CPAC speaker calls for genocide of trans people

[OSR stands with Israel]

The only people ever saying anything about genocide are those who have been falsely claiming people they don't like are calling for it, with no evidence to support it.

I remember a right wing user that I won't name being heavily infracted for calling puberty blockers (and genital surgery on 17 and a half year olds) a mass sterilization and/or genocide comparable to the Tuskegee Study Of Untreated Syphilis In The Negro Male.

You must have conveniently forgotten about that one.

Sounds like I was expressing concern for Trans and gender nonconforming kids rather than calling for their eradication. If I wanted to eradicate them wouldnt I have viewed their mass sterilization favorably rather than with alarm?

You also wouldn’t oppose banning adult gender affirming care as well as you did in the OK thread 

[T'Chenka]

The only people ever saying anything about genocide are those who have been falsely claiming people they don't like are calling for it, with no evidence to support it.

I remember a right wing user that I won't name being heavily infracted for calling puberty blockers (and genital surgery on 17 and a half year olds) a mass sterilization and/or genocide comparable to the Tuskegee Study Of Untreated Syphilis In The Negro Male.

You must have conveniently forgotten about that one.

Sounds like I was expressing concern for Trans and gender nonconforming kids rather than calling for their eradication. If I wanted to eradicate them wouldnt I have viewed their mass sterilization favorably rather than with alarm?

Showing concern for kids under the assumption that they're potentially "normal" kids, if they can successfully be "saved". It isn't necessarily the same thing as concern for transgender kids.

[7,052,770]

The only people ever saying anything about genocide are those who have been falsely claiming people they don't like are calling for it, with no evidence to support it.

I remember a right wing user that I won't name being heavily infracted for calling puberty blockers (and genital surgery on 17 and a half year olds) a mass sterilization and/or genocide comparable to the Tuskegee Study Of Untreated Syphilis In The Negro Male.

You must have conveniently forgotten about that one.

Sounds like I was expressing concern for Trans and gender nonconforming kids rather than calling for their eradication. If I wanted to eradicate them wouldnt I have viewed their mass sterilization favorably rather than with alarm?

You also wouldn’t oppose banning adult gender affirming care as well as you did in the OK thread 

Why are you telling him what his positions are? Let him figure that out on his own and tell us himself if he wants to.

[Dan the Roman]

No, we should force all the threads I don't like into a megathread because this forum exists to cater to my preferences alone!!!1

Abortion/overturning Roe gets a megathread, COVID gets a megathread, Jan 6th gets a megathread

but somehow LGBT issues that are spammed in USGD just as often aren't worthy of a megathread? lmao

Ok? Quit reading the trans threads if you don't like them. There are lots of threads here that don't interest me, so I don't read them. I don't cry about it and try to get them shut down.

Requesting they be condensed into a megathread =/= shutting it down.

What valid reason is there to have almost 30 threads in a month saying basically the same thing? There is no rational argument to be made that keeping these threads separate accomplishes anything that a megathread cannot.

No one is fooled into thinking the two most vociferously transphobic bigots on the Forum are making this demand in anything resembling good faith. Presumably - hopefully - that includes the mod cave.

The mods infract posts that are in the mainstream of public debate. They should stop doing that then and stop taking the left wing side of this debate

Bigotry is never mainstream, child.

What Mr R posts is not bigoted unless you take a left wing interpretation of the word bigot

I take a human being interpretation of the word bigot. Hopefully someday you will grow to do likewise.

The vast majority of humans would not think what Mr R said was bigoted .

Ah, so Saudi Arabians and the Taliban would consider it sinful and not bigoted, so my unapologetically prejudiced buddies who will join me in my penultimate goal of getting DeSantis elected president are still A-OK as part of my coalition.

Your argument has now degenerated from ridiculous to downright spineless.

1. You used the worst humans not me so you made this dumb argument. Also the vast majority of Indians , South Koreans , Chinese , Japanese probably would agree what Mr R said wasnt bigoted and they aren’t majority Abrahamic religion countries .

I’m also sure a majority of Americans would think what Mr R said wasnt bigoted either

2. Mr R was considered moderate on these issues 6-7 years ago , yet now he’s considered far right despite the fact that 1. His views haven’t changed since then 2. Public opinion has gotten more conservative on this issue Since then

No you nincompoop. This would have been bigoted six or seven years ago as well, and one would not have to be a far left extremist to believe so, just not an asshole, as this issue has nothing to do with politics, or at least it shouldn't if conservatives could just learn to play nice and get along with people different than them

So possible worldwide disapproval of transgenderism means it's okay to feel that way? Do you really not understand how stupid an argument that is? Interracial marriage was overwhelmingly disapproved of until maybe a couple decades ago, so it must have been okay to oppose it up until then. Jim Crow laws were overwhelmingly supported by Southerners up until the mid-60s soon after the Civil Rights Act banned separate accommodations, so I guess Southerners supporting Jim Crow was fine and dandy unto that point because it was common.

If you had any moral courage in your arguments you would acknowledge that mere popularity or unpopularity of you just not begin to determine whether or not it is right or wrong. Whether you like it or not transgender rights is in fact supported by and large in america, and that doesn't make its opposition here any less bigoted, and your right wing friends make it very clear is rooted on a bigotry. You just don't have the courage to stand up to them because at the end of the day to you it's merely about sticking with your blue Avatar teammates.

Just not true to say that transgenderism is supported "by and large" in America. 60% of Americans, up 6% from 2017, say that gender is determined by sex at birth. A plurality, 38%, also say that society's acceptance of transgender people has gone too far. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

But I agree with you! Regardless of public polling, our views on the acceptability of this action should be the same (although it can be helpful to realize when you are in a bubble.) And in that regard, there is nothing bigoted about believing that gender is determined by sex at birth and that castrating or halting the development of children is bad, and I have yet to find a convincing argument to the contrary.

There is a divergence going on between two different positions, especially among younger center-right voters

1. Whether Trans women and Trans men are identical to biological men/women and/or whether for political reasons society should be obligated to pretend they are. This manifests in things like sports, but also workplaces and culture. It can also be nuanced, even among LGBT communities and within the Trans community itself. Is there a distinction between pre and post-op and should that matter. Should people be required to "pass" at some level. Should additional identities be recognized?

For this, support has definitely fallen, largely because the costs have increased along with the demands and things like the Hogwarts boycott have made advocates appear impossible to please.

2. Whether transgenderism exists, procedures should be available, and under what conditions. This tends to be a matter of greater indifference for younger conservatives but a bigger one for older ones. An exception relates to children where a conviction that Trans advocates are not reliable judges of decisions has bled over to a lack of trust. However, it does not follow that because you do not believe a biological male who transitions to female is identical to a natal female, or should be able to play sports, or included in women's quotas for workplaces, that you think procedures should be restricted or banned.


There tendency of both rightwing advocates of #2 and strong supporters of Trans rights to conflate everyone who falls somewhere in concern group #1 with group #2, and the sheer aggressiveness of the pushback has tended to make quite a few indifferent to the policies pushed by group #2. But a lot of right-wingers are also overstretching their support.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The only people ever saying anything about genocide are those who have been falsely claiming people they don't like are calling for it, with no evidence to support it.

I remember a right wing user that I won't name being heavily infracted for calling puberty blockers (and genital surgery on 17 and a half year olds) a mass sterilization and/or genocide comparable to the Tuskegee Study Of Untreated Syphilis In The Negro Male.

You must have conveniently forgotten about that one.

Sounds like I was expressing concern for Trans and gender nonconforming kids rather than calling for their eradication. If I wanted to eradicate them wouldnt I have viewed their mass sterilization favorably rather than with alarm?

Showing concern for kids under the assumption that they're potentially "normal" kids, if they can successfully be "saved". It isn't necessarily the same thing as concern for transgender kids.

See, now you are making stuff up. My concern was that kids of a certain predisposition, whether it be genetically caused or otherwise, were being pushed into treatments that science shows sterilizes them. That sounds like eugenics to me i.e. selectively breeding a group out of existence. "Normal" or "saved" or otherwise I was upset that a group is being removed from the gene pool, not that "oh no now they cant be normal".

[Ferguson97]

Just not true to say that transgenderism is supported "by and large" in America. 60% of Americans, up 6% from 2017, say that gender is determined by sex at birth. A plurality, 38%, also say that society's acceptance of transgender people has gone too far. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

The link you posted also has a poll showing that 64% of Americans support laws banning discrimination against trans people.

Some other highlights -

Nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) say it’s extremely or very important to use a person’s new name if they transition to a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth and change their name.

More than four-in-ten (44%) say forms and online profiles that ask about a person’s gender should include options other than “male” and “female” for people who don’t identify as either.

So while the public certainly isn't "woke" on the issue of gender & sex, they sure as hell don't support the GOP's discriminatory agenda.

[Ferguson97]

See, now you are making stuff up. My concern was that kids of a certain predisposition, whether it be genetically caused or otherwise, were being pushed into treatments that science shows sterilizes them. That sounds like eugenics to me i.e. selectively breeding a group out of existence. "Normal" or "saved" or otherwise I was upset that a group is being removed from the gene pool, not that "oh no now they cant be normal".

1. Why are you framing it as if those sorts of risks are being hidden from trans people?

2. It's only eugenics if they're being forced to take these drugs against their will. You wouldn't call it eugenics if a cis man willingly got a vasectomy or a cis woman willingly got her tubes tied.

This is a stupid, bad-faith argument.

[DaleCooper]

See, now you are making stuff up. My concern was that kids of a certain predisposition, whether it be genetically caused or otherwise, were being pushed into treatments that science shows sterilizes them. That sounds like eugenics to me i.e. selectively breeding a group out of existence. "Normal" or "saved" or otherwise I was upset that a group is being removed from the gene pool, not that "oh no now they cant be normal".

1. Why are you framing it as if those sorts of risks are being hidden from trans people?

2. It's only eugenics if they're being forced to take these drugs against their will. You wouldn't call it eugenics if a cis man willingly got a vasectomy or a cis woman willingly got her tubes tied.

This is a stupid, bad-faith argument.

Ethical doctors are not giving vasectomies to young men in their teens, let alone anyone in their early adolescence, lol.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

DEBATE ON TAXES:
Left: Taxes should be raised
Right: Taxes should be lowered

DEBATE ON LGBT RIGHTS:
Most People: LGBT people deserve human rights
Far Right: No

See the difference?

[jojoju1998]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

DEBATE ON TAXES:
Left: Taxes should be raised
Right: Taxes should be lowered

DEBATE ON LGBT RIGHTS:
Most People: LGBT people deserve human rights
Far Right: No

See the difference?

Republicans : We want to persecute LGBT peoples !


Democrats : We want paid family leave.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

DEBATE ON TAXES:
Left: Taxes should be raised
Right: Taxes should be lowered

DEBATE ON LGBT RIGHTS:
Most People: LGBT people deserve human rights
Far Right: No

See the difference?

In 2017 when the right was in power , the left posted how it’s different when the debate was on taxes then it’s on healthcare and it was literally the same words you used here just with a different phrasing (the phrasing was the left want more people to healthcare and the right wants less). Then there were memes on how anyone who supports Trump’s and Ryan’s healthcare plan is a bad person


So basically taxes are the only issue you guys would think our side’s point is worth debating .

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Lol at the gaslighting in this thread. CPAC is an important conservative event and this man was speaking at it. They chose to invite him and if they don't condemn this statement then as far as I'm concerned they condone it. Same with the posters in this thread

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

DEBATE ON TAXES:
Left: Taxes should be raised
Right: Taxes should be lowered

DEBATE ON LGBT RIGHTS:
Most People: LGBT people deserve human rights
Far Right: No

See the difference?

In 2017 when the right was in power , the left posted how it’s different when the debate was on taxes then it’s on healthcare and it was literally the same words you used here just with a different phrasing (the phrasing was the left want more people to healthcare and the right wants less). Then there were memes on how anyone who supports Trump’s and Ryan’s healthcare plan is a bad person


So basically taxes are the only issue you guys would think our side’s point is worth debating .

- I wasn't here in 2017
- I am not left wing in the traditional sense

Also, taxes aren't the only issue, nor are LGBT rights writ large something that can't be debated.

Here are some topics that can be debated-
-The inclusion of books in school libraries like Gender Queer
-Hormone blockers and other <18 irreversible gender-affirming care.
-Allowing young kids at drag shows
-All the dumbf@cks who wear inappropriate nonsense at pride parades
-Etc

Here are some that can't be debated-
-The humanity and intrinsic value of LGBT people, and that their orientation doesn't make them 'inferior' in any way.

[fhtagn]

Lol at the gaslighting in this thread. CPAC is an important conservative event and this man was speaking at it. They chose to invite him and if they don't condemn this statement then as far as I'm concerned they condone it. Same with the posters in this thread

You people think that regardless of whether anyone you disagree with politically condemns it or not, so why should anyone bother? 

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

DEBATE ON TAXES:
Left: Taxes should be raised
Right: Taxes should be lowered

DEBATE ON LGBT RIGHTS:
Most People: LGBT people deserve human rights
Far Right: No

See the difference?

In 2017 when the right was in power , the left posted how it’s different when the debate was on taxes then it’s on healthcare and it was literally the same words you used here just with a different phrasing (the phrasing was the left want more people to healthcare and the right wants less). Then there were memes on how anyone who supports Trump’s and Ryan’s healthcare plan is a bad person


So basically taxes are the only issue you guys would think our side’s point is worth debating .

- I wasn't here in 2017
- I am not left wing in the traditional sense

Also, taxes aren't the only issue, nor are LGBT rights writ large something that can't be debated.

Here are some topics that can be debated-
-The inclusion of books in school libraries like Gender Queer
-Hormone blockers and other <18 irreversible gender-affirming care.
-Allowing young kids at drag shows
-All the dumbf@cks who wear inappropriate nonsense at pride parades
-Etc

Here are some that can't be debated-
-The humanity and intrinsic value of LGBT people, and that their orientation doesn't make them 'inferior' in any way.

I wasn’t talking about you and yes I agree with you on this . I was just pointing out the left no matter the issue will strawmann the right’s Postion and then use it to say they are a bad person .

[SWE]

Lol at the gaslighting in this thread. CPAC is an important conservative event and this man was speaking at it. They chose to invite him and if they don't condemn this statement then as far as I'm concerned they condone it. Same with the posters in this thread

You people think that regardless of whether anyone you disagree with politically condemns it or not, so why should anyone bother? 

Alben Barkley has gotten a lot of flack for his views on trans people, and his post in this thread got a very positive reception, even from people who very much do not like him, so no, that's not remotely the case. It's actually very easy to avoid being associated with a genocidal freak and if you can't avoid the impulse to minimize or deflect from a call for genocide, that's entirely on you

[RFK 2024]

A nine page thread?  It’s not like this isn’t an easy thing to condemn.  USGD, not even once. 

[T'Chenka]

It’s not like this isn’t an easy thing to condemn.

And yet here we are, nine pages in. I can count the number of condemnations from right wingers on one hand, so far.

[BG-NY]

This is supposed to be a politics forum, but whenever conservatives try to discuss policy regarding LGBTQ they often get moderated or labled as fascists or genociders. How is it possible for atlas conservatives to talk about those issues without being constantly attacked? Criticism regarding the policy is okay (thats how politics works!) but what I'm seeing here is attacks are being applied to the individual posters themselves rather than people simply discussing the issues.

Because treating people decently is not "debating the issues", and wanting to argue about whether or not people should be treated decently is not engaging a policy debate, it's screaming "I'm an abusive bigot, I really mean it!!!" at the top of your lungs and then getting upset that people think you might not be a very nice person.

To me, the general tenor of Republican whines (as Trump promised everyone, the whining never stops) about "why aren't we allowed to debate this" comes across as a repellent and frightening echo of the the 1930s, like members of a certain German party getting upset that people think ill of them when they just want to "debate the Jewish Question".

In the end, it seems quite simple to me. The end goal of Republicans is to be terrible people. No amount of "but we're being reasonable right now, right here" should be allowed to distract from that.

I am on the lib side on this trans topic, but this is poor reasoning that allows everything to be cast as a moral test in public discourse. Foreign aid. Immigration. Gun rights. Everything outside of tax policy shouldn’t be considered off the table of discussion.

[T'Chenka]

Because treating people decently is not "debating the issues", and wanting to argue about whether or not people should be treated decently is not engaging a policy debate, it's screaming "I'm an abusive bigot, I really mean it!!!" at the top of your lungs and then getting upset that people think you might not be a very nice person.

To me, the general tenor of Republican whines (as Trump promised everyone, the whining never stops) about "why aren't we allowed to debate this" comes across as a repellent and frightening echo of the the 1930s, like members of a certain German party getting upset that people think ill of them when they just want to "debate the Jewish Question".

In the end, it seems quite simple to me. The end goal of Republicans is to be terrible people. No amount of "but we're being reasonable right now, right here" should be allowed to distract from that.

I am on the lib side on this trans topic, but this is poor reasoning that allows everything to be cast as a moral test in public discourse. Foreign aid. Immigration. Gun rights. Everything outside of tax policy shouldn’t be considered off the table of discussion.

Foreign aid, immigration and gun rights are 100% moral issues in the context of "some arguments for WHY policies are good or bad are immoral, and some arguments for why policies are good or bad are not immoral". So basically, a lot of policies are not necessarily immoral in and of themselves, but you can support those policies for immoral reasons. There are positions on those issues that I personally believe have very few moral justifications, so unless you provide me with a good reason for why you support that policy that makes sense morally, I will view your position as immoral.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Lol at the gaslighting in this thread. CPAC is an important conservative event and this man was speaking at it. They chose to invite him and if they don't condemn this statement then as far as I'm concerned they condone it. Same with the posters in this thread

You people think that regardless of whether anyone you disagree with politically condemns it or not, so why should anyone bother? 

Alben Barkley has gotten a lot of flack for his views on trans people, and his post in this thread got a very positive reception, even from people who very much do not like him, so no, that's not remotely the case. It's actually very easy to avoid being associated with a genocidal freak and if you can't avoid the impulse to minimize or deflect from a call for genocide, that's entirely on you

And I'm not going to even get started on these people trying to narrow the definition of genocide. Otherwise, what's happening to the uyghurs is not genocide, which is totally absurd

[T'Chenka]

Relevant breakdown of why conservatives in this thread are wrong :
From 4:41 in the video until 6:15