realize this is happening in places like theirs. Just because it hasn't happened in your town doesn't mean mass shootings happen less in towns like yours, in fact they happen more often.

 

Source of the quote:

https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/why-mass-school-shootings-continue-to-happen-in-small-towns

Link to comment

I'm not sure this thread had much do do with gun control in the beginning.  

I don't know if there is much to be done anyway.  Let's face it, guns are already here.  Perhaps it would be better if that wasn't the case, but…

I think  mass shootings are a separate issue. 

 

The subject is more about using the powers of the government to persecute a minority.

Link to comment
  • Root Admin

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

 

This is the topic. (above)  I fail to see where mass shootings and gun control have anything to do with it. Please get back on topic or I will lock it.

 

MaryEllen

Forum Director

Link to comment
12 hours ago, MaryEllen said:

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

 

This is the topic. 

 

Note that one of the first victims of the Holocaust was trans-affirming physician Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/

 

Also note that the Nazis were inspired by US Jim Crow laws & extermination of native peoples. 

 

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow

 

There is nothing new under the sun. 

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Katie23 said:

On some days I have hope and and on some days I do not.

I also see too many parallels to the 30's.  And I don't think pointing this out is overreacting.

Some days it feels like the whole world is closing in around us.  And for what?  How does me trying to live as the gender I feel a threat to civilization?

It's not like there aren't real problems.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Katie23 said:

I have been writing about this a lot over the last month. Trump thinks Adolf Hitler is someone to be admired. He has his followers. We fail to realize how history repeats itself. Will Trump and his minions stop at simply ending the lives of this unworthy of living, or will he have followers like the idiot in charge of the medical affairs committee in South Carolina who is advocating genetic testing at birth to decide the gender marker on a birth certificate. 

 

On some days I have hope and and on some days I do not. I was recently asked to give testimony in a state where they are considering legislation to bar treatment of transgender children. This movement is everywhere there are Republican-led state legislatures. Is the next step to find a supposed genetic test that reveals which child may be transgender at birth? If then, would these animals decide abortion was the proper thing to do? 

 

We have as much right to live our lives free of oppression as anybody else, yet, I am so sick of the crap heaped on us.  When will this country wake up? What happens if the next time there is a maniacal leader of a large country that wants to eradicate a group of people they deem as a threat to society, it turns out to be the United States? Scary huh? Of course, in some states the Reich is already preparing the way by eliminating any thought of history. Look at what DeSantis is doing to the schools in Florida. I wonder who will be deemed worthy enough to let live. Spookier thought: Imagine Marjorie Taylor Green as the vice führer to führer Trump. Enough dystopia for the day.

I think if anyone will take over the US as führer, it will be DeSantis. Trump is already being removed from his position as head of the republicans, with people like fox news and Breitbart saying DeSantis is the future of the party. Considering Trump's incompetence and Ron's actions so far, he may actually be worse.

 

Apart from that, I agree with you 100%.

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator
2 hours ago, Katie23 said:

I am not sure if anybody has thought about what triggered Trump's transphobic behavior.

I have.  $$$$!   He is not a deep thinker, and I doubt if he has given a moment's thought to the Miss Universe issue.  He simply does what he is paid to do by the highest bidder.  Apparently it is not considered bribery when it is in the form of campaign contributions, but it's close enough.

 

Remember in 2016 how he claimed he was the best friend of the LGBT community.  Someone clearly called him up and told him to back off on that or the money would dry up, because he never mentioned it again and has been a staunch foe ever since.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Katie23 said:

I am very disheartened by the current political landscape. I am not sure if there will be an epiphany of voters or not, but we are being served up across the nation. I read an article this morning, and the number of negative comments regarding transgender children was horrifying.

Me too on this.  The negative comments on most trans issues I see are frightening.  I think a lot of the "support" from the Democrats is more opposition to the right, than actual support for us.  We are at best a curiosity to most people, and down right demonic to others.

 

3 hours ago, Katie23 said:

I believe I will finish my transition, but I am more doubtful than I was when I started.

When I started this I didn't really expect much support other than personal from some people I knew.  So I'm not terribly disappointed on that end.  And that was part on my personal calculations in coming out.  In fact through the VA, it has been better than I expected.  

 

I realized that surgeries were probably out of reach.  But people have been trans like forever without them.

 

I guess "finishing" transition is different things for different people.  For my part I feel like I already have.  I am out in public, my name and gender marker (DL & SS) are changed to "F" and I live as a woman to the best of my ability.  Passing was never my goal anyway, and I accepted that it probably would never be completely possible, at least for me.

 

Yes of course, I am still a work in progress.  But I am 𝕴𝖛𝖞

Link to comment
4 hours ago, KathyLauren said:

I have.  $$$$!

I actually think it's peer pressure, the main talking point of the republican party was trans people, and he was being left behind by more enthusiastic transphobes. He probably went to a campaign official, asked "What can I do to seem more relevant to the rest of the republican party?", and was told to make a transphobic rant about how nazi he is. when watching the video, it's pretty obvious he has no idea what half of the terms he used mean, he was just handed a speech and pushed in front of a camera.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiraF said:

he has no idea what half of the terms he used mean

This is probably so, but he doesn't care anyway.

Link to comment

I watched a video covering this horrible Trump video. Honestly, it kinda scared the hell out of me. A lot of the things he said were akin to Nazi propaganda. I sometimes wish I didn't live in the United States at times because of all this hateful anti trans rhetoric getting passed in almost 60 to 80% of the states. I've done my best to protest this -holy buckets- in my home state but now I'm thinking about getting the hell out.

 

I hate to think that way but...I'm tired of feeling like I have to walk on eggshells in my own backyard...not that I tell everybody I'm trans anyways...but I'd like to be able to have a little bit of peace to be myself...I'm trying to avoid the news somewhat and focus on what I have control on in my day to day environment to keep my mental health somewhat on track. It hasn't been easy...let me tell you what. 

Link to comment

I am beginning to have similar thoughts.  Up till now, things have been more or less okay here.  But now I'm beginning to wonder.  It's too late for me to go back into the closet - even if I wanted to.

Link to comment
  • Who's Online   11 Members, 0 Anonymous, 94 Guests (See full list)

    • KathyLauren
    • looking4ftm
    • Petra Jane
    • missyjo
    • MAN8791
    • Susie
    • VickySGV
    • Thea
    • RaineOnYourParade
    • Ashley0616
    • Lydia_R
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.8k
    • Total Posts
      769.6k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      12,077
    • Most Online
      8,356

    AmandaJoy
    Newest Member
    AmandaJoy
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Angel Jamie
      Angel Jamie
      (24 years old)
    2. CallMeKeira
      CallMeKeira
      (31 years old)
    3. CamtheMan
      CamtheMan
    4. Jona
      Jona
      (22 years old)
    5. jpek
      jpek
  • Posts

    • KathyLauren
      Around here, a culturally-appropriate gender-neutral form of address is either "dear" or "hun".  It tends to be mostly women who use those, though I did have a man address me as "dear" in a store today.    It could be startling for a come-ffrom-away to hear themselves being addressed that way, but, locally, it is considered a friendly, not particularly creepy, gender-neutral way to address someone.
    • Lydia_R
    • April Marie
      Welcome, Amanda!! You'll find many of us here who found ourselves late in life - it was at 68 for me. Each of us is unique but we also have similarities and can help each other   I understand the urge to move quickly, but remember that your wife also has to adjust as you transition. That doesn't mean you have to move slowly, just give both of you time to process the changes and the impacts.   Many of us have also benefitted greatly from working with a gender therapist. For me, it was literally life-saving. Just a thought you might want to consider. Mine is done completely on-line.   Again, welcome. Jump in where you feel comfortable.
    • MAN8791
      Change. I am so -censored- tired of change, and what I've just started in the last month with identifying and working through all of my . . . stuff . . . around gender dysphoria represents a level of change I dread and am terrified of.   2005 to 2019 feel like a pretty stable time period for me. Not a whole lot of change happened within me. I met someone, got married, had three kids with them. Struggled like hell with anxiety and depression but it was . . . ok. And then my spouse died (unexpectedly, brief bout with flu and then gone) and the five years since have been an unrelenting stream of change. I cannot think of a single way in which I, the person writing this from a library table in 2024, am in any way the same person who sat in an ICU room with my dying spouse 5 years ago. I move different, speak different, dress different, think different, have different goals, joys, and ambitions. And they are all **good.** but I am tired of the relentless pace of change and as much as I want and need to figure out my dysphoria and what will relieve the symptoms (am I "just" gender fluid, am I trans masc? no -censored- clue at the moment) I dread it at the same time. I just want to take a five year nap and be done with it.
    • VickySGV
      Welcome to the Forums Amanda, there are a number of us here who took that long or longer to come to grips with our personal reality.  Join right in and enjoy the company you have.
    • AmandaJoy
      I'm Amanda, and after 57 years of pretending to be a male crossdresser, I've recently admitted to myself that I'm a woman. It's pretty wild. I don't think that I've ever had a thought that was as clearly true and right, as when I first allowed myself to wonder, "wait, am I actually trans?"   The hilarious part is that I owe that insight to my urologist, and a minor problem with a pesky body part that genetic women don't come equipped with (no, not that one). I'll spare you the details, but the end result was him talking about a potential medication that has some side effects, notably a 1% chance of causing men to grow breasts. The first thought that bubbled up from the recesses of my mind was, "wow, that would be awesome!"   <<blink>><<blink>> Sorry, what was that again?   That led down a rabbit hole, and a long, honest conversation with myself, followed by a long, honest conversation with my wife. We both needed a couple of weeks, and a bit of crying and yelling, to settle in to this new reality. Her biggest issue? Several years ago, she asked me if I was trans, and I said, "no". That was a lie. And honestly, looking back over my life, a pretty stupid one.   I'm really early in the transition process - I have my first consultation with my doctor next week - but I'm already out to friends and family. I'm struggling with the "do everything now, now now!" demon, because I know that this is not a thing that just happens. It will be happening from now on, and trying to rush won't accomplish anything useful. Still, the struggle is real . I'm being happy with minor victories - my Alexa devices now say, "Good morning, Amanda", and I smile each and every time. My family and friends are being very supportive, after the initial shock wore off.   I'm going to need a lot of help though, which is another new thing for me. Being able to ask for help, that is. I'm looking forward to chatting with some of you who have been at this longer, and also those of you who are as new at this as I am. It's wild, and intoxicating, and terrifying... and I'm looking forward to every second of it.   Amanda Joy
    • RaineOnYourParade
      Yep, that's the one :P    Smoothies are criminally underrated imo
    • Ivy
      Rain here. I went to Asheville yesterday, and stayed later to visit some before going down the mountain.  Down here there were a lot of trees down in the northern part of the county.  The power had gone off at the house, but was back by the time I got home (21:00).  There was a thunderstorm during the night.
    • Birdie
      I used to get ma'am'ed during my 45 years of boy-mode and it drove me nuts.    Now that I have accepted girl-mode I find it quite pleasant.    Either way, being miss gendered is quite disturbing. I upon a rare occasion might get sir'ed by strangers and it's quite annoying. 
    • Mmindy
      Good morning Ash,    Welcome to TransPulseForums, I have a young neighbor who plays several brass instruments who lives behind my house. He is always practicing and I could listen to them for hours, well I guess I have listened to them for hours, and my favorite is when they play the low tones on the French Horn.    Best wishes,   Mindy🌈🐛🏳️‍⚧️🦋
    • Mmindy
      Good morning everyone,    I had my first cup of coffee this morning with my wife, my second was a 20oz travel mug on the way to the airport. Once clearing TSA, I bought another 20oz to pass the time at the boarding gate. I’m flying Indy to Baltimore, then driving to Wilmington, DE for my last teaching engagement at the DE State Fire School.    Hugs,   Mindy🌈🐛🏳️‍⚧️🦋    
    • Vidanjali
      In my opinion, the gender neutral version of sir or ma'am is the omission of such honorifics.   "Excuse me, sir" becomes simply, "Excuse me", or better yet, "Excuse me, please."   "Yes, ma'am" becomes "Yes", or depending on the context, "Yes, it would be my pleasure" or "Yes, that is correct."   Else, to replace it with a commonly known neutral term such as friend, or credentialed or action-role-oriented term depending on the situation such as teacher, doctor, driver, or server.   And learn names when you can. It's a little known fact that MOST people are bad with names. So if you've ever told someone, "I'm bad with names", you're simply affirming you're typical in that way. A name, just like any other factoid, requires effort to commit to memory. And there are strategies which help. 
    • Mmindy
      @KymmieL it’s as if our spouses are two sides of the same coin. We never know which side will land up. Loving or Disliking.    Hugs,   Mindy🌈🐛🏳️‍⚧️🦋
    • KymmieL
      almost 45 min later. Still in self pity mode. I cannot figure out my wife. I shared a loving post on Facebook to my wife. Today she posts, you are my prayer. Yet, last week she puts up a post diragitory towards trans people. Does she not relate to me being trans?   ???
    • Cynthia Slowan
      Hi Ash, Welcome!!
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...