What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[mongers]

Incidentally has the Oval office always looked this tacky or has Trump had a lot more bling added to the walls and mantlepiece? :



To answer my own question, likely so, given how Bush and Clinton didn't seem to change Ronnie's set up much:



https://www.bing.com/search?q=oval+office+mantlepiece&form=ANNTH1&refig=B0D49AC274F14C28AB1D98F5BD1136E6&pc=U531




And this was apparently Joe Biden's busier setup:

[Razgovory]

You really aren't addressing my points.  "Listen to the scientists" my not be the best way to go about this.  Let us say in 10 years scientists something detrimental to your position, should we still "listen to the scientists"?  There has been a long standing pressure campaign on the medical field to change the classification of Transexuals  as the current research was not entirely flattering to activists.  And so they changed it.  The political pressure can go the other way as well, and very well might soon under Trump.  Which research is legitimate?  The research done to mollifying people who agree with you or future research to mollify people who disagree with you?

Human sexuality is complex, but I'm wary of cherry picking various ritual traditions from pre-modern, often stone-age, cultures informs us a great deal about modern sexual politics.

I should point out that I'm not actually an opponent of Trans people.  I have never deliberately misgendered anyone.  I am insane, and thus used to deferring to other people's reality.  I do believe in live and let live, something I've already said.  It is like meeting a Buddhist or a Hindu, I don't agree with their world view, but so long as they don't hurt anyone I'm not going to be hostile to them.  I play D&D with a Transwoman.  She's obnoxious and disruptive, but I don't think that has much to do with how she identifies.  I'm not an opponent of hers nor do I misgender her.  I do object to the labeling anyone who does not 100% agree with the most maximalist claims as some kind of monster.

I agree with Grumbler that Trans in women's sports is not really a problem, as the numbers are miniscule.  But if the numbers are miniscule, why go to the mat when someone like Trump wants to fight over it?  It doesn't make sense.  We do it mostly out of fear of being a labeled a bigoted monster.

[Josquius]

You really aren't addressing my points.  "Listen to the scientists" my not be the best way to go about this.  Let us say in 10 years scientists something detrimental to your position, should we still "listen to the scientists"?  There has been a long standing pressure campaign on the medical field to change the classification of Transexuals  as the current research was not entirely flattering to activists.  And so they changed it.  The political pressure can go the other way as well, and very well might soon under Trump.  Which research is legitimate?  The research done to mollifying people who agree with you or future research to mollify people who disagree with you?

See, I have a different approach to these things than the zealots.
I support the science and come to my conclusions based on that.
I don't come to my conclusions then find the science that conveniently supports that.

I have no doubt there's a lot of bogus science out there and more will be generated in the future. When I say believe the scientists I mean believe the people who actually do good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method.
Not whatever some guy with a PhD claims.
Is it possible science could be completely subverted such that every expert in a field I have minimum grasp of is politicised and they're able to weave believeable enough fakery to sway people outside their area? I mean.... Sure. I guess. But that's not where we are at all.

Human sexuality is complex, but I'm wary of cherry picking various ritual traditions from pre-modern, often stone-age, cultures informs us a great deal about modern sexual politics.

It's not cherry picking to say there's tonnes of independent examples out there of cultures that have third genders, takes on trans people, and all that sort of thing, thus the idea this is all crazy modern stuff looks rather shaky.

I do object to the labeling anyone who does not 100% agree with the most maximalist claims as some kind of monster.

This is related to a common faulty argument I see.
The idea that people saying just let trans people live their life, there's no proof trans people are a problem in x sport, etc... Are taking some maximalist extreme position.

A maximalist position is the trumpist ban trans people out of existence everywhere possible.
The opposite to this is not "let trans people exist subject to all these rules and hoops", it would be some mad theoretical where any guy can decide on the spot "ok. I'm a girl now. You have to treat me as a girl or else. I'm entering the women's tournament and you can't stop me".
This is I believe what many trumpies think is reality... But it really isnt

I agree with Grumbler that Trans in women's sports is not really a problem, as the numbers are miniscule.  But if the numbers are miniscule, why go to the mat when someone like Trump wants to fight over it?  It doesn't make sense.  We do it mostly out of fear of being a labeled a bigoted monster.

We shouldn't. That's my stance.
When they go on about trans women in sports the reaction should be along the lines of "why are you so obsessed with this one teenagers genitals? That's weird. Is that really what two grown men should be talking about? Is that what you're into? I'm here to do a job so I'd rather talk about actual issues like....."

We can't just sacrifice trans people because it's more convenient that way.
Do that then which minority group is next?
Do that then what do we even stand for?
But at the same time we should dodge the trap of allowing this to be made an issue.
 It should be treat with a casual "why do we suddenly need laws about who uses what toilet? Aren't there already procedures for validating if medicine is safe or not, why is this a political issue? And why is the government trying to tell state junior sports governing bodies how to do their job? Let's be a serious country please"

[mongers]

Anyone left here who still either thinks Trump is playing 5-D chess or that his supposed transaction FP could working out well for America in the long run?

[grumbler]

I disagree.  Transgenderism was not mainstream well prior to Trump, and he did not create gender affirming care for minors.  What he has done is use it, and other maximalist demands by the left, as a wedge issue.  Liberals are afraid of backing away from these stances because they are so heavily policed. To say Transgenderism is natural is both a logical fallacy,Argumentum ad Naturam, and false.  The idea behind Transgenderism is that gender is a social construct and not natural, so it can be changed.  So Transgenderism can't be natural, since it rejects a natural basis for gender altogether. It is a social movement.  It may be a good social movement, but it is not some law of biology.

Transgenderism has never been mainstream and isn't mainstream today, but recognized gender dysphoria and treatment for it, even for minors, has been around for half a century or more. The "maximalist demands by the left" that you mention are another Big Lie  It is ironic that you accuse me of committing the Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy by appealing to the Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy!  Your argument that transgenderism is unnatural and therefor bad is the very definition of the fallacy!

Gender is a social construct. Sex is not, but even sex is not binary. That's the great confusion you Trumpeters have. You all want to reject the social construct as "unnatural" because it makes you feel icky.

Transgenderism is not "good" or "bad." It is the outcome of gender dysphoria, a serious complication that can lead to suicide and harmful self-image. Treating it isn't some unnatural act, either, even in minors. Minors have been receiving mental health care for more than a century.

[viper37]

Transgenderism is not "good" or "bad." It is the outcome of gender dysphoria, a serious complication that can lead to suicide and harmful self-image. Treating it isn't some unnatural act, either, even in minors. Minors have been receiving mental health care for more than a century.

This.

Until science can come up with another solution, the recommended course of action is the best one that leads to less suffering.

That isn't to say there aren't any problems with how science is applied, or gangrened by activists in some place, with doctors and/or researchers receiving death threats for even considering to go against the left (or right, depending on where they are) consensus.

[Sophie Scholl]

One of the wild parts, to me, is that all of these medications and treatments have been used on and with cis folks in much greater numbers and for far longer periods of time, barring like one or two surgeries. Even those have roots in procedures used on cis folks. It is solely because trans people are benefitting that these medications and treatments are being attacked and considered evil, unsafe, or experimental. Without the Nazis destroying Magnus Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft and setting things back decades, who knows where trans medical knowledge would be now. Alas, we seem to be well into another go at that awful mindset and instituting Nazi-esque policies. Hopefully, the slide can be stopped before the avalanche truly starts and the pebbles lose the ability to vote.

[Razgovory]

I disagree.  Transgenderism was not mainstream well prior to Trump, and he did not create gender affirming care for minors.  What he has done is use it, and other maximalist demands by the left, as a wedge issue.  Liberals are afraid of backing away from these stances because they are so heavily policed. To say Transgenderism is natural is both a logical fallacy,Argumentum ad Naturam, and false.  The idea behind Transgenderism is that gender is a social construct and not natural, so it can be changed.  So Transgenderism can't be natural, since it rejects a natural basis for gender altogether. It is a social movement.  It may be a good social movement, but it is not some law of biology.

Transgenderism has never been mainstream and isn't mainstream today, but recognized gender dysphoria and treatment for it, even for minors, has been around for half a century or more. The "maximalist demands by the left" that you mention are another Big Lie  It is ironic that you accuse me of committing the Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy by appealing to the Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy!  Your argument that transgenderism is unnatural and therefor bad is the very definition of the fallacy!

Gender is a social construct. Sex is not, but even sex is not binary. That's the great confusion you Trumpeters have. You all want to reject the social construct as "unnatural" because it makes you feel icky.

Transgenderism is not "good" or "bad." It is the outcome of gender dysphoria, a serious complication that can lead to suicide and harmful self-image. Treating it isn't some unnatural act, either, even in minors. Minors have been receiving mental health care for more than a century.

I did not say that Transgenderism is unnatural or bad.   I never said anything about "feeling icky", that just you projecting.  What I said was Transgenderism is rooted in the idea that gender is social construct, it exists entirely in the mind and thus not in nature.  Transgenderism is thus not any more unnatural than cisgender.  Gender dysphoria is real, but also quite rare.  It seems very odd that a family would have several children with gender dysphoria or large numbers of women would declare themselves non-binary.  So were talking about something other than just gender dysphoria.

[Razgovory]

You really aren't addressing my points.  "Listen to the scientists" my not be the best way to go about this.  Let us say in 10 years scientists something detrimental to your position, should we still "listen to the scientists"?  There has been a long standing pressure campaign on the medical field to change the classification of Transexuals  as the current research was not entirely flattering to activists.  And so they changed it.  The political pressure can go the other way as well, and very well might soon under Trump.  Which research is legitimate?  The research done to mollifying people who agree with you or future research to mollify people who disagree with you?

See, I have a different approach to these things than the zealots.
I support the science and come to my conclusions based on that.
I don't come to my conclusions then find the science that conveniently supports that.

I have no doubt there's a lot of bogus science out there and more will be generated in the future. When I say believe the scientists I mean believe the people who actually do good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method.
Not whatever some guy with a PhD claims.
Is it possible science could be completely subverted such that every expert in a field I have minimum grasp of is politicised and they're able to weave believeable enough fakery to sway people outside their area? I mean.... Sure. I guess. But that's not where we are at all.

Okay, if say the science, people who did good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method, said tomorrow that Transgender people are natural threats to all living people and should be culled, would you be okay with that? 

[Neil]

Okay, if say the science, people who did good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method, said tomorrow that Transgender people are natural threats to all living people and should be culled, would you be okay with that?

Is it a social science study?  Because if so, it's probably fake, just like the rest of them.  The Replication Crisis is real.

[viper37]

On the good news front for Valmy, measles is now a national priority for RFK Jr.  He is devoting it his entire attention and has sent 2000 vaccine doses to Texas.  It will be very useful for the people who refuse to take vaccines on religious grounds...

Then again, I'm not so sure it's a good news that RFK Jr is devoting his attention to Texas...  Maybe Texas was less fucked without his involvement?

[grumbler]

Okay, if say the science, people who did good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method, said tomorrow that Transgender people are natural threats to all living people and should be culled, would you be okay with that?

Okay, if say Hannibal's army had been equipped with AK-47s, would you be okay with that?

We can all play the "moronic hypothetical" game. It's just that some of us know the hypotheticals are moronic.  Science does not work the way you think it does.

[Razgovory]

Okay, if say the science, people who did good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method, said tomorrow that Transgender people are natural threats to all living people and should be culled, would you be okay with that?

Okay, if say Hannibal's army had been equipped with AK-47s, would you be okay with that?

We can all play the "moronic hypothetical" game. It's just that some of us know the hypotheticals are moronic.  Science does not work the way you think it does.

Science is in flux, it may not always give you the answers you find palatable.  Do what the scientists say is not always the greatest idea in social issues. This is particularly true when the science has been politized as it already has.

[Tonitrus]

Okay, if say the science, people who did good scientifically valid work that follows the scientific method, said tomorrow that Transgender people are natural threats to all living people and should be culled, would you be okay with that?

Okay, if say Hannibal's army had been equipped with AK-47s, would you be okay with that?

Should have gone with Attila.  "Guns of the Huns" has a much better ring to it than "Guns of the Punic".

[Zoupa]

It seems very odd that a family would have several children with gender dysphoria or large numbers of women would declare themselves non-binary.  So were talking about something other than just gender dysphoria.

Not sure what women being non-binary has to do with gender dysphoria?

I suspect lots of women are declaring themselves non-binary because a lot of men in the US hold repulsive opinions, or behave in repulsive ways.