True, plenty you can do, and this is a good list.

My point is that changing the democratic party is the only hope

Pretty non specific reply… Nothing I said was incorrect though.

It’s literally all you can do.

You sound quite out of touch with reality.

Plus, two-party systems are generally the result of FPtP voting, and there are a number of better voting systems*

How are you going to say I’m out of touch with reality then jump into a fantasy world where we somehow have a different voting system than we do? Unless you’re in a very specific region (Alaska for instance) it is all FPTP and all 2 party system.

Third parties will only work in some districts. They are almost always spoilers, though. And acting like it is anything else is playing perfectly into the Republicans hands.

Fact is, you say DNC and RNC haven’t always been the 2 parties, but it has been this way an incredibly long time. It is not changing. What has changed over time is the beliefs of the parties.

Only realistic option is to vote for the democrats that represent what you want and hope enough will get elected that they can reshape the party.

This is the sams as giving up. We have a 2 party system whether you like it or not, and Dem will always be one of them. Any 3rd party will just give power to Republicans.

The party is changing, and these types of candidates are evidence of that.

Then you might as well give up. I believe that the party is in the process of changing, and we just need to keep encouraging people like El Sayed and pushing for those types of politicians.

The DNC isn’t some mystical being that can’t be changed. We have to fight for the change.

Mahmdani and El Sayed are both democrats.

Saying “Democrats” as a blanket statement isn’t fair. Mahmdani and El Sayed are both democrats. How about holding the individuals responsible.

I think they’re showing their true self. Would have another Fetterman.

This is just more confirmation that the right candidate won. Losing the primary and then supporting the republican is some scummy shit.

I’m willing to bet if the voters approve it, it won’t ever be implemented.

why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?

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/

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.

🙈🙉

You definitely are adhering to your opinion and prejudice, with regard to your dislike of members of a particular group

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.

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.

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.

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.

why did he cancel a LGBTQ healrh budget?

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/

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?

Maybe you didn’t open and read this article, cause the article literally answers your question. I’ll paste it here for you:

In his veto notice, Newsom said he worries that if he allows the legislature to take that discretionary authority away from the governor on his way out the door, others will do the same in the future in a bid to limit the next governor’s power.

As he did a rule to ensure trans folk on HRT can stock up?

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.

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.

I asked you to prove one example that supports this assertion of over-reaction and you refused

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 😂

I didn’t call you a bigot because I think you are incapable of growing and becoming better.

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.

Why is the ignorance of those echoing bigotry more important to you than the outrage of those targeted by 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.

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.

Oh, I think you are a transphobic bigot! Sexist, too.

Ftfy. I see your opinion was stated as fact. You can say I am ignorant about something, which would make for a valuable conversation, but saying “you’re a bigot cause you don’t know the things I know” is a non starter.

Even worse since most people do not see things the same as you.

This is 99% wrong. The gendered distinctions in sports exist largely because in sports with the most gendered bias the top tier of girls still outperforms the sub-median cohort of boys,.and those boys historically do not take it well.

Are you saying we separate male/female sports because a boy doesn’t want to lose to a girl? It’s a pride thing?

Much like the comment on sexual assault, if you have actual articles that support this, I’d love to hear it.