That’s not something any Democrat would ever do.

You shouldn’t care, but most straight women do. Straight women are uniquely prejudiced against bisexual men.

I for one want to know what the hell is going on in the heads of the handful of bisexual women that wouldn’t date another bisexual woman. 🤣

Seriously. I’m bi. Like, objectively undeniably bi. I’ve had cis partners of both sexes. I’ve had long-term relationships with both. I’m not one of those people that’s bi on paper but has only ever dated one sex or gender.

And yet, I’m happily married to my husband. We’re in a fully monogamous, exclusive, committed relationship. Been married for eight years. I said “til death do us part,” and I meant it! Still do.

Being bi just means you’re attracted to more than one sex or gender. The idea that I would ever tell my partner something like, “well you see, there are just some physical needs that you as a man are incapable of meeting…” is just a porn fantasy. I don’t have some irresistible need to be with both men and women. I just find some people attractive regardless of gender.

Oh wait. You are just a bigot, going off your moderation history. I’m perfectly fine bullying you. You’re below contempt.

I love most things Bernie does, but this is idiotic. Why are we talking about increasing benefits, when the system is going to have to cut benefits in just 7 years when the trust fund runs out?

I’m all for eliminating the tax cap, but those funds should be used entirely for stabilizing the system. The Boomers are already the richest generation in American history. Their children are poorer than they are. And each generation after is poorer still. We should be focused on ensuring that the future poorer generations can enjoy the same level of benefits that today’s Boomer retirees can get, rather than giving the wealthy Boomers even more money.

And before anyone says, “why not do both?” Because there’s finite money here. Every penny that goes to increasing benefits now is one less penny to secure the system’s long-term future. Removing the cap entirely and putting 100% of the money to extending program solvency would only extend the system’s solvency to 2055. It’s a good idea to do this, but removing the cap is not an infinite money glitch. There’s only so many dollars to be had. And frankly, the Boomers have enough dollars already. Let’s make sure Millennials and Gen Z will get the same level of benefits Boomers enjoy before we go giving Boomers even more money. When the Social Security trust fund’s exhaustion date has been extended to “forever,” then we can talk about raising benefits for existing retirees.

Sure, you can say, “let’s do both and raise other taxes,” but again, finite dollars. If we’re going to be raising taxes for benefits, I would rather those dollars go to Medicare for All rather than raising the Social Security benefits for the wealthiest generation in American history.

Trans women aren’t men. You just moronically try to map the performance of cis men onto trans women, blindly assuming they’re the same.

And “your personal opinion” is just “my bullshit bigotry.”

Common sense and gut feelings are what built Jim Crow.

Your daughter wouldn’t be playing with boys. She would be playing with trans girls who have undergone the same estrogen-dominated puberty she did. Have you seen some of these protests? You have dozens of adults screaming at a trans high school girl who you couldn’t even pick out of the lineup as “the trans one” without it being pointed out in advance. Imagine a regular girls team, except there are a dozen parents screaming at this one random girl who looks no different and plays no different from her peers. But these monsters believe she is forever cursed with the stain of masculinity, thus she must be destroyed.

And purely from a competitiveness standpoint, one could argue that a trans girl who hasn’t started any hormone therapy or anything of the sort is, in effect, as physically capable as her male classmates.

Good thing that has never fucking happened. Every single league that allows trans women to compete with cis women has always required sufficient time on HRT to erase any advantages a male puberty might have brought.

What would you have to see to convince you that there are immutable biological differences between males and females?

The struggle you’re having is that you don’t seem to realize that trans women are biologically female.

There really isn’t a good reason except bigotry. The science is firm on this. Trans women are biologically female and have no advantage in sports over cis women.

Your problem is that you’re stuck on a bigoted assumption that “trans woman == man in a dress.”

And that’s why trans women, as biological females, belong in women’s sports. Only a raging dumbass thinks trans women are biologically male.

And that’s why trans women belong in women’s sports. Biological women should play with other biological women. Trans women are literally biologically female. You’re just ignorant of trans medicine.

Again, hotly debated topic and even by their own results there ARE differences.

So your best possible argument is “the evidence is inconclusive.”

THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE WE PERSECUTING A MINORITY GROUP WHEN THE BEST EVIDENCE YOU CAN HAVE IS “MAYBE THERE’S A TINY DIFFERENCE, IDK?”

Seriously. Listen to yourself. We’re talking about the civil rights of real human beings. That is NOT the kind of thing you fuck with unless you have an extremely serious reason to do so. Like, if after we let trans women play sports, suddenly we were dominating competitions left and right, obviously outperforming cis women in an unfair way.

The best shit you got is, “well, the evidence is inconclusive.”

It’s called innocent til proven fucking guilty. You don’t persecute people on a whim or a hunch.

But beyond and aside from that, I will never understand why we have to act like sports are some sacred thing whose purity must be protected. It’s people playing with a ball.

Because you’re not thinking big enough. The “trans sports” debate is literally just bigotry. Seriously, go watch the John Oliver piece on it. Every study that has ever been done has found that any advantage trans women and girls have disappears after a few years of hormone therapy. The athletic performance of trans women is well within the range of that of cis women. Believing trans women should be banned from women’s sports because they have an unfair advantage has no more scientific validity to it than the old racist beliefs that black athletes couldn’t compete fairly in white leagues. The science has been. The studies have been performed. Cis people just refuse to believe them. Their gut feelings outweigh science and our humanity.

People just vote based on bigotry. Even most liberal “allies” are awful at this. Most liberal allies just see trans women as drag queens, literal men in dresses, as if we don’t take medications that completely reshape our bodies on a biochemical level. Morons, even many moronic Democrats, just think “trans woman == man in dress,” and conclude that our sports performance must be closer to cis men than cis women. It’s just stereotypes and bigotry. That’s all this is.

And that’s the problem. Because once you’ve given into one form of irrational, unscientific bigotry, you have no reason to ever stop. If you won’t listen to the science when bigots say trans women have an unfair advantage in sports, you won’t listen to science when bigots say that trans women are a threat in women’s restrooms and locker rooms. If you don’t give a shit about science, you’ll have no problem caving to bigots who hand wring about trans kids receiving trans healthcare. It’s completely unscientific and bigoted to let a tiny minuscule regret rate influence your conclusion, but if you’ve abandoned science once, you’ll do it again.

As a trans person, I honestly do not give two shits about sports. But what I DO care about is the precedent it sets. There has never been a state that passed a trans sports ban through its legislature that then didn’t also go on to persecute trans people in numerous areas of life.

Think more than two seconds into the future.

Remember, Jim Crow was passed because white women didn’t “feel comfortable” sharing spaces with black women.

McConnell pulls a reverse-Fetterman and becomes a democrat.

The truth is Democrats aren’t going to do shit to “save democracy,” and anyone who thinks or thought they were is delusional.

Notice, the Democrats never ran on how exactly they were going to save democracy. The reason they didn’t is that saving democracy is incredibly unpopular. If you actually want to save democracy, you have to pass very unpopular laws.

Mainly, you need to strip the presidency of all the emergency powers Congress has given it over the years, dismantle the post-9/11 security and surveillance state, and disband ICE.

Here is the problem. Doing any of these things will literally get Americans killed. If you dismantle the unconstitutional mass spying apparatus, inevitably, eventually, there’s going to be some terrorist attack that occurs that that spying could have prevented. If you disband ICE, inevitably some person who happens to be an illegal immigrant is going to kill some white woman, and it will be found out that ICE would have deported them before it happened.

In these cases, I would argue that the deaths are worth it. I am absolutely willing to trade some safety for freedom. Freedom is worth fighting for; it’s worth dying for. It’s worth seeing innocent people die for it.

That’s the core problem. The tools of a dictator are also the tools of ordinary law enforcement. If you strip away the dictator’s toolkit, you also disempower law enforcement, which means some otherwise preventable crimes will happen. And your political opposition can latch onto those few rare cases and crucify you with them.

This is why Democrats cannot save democracy. Ultimately, they are complete cowards. Saving democracy requires courage and conviction. It requires a politician to look the voters dead in the eyes and say, “some of your children are going to die because of this bill I am proposing, and that is an acceptable loss I am willing to pay to ensure our children get to live in a democracy.”

I’ve never seen a Democrat running on that kind of message. But that’s what it would take to actually save democracy. And this is why it will not be done.

But that’s not their actual point though.

That’s a horseshit take on what we’re discussing here. My argument is that it’s wrong to vote for the handful of Democrats that have decided to embrace bigotry. You then pretend that any criticism of any democrat is an attempt to keep people from voting for Democrats generally.

Do better. You’re better than this. Disgraceful.

Bad faith is bad.

He was such a fantastic con man that we still know his name four thousand years later. That deserves respect!