Hacker News Reader

> How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character.

Yes and sometimes it's worth peeling back the layers to find out why they are embodying that character. An offensive strategy creates a defensive response, nothing will ever get resolved that way; it only creates more hostility. Instead, I invest time into knowing what makes that person so stubbornly that way while re-asserting the fact that I do not hold the same values. In at least a few of those cases, those people turned around to become more open to the LGBTQ+ community despite still holding onto their Republican status. That's a win in my book because it's slowly getting them to think more independently.

One of my friends was homophobic and would often make homophobic slurs "he's wearing f*g sandals". Instead of telling him he's a bad person or laugh along with him to avoid making things uncomfortable, I simply reiterate that I have no issues with people identifying as gay because what people do in their lives is none of my business. I let him know that I've made friends with gay men and never had one make me uncomfortable or feel like they overstepped boundaries; I know that idea is sometimes what makes straight men afraid of gay men. It took some time, but one day he finally let out that he had a weird uncle that would touch little boys and that's what he associates the LGBTQ+ community with. To which I gently pointed out why it's irrational. He's finally starting to come around now. Recently he'd been heard saying he's ok if his daughter ever turned out to be a lesbian. Small step in the right direction...

There are people who vote Republican in private, and they are different from those who loudly proclaim their Republicanism to everyone they encounter. It might be a shame that the private Republicans vote how they do, but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa.

So I would say the problem is not the ideological divide per se, but the 'identity' politics which makes both sides openly intolerable to each other. Of course, it's problematic because trans people can't keep private in their transness at a game of cards in the way that a radical socialist could. But in modern discourse, we're all encouraged to be loud and proud in order to advance our preferred politics, instead of quiet and demure in order to foster community that transcends politics.

> ...but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa.

I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence?

A politician who supports an esoteric policy that disadvantages me in some way is entirely different than one who loudly and plainly says that I am less human and should have fewer rights than others. That rhetoric kills people. And it's not a deal-breaker for you? I cannot call such a person a friend. A vote for a Republican in modern times is an expression to trans people that their rights and safety are less important to you than whatever esoteric tax policy or whatever than won your vote.

You can value that policy more than the rights of trans people if you want, that's your prerogative. But it will make trans people and their allies trust you a lot less when they discover that you think their rights are just a bargaining chip to be traded away, and justifiably so. What other situations are you willing to throw them under the bus over, not just in politics, but in life? It's not just a matter of pride or preference, but a matter of rights and safety.

This is very well put, and I agree with it unreservedly. But I do think that it's worth bearing in mind that "trans rights" is, for better or worse, an evolving concept in the culture at the moment. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, when people even in my "west coast liberal" milieu wouldn't bat an eye if someone called someone else a "fag." That's practically inconceivable now, as would be playing "smear the queer" as we did just about daily on the playground. It seems to me that we're now in the middle of a similar process with trans rights, and I do think there are issues -- in particular those regarding the rights of minors and their parents -- that many people are trying in good faith to work through, and about which there are bound to be disagreements. I don't mean to make excuses for the politicians you mention, most of whom I think are using this issue opportunistically and not in good faith. I just think "the rights of trans people" is not something that has a well defined meaning at this point.

>I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence?

Because almost all that "demonizing", et al. is just political marketing that will mean nothing if they get into office.

I vote Republican because, as a Japanese-American, I sincerely can't stand the constant identity politics the Left/Democrats want to play on me. No, I'm not a "BIPOC", I'm an American. I'm a minority and an Asian as far as objective facts go, but I'm an American. At least the Right/Republicans seem more content to just call me an American and leave me alone.

But at the end of the day, I have no issues mingling with Leftists/Democrats if they have the decency to leave their politics at the front doors of their houses just like I do my Right/Republican politics.

Also, it's such a fucking stupid thing to not be friendly with each other just because of political differences.

> At least the Right/Republicans seem more content to just call me an American and leave me alone.

I am honestly happy that you get that treatment.

A lot of other minorities don't. The left didn't just decide to play identity politics out of nowhere. They did it because this country has a long history of racism - people alive today experienced life before the Civil Rights act. And the racists who had to be told by law to cut it out didn't just stop being racist because a law was passed, just like how laws against murder don't stop murder from occurring. The racists just found other ways to be racist, and many of the underlying issues have persisted. People on the left are still fighting that fight. And their identity does matter, because it's the very thing that is being used against them.

I imagine if you were an immigrant from Mexico, accused of stealing jobs, running drugs, or being a leech on the system - or any other of the (and I quote Trump here) "shithole countries" that the right hates - you might feel differently. You are lucky that, right now, Japan is not on that list.

> Also, it's such a fucking stupid thing to not be friendly with each other just because of political differences.

Again, it's not just "political differences". They demonize minorities to the point of violence, and two of my friends have been assaulted because of it. It's not theoretical tax policy, it's dehumanization, in rhetoric and in actual laws they hope to pass. Not wanting to be around people who want to engage in violence against my friends is not unreasonable. This isn't theoretical, and my friends have scars to prove it.

> political marketing that will mean nothing if they get into office

Just not true. As the person you replied to pointed out there are hundreds of bills restricting rights for Trans people, all from the right.

In my experience, the average republican is almost allergic to accountability. Yes, these things are happening. Yes, these policies DO represent you. And yes if you vote right you contributed to it.

If that bothers you, or others, it might be time to analyze your affiliations. But you should not simply lie or live in a delusion that nothing happens. No no... things happen. The culture war politics the right cherishes do come to fruition.

Bingo.

I'm afraid, internet stranger, that you are part of the problem here. The original topic for this thread was about "community" and the mental health crisis. Community brings diverse people into contact with each other, which fosters communication and thus has the potential to heal division and increase empathy.

Do you not realize that a lot of people think that abortion is literally murder? That voting for the pro-choice candidate will kill more babies each year than there are trans people? Regardless of how correct you think they are, they also think this is a matter of rights and safety, of life and death. It may be hard to understand, but they believe this as strongly and fervently as you believe what you do.

Now you tell me, without some mechanism to bring people of such disparate views together, how does this resolve? An acrimonious dissolution into a red nation and a blue nation? A civil war in which we both try to snuff out opposing views with violence? (Wouldn't that be ironic?)

At best, you want your side to win, in perpetuity, until the current generation of bad-ists has died off and your views prevail. But as we see, that doesn't happen. The "bad" views continue to be transmitted from generation to generation, fomented by political opportunists, and then we are at constant risk of "their side" prevailing in perpetuity. You think 2028 or 2032 will be any better?

The only way people change their minds is by coming into contact with other people with different viewpoints over a long period of time. But that involves actual relationships, not beating someone into submission with well-reasoned arguments. (Think about how well that works on you!) And you can't have any kind of relationship if you dismiss a citizen out-of-hand because of how they voted.

So you want to make a real difference? Stop being so loud about who you can't be friends with. Don't ask your co-workers about their politics; it's a waste of energy. Talk with your relatives about their actual problems, and steer the conversation away from political rhetoric. Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.

I would certainly be a better person if I was the sort of saint that can talk to people who hate my guts that badly, but not all of us are saints.

It's currently illegal for me to use a public bathroom in Florida. Or rather, technically I am legally required to use the women's bathroom, but since I have a significant beard it's quite likely the police would get called on me for attempting to do so.

The next best solution would be protest. What I should really be doing is flying to Florida, using the women's bathroom as legally required, and making sure that as many journalists and lawyers as possible know about the arrest. I haven't quite worked up the courage yet, though. Plenty of trans people can and do flee the states that have successfully deprived them of bathroom access and healthcare because they don't have the energy to stand and fight. The descent to attempted murder has already happened, and it's not the trans people starting it.

It's only a matter of time before so-called "pro-life" policies start killing people too. Hospitals in Idaho are flying women to other states because they're not legally allowed to end ectopic pregnancies - which are never viable and always result in the death of the mother if not terminated - until the woman is too close to death. (https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246990306/more-emergency-fli...)

> continue to be transmitted from generation to generation

Yes, and no. Because the baseline moves. Progressives are ahead of the baseline, and conservatives behind it.

Conservatives of my day were anti-marriage equality. The ones before them were anti-gay in general. Before them, they were anti-integration. Before them anti-women's rights. Before them anti-suffrage. Before them anti-abolition.

The conservative stance gets pushed more and more forever with each passing generation. The overall idea stays - "maintain the status quo and conserve the days of old". But the days of old have changed.

In 100 years, conservatives of that day will be wildly different than the ones right now.

I generally agree with your sentiment, and I do think open dialog is necessary to bridge the divide. It is way more easily said than done though, especially as political violence becomes more frequent.

But I will say - it's pretty terrible that the people being attacked and vilified in this situation are also expected to "be the better person" and bridge the divide. Why is the onus on the oppressed to make peace with their oppressor? Bystanders and allies should call out the bullies for starting the fight rather than blaming the victim for not advocating for themselves politely enough.

Sure, such misfortunes are a part of life and no progress is made without adversity. It is a pattern, though, that bystanders and allies should recognize and help reduce as much as possible.

> Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.

It's not me or my trans friends who want to live apart from humanity, trust me. We just want to live here, too - that's what the fight is about. It's the conservatives who are trying to push us out and remove us from society. The original sin of the fracture is theirs, not ours. If we live in a bubble, it's because they forced us into one, not because it's where we want to be.

I mean, the label of the group is “conservative”. Trans acceptance and the explosion in trans identifying individuals is objectively a change in the social order, which by definition will be opposed by those seeking to conserve the existing social order.

Conservatives don’t have a logical argument, and when you press them for one they typically generate something nonsensical on the fly, but really they don’t need a logical argument for every specific issue. Their broad position is just “social change in general is risky and potentially bad, and what we had before was good enough”.

Do you think that is not a valid position to hold? Surely you can think of some social changes that would obviously lead to catastrophic effects, and given that we can’t simulate a society we can’t know in advance whether a particular “not obviously bad” change will have a negative impact later on.

Conservatives might not have a logical argument against this, but feminists have plenty. And if you read radical feminist writings they've been warning about this and the outcomes of this for decades. Take prisons for example. The policy changes that in some states now separate prisons by "gender identity" instead of sex has led directly to males being locked up in women's prisons, some of whom have sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated female prisoners incarcerated with them. This is just one negative outcome of many. The ideology behind "trans" causes demonstrable harm towards women and girls.