Hacker News Reader

Comment by possibleworlds | Hacker News Reader

Trump’s platform and policy plan is actively transphobic, is it rhetoric to call this what it is?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/president-trumps-plan-...

I agree that you can’t generalise, since there are many voters who are simply not aware of positions / policy like the above. Having said that there are plenty who are, and they love to troll by saying the bad part out loud then dissembling through hand waving or claims of irony or victimhood.

Off-topic rant… I’ve seen identity politics mentioned over and over again the past 24 hrs. I don’t know what the definition is, but promising to dismantle the legal and medical apparatus surrounding an entire identity sure looks like identity politics to me. And personally, the only time I am exposed to any form of identity politics is when I see conservatives screeching about the topic whilst espousing heavily political opinions on why they don’t like certain identities.

View on HN

> Off-topic rant… I’ve seen identity politics mentioned over and over again the past 24 hrs. I don’t know what the definition is, but promising to dismantle the legal and medical apparatus surrounding an entire identity sure looks like identity politics to me.

That policy clearly and specifically targets children from a medical perspective, not an "entire identity".

You could say arguing the government will only recognise two genders or ban people born men from womens sports is transphobic, but it seems a weak position. The policy doesn't do anything to adult trans people that I can see, beyond the sports element.

The summary appears to be "adults can make these decisions, not kids", which a few years ago was seen as a fairly moderate position.

> Trump’s platform and policy plan is actively transphobic, is it rhetoric to call this what it is?

It is fine to say: "I think his policy is transphobic.". Do not say or imply: "If you support Trump, you must be fine with his transphobia."

Not only is the latter a disrespectful way to have a political discussion, it's also likely to backfire once people are in the voting booth. It is especially likely to backfire if people take the time to actually look at his position and find it to be moderate.

How do you get to that logically? If you're supporting a person who is literally advocating a policy which harms another group of people, you know in your heart of hearts you might not feel like you have any bad feelings about brown people or women, but you're literally paying for the subjugation of those people.

Logically those groups are racist transphobic and misogynistic support Trump. It's factual because it's logical.

If you support Trump you should support most of his policies. If you support transphobic policies, you are Transphobic, regardless of what you say.

In fact, I would much rather prefer conservatives go back to saying slurs. I'd much rather hear 'whore' or 'slut' than having policies to chase women out of state for getting a legal abortion.

I'd much rather hear 'fa*got' than have PrEP coverage revoked causing another HIV epidemic.

I'd much rather hear 'tr*ny' than have even more transgender people kill themselves.

Conservatives desire an ideal argumentative perspective where they can actively harm others and claim they didn't cause the consequences. It doesn't work that way. If you support an action and are aware of the consequences, you support the consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com