Daily Kos: Republicans now openly advocating mass murder of LGBTQ+ Americans

[John Dule]

1. I don't think you know what you are, but you are certainly backing up conservative principles and rhetoric.
2. It doesn't matter what you support, the point was about who is really carrying about violence.

You can cry strawman all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the far-right uses exaggerated rhetoric and fairly isolated examples to accuse entire groups of people of terrible things. You did that by saying that gay people want to kill JK Rowling and expose themselves to people.

JK Rowling certainly received death threats for her statements on transgender issues, and there is a whole thread full of people on this site who are currently advocating for penises in women's locker rooms, so I'm not sure where this feigned confusion is coming from.

[John Dule]

Lots of people get death threats, but it doesn't mean whole groups of people should be blamed.

I didn't say they should be!

Some of those threats are probably from straight people who disagree with her stance, but no one would blanket all straight people as making threats.

I didn't suggest otherwise!

And opinions voiced in one thread on a message board doesn't means all transgender people are rapists and flashers.

I didn't say they are!



Deeply disappointing that you're still so incapable of engaging with the basic point someone is making. Do better!

[John Dule]

Lots of people get death threats, but it doesn't mean whole groups of people should be blamed.

I didn't say they should be!

Some of those threats are probably from straight people who disagree with her stance, but no one would blanket all straight people as making threats.

I didn't suggest otherwise!

And opinions voiced in one thread on a message board doesn't means all transgender people are rapists and flashers.

I didn't say they are!



Deeply disappointing that you're still so incapable of engaging with the basic point someone is making. Do better!

None of what you stated is valid reasoning for any of the legislation and policy Republicans have been pushing. That is what the thread is about.

This thread is about an agenda-driven "news" site elevating the deranged ramblings of Christian fundamentalist loons in order to justify wild conjectures about a fictional imminent genocide of gay people. It's blatant fearmongering. You won't see me or anyone else on this site defending the comments referenced in this article. What you will see, however, is people mocking the manipulative sensationalism this type of article represents. Do you get it now?

[John Dule]

Honestly who the most weird ass dynamic in politics today is how some of the most hostile figures to trans people come from the smug atheist community think guys like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, or Dule here. The weirdest part is they’ll condense to religious people for holding these anti scientific views but they themselves will advocate some of the most anti scientific stances on the trans/gender topic

Atheists don't generally believe in things that don't exist, you see.

[John Dule]

Honestly who the most weird ass dynamic in politics today is how some of the most hostile figures to trans people come from the smug atheist community think guys like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, or Dule here. The weirdest part is they’ll condense to religious people for holding these anti scientific views but they themselves will advocate some of the most anti scientific stances on the trans/gender topic

Atheists don't generally believe in things that don't exist, you see.

This is exactly what I mean, transgender being “not real” is about as unsupported of a stance by the scientific consensus of that field as one could get

Obviously being transgender is "real." It's just that it's a mental condition; there's no ethereal intangible thing called "gender" that exists independently from sex. Believing in "gender" as it is used by activists today is about as intellectually justifiable as believing in ghosts.

[John Dule]

The fundamentalists have a lot more influence than a lot of people want to admit. When you have gender affirming care being banned in some states, parents of trans parents being accused of child abuse and gay and transgender people being called predators then you are setting up an environment that is dangerous to LGBTQ+ people. Maybe gas ovens aren't on the horizon, but that doesn't mean LGBTQ+ aren't being harmed by laws that overreach and nutcases who actually will resort to violence.

Ok, then we can have that discussion. But the problem with this article (and some on this site) is that it deliberately overstates its case. If you start the argument by taking the position that a gay genocide is imminent, you're setting yourself up for failure even on the most basic definitional levels. What's the point? Just point out what's happening right now and then argue why it's bad; don't try to convince me that a new Holocaust is coming because some people aren't comfortable with giving kids hormone therapy-- because that's not going to happen.

[John Dule]

This thread is about an agenda-driven "news" site elevating the deranged ramblings of Christian fundamentalist loons in order to justify wild conjectures about a fictional imminent genocide of gay people. It's blatant fearmongering. You won't see me or anyone else on this site defending the comments referenced in this article. What you will see, however, is people mocking the manipulative sensationalism this type of article represents. Do you get it now?

You are not being remotely serious if you aren't willing to accept that the sentiments being expressed here represent, at the very least, a sizeable portion of the GOP.

I don't know why this is so difficult to accept. Genocides have happened with the enthusiastic consent of the majority group before. It can happen here.

The Republican Party is explicitly saying that trans adults present an inherent danger to children, that any form of gender-affirming care for minors constitutes grooming, are investigating parents who provide gender-affirming care as suspected child abusers, and the two leading contenders for the GOP nomination are trying to one-up each other with how extreme their policies can become.

You can't honeslty believe that this is going to stop at just taking away their rights and making it harder to transition.

Stop trying to make "trans genocide" happen, Fergie. It's not gonna happen.

[John Dule]

This thread is about an agenda-driven "news" site elevating the deranged ramblings of Christian fundamentalist loons in order to justify wild conjectures about a fictional imminent genocide of gay people. It's blatant fearmongering. You won't see me or anyone else on this site defending the comments referenced in this article. What you will see, however, is people mocking the manipulative sensationalism this type of article represents. Do you get it now?

You are not being remotely serious if you aren't willing to accept that the sentiments being expressed here represent, at the very least, a sizeable portion of the GOP.

I don't know why this is so difficult to accept. Genocides have happened with the enthusiastic consent of the majority group before. It can happen here.

The Republican Party is explicitly saying that trans adults present an inherent danger to children, that any form of gender-affirming care for minors constitutes grooming, are investigating parents who provide gender-affirming care as suspected child abusers, and the two leading contenders for the GOP nomination are trying to one-up each other with how extreme their policies can become.

You can't honeslty believe that this is going to stop at just taking away their rights and making it harder to transition.

Stop trying to make "trans genocide" happen, Fergie. It's not gonna happen.

You know you could actually engage instead of just saying "lol it's not gonna happen" over and over again.

Neither you nor the weirdo who wrote this article has been able to articulate a plausible scenario in which this could happen. If you do that, I'll respond. Otherwise I'm just going to ridicule it as the hyperbole it is.

This is not to say that I agree with the GOP on any level when it comes to any of these issues. They're a bunch of fundamentalist retards. But the fact remains that you are engaging in blatant and unrepentant fearmongering and I don't take it seriously at all.

[John Dule]

Neither you nor the weirdo who wrote this article has been able to articulate a plausible scenario in which this could happen. If you do that, I'll respond. Otherwise I'm just going to ridicule it as the hyperbole it is.

This is not to say that I agree with the GOP on any level when it comes to any of these issues. They're a bunch of fundamentalist retards. But the fact remains that you are engaging in blatant and unrepentant fearmongering and I don't take it seriously at all.

Republicans move the goal posts from just banning gender-affirming care for minors to banning it for anyone under 25 (when the brain finishes developing), and then eventually to all adults. You can only call something dangerous and risky and "mutilation" for so long before you move to wanting to ban it altogether.

After that happens, they would slowly move to forcibly de-transition people who are in the process of or who have completed transitioning. If gender-affirming care is really that awful and dangerous that it needs to be banned, why not take the next logical step and "help" those who have made the mistake of going through the process before it was banned?

And when does the genocide begin?

[John Dule]

And when does the genocide begin?

The forcible detransition of transgender people constitutes genocide, per the UN definition.

In the present Convention, genocide means 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.

This again, Fergie?

[John Dule]

This again, Fergie?

Gender ideology is a cult, religions are cults, therefore, trans people are part of a religion.

At least you are admitting it.

I'd rather be a cult member than a man.

We may have some disagreements, but I will always appreciate your ability to approach issues that affect you personally with humor. It makes you much more sympathetic to converse with.

[John Dule]

I think we all know there won't be a literal national trans genocide or anything,

Well, all of us except for Ferguson at least.

To deny that the killing of transgender people is the goal of many in the Republican Party is to either live in ignorance or to deliberately lie.

[John Dule]

The fundamentalists have a lot more influence than a lot of people want to admit. When you have gender affirming care being banned in some states, parents of trans parents being accused of child abuse and gay and transgender people being called predators then you are setting up an environment that is dangerous to LGBTQ+ people. Maybe gas ovens aren't on the horizon, but that doesn't mean LGBTQ+ aren't being harmed by laws that overreach and nutcases who actually will resort to violence.

Ok, then we can have that discussion. But the problem with this article (and some on this site) is that it deliberately overstates its case. If you start the argument by taking the position that a gay genocide is imminent, you're setting yourself up for failure even on the most basic definitional levels. What's the point? Just point out what's happening right now and then argue why it's bad; don't try to convince me that a new Holocaust is coming because some people aren't comfortable with giving kids hormone therapy-- because that's not going to happen.

In politics you can never say never. All it takes us one election where an extremist can narrowly win and you have a potentially dangerous situation. That doesn't necessarily mean the government would round people up, but they can look the other way when it comes to violence against LGBTQ people and bring back things like the gay panic defense.

You could easily say this about any scenario, ranging from political authoritarianism to unforeseeable stuff like Yellowstone erupting. In fact, this is the kind of argument that gun nuts make; someday the US might become a dictatorship, and therefore they need to stockpile AR-15s. Sure, anything could happen, and constant vigilance must be maintained to preserve freedom-- but that doesn't excuse fearmongering about extremely unlikely scenarios for the purposes of riling up the masses/clickbait.

[John Dule]

The people who say there is nothing to worry about Republicans' hateful anti-gay/anti-trans rhetoric are mostly the same people who say that having dozens of children murdered every year in schools by gun nuts is a small price to pay in defense of their second amendment rights.

The people who post random non-sequiturs in Atlas threads are mostly the same people who shout "OPA!" and smash plates.

[John Dule]

To be clear, you have now moved the goal posts from “lol no one wants to genocide trans people” to that it’s literally impossible to genocide trans people, because they’re not a racial or religious group? You’re arguing that if the federal government rounded up and killed every single LGBT person in the country and executed them, this would AKSHALLY not constitute a genocide?

1. You are the one who posted the definition. I have now pointed out twice that the definition does not support your argument. You are free to keep posting it if you like, but it would not be advisable.

2. You wrote this comment in this thread:

To deny that the killing of transgender people is the goal of many in the Republican Party is to either live in ignorance or to deliberately lie.

I asked you to explain how this state of affairs could ever occur. You then made a comment about forcible detransitioning, which was unrelated to what we were discussing (we were discussing the deliberate killing of trans people). If trans people were actually being killed by the government, I would not be a stickler about definitions and it would be acceptable for you to call it a genocide. But this comment did not suggest that such a situation could occur:

Republicans move the goal posts from just banning gender-affirming care for minors to banning it for anyone under 25 (when the brain finishes developing), and then eventually to all adults. You can only call something dangerous and risky and "mutilation" for so long before you move to wanting to ban it altogether.

After that happens, they would slowly move to forcibly de-transition people who are in the process of or who have completed transitioning. If gender-affirming care is really that awful and dangerous that it needs to be banned, why not take the next logical step and "help" those who have made the mistake of going through the process before it was banned?

This is all an aside to the fact that the scenario you outlined here was completely ridiculous. How exactly are Republicans going to "forcibly de-transition" someone who lives in San Francisco? You are stark raving insane if you think this is remotely plausible. This is why I do not take you seriously on this subject: You use the most hyperbolic rhetoric you can think of because you get emotional, and then you find yourself defending an indefensible position. Why should I spend time formulating responses to arguments that you barely put any thought into in the first place?

[John Dule]

What does San Francisco have to do with what Republicans are doing in red states? Obviously the blue states where Republicans are not in power are extremely likely to continue to be pro-LGBT.

The point still stands though. Do you and Fergie actually think that jackbooted GOP thugs are going to break down people's doors and forcibly inject them with testosterone to reverse their puberty blockers in any state?

[John Dule]

This is all an aside to the fact that the scenario you outlined here was completely ridiculous. How exactly are Republicans going to "forcibly de-transition" someone who lives in San Francisco? You are stark raving insane if you think this is remotely plausible. This is why I do not take you seriously on this subject: You use the most hyperbolic rhetoric you can think of because you get emotional, and then you find yourself defending an indefensible position. Why should I spend time formulating responses to arguments that you barely put any thought into in the first place?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of federal laws? What exactly would stop a GOP trifecta from passing a law banning gender-affirming care at the national level?

The Constitution would stop it from happening because it is an issue that is up for the states to decide. The regulation of health and welfare falls under the police powers reserved to the states.