Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
So your argument here is that these Democrats are attempting to steer the party into a transphobic agenda, so maybe a few party members attempting exert a small amount of pressure on the direction of party.
And your solution is for democrats to abstain from voting and… What… Allow Republicans complete control? I’m sure that will work well for you.
Or maybe these politicians aren’t transphobic at all and are simply attempting to walk a tightrope in an imperfect system so that they can take power away from a much worse party.
This is the point of the article: none of these options are good for trans people. If the choice is “the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections” (like many Republicans) or “the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections” (like the entire list in the article), then, from the perspective of preserving trans rights, there is not a choice. Electing transphobes empowers transphobes and normalizes transphobia, regardless of which letter they have next to their name.
If you’re a single-issue voter who only cares about trans rights and you’ve seen this exact bullshit play out already across the pond, there’s no vote that will make your life better.
As for this line:
So I’m not supposed to trust what a candidate tells me or how they’ve previously voted, and I should just assume they mean something more secretly benevolent? That’s literally exactly why my in-laws voted for Trump: they didn’t believe anything that was reported about Project 2025 because, and I quote, “he used to be a Democrat.”