So real men don't drink Bud Light?

Obergefell was decided by a 5-4 vote. The 4 votes against it were by Conservative Justices. 4 votes were by Justices appointed by Democrats who are widely considered left-leaning. I think holding onto Kennedy as the representative of the thoughtful conservative when 4 Conservative Justices were vehemently opposed to Obergefell's ruling is a good analogy for what you're doing here.

You may try to put an intellectual gloss on a boycott movement that was started by people with broadly transphobic views, but you're a long way from convincing anyone that the average person supporting the boycott respects transgender people, would refer to them by their chosen pronouns, and would not have objected to other transgender product endorsers.

I'd be willing to discuss my use of the word Nazi in the other forum but I think it distracts from the main topic here. What I see from many of the boycotters is a panic about sexual orientation and gender identity as well as broad attempts to accuse the lgbt movement of indoctrination and grooming. It is an offshoot of the kind of right-wing ugliness that probably motivated Desantis' don't say gay bill, which is not dissimilar from the anti-gay laws that have appeared in Russia.

Anyhow, we'll see how the leading lights of the Conservative movement (not Kid Rock apparently) will respond to other transgender women in the public sphere. Or are they all automatically guilty of female impersonation on account of the fact that they transitioned?

Bud Light slapped a photo of a TikTok star on cans and the dumbasses got mad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFJmkr6LIqs

But it's not that a TikTok star (who's audience is mostly children) is promoting alcohol but it's a transgender woman promoting beer they like. My point is this, I personally don't care one way or another if you don't like the person Bud Light comes in bottles. I personally don't drink alcohol but if I did I wouldn't care because I would buy alcohol to have drunk sex because I'm not an attractive person and alcohol does help with that.

Oh, and Joe Rogan got attacked by his fans for defending Bud Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOshNADfQ1M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Obergefell was decided by a 5-4 vote. The 4 votes against it were by Conservative Justices. 4 votes were by Justices appointed by Democrats who are widely considered left-leaning. I think holding onto Kennedy as the representative of the thoughtful conservative when 4 Conservative Justices were vehemently opposed to Obergefell's ruling is a good analogy for what you're doing here.

---

Three-quarters of Republicans in Congress also voted against the same-sex marriage act last year. If most of the party's supporters are okay with it there must be a strange disconnect going on.

Even if most Republicans are not trans- or homophobic they seem very willing to turn a blind eye and/or excuse those who are. That's why Trump and De Santis think they can appeal to transphobia without it hurting them in the primaries. Would mildcigar or dirkmcgee refuse to vote for a Republican candidate who ran on transphobic themes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dudedude12345

Oh, and Joe Rogan got attacked by his fans for defending Bud Light

---

Howard Stern also defended Dylan. These guys are no "woke" warriors, but they know a manufactured outrage campaign when they see it.

Interestingly, if you look at the Anheuser-Busch stock price over a longer period the effect of this furore is hardly noticeable. There was a moderate fall after the story broke, but there have been much bigger falls previously. The price has halved since 2016, so I guess the company has bigger problems.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=anheus...ch+stock+price

The irony of this media-manufactured controversy is that Bud Lite has simultaneously marketed itself to diametrically opposite niche segments for decades. For instance, it sponsors SF Pride and practically every neighborhood gay bar in SF has a “Bud Lite” sign, complete with a neon rainbow; at the same time Bud Lite also sponsors and advertises at stereotypical macho and events like NASCAR, football, etc.

Slight diversion from the thread -do Americans drink Cider, or Shandy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorca81

The irony of this media-manufactured controversy is that Bud Lite has simultaneously marketed itself to diametrically opposite niche segments for decades. For instance, it sponsors SF Pride and practically every neighborhood gay bar in SF has a “Bud Lite” sign, complete with a neon rainbow; at the same time Bud Lite also sponsors and advertises at stereotypical macho and events like NASCAR, football, etc.

---

You mean these sneaky bastards have been pushing their woke agenda down mildcigar's throat for decades and nobody told him?

I never heard of Dylan until I read the post here saying she was being “pushed down my throat” (interesting phrase in this context). I think she appeals to a younger crowd than mine. Bud Light is smart to cast a wide net with their advertising. Reversing their position post-uproar won’t change anyone’s minds at this point, and makes them look weak and insincere. A year from now, this will be almost totally forgotten, like previous outrages (gay Teletubbies, Mrs. Potato Head, Dr Seuss “censoring” his own books, etc)

Kid Rock almost became relevant again though. Good effort, Kid.

How come this backlash isn’t an example of “cancel culture”? ��

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Three-quarters of Republicans in Congress also voted against the same-sex marriage act last year. If most of the party's supporters are okay with it there must be a strange disconnect going on.

Even if most Republicans are not trans- or homophobic they seem very willing to turn a blind eye and/or excuse those who are. That's why Trump and De Santis think they can appeal to transphobia without it hurting them in the primaries. Would mildcigar or dirkmcgee refuse to vote for a Republican candidate who ran on transphobic themes?

---

I suppose my definition of transphobic and your definition of transphobic are completely different.

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.

I am not in favor of grooming, I'm not in favor of minors transitioning, I'm not in favor of people "claiming" to be women being allowed in women's and girl's restrooms (If you can pass and are on hormones it is not as much as a concern, but just because you claim to be a women doesn't make you one).

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities, massive inflation, we have the executive branch attempting to ban gasoline powered cars via executive fiat, we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

America is some 31 trillion in debt, and is adding 1-2 trillion a year to said national debt.

If and when there is an economic meltdown I have no doubt that the trans community will suffer more than the population as a whole.

To me it would be transphobic if I voted for more craziness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade.

---

Voting for the folks who tried to overturn the Constitution in order to save the Republic, huh? I take it you know what followed the Weimar Republic.

Your little speech was way off topic, but it's nice to know you can get a person to eventually reveal themselves if you give them enough encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Slight diversion from the thread -do Americans drink Cider, or Shandy?

---

It's a big country. There are people here who drink any conceivable alcoholic beverage. The gluten-free crowd can drink cider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

I suppose my definition of transphobic and your definition of transphobic are completely different.

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.

I am not in favor of grooming, I'm not in favor of minors transitioning, I'm not in favor of people "claiming" to be women being allowed in women's and girl's restrooms (If you can pass and are on hormones it is not as much as a concern, but just because you claim to be a women doesn't make you one).

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities, massive inflation, we have the executive branch attempting to ban gasoline powered cars via executive fiat, we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

America is some 31 trillion in debt, and is adding 1-2 trillion a year to said national debt.

If and when there is an economic meltdown I have no doubt that the trans community will suffer more than the population as a whole.

To me it would be transphobic if I voted for more craziness.

---

Please explain how trans people have put us in a position similar to the Weimar Republic (especially in light of you not being in any way transphobic).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo

Please explain how trans people have put us in a position similar to the Weimar Republic (especially in light of you not being in any way transphobic).

---

Trans people other than at the periphery had little to do with it. Some of the trans extremists just add to the circus-like atmosphere, i.e. Lia Thomas beating a bunch of young women and thinking she has accomplished something. Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids. Housing biological males in women's prison. A symptom rather than a cause of our decline.

The point I was unartfully trying to express was that the trans community will suffer (as will we all) if we continue are current trajectory (economically, and socially). For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

[QUOTE=mildcigar_2001;2069687]

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.
-I would prefer you to argue 'everyone is equal under the law' rather than 'more or less', because it appears that Trans Americans are not equal to other Americans, that State legislatures are passing laws that target Trans Americans because they are Trans, laws that are not passed with equal measure against non-Trans Americans. I don't see how such laws can be justified when the law must be equal for all, or the US is not governed by its Constitution.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities
-But not if you compare the evidence of the last 20 years with the 1990s when the crack epidemic was laying waste to a generation f youth-
"Property crime — theft, auto theft and burglary — has been falling regularly for the last 20 years. Violent crime — aggravated assault, murder, rape and robbery — increased at least in 2020, but remains lower than it was in the 1990s"
Is crime rising in the U.S.? Here's what data can and can't tell us : NPR

massive inflation,
-Inflation is higher than the long term average @3.28% but is down to 4.28% from 6.04% and 8.45% in 2022 -so not rampant at all.
US Inflation Rate (ycharts.com)

we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc.
-Americans have been arguing over the meaning of the First Amendment for as long as I can recall, and the most open attack on it in recent years has been mounted by Donald J. Trump who doesn't like it when Americans say bad things about him and he wants to stop it. I don't know if any law can regulate feelings, but at the same time, laws on Hate Speech are there to deter people from taking their Hate a stage further than 'speech' to become an 'Act'. And some might argue that the Speech is itself an Act, though I don't know if a court of law would agree. Might depend on the case.

Should citizens have the right to define their identity, be it sexual or 'hyphenated'? I think this is part of the broader debate, and it seems that the very same people who claim to stand up for individual liberty are the same people who want to deny individuals the liberty to define their identity -when they don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

Trans people other than at the periphery had little to do with it. Some of the trans extremists just add to the circus-like atmosphere, i.e. Lia Thomas beating a bunch of young women and thinking she has accomplished something. Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids. Housing biological males in women's prison. A symptom rather than a cause of our decline.

The point I was unartfully trying to express was that the trans community will suffer (as will we all) if we continue are current trajectory (economically, and socially). For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

---

You are claiming the historical Weimar Republic side while making all the historical Nazi side arguments.

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

---

It's almost like you're stripping the Nazis of culpability. Perhaps this is what you mean by backlash. I would almost guarantee that any explanation you've ever given for hate crimes starts with the behaviors of the victimized group rather than the haters. There's value in looking at causes but ignoring the most proximate causes to blame the victims is odious.

Edit: I feel like we're a few posts away from "Eichmann was a victim of cancel culture" so I'm gonna do something else. Also, see Stavros' post above about inflation. We're not anywhere near the hyperinflation of the early 1920s and it's frankly a dumb comparison if you look at the purchase power of the dollar v. German Papiermark at the time you would see that.

Our expert on early 20th century monetary policy is comparing inflation in the United States, that reached a peak of about 8.5% and is down below 4.5% to hyperinflation, with numbers that reached currency devaluations on the order of a trillion. Just to show how ridiciulous that is take a look at the mark exchange rate. It went from 4.2 marks to the dollar in 1918 to $4,210,500,000,000 marks to the dollar in 1923. I looked it up because I wasn't absolutely certain what the number is in words, but that's one dollar to more than 4 trillion marks. Okay so we don't get there over night right (sarcasm). First, we're up 8%, then back to 4.5%, then who knows. No, the decrease in the value of the mark was swift as soon as Germany tried to pay for the war (and the levies against them from Versailles which I'm sure we'll also blame) by printing money. In 1919, it was already 48 marks to the dollar. This is more than a 1000% increase about a year after the end of WWI. I'm not going to express the 1923 number in percentage terms but the comparison is just dumb and to use it to explain people's bigotry even dumber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperi...eimar_Republic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

---

I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

---

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).

---

That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

---

Bullshit. The currency issues were caused by factors external to Germany, namely the reparations as part of the Great War armistice. Many Germans wanted the aristocracy to return. The industrialists feared the communists, and so they backed the fascist because they thought the fascists could keep the communists in line, and in turn they thought they could keep the fascists in line. No one can keep fascists in line. The military and police sided with the fascists (surprise). Von Shleicher was a conservative, but did make a noble attempt to keep the Republic going, even if he violated its constitution. The problem was that von Papen had Hindenburg's ear, and von Papen thought he could keep Hitler under control (notice a theme here?). The Social Democrats were the best hope at the time for preserving the Republic, but as is often the case, people aren't passionate about the middle (and the industrialists, who had all the money, didn't like them).
The unemployed and hungry would vote for whoever promised them jobs and food. That had nothing to do with liberalism, artistic expression, or sexual flamboyance. Degenerate art didn't kill the Weimar Republic, either.
Read some books. I highly recommend Otto Friedrich's Before the Deluge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

---

I think in the US and also here in the UK, there is concern at the dogmatic position some Trans activists take, which means they seek to prevent certain people from speaking in public, for example at universities. In some cases, as with Kathleen Stock, the abuse she suffered in her University led to her leaving it, and I don't think anyone benefited from it. As with JK Rowling, I would prefer a reasonable and open debate on the broad issues involved, because at a basic level I don't think either Rowling or Stock have any animosity towards Trans people. They object to the apparent collapse of categories when this philosophical argument is translated into public policy, such as the management of public spaces which are often reserved for either Males or Females.

I don't think Male and Female categories are as rigid or fixed as some think, but at the same time, there is a danger of a gender version of 'replacement theory' where Women are replaced by Trans Women, and if that is the anxiety, that 2nd or 3rd Generation Feminists believe their attainments are being sidelines, even relegated, as if they were irrelevant, must be dealt with. The ugly rows in public do not advance any understanding of Trans issues, or any sympathy for the people involved.

I would suggest this is different from 'no platforming' a Nazi because while Trans activists seek equality in its various forms that does not damage society, Nazis and their fellow travellers seek real change and thus have a more toxic agenda, one that brings violence into the arena, as happened in Charlottesville. From this perspective, it is about the management of the message, and while we can criticize the tactics of some activists, it ought not to subtract the core arguments that are valid, and being opposed by a segment of Republicans and 'Christian' Evangelists who want to cancel the whole 'Trans thing'.

Is this the 1st Amendment in action?

Montana GOP Bars Trans Lawmaker (yahoo.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids.

---

So you think parents are bringing their children to sex shows, for example at the Public Library? If not, where are these sex shows taking place? You seem to think it’s a major issue for society, so you should be able to explain your comment further.

Quote:

---

For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

---

Please do “dig into the recent crime statistics” so that you can learn something… you’ll discover that crime in the US has been declining steadily since peaks in the 1970s and 1990s. This includes your imaginary crime waves in the big cities. You can start with a 2 second Google search. Where do you get your information? I’d bet you are one of these “I avoid mainstream news sources” goofballs.

Also, LMFAO at the “more or less equal” comment. This is like saying “slightly pregnant”. There is no halfway. People either have equal protection or they do not.

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?
By Sharon James

Introduction
[1]
No-one can ignore the current demands for ‘transsexual rights’.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments are expected to consult in the coming months on making ‘changing sex’ as easy as buying a TV licence.

Our instinctive reaction may be to assume that the demand for ‘transsexual (or transgender) rights’ is mainly about protecting a tiny minority of troubled people from unfair discrimination. But, in reality, the underlying ideology of ‘gender identity’ is toxic. Ultimately, it aims to legally eliminate male and female sex distinctions.[2]

This ideology is now promoted in primary schools. The Gender Fairy, a story written for four-year-olds, says: ‘Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No-one can tell you’.[3] The author hopes that this book will mean that ‘Some children will realise their true identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and will choose to make a social transition to live as their true gender.’[4]

Definitions
Throughout history there have been cases of (mostly) men who cross-dress for erotic stimulation, sometimes known as transvestites (the word was first coined in 1910).[5] This condition is not to be equated with transsexualism. Nor should homosexuality be confused with transsexualism. And the exceedingly rare biological intersex conditions are not to be confused with transsexualism either.[6]

Transsexuals are people who are biologically male or female (not intersex) but who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex. What causes this condition? Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship in the UK writes:

‘The mechanisms leading to transsexuality are incompletely understood but genetic, neurodevelopmental and psychosocial factors probably all contribute. Various theories exist and, as in the debate about homosexuality, their proponents tend to favour either nature (biology) or nurture (upbringing) … It may well be that the causes are multifactorial and the combinations come from both nature and nurture.’[7]

How common is this condition? ‘Gender Recognition Certificates’ are the mechanism in the United Kingdom for someone changing their legal sex. According to the most recent figures, just over 4,500 have been granted since 2005.[8]

True gender dysphoria is very rare. In 2016, K J Zucker et al wrote in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology that, although ‘estimates vary widely’, ‘prevalence studies conclude that fewer than 1 in 10,000 adult natal males and 1 in 30,000 adult natal females experience [gender dysphoria]’.[9]

From the 1930s onwards, medical advances enabled doctors to ‘treat’ this condition by means of hormonal and surgical interventions.[10] It is possible, using hormone treatments and surgery, to transform a man into someone who looks like a woman and vice versa. The phrase ‘sex-change surgery’ is often used, but it is deceptive. No amount of surgery can truly change a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. But appearance can be changed quite effectively. And names can be changed very easily. An increasing number of countries have legislated to enable a complete identity change, offering changes to birth certificates and other documentation.

Since the 1980s, as the cause of transsexuals has been taken up as the supposed last frontier of civil rights, there has been a deliberate conflation of those who have intersex conditions and those with other forms of what is described as ‘gender variance’, including the desire to cross-dress. The umbrella term ‘transgender’ has come to be preferred as a way of including all the different ways people experience or live out their ‘gender identity’ when there is any felt incongruence with their biological sex. The term transgender can imply an acceptance of ‘gender fluidity’ (the belief that it is inherently oppressive to divide people into two binary categories). In fact, the notion of ‘gender fluidity’ is a direct contradiction of the idea of ‘transsexuality’ – which involves a change of identity from one ‘binary category’ to the other.

Where did all this come from?

The origins of Gender Theory
Certainly some ideas around masculinity and femininity are socially constructed. And of course, different men and women have a multiplicity of different gifts, aptitudes, and preferences. People do not all necessarily fit in with cultural stereotypes associated with masculinity and femininity at any given time. None of which proves that our fundamental understanding of humanity as male and female is socially constructed. But that is the central claim of gender theory.

Where and when did the concept of a division between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ arise?

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) was a German doctor and campaigner for homosexual rights. He advanced the theory of ‘a female soul in a man’s body’ in order to argue the case that homosexuality was innate (and should not be penalised).[11] At this time, the phrase ‘sexual inversion’ was used by sexologists such as Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) to refer to homosexuals.[12] Male ‘inverts’ were thought to have a ‘feminine soul in a male body’. This was the beginning of the idea that biological sex could be divided from the ‘gendered experience’.

The treatment of transsexualism
Continues

More below by clicking on link/url

https://reformation-today.org/articl...tians-respond/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del06

So far, neither mildcigar or anyone else has bothered to defined what the "radical trans agenda" is. I suspect that's because there is no such thing, and that mildcigar and his co-ideologists are just using this emotion-packed word (radical) to rile folks up. And "agenda" -- this implies that trans-people and those who respect them have a (hidden) agenda: there's this secret plot to -- what? Again, an emotion-bearing word with no actual meaning.

---

Never liked it - it gave me headaches, but AB's idiocy hasn't helped them at all

what fucking NONSENSE.

If a trans person advertised butter/margarine, oh no, cis people don't eat spreads! HOW DARE YOU!!
what if it were sports shoes? or tennis rackets? or cars? or umbrellas? Or package holidays? or five star hotels??

Oh no, it will stop the masses being trainers, rackets, cars, umbrellas, package holidays and expensive hotels cos a TRANS PERSON ADVERTISED THEM.

People will go to any length to promote bigotry!

AB has dramatically succeeded in selling significantly LESS beer as a result of their ad payments to Dylan.
As for me it didn't alter my buying habits at all, I haven't bought an AB beer (or wannabee light beer) in many many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin

AB has dramatically succeeded in selling significantly LESS beer as a result of their ad payments to Dylan.
As for me it didn't alter my buying habits at all, I haven't bought an AB beer (or wannabee light beer) in many many years.

---

then this proves the issue is bigotry. these customers opposed WHO was promoting their beer.

I don't drink anyway I'm Italian Give Me a Percocet and Xanax both which I have scripts for and I'm fine

Its just something that the right can latch on to to scare their base seeing as how they don't have any policies to offer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvzbig1s

Its just something that the right can latch on to to scare their base seeing as how they don't have any policies to offer

---

They can’t campaign on a record of legislative accomplishments, because they are terrible at governing. Remember “repeal and replace Obamacare” it’s been over 10 years now, and nobody knows what the right wants to do about health care. Ask 10 different Republicans and you’ll get 10 different answers. So they have to resort to scaring people into voting for them. Gay Marriage was a bust, it turned out civilization was not actually destroyed, so they are taking the next logical step and targeting trans people because of their recent increased visibility. Based on the last midterm elections that will probably be a bust again in 2024, but as PT Barnum once said, nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. If they voted for Trump then anything is possible. More than half of Americans believe in angels, so we are not the smartest people in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?
By Sharon James

Introduction
[1]
No-one can ignore the current demands for ‘transsexual rights’.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments are expected to consult in the coming months on making ‘changing sex’ as easy as buying a TV licence.

---

I could have stopped reading this garbage article after this introduction. And this article is supposed to inform Christians about transgender issues, well that might explain some of the confusion and panic we see.

Quote:

---

Our instinctive reaction may be to assume that rights’ is mainly about protecting a tiny minority of troubled people from unfair discrimination. But, in reality, the underlying ideology of ‘gender identity’ is toxic. Ultimately, it aims to legally eliminate male and female sex distinctions.

---

Utter bullshit.

Quote:

---

This ideology is now promoted in primary schools. The Gender Fairy, a story written for four-year-olds, says: ‘Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No-one can tell you’.[3] The author hopes that this book will mean that ‘Some children will realise their true identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and will choose to make a social transition to live as their true gender.’[4]

---

Ah, so that’s one book, that certainly proves something! However, four year olds are not old enough for primary school, so the story already unravels. I wonder how many primary schools actually carry this book? Any?

Quote:

---

The umbrella term ‘transgender’ has come to be preferred as a way of including all the different ways people experience or live out their ‘gender identity’ when there is any felt incongruence with their biological sex.

---

Wrong. This whole article is filled with incorrect and outdated terminology and information (discussing “sex change operations” and including crossdressing in the discussion, for example). That it’s intended to teach Christians about transgender issues is a fucking joke.

Please don’t quote articles that make people dumber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

---

Germans turned to fascism after losing WWI, massive hyperinflation and the Great Depression, so at least they had the 'excuse' of real hardships.

You and most Republicans seem to be willing to condone authoritarianism after what are, in comparison, relatively minor inconveniences. I'm willing to bet that your comfortable existence has been affected only marginally by the things you complain about. Your fears seem to be mostly based on imaginary scares stoked by right-wing media - eg the out of control crime that isn't supported by the data.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...sa-since-1990/

If you object to my saying you condone authoritarianism, how else would you characterise being willing to vote for a man who tried to overturn the election result, treats the law with contempt and threatens retribution if he is reelected?

Excuse the belated response, but I've been away from the site for a few weeks.

When this thread began, it concerned a Trans American being used as part of an advertising campaign for one of Budweiser's drinks. It has morphed in the US into a 'weapon' in the war that is being waged against all things Trans, from Trans Children, to Drag Acts, to medical and cultural issues which politicians often don't, and don't want to understand. In the UK this media exposure has meant that a general public which I doubt is very well informed on the subject has mixed but often negative views of aspects of Trans life-

"The Ipsos LGBT+ Pride 2023 survey finds that, despite a majority thinking transgender people face discrimination, support for gender-affirming measures is mixed, with support for such measures in Britain among the lowest of all countries surveyed."
Two in three Britons think transgender people face discrimination, but support for gender-affirming measures is mixed | Ipsos

There are people fighting back, in Florida, for example, but I wonder if we are living in an era when the exposure to Trans Issues has never been greater, but is also characterised by ignorance and hysteria. For example, the attacks by De Santis on 'Diversity' begs the question for someone in a country shaped by it -how does he define the term?
How Trans Organizers Are Fighting Back Against Ron DeSantis (yahoo.com)

This article looks at the revival of homophobia in right-wing circles. For instance, Ted Cruz has copped criticism recently for condemning Uganda's anti-LGBT laws.
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/11/237358...ti-trans-lgbtq

The article argues that until recently the right seemed to be settling on a position of general acceptance of LGBT rights as long as they retained the right to discriminate on religious grounds. In other words, something like "you can do your thing as long as you leave us our own space where we can do our thing".

More recently, much of the right has shifted toward a position of aggressive push-back against LGBT acceptance, motivated by claims that it's not a natural social evolution but, rather, something that has been foisted on the population by 'woke' institutions. In other words, the slippery slope is alive and well, and LGBT acceptance threatens the 'real America' of the heterosexual family.

A good barometer for this is Trump. In the run-up to the 2016 election he made play of posing as LGBT-friendly. Now he has dropped this completely in favour of appealing the above mindset.

Now let's see if mildcigar will pop up to tell this is the fault of LGBT people for provoking a backlash and maybe they would be better off if they went back into the closet.