Yeah, no, it’s not. Multiple polls, from multiple different polling firms, shows that people broadly oppose things like allowing minors to have gender-affirming care, or allowing equal participation in gendered sports (e.g., having transwomen compete in women’s divisions). It doesn’t matter what the political leanings of the polling firm are. This is why Republican attacks on Dems regarding trans rights were so effective in the election. It’s irrelevant that Dems are on the morally right side, because the majority supports the immoral position. Here’s one source for you; raw data is here.
Under a direct democracy, transgender people would absolutely lose rights in the states that now protect them. 40 years ago gay people would have had it even worse under a direct democracy.
First: I gave you numbers for the US, so you’re pivoting to the UK in order to avoid addressing the salient point. But okay, here are some UK numbers. The numbers weren’t great to start, and they’ve been getting worse; people in the UK may be okay with allowing adults to get gender-affirming care, but they’re not okay with the NHS paying for it, and they broadly opposed gender-affirming care for minors. And paying for your own health care in the UK ain’t exactly cheap.
If the plurality of people are broadly unsupportive of transgender equality (it’s not a strict majority because there is a percentage of people that don’t have an opinion), then the MPs that voted against transgender equality were doing what their constituents wanted.
If you have hard data showing that this the polling on this is incorrect, now is a great time to present it.
And yes, all of the scientific data that’s credible demonstrates that trans people fare better with social acceptance, with access to gender-affirming care, when they aren’t discriminated against. But that doesn’t significantly sway public opinion on the matter. The majority of people that have an opinion on the matter as simply wrong.
You are arguing in favor of being a slave with no rights because JKR paid to have a law passed.
No, what I specifically said was that we shouldn’t follow the will of the majority in all things, because the majority can and does act in tyrannical ways. Meanwhile, you’re insisting that letting everyone always vote on every single thing would somehow result in a utopia.
Here’s the thing: I live in the rural south. Our local high school has one transgender student. The superintendent consulted with an attorney, and then let the student us the bathroom of the gender that they identify with. The community as a whole fucking lost their minds. The school board held a public meeting about it where they explained why they took the steps they did, and then they let community members speak. In a town of 5k people, there were over 500 people attending. They cut off comments after three hours. It was roughly 10:1 against treating this poor girl like a girl.
If they’d taken a vote that very day, she would have been run out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers, because the town is full of bigoted evangelical christians. But you think that people should always get to vote on everything, even when they have zero real knowledge about the subject? That’s absolute nonsense.
The places in then world where people vote on policy are the objectively safest for trans people.
Okay, and right fucking now those countries are voting for people that have explicitly told them that they’re going to clamp down on trans rights, and then those people are doing it. So the countries where people vote are becoming less safe for trans people, even if it’s still safer than being transgender in, say, Iran.
Jesus fuck. You argue that the tyranny of the majority doesn’t exist, and when I prove that it does, with examples, you block. You can’t even cite anything to justify your position.
Yeah, no, it’s not. Multiple polls, from multiple different polling firms, shows that people broadly oppose things like allowing minors to have gender-affirming care, or allowing equal participation in gendered sports (e.g., having transwomen compete in women’s divisions). It doesn’t matter what the political leanings of the polling firm are. This is why Republican attacks on Dems regarding trans rights were so effective in the election. It’s irrelevant that Dems are on the morally right side, because the majority supports the immoral position. Here’s one source for you; raw data is here.
Under a direct democracy, transgender people would absolutely lose rights in the states that now protect them. 40 years ago gay people would have had it even worse under a direct democracy.
You realize most people approve of adults receiving the care right?
The majority did not support the JK Rowling law.
The law was changed by representatives that refused to represent their voters.
Sorry you have a hard time engaging with reality.
First: I gave you numbers for the US, so you’re pivoting to the UK in order to avoid addressing the salient point. But okay, here are some UK numbers. The numbers weren’t great to start, and they’ve been getting worse; people in the UK may be okay with allowing adults to get gender-affirming care, but they’re not okay with the NHS paying for it, and they broadly opposed gender-affirming care for minors. And paying for your own health care in the UK ain’t exactly cheap.
If the plurality of people are broadly unsupportive of transgender equality (it’s not a strict majority because there is a percentage of people that don’t have an opinion), then the MPs that voted against transgender equality were doing what their constituents wanted.
If you have hard data showing that this the polling on this is incorrect, now is a great time to present it.
And yes, all of the scientific data that’s credible demonstrates that trans people fare better with social acceptance, with access to gender-affirming care, when they aren’t discriminated against. But that doesn’t significantly sway public opinion on the matter. The majority of people that have an opinion on the matter as simply wrong.
You’re the one randomly refrencing cherry picked shit.
You are arguing in favor of being a slave with no rights because JKR paid to have a law passed.
The dictatorships of the world don’t like trans people, in those countries trans people get sent to prison or death.
The places in then world where people vote on policy are the objectively safest for trans people.
Grow up
No, what I specifically said was that we shouldn’t follow the will of the majority in all things, because the majority can and does act in tyrannical ways. Meanwhile, you’re insisting that letting everyone always vote on every single thing would somehow result in a utopia.
Here’s the thing: I live in the rural south. Our local high school has one transgender student. The superintendent consulted with an attorney, and then let the student us the bathroom of the gender that they identify with. The community as a whole fucking lost their minds. The school board held a public meeting about it where they explained why they took the steps they did, and then they let community members speak. In a town of 5k people, there were over 500 people attending. They cut off comments after three hours. It was roughly 10:1 against treating this poor girl like a girl.
If they’d taken a vote that very day, she would have been run out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers, because the town is full of bigoted evangelical christians. But you think that people should always get to vote on everything, even when they have zero real knowledge about the subject? That’s absolute nonsense.
Okay, and right fucking now those countries are voting for people that have explicitly told them that they’re going to clamp down on trans rights, and then those people are doing it. So the countries where people vote are becoming less safe for trans people, even if it’s still safer than being transgender in, say, Iran.
Tldr
Blocked
Jesus fuck. You argue that the tyranny of the majority doesn’t exist, and when I prove that it does, with examples, you block. You can’t even cite anything to justify your position.
What the shit, my dude.