“We’re seeing a war against trans individuals being waged by our federal government, and we, as citizens, need to be willing to step up and say this is not OK,” Kluwe said. “The Democratic Party has taken a very defensive posture on trans issues when that’s the absolute wrong thing to do. You don’t make a bully go away by cowering in the corner and say, I’ll agree with you on these little things. That just encourages the bully.
“We need to be full-throated in the attack, saying these are people who pay taxes, who serve in our military, and who are entitled to the exact same rights that every single other American is entitled to, which includes health care and the opportunity to live a prosperous life. We can’t be afraid of the right-wing fear machine. We have to take it to them, show that we’re willing to fight.”
Here’s what it looks like to me. You and I have a difference of opinions. But you don’t have a real solid argument for why you are right and I am wrong.
So instead of having a conversation and making arguments, you demonize me. If I’m a bigot, then you don’t need to have a conversation. You don’t need to take my comments seriously. You also don’t need to defend your position or argue against mine.
Fact is, I am an incredibly open and empathetic person. I consider myself progressive, pro lgbtq. But I also recognize that a problem leftists have had is not listening to the actual things the opposition says. Not everything a conservative says is wrong. For you, it’s easy to say “you’re a bigot” and feel good about yourself. For me, I want to understand where their comments are coming from. Many times it is coming from a place of bigotry, but many times it is well intentioned.
You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, your going to find your movement is very lonely. You want to accept that not everybody on the left shares 100% of your opinions. You want to engage in dialogue rather than calling people names. I think things will be much better for everybody.
I asked you to prove one example that supports this assertion of over-reaction and you refused. Find me one example of a current candidate who made a mildly transphobic remark and neither recanted nor exposed stronger transphobia and we could have a reasoned discourse over the reasonableness of the trans reaction.
I didn’t call you a bigot because I think you are incapable of growing and becoming better. I called you a bigot because you said bigoted things. I really do hope that you change your mind and realize how toxic you echoing hard-right talking points is.
Why is the ignorance of those echoing bigotry more important to you than the outrage of those targeted by it?
I told you I already left a comment and you said you would find it. Which you clearly did because you moved to that thread, but I’ll copy one below… All the Newsom ones apply too. Scroll up if you need help finding them.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/coward-democrat-confronted-by-angry-constituents-for-opposing-trans-equality/
I would argue his comments were not transphobic (mildly or not), but he was shouted at during his speech as well as the comments I read on Lemmy.
You and I will disagree on whether it was transphobic or not, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you want another example, just reread our conversation 😂
Maybe reread the comment you’re replying to. I didn’t say anything about “incapable of growing…”
You are calling me a bigot because you don’t want to listen to other people’s opinions. Calling me a bigot makes it easier for you to ignore me. If I’m a bigot then you don’t have to worry about the possibility that you are the one that’s wrong.
Calling me a bigot makes you feel better about your own opinion while doing nothing to earn it.
I think it’s clear that you are going to throw out the term “Bigot” at the drop of a hat. In doing so you make the word meaningless.
I’m not going to listen to people that I consider bigots. Not every conservative is. If conservatives are making valid points and I ignore them because other conservatives are bigots, that leads to a situation where I am the unreasonable one.
What exactly do you think "bigot’ and “transphobic” mean? Because we should treat trans people as if they are their assigned gender at birth is a fair approximation for what I and others mean by the latter, and ideas that judge people by trivial characteristics is a fair approximation for the former.
Let’s focus on transphobia and Rob Sand. A few more recent links:
https://littlevillagemag.com/rob-sand-addresses-students-iowa-city/
https://www.thegazette.com/opinion/rob-sand-please-don-t-waver-on-transgender-rights/article_e77c3e00-face-4ea4-885d-b1a072173db8.html
Your claim is that trans voters are with their activism driving a wedge betwren thrmselves and potential allies. Sand certainly seems like a good example, with his “no sports even after HRT” position, which i hope you can see is tanamount to a choice for trans athletes between being their true gender and playing sports, even if you want to quibble over the “transphobia” .label.
What’s interedting is that nobody in Iowa seems to accuse.Sand of being transphobic. The people on the ground greeted his comments with silence and one shout of “coward”, and at least one letter to the editor which didnt include any call to not vote for him. This surely seems llike a strong example… Except that the trans reaction seems to be a pretty universal “mild.transphobia is still an improvememt.”
You also.mentioned Gavin Newsom, onetime plausible 2028 POTUS candidate before his transphobic self-own. If you think that mild transphobia would be where it stopped, why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?
https://lalgbtcenter.org/vanguard/press-releases/statement-governor-newsom-betrays-queer-and-transgender-californians-with-health-budget-cuts-says-los-angeles-lgbt-center/
Or, why does he oppose the wealth tax?
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/
Why did he veto a law that would have protected doctors from being dragged to Texas for daring to provide gender affirming care to ex-texans?
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/gavin-newsom-explains-the-surprising-reason-he-just-vetoed-a-pro-trans-bill/
As he did a rule to ensure trans folk on HRT can stock up?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-17/newsom-vetoes-key-health-measure-transgender-politics
For fun I decided to kick the links and see what the fuss was about. I’m ignoring the billionaire one cause that obviously has nothing to do with this conversation.
I don’t know, but why did he sign one of the “most significant public investments in LGBTQ+ health, wellbeing, and safety in state history” a month later? Funny you missed this.
https://lalgbtcenter.org/vanguard/press-releases/the-center-applauds-historic-california-budget-creating-the-first-statewide-lgbtq-community-center-fund/
Maybe you didn’t open and read this article, cause the article literally answers your question. I’ll paste it here for you:
He’s a transphobe because he doesn’t let ya’ll stock up? OK. All my meds are 90 days max. Your meds are 90 day. Just cause he doesn’t give you special treatment, he’s a transphobe.
Oh, and im muting your transphobic troll of an account, just in case you think your asinine follow up somehow shocked me into silence.
🙈🙉
That you take Newsom at his word about preserving some future governor’s abikity to ship doctors to Texas is damning.
As is you equating your viagra prescription or whatever with prescribed healthcare that unapologetic bigots are actively trying to ban.
I gotta say, fact that you didn’t respond to this and then muted me tells me all I need to know about you. When faced with the fact that you were WRONG, about basically everything in this conversation, your response to ignore and call names and mute.
I know you won’t see this, but it should be out there anyway.
First of all, you could have given the actual definition of transphobia and bigot (there are dictionaries), but you chose a version that matches your arguments.
Your made up definitions allow you to call anybody that disagrees with you a transphobic bigot. And you can keep your same opinion without having to take into account other opinions.
As for Rob Sand and Newsom. I don’t like Newsom. But he’s probably the one I think about the most. His interview with Kirk, for instance, did not come across as unreasonable, and he was even supportive of trans people in a way that was fully ignored by everybody on here. Kirk was not, of course. The reaction from the Trans community was swift and unreasonable.
I’ve looked into other bills he gets bashed for, often times there’s nuance that is ignored and a catchy headline that gets the reaction it wants. I don’t really like defending him cause he kind of sucks.
So, in addition to being a transphobic bigot who refuses to defend his point, you alsp dont know how the english language works. Cool.
I supplied definitions because you were imputing a meaning i did not mean to convey. But since you still seem to not get it, lets do go to a dictionary.
Starting with bigotry:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
You definitely are adhering to your opinion and prejudice, with regard to your dislike of members of a particular group.
The definition i offered for what i meant was actually a little narrower than merriam-webster’s phrasing, but not so much as to be improper usage.
More interestingly, there"s nothing in the dictionary’s definition that presumes a bigot is beyond reason or refuses to learn… I’d be curious what dictionary supports that assertion.
Maybe “transphobia” will be better for you?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia
Nope. You openly expressed aversion to transgender folk, and also excused formal imstitutional prejudice as somehow not being transphpbia just because it was presumably not made out of animus.
Except that precluding all trans femms from femm sports is a hat trick of discrimination against, aversion to, and fear of.
I stand by what i said.
Quit making shit up. In no way have I said or expressed a dislike of the Trans community. You added this because you know what I have said so far does not match this definition.
Edit: cause I missed this.
More making shit up. I have shown ZERO aversion to trans people. You are making shit up for your own argument. And you tacked on the word fear for literally no reason.
Prejudice is a weird one. Any restriction on women sports can be considered prejudice, whether trans women are allowed or not. Unless your argument is women sports should be open to everybody, you are showing prejudice as well.
This is your problem. You do not understand the other side and are completely unwilling to, so you make shit up to justify ignoring others.