Most people aren't single-issue voters--or do they not acknowledge it?
We are aware that there are "pro-life" voters.
I am now a *single-issue voter--since I lost my daughter to the gender cult--and I cannot look away from the harm this is causing so many families, the loss of an open future for young people caught up in gender.
MSM has done a disservice by not acknowledging how important the trans issue is to people across the political spectrum. It's always buried as a "culture war".
I'm in the same boat. The me of 8 years ago would have loved this guy, but my life, beliefs and politics have been forever changed from my kid's fall into the gender rabbit hole. He checks a lot of other boxes for me but gets a big red DENIED stamp due to his gender affirming policies. I spent yesterday seething that she didn't pick a moderate to help steer some common sense/ground back into the political arena. Instead she chose to double down with the progressive left to continue the war between 2 very extreme political sides. So harmful. I cannot support this.
I have become a single-issue non-voter, at least. There is no way I can support (even with nose held) a party that doesn't condemn child sterilization and mutilation. FLAT OUT CONDEMN. (Because NO child - or adult, but adults over, say, 21 can do whatever cosmetic changes to their own bodies, on their own dime, they want - is "born in the wrong body." FULL STOP.)
But I also can't support the Rs, at least the Trump ticket of the Rs, for other reasons. Hence, no vote at all. It's so sad that rather than shifting to the sane middle (it's not like they'd lose any MAGA people to the Dems), the Rs keep doubling down on other insanity (and inanities). They could wrap up the whole country, all three branches, if they just would. Sigh.
I'm a double-issue voter. If you're against children's rights to grow up normally, or women's right to safe spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, sports teams, etc.) then you won't get my vote.
Looks like I'm back to Crazy Brainworm Dead Bear In The Park guy for me.
Isn't it strange how, this year of all years, there's no real 3rd-party candidate - other than RFK Jr, who's now desperately trying to buy a spot in the next admin in exchange for his dropping out? If ever there were a year a Ross Perot would have a chance, it would be this year. Where's our Nader? I, for one, am not that concerned about Trump returning to the Presidency - even if he wins the election, I'm fairly certain a Libertarian will shoot him dead before he's sworn in. He was already given one warning - there probably won't be another.
I & a few other people in this (your) camp have decided to vote Taylor Swift. I mean, look, she's a billionaire, and she has the biggest crowd sizes around, and they're already selling campaign shirts for her at Bloomingdales - https://www.bloomingdales.com/shop/product/prince-peter-taylor-election-graphic-tee?ID=5141321 - and she's already pretty much duchess of Florida...hey, you never know!
You mentioned that the law hadn't been officially tested with a child brought in from out of state, a runaway teen, or a child removed from custody due to parents not affirming. But I'd argue the law probably has already had significant effects and those must be considered. Imagine a family sitting in a school counselor's office expressing how they think transitioning their teen with multiple mental health conditions is not what's best for her. Think about what the counselor will feel she has the authority to say, the tone she can take, and the options and potential consequences she presents to the parents knowing that is the law she works under (even more so if the counselor supports the law and the ideas behind it). Imagine how pressured and without options the parents would feel. Then think about these same dynamics if your child is in an emergency room for self-harm and you're faced with the social workers there, if your child ends up in an intensive mental health treatment program (inpatient or outpatient) that follows the law and excludes parents from treatment for questioning or expressing concerns. The most aggressive activist doctors, therapists, and social workers can take full control of their workplaces and sideline or silence those with concerns. Imagine how hard it would be for a teen who starts to doubt they should continue on the gender identity path to reverse in this atmosphere. Laws like these don't ever have to be tested at their extremes to do harm.
He was my representative and then gov until I moved out of state. Lifelong Dem until the trans issue decimated my family. Just the mere fact that he was a teacher, he should be questioning the trans issue. I would use cult vs issues but that seems to be incendiary even though I firmly believe this has become a cult. Anyhow, the fact that the right is mischaracterizing this is of little matter. Why does a state feel the need to codify this into law at this time? They have also codified the fact that gender identity is a protected class as has other blue states. I am a one issue voter - will be doing a GOP write-in and holding my nose for the R’s on the rest of the ballot. I’m in a swing state, so it’s a toss up.
I live in a blue state much like MN and am the mother of a gender questioning teen. Given the lack of an evidence base or assessment method (see Cass Review) our family has decided doing nothing is the most cautious and caring course of treatment for our child. Do you think that decision is respected? The answer is a resounding no. We live in fear of CPS, glitter families, teachers, and doctors, all of whom could ask our child if she wants something her parents have determined is not something we are willing to approve. We hide. What Walz doesn't seem to understand is that to allow those glitter families trans their 6 year old is to force the rest of us to do it too. It's decidedly un- American. I don't think Walz is a nice guy either. I think he's a lightweight is is easily rolled.
"For Democrats, Walz probably checks a lot of other boxes, and seems like a genuinely nice guy."
How does supporting child castration make Walz a nice guy? He was fine with letting Minneapolis burn, causing many deaths and injuries. Don't fall into the MSM frame trap, he is an insane radical not a a nice moderate.
I was thinking about abortion, family leave etc. Those boxes. But I'm sure he unchecks a lot of other boxes, too. Would be nice to get a well-rounded review. But also, how much does it matter to voters? I dunno!
I never considered myself a single issue voter. Rather, I simply found myself supporting a party that I believed would fight for profoundly important issues— worker’s rights, a woman’s right to decide whether she was going to carry a pregnancy to term, protecting the environment, freedom of expression, respecting a person’s lack of religion, etc.
Then, one day I was told that not only was I hateful and bigoted for not believing human beings can change their sex, it was my responsibility to participate in people’s “gender care/journey” and affirm their identities.
I remain confused every single day not understanding how we actually got to this point.
But I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who knows or pretends to not know something so simple yet so important.
Women are half of the human population. Every single human on Earth is here because a woman gave birth to them.
I’m not voting for any candidate that promotes the notion that we are an identity, hormone level, or something that can be created with surgery and medication.
Yes, so far as I can tell, it doesn’t seem anyone is doing voter polling on these issues. Both parties live and breathe polling during election time, so one would think that, if proper polling of Ds and D-leaners was being done on these issues, the Ds would sit up and take notice, and it would have an impact on D candidate stances.
Doubt there is any data on that--especially when most people who feel strongly about an issue don't want to admit that they have been nudged to becoming a single-issue voter.
Most people, or at least a large minority, aren't voters at all.
Of those that vote, I'm sure most aren't demonstrably single-issue, but there must me those that are, and those who put extra weight on particular issues.
I can't seem to contort my brain enough to understand this.
Adults can't define 'man/woman' and yet they're passing sweeping legislation that empowers a child to destroy her/his body on the basis of something the adults who are passing this law can't define.
The whole thing is morally bankrupt, and for me, one of the most terrifying parts of this is that the entire law rests on this foundation: "the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient…”. So, adults can't define gender but somehow children can with such certainty that we will allow them to mutilate their bodies in opposition to their parents' wishes and insights and love?
If law isn't clear, concise and specific, it creates discretionary powers that can be exercised by complainants and courts. In this case the discretionary powers can profoundly alter the life of a child, who lacks intellectual and emotional capacity and foresight, in ways that will likely result in serious medical and psychological harm for the rest of the child's life.
I can't imagine legislation like this being acceptable in any other area of law. Can you imagine resting the offense of dangerous driving on a definition of danger "as experienced and defined" by the driver? Or spousal assault "as experienced and defined" by the abuser? Language such as this doesn't create law, it creates unwieldy pockets of power that land in the hands of narrowly chosen individuals, and in the case of this trans law, it deprives everyone else of any jurisdiction to intervene in the court's decision-making on behalf of the child.
Law often reflects and crystalises the preferences of those in power. Here we can infer the tremendous power of trans ideology. What does it say about our society that we are willing to support, or acquiesce to, trans ideology at the expense of society's childrens' health? And why?
I hope someone will publish the photo of Waltz with the family transitioning their 6 year old as part of Trumps campaign ads. .He is my governor. I wrote to him about my concerns over the likelihood of my 6 year old trans identified granddaughter being put on puberty blockers by my estranged daughter. . i got an automated thanks for writing reply. I am also a lifelong Democrat who will not be voting for president this year
People have their brains off on these topics, I thought it would all be over once the facts came out but there's a taboo against even thinking about what is happening I think!
Is it possible that any family trying to get their kid back won't go public for fear of further estrangement?
Thanks for the insight, Lisa. I still do imagine a situation where I can say, “yeah, he’s fine. But he’s wrong on gender affirming care for minors and really the Dems need to get aligned with reality and be brave to say they made a mistake on that issue.” But I’m on vacation where more than half the kids in our vacation house are identifying as trans (including my own), and I don’t think I’m going to have an opportunity to do that without causing a riot with the parents. Biding my time for the right moment.
How is it possible that you haven’t said to these other parents— “Don’t you think it’s strrraaannggee that when we were in high school not a single person needed us to address them as the opposite sex?!”
He will do nothing to bring the party to the center. It makes me sick that Shapiro was not chosen when he had a more centrist track record and he could bring the party to the center. I read that Trump campaign staff did significant oppo research on Shapiro. Then they helped the far left who didn’t want a Jew, run a smear campaign because they thought he was the only guy who could beat them.
I don’t believe that the Trump campaign did this oppo research. Sorry it just sounds like bullshit. The Dems had plenty of their own to hate Shapiro for his pro Israel stance, his toughness on antisemitism on campus etc. now blaming Trump? I’m not buying that.
I share so many of the concerns expressed here and have been thinking about this ever since. I actually don’t think it matters that it is Walz or anyone else from the potential VP choices. The underlying problem is the culture overall. Andrew Doyle put it well in his LGBAlliance keynote of 2023 excerpt: “This really isn’t an issue of left and right. . . . You cannot vote this out. Whichever major party you vote for, these ideas are embedded into the country. They are in every major institution. They’re in academia, the media, the arts, corporate institutions, the civil service, the police, higher education, absolutely everywhere, you can’t get rid of it. It did not come about by means of a democratic process, and therefore it cannot be eliminated by means of a democratic process.”
The Arcus Foundation, backed by two billionaires who inherited their fortunes, is a primary group responsible for injecting gender ideology into public policy world wide. They spend millions per year on think tanks, attorneys and political contributions designed to rob women of their right to safety and rob kids of their right to natural puberty.
Kamala's sister Maya is a board member.
Many of the main sponsors of gender ideology policies are also billionaire medical service, medical equipment or pharmaceutical product providers. Its their belief that if enough kids are tricked into becoming life long medical patients, that the public will eventually empathize and feel sorry for these victims of medial malpractice which will further allow gender ideology based policies, due to the eventual sizable affected population. As Jamie Reed reported in her article "I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle", the gender biz is building the plane while they also fly it. In their estimation, there will be a tipping point where a large % of the population will opt to be permanently sterilized prior to puberty, snowplowing the greatest mens rights movement of all time and creating a $ trillion global market for their products. eventually, there maybe public service messages warning people to avoid gender ideology, due to the proven harmful effects. but like the ciggarette and booze industries, even with public perception changes after 20 years of acceptance, the industry will be firmly established leading to centuries of medical improvements that may enable optional gender modification without the misery and suffering that accompanies todays medical interventions.
Well, send the Harris/Walz campaign this information (expanding on the NIH website info regarding Piaget's long-accepted stages of child development) regarding therapists/social media/doctors trapping children in the Concrete Operational stage of development (remember children seeing a long snake of clay as more than a ball of the same clay?) which occurs normally ages 6-11. For teens, these object-dependent beliefs (the need for make-up, shoes, dresses or "male" clothes to "prove" the unprovable) represent regression. This came to me as I watched "Culottes Dude" take off his wig and stomp around like a toddler somewhere near NYU in the now viral clip. We trans widows know the regressions and tantrum behavior very well.
If you aren't planning to vote for "the lesser of two evils" (no idea how to discern which one that is!) then PLEASE don't throw your vote away. This is a perfect time for people to make a real statement with their vote that they are not satisfied with either of the two choices that are thrust upon us. Even if RFK won't win, give him your vote because of his stance on this issue!
Most people aren't single-issue voters--or do they not acknowledge it?
We are aware that there are "pro-life" voters.
I am now a *single-issue voter--since I lost my daughter to the gender cult--and I cannot look away from the harm this is causing so many families, the loss of an open future for young people caught up in gender.
MSM has done a disservice by not acknowledging how important the trans issue is to people across the political spectrum. It's always buried as a "culture war".
I am not voting for Trump.
There is no one I can vote for.
*Single issue=not voting Democrat.
Politically Homeless Former Democrat
I'm in the same boat. The me of 8 years ago would have loved this guy, but my life, beliefs and politics have been forever changed from my kid's fall into the gender rabbit hole. He checks a lot of other boxes for me but gets a big red DENIED stamp due to his gender affirming policies. I spent yesterday seething that she didn't pick a moderate to help steer some common sense/ground back into the political arena. Instead she chose to double down with the progressive left to continue the war between 2 very extreme political sides. So harmful. I cannot support this.
Yeah, I was coming here to say something similar.
I have become a single-issue non-voter, at least. There is no way I can support (even with nose held) a party that doesn't condemn child sterilization and mutilation. FLAT OUT CONDEMN. (Because NO child - or adult, but adults over, say, 21 can do whatever cosmetic changes to their own bodies, on their own dime, they want - is "born in the wrong body." FULL STOP.)
But I also can't support the Rs, at least the Trump ticket of the Rs, for other reasons. Hence, no vote at all. It's so sad that rather than shifting to the sane middle (it's not like they'd lose any MAGA people to the Dems), the Rs keep doubling down on other insanity (and inanities). They could wrap up the whole country, all three branches, if they just would. Sigh.
I'm a double-issue voter. If you're against children's rights to grow up normally, or women's right to safe spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, sports teams, etc.) then you won't get my vote.
Looks like I'm back to Crazy Brainworm Dead Bear In The Park guy for me.
My position exactly!
Isn't it strange how, this year of all years, there's no real 3rd-party candidate - other than RFK Jr, who's now desperately trying to buy a spot in the next admin in exchange for his dropping out? If ever there were a year a Ross Perot would have a chance, it would be this year. Where's our Nader? I, for one, am not that concerned about Trump returning to the Presidency - even if he wins the election, I'm fairly certain a Libertarian will shoot him dead before he's sworn in. He was already given one warning - there probably won't be another.
I & a few other people in this (your) camp have decided to vote Taylor Swift. I mean, look, she's a billionaire, and she has the biggest crowd sizes around, and they're already selling campaign shirts for her at Bloomingdales - https://www.bloomingdales.com/shop/product/prince-peter-taylor-election-graphic-tee?ID=5141321 - and she's already pretty much duchess of Florida...hey, you never know!
You mentioned that the law hadn't been officially tested with a child brought in from out of state, a runaway teen, or a child removed from custody due to parents not affirming. But I'd argue the law probably has already had significant effects and those must be considered. Imagine a family sitting in a school counselor's office expressing how they think transitioning their teen with multiple mental health conditions is not what's best for her. Think about what the counselor will feel she has the authority to say, the tone she can take, and the options and potential consequences she presents to the parents knowing that is the law she works under (even more so if the counselor supports the law and the ideas behind it). Imagine how pressured and without options the parents would feel. Then think about these same dynamics if your child is in an emergency room for self-harm and you're faced with the social workers there, if your child ends up in an intensive mental health treatment program (inpatient or outpatient) that follows the law and excludes parents from treatment for questioning or expressing concerns. The most aggressive activist doctors, therapists, and social workers can take full control of their workplaces and sideline or silence those with concerns. Imagine how hard it would be for a teen who starts to doubt they should continue on the gender identity path to reverse in this atmosphere. Laws like these don't ever have to be tested at their extremes to do harm.
this dystopian nightmare exists now in Heartland America 2024.
thank-you for taking the time to type this all out ... our culture has lost its soul.
These scenarios have happened. Absolutely.
Excellent comment
Look at the pressure around covid mandates. This is orchestrated alike.
He was my representative and then gov until I moved out of state. Lifelong Dem until the trans issue decimated my family. Just the mere fact that he was a teacher, he should be questioning the trans issue. I would use cult vs issues but that seems to be incendiary even though I firmly believe this has become a cult. Anyhow, the fact that the right is mischaracterizing this is of little matter. Why does a state feel the need to codify this into law at this time? They have also codified the fact that gender identity is a protected class as has other blue states. I am a one issue voter - will be doing a GOP write-in and holding my nose for the R’s on the rest of the ballot. I’m in a swing state, so it’s a toss up.
I live in a blue state much like MN and am the mother of a gender questioning teen. Given the lack of an evidence base or assessment method (see Cass Review) our family has decided doing nothing is the most cautious and caring course of treatment for our child. Do you think that decision is respected? The answer is a resounding no. We live in fear of CPS, glitter families, teachers, and doctors, all of whom could ask our child if she wants something her parents have determined is not something we are willing to approve. We hide. What Walz doesn't seem to understand is that to allow those glitter families trans their 6 year old is to force the rest of us to do it too. It's decidedly un- American. I don't think Walz is a nice guy either. I think he's a lightweight is is easily rolled.
And don't forget that Kamala is on board with all of this too.
"For Democrats, Walz probably checks a lot of other boxes, and seems like a genuinely nice guy."
How does supporting child castration make Walz a nice guy? He was fine with letting Minneapolis burn, causing many deaths and injuries. Don't fall into the MSM frame trap, he is an insane radical not a a nice moderate.
I was thinking about abortion, family leave etc. Those boxes. But I'm sure he unchecks a lot of other boxes, too. Would be nice to get a well-rounded review. But also, how much does it matter to voters? I dunno!
Maybe I’m wrong that most people aren’t single-issue voters? Hard to find good data…
I never considered myself a single issue voter. Rather, I simply found myself supporting a party that I believed would fight for profoundly important issues— worker’s rights, a woman’s right to decide whether she was going to carry a pregnancy to term, protecting the environment, freedom of expression, respecting a person’s lack of religion, etc.
Then, one day I was told that not only was I hateful and bigoted for not believing human beings can change their sex, it was my responsibility to participate in people’s “gender care/journey” and affirm their identities.
I remain confused every single day not understanding how we actually got to this point.
But I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who knows or pretends to not know something so simple yet so important.
Women are half of the human population. Every single human on Earth is here because a woman gave birth to them.
I’m not voting for any candidate that promotes the notion that we are an identity, hormone level, or something that can be created with surgery and medication.
Yes, so far as I can tell, it doesn’t seem anyone is doing voter polling on these issues. Both parties live and breathe polling during election time, so one would think that, if proper polling of Ds and D-leaners was being done on these issues, the Ds would sit up and take notice, and it would have an impact on D candidate stances.
Doubt there is any data on that--especially when most people who feel strongly about an issue don't want to admit that they have been nudged to becoming a single-issue voter.
Most people, or at least a large minority, aren't voters at all.
Of those that vote, I'm sure most aren't demonstrably single-issue, but there must me those that are, and those who put extra weight on particular issues.
I can't seem to contort my brain enough to understand this.
Adults can't define 'man/woman' and yet they're passing sweeping legislation that empowers a child to destroy her/his body on the basis of something the adults who are passing this law can't define.
The whole thing is morally bankrupt, and for me, one of the most terrifying parts of this is that the entire law rests on this foundation: "the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient…”. So, adults can't define gender but somehow children can with such certainty that we will allow them to mutilate their bodies in opposition to their parents' wishes and insights and love?
If law isn't clear, concise and specific, it creates discretionary powers that can be exercised by complainants and courts. In this case the discretionary powers can profoundly alter the life of a child, who lacks intellectual and emotional capacity and foresight, in ways that will likely result in serious medical and psychological harm for the rest of the child's life.
I can't imagine legislation like this being acceptable in any other area of law. Can you imagine resting the offense of dangerous driving on a definition of danger "as experienced and defined" by the driver? Or spousal assault "as experienced and defined" by the abuser? Language such as this doesn't create law, it creates unwieldy pockets of power that land in the hands of narrowly chosen individuals, and in the case of this trans law, it deprives everyone else of any jurisdiction to intervene in the court's decision-making on behalf of the child.
Law often reflects and crystalises the preferences of those in power. Here we can infer the tremendous power of trans ideology. What does it say about our society that we are willing to support, or acquiesce to, trans ideology at the expense of society's childrens' health? And why?
I hope someone will publish the photo of Waltz with the family transitioning their 6 year old as part of Trumps campaign ads. .He is my governor. I wrote to him about my concerns over the likelihood of my 6 year old trans identified granddaughter being put on puberty blockers by my estranged daughter. . i got an automated thanks for writing reply. I am also a lifelong Democrat who will not be voting for president this year
People have their brains off on these topics, I thought it would all be over once the facts came out but there's a taboo against even thinking about what is happening I think!
Is it possible that any family trying to get their kid back won't go public for fear of further estrangement?
Thanks for the insight, Lisa. I still do imagine a situation where I can say, “yeah, he’s fine. But he’s wrong on gender affirming care for minors and really the Dems need to get aligned with reality and be brave to say they made a mistake on that issue.” But I’m on vacation where more than half the kids in our vacation house are identifying as trans (including my own), and I don’t think I’m going to have an opportunity to do that without causing a riot with the parents. Biding my time for the right moment.
How is it possible that you haven’t said to these other parents— “Don’t you think it’s strrraaannggee that when we were in high school not a single person needed us to address them as the opposite sex?!”
Assuming you were in HS before 2005 . . .
He will do nothing to bring the party to the center. It makes me sick that Shapiro was not chosen when he had a more centrist track record and he could bring the party to the center. I read that Trump campaign staff did significant oppo research on Shapiro. Then they helped the far left who didn’t want a Jew, run a smear campaign because they thought he was the only guy who could beat them.
I don’t believe that the Trump campaign did this oppo research. Sorry it just sounds like bullshit. The Dems had plenty of their own to hate Shapiro for his pro Israel stance, his toughness on antisemitism on campus etc. now blaming Trump? I’m not buying that.
I share so many of the concerns expressed here and have been thinking about this ever since. I actually don’t think it matters that it is Walz or anyone else from the potential VP choices. The underlying problem is the culture overall. Andrew Doyle put it well in his LGBAlliance keynote of 2023 excerpt: “This really isn’t an issue of left and right. . . . You cannot vote this out. Whichever major party you vote for, these ideas are embedded into the country. They are in every major institution. They’re in academia, the media, the arts, corporate institutions, the civil service, the police, higher education, absolutely everywhere, you can’t get rid of it. It did not come about by means of a democratic process, and therefore it cannot be eliminated by means of a democratic process.”
But that is not to say we should not keep pushing to be heard in whatever ways we can. Speaking of trying to be heard, Kara Dansky has written an excellent open letter to Kamala Harris: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/3112331/an-open-letter-to-kamala-harris-from-a-democratic-woman/
The Arcus Foundation, backed by two billionaires who inherited their fortunes, is a primary group responsible for injecting gender ideology into public policy world wide. They spend millions per year on think tanks, attorneys and political contributions designed to rob women of their right to safety and rob kids of their right to natural puberty.
Kamala's sister Maya is a board member.
Many of the main sponsors of gender ideology policies are also billionaire medical service, medical equipment or pharmaceutical product providers. Its their belief that if enough kids are tricked into becoming life long medical patients, that the public will eventually empathize and feel sorry for these victims of medial malpractice which will further allow gender ideology based policies, due to the eventual sizable affected population. As Jamie Reed reported in her article "I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle", the gender biz is building the plane while they also fly it. In their estimation, there will be a tipping point where a large % of the population will opt to be permanently sterilized prior to puberty, snowplowing the greatest mens rights movement of all time and creating a $ trillion global market for their products. eventually, there maybe public service messages warning people to avoid gender ideology, due to the proven harmful effects. but like the ciggarette and booze industries, even with public perception changes after 20 years of acceptance, the industry will be firmly established leading to centuries of medical improvements that may enable optional gender modification without the misery and suffering that accompanies todays medical interventions.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement
To be fair, she's a former board member. Still disturbing!
ok thanks for the update. i tried to find that out but since took longer than 5 seconds gave up the search
Well, send the Harris/Walz campaign this information (expanding on the NIH website info regarding Piaget's long-accepted stages of child development) regarding therapists/social media/doctors trapping children in the Concrete Operational stage of development (remember children seeing a long snake of clay as more than a ball of the same clay?) which occurs normally ages 6-11. For teens, these object-dependent beliefs (the need for make-up, shoes, dresses or "male" clothes to "prove" the unprovable) represent regression. This came to me as I watched "Culottes Dude" take off his wig and stomp around like a toddler somewhere near NYU in the now viral clip. We trans widows know the regressions and tantrum behavior very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ond6_8cAA&t=7s
If I'm not mistaken, there have been cases where children were taken from their parents, such as Indiana to name one
If you aren't planning to vote for "the lesser of two evils" (no idea how to discern which one that is!) then PLEASE don't throw your vote away. This is a perfect time for people to make a real statement with their vote that they are not satisfied with either of the two choices that are thrust upon us. Even if RFK won't win, give him your vote because of his stance on this issue!