I would be deeply shocked if it wasn’t the Sears campaign who created this sign just to push the victimhood narrative.
The problems with the Spanberger campaign are the problems with most democratic campaigns, in that she is cautious, focus group tested, and moderate in every aspect of her thinking. It often leads to a reflexive need to play defense rather than going on the attack.
Yes this sign is abhorrent and yes the trans issue is not one Democrats have been able to find a moral high ground on that resonates with most voters yet. The lead up to November should not in any way be a referendum on Spanbergers support of trans rights.
This state has been uniquely hurt by federal cuts, inflation remains out of control, and yeah there’s an insane lunatic in office running armed military officers through the streets of dc. Winsome Sears is an abject lunatic extremist who won’t be able to wear the sweater vest of a moderate like Youngkin.
It’s ok to go on the attack to change the conversation to the issues you want to talk about.
Wow. If some rando “liberal” says something out of bounds, the entire Democratic Party is bad. Meanwhile, if President Trump says something completely off the reservation, we are unfairly taking him literally and not seriously. Lord.
Trump can behave like an asshole and refer to Canada as the “51st State” because he’s packing nuclear weapons.
And the result of that was our old, creaking Liberal government which was looking like it was heading for electoral defeat in 2025 won a large minority government and the Conservatives who were crowing about winning a massive majority were shut out and their leader lost his own seat.
I'm in these arguments all the damn time with other trans folks. Everyone including my partner accuses Sarah McBride of "refusing to stand up for herself and other trans folks" as if any minute thing she does won't get dissected to the ends of the Earth and back. It's the same reason Key and Peele joked about Obama needing an anger translator. It's the reason Dr. King insisted everyone wear suits. Yeah, it sucks to have to take the high road when everyone on the other side is smearing themselves in shit, but that's always how this stuff has played.
When you are in the 10 percent portion of an argument, you can't engage as if you are in the 90 percent, even if you believe you are 100 percent correct.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeez all they needed was Tim Walz' "Mind your own business." It was right there. Linda1961 earlier has a GREAT response too.
The "best" part is that then big accounts online can ply Democrats for outrage bait, saying Spanberger isn't 'courageous' enough. Aargh!
Indeed, Democrats need to run PERFECT campaigns to get votes; Republicans only need excuses. Let's hope there won't be a bunch of people that use this as an excuse. Because yet again, this is WHY Democrats need to be extra careful what they say and "focus group" it.
Exactly! Take the offense—and get people who don’t know or care about trans issues to suddenly be very invested in stopping these nuts.
RWs are weird freaks and it is beyond insane that liberals don’t try to make more of that. Maybe they feel so self conscious about being called “weird” themselves that they can’t get in the mindset that it’s their bullies who are weird and THEY should be the ones on the defensive.
Democrats tend to be overly “focus grouped” but you don’t need a focus group or high paid consultant to speak and think like a regular person. And a regular person can be persuaded towards the trans rights argument even if they don’t know anyone who’s trans—paint a picture of the anti-trans forces getting their way—genital checks, kicking girls off of teams if they “don’t look girly enough” (that could be YOUR daughter if some cruel parent doesn’t want their precious Kaitlin to have to compete with her!). People can relate if you put yourself in their mindset. If you can convince white suburban Americans to favor civil rights for black people they don’t know, you can do this too.
If however you’re so full of your own smug self regard that you can only think and speak like another leftist activist in your college seminar, you’ll come up with dense shit like “this is literally the gas chambers”. Then you can lose elections, and blame people like Spanberger for not being enough of an ally while you took her off her message.
I keep pushing the "why do you want adults inspecting the genitals of children" line. I don't phrase it like that of course, this is for people who say out loud, near me that men shouldn't play women's sports. I ask about how that's measured, how does an official decide that? I happen to already know the answer for most adult sports it's testing hormones. They don't seem to know this. Then I ask them about pre grade 4, which is generaly not sorted by sex. Will an official inspect girls? Or will your peewee soccer league like to pay for blood tests? Would you like to submit your granddaughter to crowds demanding her blood, questioning her body? Etc. I end it with "because where the rubber meets the road, you are saying you want women's and girls' to take their pants off for "officials." And if the tone has gone sideways, I tell them that "for someone who claims to be anti pedophilia, you sure think about children's genitals a lot."
You understand that a cheek swab is sufficient to determine chromosome makeup right? You don’t literally need to inspect anything to implement a policy like this.
Non sequitur. Your initial post was about how you cannot be in favor of this policy unless you are in favor or genital checks of children. I pointed out the policy could easily be enforced through a cheek swab (whether I agree or disagree with the policy, it's a fact). Whether sporting orgs focus on testosterone levels or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether the policy can be enforced without examining the junk of children, which it absolutely can be.
I would be deeply shocked if it wasn’t the Sears campaign who created this sign just to push the victimhood narrative.
The problems with the Spanberger campaign are the problems with most democratic campaigns, in that she is cautious, focus group tested, and moderate in every aspect of her thinking. It often leads to a reflexive need to play defense rather than going on the attack.
Yes this sign is abhorrent and yes the trans issue is not one Democrats have been able to find a moral high ground on that resonates with most voters yet. The lead up to November should not in any way be a referendum on Spanbergers support of trans rights.
This state has been uniquely hurt by federal cuts, inflation remains out of control, and yeah there’s an insane lunatic in office running armed military officers through the streets of dc. Winsome Sears is an abject lunatic extremist who won’t be able to wear the sweater vest of a moderate like Youngkin.
It’s ok to go on the attack to change the conversation to the issues you want to talk about.
Wow. If some rando “liberal” says something out of bounds, the entire Democratic Party is bad. Meanwhile, if President Trump says something completely off the reservation, we are unfairly taking him literally and not seriously. Lord.
Trump can behave like an asshole and refer to Canada as the “51st State” because he’s packing nuclear weapons.
And the result of that was our old, creaking Liberal government which was looking like it was heading for electoral defeat in 2025 won a large minority government and the Conservatives who were crowing about winning a massive majority were shut out and their leader lost his own seat.
Very good point!
I'm in these arguments all the damn time with other trans folks. Everyone including my partner accuses Sarah McBride of "refusing to stand up for herself and other trans folks" as if any minute thing she does won't get dissected to the ends of the Earth and back. It's the same reason Key and Peele joked about Obama needing an anger translator. It's the reason Dr. King insisted everyone wear suits. Yeah, it sucks to have to take the high road when everyone on the other side is smearing themselves in shit, but that's always how this stuff has played.
I really want to understand WHY this double standard is 'allowed' to persist
When you are in the 10 percent portion of an argument, you can't engage as if you are in the 90 percent, even if you believe you are 100 percent correct.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeez all they needed was Tim Walz' "Mind your own business." It was right there. Linda1961 earlier has a GREAT response too.
The "best" part is that then big accounts online can ply Democrats for outrage bait, saying Spanberger isn't 'courageous' enough. Aargh!
Indeed, Democrats need to run PERFECT campaigns to get votes; Republicans only need excuses. Let's hope there won't be a bunch of people that use this as an excuse. Because yet again, this is WHY Democrats need to be extra careful what they say and "focus group" it.
More attacks on public education, and objective reality.
Sears is SUCH a fucking creep. We should just lead with that
A better attack would be asking the genital police why they are so concerned with other peoples' private parts.
Exactly! Take the offense—and get people who don’t know or care about trans issues to suddenly be very invested in stopping these nuts.
RWs are weird freaks and it is beyond insane that liberals don’t try to make more of that. Maybe they feel so self conscious about being called “weird” themselves that they can’t get in the mindset that it’s their bullies who are weird and THEY should be the ones on the defensive.
Democrats tend to be overly “focus grouped” but you don’t need a focus group or high paid consultant to speak and think like a regular person. And a regular person can be persuaded towards the trans rights argument even if they don’t know anyone who’s trans—paint a picture of the anti-trans forces getting their way—genital checks, kicking girls off of teams if they “don’t look girly enough” (that could be YOUR daughter if some cruel parent doesn’t want their precious Kaitlin to have to compete with her!). People can relate if you put yourself in their mindset. If you can convince white suburban Americans to favor civil rights for black people they don’t know, you can do this too.
If however you’re so full of your own smug self regard that you can only think and speak like another leftist activist in your college seminar, you’ll come up with dense shit like “this is literally the gas chambers”. Then you can lose elections, and blame people like Spanberger for not being enough of an ally while you took her off her message.
I keep pushing the "why do you want adults inspecting the genitals of children" line. I don't phrase it like that of course, this is for people who say out loud, near me that men shouldn't play women's sports. I ask about how that's measured, how does an official decide that? I happen to already know the answer for most adult sports it's testing hormones. They don't seem to know this. Then I ask them about pre grade 4, which is generaly not sorted by sex. Will an official inspect girls? Or will your peewee soccer league like to pay for blood tests? Would you like to submit your granddaughter to crowds demanding her blood, questioning her body? Etc. I end it with "because where the rubber meets the road, you are saying you want women's and girls' to take their pants off for "officials." And if the tone has gone sideways, I tell them that "for someone who claims to be anti pedophilia, you sure think about children's genitals a lot."
I've had this conversation three times.
You understand that a cheek swab is sufficient to determine chromosome makeup right? You don’t literally need to inspect anything to implement a policy like this.
You understand chromosome makeup isn’t what the olympics or pro sports use, right? It’s your hormone levels, like testosterone. You know, blood tests.
But thanks for playing!
Non sequitur. Your initial post was about how you cannot be in favor of this policy unless you are in favor or genital checks of children. I pointed out the policy could easily be enforced through a cheek swab (whether I agree or disagree with the policy, it's a fact). Whether sporting orgs focus on testosterone levels or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether the policy can be enforced without examining the junk of children, which it absolutely can be.
Friend, you’re just wrong.
Huh, so your contention is the only way to implement this policy is through genital checks?
I guess you need to let world athletics know because they are introducing a genetic test just like I described, not genital checks.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cwy1zlr2g0xo
Better to have it go that way! Then it’s “we can agree that you are ok with checking out kids’ junk”.