42
submitted 3 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Here you go. Her real record, not all the fluff pieces that will now be everywhere trying to make her look like she's always been pro-LGBTQ+ (still vote for her if she's the nominee, just know what she did in the past)...

Unpacking Kamala Harris's Record on Trans and Sex Work Issues - From denying affirming healthcare to a trans inmate to barring forums sex workers used to protect themselves, the former “top cop” has a concerning record of endangering our community’s most marginalized members.

https://www.them.us/story/kamala-harriss-record-on-trans-and-sex-work-issues

And...

Kamala Harris is a complicated choice for some LGBTQ+ people

https://19thnews.org/2020/08/kamala-harris-complicated-lgbtq-choice/

And...

Kamala Harris Takes 'Responsibility' for Opposing Trans Surgeries

https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2019/1/22/kamala-harris-takes-responsibility-opposing-trans-surgeries

[-] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

She has a hella spotty record on trans rights, I'm really not more thrilled with her than I would have been with biden. Unfortunately, the alternative is worse by far, so my hands are pretty much tied to vote for her if she's the nominee. One is pretending to care at present, the other explicitly wants to eliminate us from public life.

Someday in my lifetime, it'd be really nice to get a president that clearly cares about everyone in the population. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

[-] firebyte@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

It's worth actually diving into the details. The reporting is burying key details that are often not quoted, making Kamala sound worse than she is.

I'll say this: people are complicated. Reasonable people are capable of change within themselves.

A lot of people suggest that past actions are indicative of future behaviours. People who assert this are flat out wrong. Look at what Trump promised prior to his election in 2016, then compare it to what he actually did. The same is true of anyone else. What someone did, or didn't do, in the past doesn't exactly prescribe what they will do in future.

People are complicated, and reasonable people are capable of change.

I've read into the Kamala Harris denying surgery for a trans prisoner story a bit. It's worth noting that her role as the attorney general at the time is supposed to represent the state, and is not able to pick and choose battles, irrespective of her beliefs.

She took full responsibility for her actions [out.com article cited above]. Trump has never done this, as far as I can tell.

What is not being quoted above, an omission that makes Kamala look bad on trans issues, is that she actually worked with the relevant departments to change the rules [https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/21/harris-takes-full-responsibility-for-briefs-against-surgery-for-trans-inmates/].

Sure, she might have a spotty record though look at her more recent actions. She co-sponsored the Equality Act when she was elected to the U.S Senate.

Even if she was 'against' trans rights, those actions above suggest there's not an 'against' slant now.

Don't take my word for it. Dig out as many articles as you can find, or even transcripts of her debates and speeches.

People are complicated. You can help shape their views. Get involved. Vote. Read deeper into the news, don't take news at face value. It is often spun, and misquoted, to portray a particular point of view whether right or wrong.

(For what it's worth, I'm a gay trans person though I have no horse in the U.S Presidential election as I don't live in the U.S. That said, having witnessed how awful the media have twisted issues and facts in my own country, especially over LGBT issues, I wanted to point out that this whole 'she's spotty on trans rights' is not the whole picture. It's not your fault though, we're constantly fed bullshit to try sway narratives, or to convince people to stay home, which is disastrous in a first-past-the-post voting system).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
42 points (80.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
1900 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS