“It is a complicated issue. It is truly a complicated issue, with a wide range of views, truly a wide range of views,” Jean-Pierre said. “There is no ‘yes or no’ answer to this, it is complicated. There is a rule that the Department of Education [DOE] has put forward, and we’re going to let that process move forward, and again, we want to make sure that while we establish guardrails with this rule, we also prevent discrimination, as well, against transgender kids. But again, a complicated issue with a wide range of views, and we respect that.”
“Absolutely no reason for the Biden admin to do this,” New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “It is indefensible and embarrassing. The admin can still walk this back, and they should. It’s a disgrace.”
“Honestly, this move by Biden to push a rule on trans kids in sports is not only a backwards betrayal, it [forces] us to have to spend our time dealing with god d*** sports instead of criminal bans on our healthcare,” Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and LGBTQ+ advocate, wrote. “He could have just done nothing. This is legitimizing transphobia.”
The mOsT PrOgReSsIvE Administration in History™ Fuck off out of here with that “centrist” nonsense. There’s nothing complicated about it, and it’s not an issue unless you want to turn it into one and want to appeal to people’s emotions like Republicans are doing. It was only a matter of time before they’d start throwing trans people under the bus. I guess with the coming elections it’s as good a time as ever.
I’m one of those people from other instances stopping by that hasn’t thought a lot about this issue.
It’s a shame that US politics seems to be so boolean. As in, the only acceptable position for a political party is the polar opposite of their opposition.
What if an issue is genuinely complicated and cannot be resolved by a three word statement of position? Can there be no discussion around that?
What if an issue is genuinely complicated and cannot be resolved by a three word statement of position? Can there be no discussion around that?
That’s fine if it’s an issue that is worthy of debate.
We’re talking here specifically about the rights and survival of human beings, and in that kind of case, no. There is no room for debate. There is no complexity. You either support people’s right to live, or you don’t. There fundamentally cannot be a grey area here; any response that includes the words “yes, but” automatically cedes ground to fascists.
