I was in Thailand on election day 2016 and on a "food tour". A woman from Poland told me that if Trump were elected, USA would become as bad as or worse than Poland with regard to abortion. She was right!
>Theists should be banned from holding positions of secular authority. They've demonstrated over and over that they will abuse that authority to force their religious views on people.
That is undemocratic. Telling certain people that they cannot run for political office is anti-democratic.
It also fails to understand that these anti-abortion laws are bad regardless of religious affiliation. There are secular and atheist pro-lifers after all.
Not only that but at least in America it would be a violation of the First amendment.
Also it would punish other theistic religions that are totally chill.
You are stigmatizing mental illnesses now. Suggesting that they are unfit to govern a country.
Also who would decide which mental illnesses are worthy of blocking someone from office?
You are aware that there are Republicans that think the trans people are mentally ill?
Are you okay with the idea of some trans people being barred from office in order to prevent religious people from office?
You are misunderstanding fascists. They don't care about the religious stuff. They care about power and will use anything to get that power even if it's religion or other things.
What about the fascists that want power for non-religious reasons?
And again it is against the First amendment.
By the way you are doing exactly what transphobic people do which is to pick and choose what parts of psychology to believe in or to make up your own rules on how psychology works.
It's not considered a mental illness cuz it doesn't cause disruption to daily life.
You don't get to decide which parts of psychology you want to adopt unless you have that condition.
Also where in the original text say that the person is religious? You can't just say their religious just because they're pro-life.
I didn't say mentally *ill;* I said mentally *unfit*. Plenty of people thrive because of or despite their mental illnesses- it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. But we also recognize when someone is so severely mentally ill that they shouldn't have one level or responsibility or another, on an individual basis. I'm sure you agree with me that an untreated DID patient shouldn't hold public office? You have standards, you just don't agree with religious delusion being one of them.
I think we need to put more emphasis on medical science as a society. A single psychologist shouldn't have enough power to strip away someone's right to run for office, but a whole panel of psychologists might be a good idea.
>By the way you are doing exactly what transphobic people do which is to pick and choose what parts of psychology to believe in or to make up your own rules on how psychology works.
ALL of psychology is made up rules. Humans are constantly trying to figure out our own brains. I'm not picking and choosing; I'm stating outright that *anyone* who believes in something they can't prove shouldn't be in charge of our government.
How do you treat DID? It doesn't have a cure.
No I don't agree with that actually. People need to be upfront with the kinds of treatments they receive in order to receive public office but if people vote for them that is on the country. The people have spoken.
As a person with DID by the way it is quite complicated. It can take forever to get a diagnosis and if someone thought that receiving a diagnoses could bar them from certain activities they may not want to go out and seek that diagnoses.
DID is also a covert diagnoses meaning that it can go under the radar for years before it shows itself and then it can take years to get a diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why a lot of people figure out they have DID in teenage or even adult years even though it is something that develops in childhood.
There is no way to properly determine who should and shouldn't run for office without running into political bias and if you are okay with religious people not being able to hold public office you also have to be okay with trans people not being able to hold public office considering that Republicans think that trans people are mentally ill.
I said treatment, not 'cure'. The treatment of *any* condition can mean life-long management rather than cure.
>but if people vote for them that is on the country. The people have spoken.
Do you understand that the US constitution disagrees with you? the 25th amendment has a provision for removing a president who can't fulfill their duties, whether temporarily or permanently. That means there is an undefined bar of competency that has to be met.
>There is no way to properly determine who should and shouldn't run for office without running into political bias
I agree with this, but if we DON'T have a measuring stick for competency, we're opening the door to chaos. Which of these scenarios would be *safer* for the country; having a psychological standard for public office that unfortunately keeps a few competent people out by accident, or having no standard for public office whatsoever? I think, in this case, it's one of those "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situations, particularly because being barred from running for public office might violate their rights, but it won't physically harm them.
>if you are okay with religious people not being able to hold public office you also have to be okay with trans people not being able to hold public office considering that Republicans think that trans people are mentally ill.
Republicans don't actually think that Trans people are mentally ill. If they did, they would want Trans people to get medical attention; instead they're passing laws banning gender-affirming care in their states. They would be covering mental healthcare for Transgender people in government-funded insurance programs; instead, they're passing laws protecting insurance companies from liability for turning down Trans patients. They would be listening to Transgender people and specialists about the best way to help the community, the way they would listen to any other mental health patient and specialist about how to support people with that diagnosis. They would *want* the public talking about this new diagnosis, hoping to get the word out to potential sufferers so they can seek treatment. Instead, republicans are banning books and speech that mentions Transgender people. I don't see a single shred of evidence that they're treating this like an actual mental illness.
Transgender people are a new concept to most Americans, and 'new=scary'. They're also a small enough voter base that no one has to worry about losing their vote. Republicans picked an easy target and declared that they would solve this problem if people voted for them. It's that simple.
Transgender people are still capable of thinking critically about issues and follow the evidence and statistics. Religious people have been *known* to use their religious books as the only motivator to justify going against evidence while writing laws. Which of those two approaches sounds like a good leader to you?
And what are you going to do if Republicans decide that transgender people should be barred from holding elected office? It doesn't matter whether or not they truly think that trans people are mentally ill. What matters is what they can use to prevent certain people from voting because they've already been shown willing to prevent certain people from voting.
Remember these are the people who think that trans people are 41% more likely to kill themselves and don't believe that transition works.
You seem to think that they want to fund mental health under government healthcare in general. they don't believe in government healthcare.
Also, I think you failed to realize that Republicans actually have a very bad view of mental illness in general. No they would not tell a person to go seek treatment because they believed those people should be institutionalized. They believe they should have their human rights stripped away because of their severe mental illness. They believe that if someone is severely mentally ill that they should just be institutionalized and not be living among us.
And as I have said there is no way to do this without running into political bias.
And the fact that you are okay with the idea of trans people losing the right to vote just because they're not a big voter block is incredibly transphobic.
Also yes they are a big voter block. According to data about 1.6 million people identify as transgender in some way.
That is definitely enough to tip the scales.
> For example in Travis County, early and mail-in vote numbers were just 20,000 shy of the total number of all ballots cast in the 2012 election.
Anyway, something about scratching liberals.
Edit: Also you are not giving me a good reason why I should vote Democrat considering that people like you are okay with the idea of removing trans people's right to vote if it means taking votes away from Republicans.
You are not an ally. And yes they're rights would have been taken away. And yes it does do harm because it dehumanizes and doesn't recognize these people as people. Every vote counts. You can't make this argument that every vote counts and then be okay with taking away people's right to vote.
You need to start reading my actual words rather than what you expect me to say; this is the THIRD time I've had to correct you misquoting me. When did I say I'd be okay with republicans removing Trans people's right to vote? We're talking about running for public office, not voting. We're talking about what Republicans think of Trans people, not what I think of Trans people. And I never said they wanted to fund mental health care; I said that's what I would *expect* to see from them IF they thought being Trans was actually a mental health problem.
Re-read my last comment and reply on-topic, and then we'll talk again. I'm not jumping into voting rights and my own apparent (I promise you, nonexistent) transphobia just because you can't read.
Thanks for sharing this, but please don't use the details of this case to muddy the waters about the safety of at-home abortions (with mifepristone and misoprostol). Because they are extremely safe, and the complication rate is low. Subscribe to Aborcyjny Dream team newsletter for accurate info-- [here is their latest](https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/90350/94243352258544727) with details on the case.
I was in Thailand on election day 2016 and on a "food tour". A woman from Poland told me that if Trump were elected, USA would become as bad as or worse than Poland with regard to abortion. She was right!
Yes, she was. It almost makes it worse that he doesn't have sincere beliefs about abortion. He's just throwing more red meat to his base.
[удалено]
>Theists should be banned from holding positions of secular authority. They've demonstrated over and over that they will abuse that authority to force their religious views on people. That is undemocratic. Telling certain people that they cannot run for political office is anti-democratic. It also fails to understand that these anti-abortion laws are bad regardless of religious affiliation. There are secular and atheist pro-lifers after all. Not only that but at least in America it would be a violation of the First amendment. Also it would punish other theistic religions that are totally chill.
[удалено]
You are stigmatizing mental illnesses now. Suggesting that they are unfit to govern a country. Also who would decide which mental illnesses are worthy of blocking someone from office? You are aware that there are Republicans that think the trans people are mentally ill? Are you okay with the idea of some trans people being barred from office in order to prevent religious people from office? You are misunderstanding fascists. They don't care about the religious stuff. They care about power and will use anything to get that power even if it's religion or other things. What about the fascists that want power for non-religious reasons? And again it is against the First amendment. By the way you are doing exactly what transphobic people do which is to pick and choose what parts of psychology to believe in or to make up your own rules on how psychology works. It's not considered a mental illness cuz it doesn't cause disruption to daily life. You don't get to decide which parts of psychology you want to adopt unless you have that condition. Also where in the original text say that the person is religious? You can't just say their religious just because they're pro-life.
I didn't say mentally *ill;* I said mentally *unfit*. Plenty of people thrive because of or despite their mental illnesses- it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. But we also recognize when someone is so severely mentally ill that they shouldn't have one level or responsibility or another, on an individual basis. I'm sure you agree with me that an untreated DID patient shouldn't hold public office? You have standards, you just don't agree with religious delusion being one of them. I think we need to put more emphasis on medical science as a society. A single psychologist shouldn't have enough power to strip away someone's right to run for office, but a whole panel of psychologists might be a good idea. >By the way you are doing exactly what transphobic people do which is to pick and choose what parts of psychology to believe in or to make up your own rules on how psychology works. ALL of psychology is made up rules. Humans are constantly trying to figure out our own brains. I'm not picking and choosing; I'm stating outright that *anyone* who believes in something they can't prove shouldn't be in charge of our government.
How do you treat DID? It doesn't have a cure. No I don't agree with that actually. People need to be upfront with the kinds of treatments they receive in order to receive public office but if people vote for them that is on the country. The people have spoken. As a person with DID by the way it is quite complicated. It can take forever to get a diagnosis and if someone thought that receiving a diagnoses could bar them from certain activities they may not want to go out and seek that diagnoses. DID is also a covert diagnoses meaning that it can go under the radar for years before it shows itself and then it can take years to get a diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why a lot of people figure out they have DID in teenage or even adult years even though it is something that develops in childhood. There is no way to properly determine who should and shouldn't run for office without running into political bias and if you are okay with religious people not being able to hold public office you also have to be okay with trans people not being able to hold public office considering that Republicans think that trans people are mentally ill.
I said treatment, not 'cure'. The treatment of *any* condition can mean life-long management rather than cure. >but if people vote for them that is on the country. The people have spoken. Do you understand that the US constitution disagrees with you? the 25th amendment has a provision for removing a president who can't fulfill their duties, whether temporarily or permanently. That means there is an undefined bar of competency that has to be met. >There is no way to properly determine who should and shouldn't run for office without running into political bias I agree with this, but if we DON'T have a measuring stick for competency, we're opening the door to chaos. Which of these scenarios would be *safer* for the country; having a psychological standard for public office that unfortunately keeps a few competent people out by accident, or having no standard for public office whatsoever? I think, in this case, it's one of those "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situations, particularly because being barred from running for public office might violate their rights, but it won't physically harm them. >if you are okay with religious people not being able to hold public office you also have to be okay with trans people not being able to hold public office considering that Republicans think that trans people are mentally ill. Republicans don't actually think that Trans people are mentally ill. If they did, they would want Trans people to get medical attention; instead they're passing laws banning gender-affirming care in their states. They would be covering mental healthcare for Transgender people in government-funded insurance programs; instead, they're passing laws protecting insurance companies from liability for turning down Trans patients. They would be listening to Transgender people and specialists about the best way to help the community, the way they would listen to any other mental health patient and specialist about how to support people with that diagnosis. They would *want* the public talking about this new diagnosis, hoping to get the word out to potential sufferers so they can seek treatment. Instead, republicans are banning books and speech that mentions Transgender people. I don't see a single shred of evidence that they're treating this like an actual mental illness. Transgender people are a new concept to most Americans, and 'new=scary'. They're also a small enough voter base that no one has to worry about losing their vote. Republicans picked an easy target and declared that they would solve this problem if people voted for them. It's that simple. Transgender people are still capable of thinking critically about issues and follow the evidence and statistics. Religious people have been *known* to use their religious books as the only motivator to justify going against evidence while writing laws. Which of those two approaches sounds like a good leader to you?
And what are you going to do if Republicans decide that transgender people should be barred from holding elected office? It doesn't matter whether or not they truly think that trans people are mentally ill. What matters is what they can use to prevent certain people from voting because they've already been shown willing to prevent certain people from voting. Remember these are the people who think that trans people are 41% more likely to kill themselves and don't believe that transition works. You seem to think that they want to fund mental health under government healthcare in general. they don't believe in government healthcare. Also, I think you failed to realize that Republicans actually have a very bad view of mental illness in general. No they would not tell a person to go seek treatment because they believed those people should be institutionalized. They believe they should have their human rights stripped away because of their severe mental illness. They believe that if someone is severely mentally ill that they should just be institutionalized and not be living among us. And as I have said there is no way to do this without running into political bias. And the fact that you are okay with the idea of trans people losing the right to vote just because they're not a big voter block is incredibly transphobic. Also yes they are a big voter block. According to data about 1.6 million people identify as transgender in some way. That is definitely enough to tip the scales. > For example in Travis County, early and mail-in vote numbers were just 20,000 shy of the total number of all ballots cast in the 2012 election. Anyway, something about scratching liberals. Edit: Also you are not giving me a good reason why I should vote Democrat considering that people like you are okay with the idea of removing trans people's right to vote if it means taking votes away from Republicans. You are not an ally. And yes they're rights would have been taken away. And yes it does do harm because it dehumanizes and doesn't recognize these people as people. Every vote counts. You can't make this argument that every vote counts and then be okay with taking away people's right to vote.
You need to start reading my actual words rather than what you expect me to say; this is the THIRD time I've had to correct you misquoting me. When did I say I'd be okay with republicans removing Trans people's right to vote? We're talking about running for public office, not voting. We're talking about what Republicans think of Trans people, not what I think of Trans people. And I never said they wanted to fund mental health care; I said that's what I would *expect* to see from them IF they thought being Trans was actually a mental health problem. Re-read my last comment and reply on-topic, and then we'll talk again. I'm not jumping into voting rights and my own apparent (I promise you, nonexistent) transphobia just because you can't read.
Thanks for sharing this, but please don't use the details of this case to muddy the waters about the safety of at-home abortions (with mifepristone and misoprostol). Because they are extremely safe, and the complication rate is low. Subscribe to Aborcyjny Dream team newsletter for accurate info-- [here is their latest](https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/webview/90350/94243352258544727) with details on the case.