Mamdani: Democratic Party has ‘lost its focus on working people’
10d 15h ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in politics from thehill.com
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) said Saturday that Democrats have lost sight of the important economic issues facing working-class Americans as the party works to rebuild itself after a devastating loss in the 2024 presidential election.
“The party, as a whole, has lost its focus on working people,” Mamdani said in an interview with MS Now.
“People want to know: What are you going to do for rent? What are you going to do for housing? What are you going to do for gas? What are you going to do for groceries? We have to have answers to that.”
Issues like housing affordability, the cost of healthcare and rising gas prices should be at the forefront of the party’s focus, according to Mamdani, rather than ideological battles that distract from what matters to most Americans.
I wish he would say the quiet part out loud:
They have been compromised and infected by money. The only solution is to make bribery illegal again.
But that would be antisemitic.
Bribery is now free speech
Bribery? You mean capitalism?
The legalized version of widespread bribery is called lobbying.
We should consider rebranding other things - it's not smoking weed, it's botanical consumption.
Campaign Finance Reform is the issue from which ALL other issues flow.
Well he's not wrong
The Ds couldn't even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden... his very platform.
They didn't even try a standalone bill. No "nuclear option" to pass with simple majority.
Mamdani is right (and Bernie, and AOC)! We haven't had a labor party for 50 years; we have two corporate parties, one is religious and one is secular flavored.
Labor was fucked in USA before AI, now? I don't think we're coming back from this, it's rotten to the core. I hope I'm wrong.
Citizens United for the win
I'll grant that they didn't even try for a standalone minimum wage increase. I'd be curious to know how that would go too. But it was meant to go into one of the earlier spending bills that had to be passable by a simple majority. Those kinds of bills have certain requirements, or else they're subject to the fucked up filibuster rules the Senate has.
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that a minimum wage increase was more than a budget change and did not fit those requirements. I thought Democrats' argument that it affected revenue via resulting taxes and therefore budgeting was a reasonable one, but it didn't quite fly.
Anyway, to say "the Ds couldn't even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden" is a little disingenuous IMO. They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
No. Joe Biden and 44 Democratic senators and 36 Republican senators were not making an honest effort to fight for workers when they voted to block the rail strike in 2022. It doesn't matter how many times you try to say otherwise. Blocking strikes is anti-worker pro-corporate behavior. Period.
I'm talking about minimum wage and nothing else.
Of course not. Because if you zoom out it's pretty obvious Joe Biden and most Democratic politicians are pro-corporate trash who have no interest in fighting for American workers.
And if you change the subject you can always get your point across. Great job.
I didn't change the subject. You're asserting that if Biden and Democratic politicians had the ability to bump minimum wages they would. I challenged your assertion by demonstrating when Democratic politicians have the power to help American workers they decide in force to side with corporations.
And yes, I did get my point across. I'm glad you acknowledge that.
Other guy: "Democrats didn't even raise minimum wage"
Me: "Well, they tried that one thing. Here's what happened for that particular issue, how it was attempted, and how the Senate's screwed up rules stopped them"
You: "But they didn't block the train strike!"
...
Anyway, yes, you got your point across. If only it had anything to do with mine of what happened on a different day
Me: “Well, they tried that one thing. Here’s what happened for that particular issue, how it was attempted, and how the Senate’s screwed up rules stopped them”
This is you asserting they would fight for American workers if not for "senate's rules".
When it comes to minimum wage, as the initial commenter mentioned. Not everything under the sun
Then you need to establish a plausible reason why politicians who eagerly block strikes would raise the minimum wage.
I do? I was fact-checking a specific point. I never said that the Democrats were the infallible party of the people, but because I gave more detail about a vague, misleading-at-best statement that means I need to defend everything else?
I like facts and knowledge. You can't develop a good opinion without it. And when I see misinformation, even from people I generally agree with, I try to set the record straight.
You're not just stating facts though. You're making a claim that they made an "honest" effort to raise the minimum wage. So far you haven't substantiated that opinion. What's your evidence their efforts were honest and not intended to fail?
That's what you're clinging to at this point? How do I know it wasn't all a ploy? Dude, excuse me for one adjective mixed in my comment but not everything is the conspiracy you seem to want it to be
You think politicians are playing political games and not being honest about their intentions is a conspiracy?
That's the thing. Obstruction is so much easier. So Republicans have been able to stop most of the progress we would have made.
I’d love to see some blue governors balancing their budgets. It’s a good look.
Did it ever actually have a true genuine focus on working people?
Absolutely FDR
That's when the Democrats had a populist message and actually helped the working class
It also resulted in them controlling like 80% of Congress
It also probably stopped America from falling to a revolution (even if it provoked the business plot, but that went nowhere luckily)
Sure seems like the businesses have won to me
In the long run they did take back control, but the The Business Plot did happen for a reason, capital hated FDR
In a different timeline, we might have had Smedley Butler lining up Henry Ford and other magnates against a wall, without offering a final cigar.
I do think that the US should've become a socialist country during the Great Depression (if not for FDR, that is).
I'd say that's the point of having a functional democracy: you respond to the needs of the people with a series of bloodless revolutions in the form of elections so as to make bloody revolutions unnecessary. Why should there be cities in flames and blood in the streets when one can have a series of votes instead?
This is predicated on the the concept of a functional democracy, of course, whereas ours has become less and less functionally representative every year since 1929, and then got a bullet to the brain from Citizens United.
They need huge money to win big elections. Huge money hates working class.
Huge money hates working class.
Historically, the working class was a popular source of fundraising and campaign staffing. But after generations of economic and political decay, mobilizing large numbers of people has grown more difficult while raising a ton of money from one self-interested party has grown comparatively simple.
It's a vicious cycle. Corruption fuels anti-labor politics. Anti-labor politics incentivizes further corruption.
Eventually, you're looking at an India or Russia, where a handful of ultra-conservative oligarchs rule with an iron fist.
Eventually, you're looking at an India or Russia, where a handful of ultra-conservative oligarchs rule with an iron fist.
I think we are there already. I am not just saying Trump, he is just the last step. Trump has ripped off the veil and shown our government is just a bunch of oligarchs in a trench coat.
The Iran war has shown why the DOD has never passed an audit, American wunderwaffe is nothing more than Russia style corruption. Weapon systems that cost billions that are getting outsmarted by conventional rockets, drones and MANPADs. Hell, the Gerald Ford the newest Gen carrier that cost 13B to produce got taken out of the fight by a "laundry fire"
The AI datacenters are both of the things everybody fears. Blatant market corruption in plain site that's going to take out a bunch of peoples retirement plans when it pops and the beginning of a total surveillance state.
No shit, it's always about the donors. But pay attention, how did we get Mamdani? NYC has one of the most generous donation matching programs. For mayor a donation gets matched 8 to 1. Donation matching was in the For The People Act.
Finally someone in the left that gets it.
I don't want to vote left because of progressivism. I want to vote left because boss earns a dollar while I earn a dime.
For a long time I've been saying, leftist parties would have way more success if they focused on helping 90% of the population (the working class) instead of the minority 1%. They will help minorities the most by helping the working class anyway. They can't help the minorities if they don't get the majority's vote.
The US doesn't have a leftist party, that's the whole problem. The Democrats would be considered a center right party outside the anglo sphere.
Outside the US, still in the anglosphere.
I'm not talking about the US. My country has more than 1 leftist party. But they focus on the social-left side and forget about the economic-left one.
I don’t want to vote left because of progressivism. I want to vote left because boss earns a dollar while I earn a dime.
I mean, in theory it's not an either/or issue. You support your minority and women colleagues because you're stronger as a collective than as alienated individuals. Progressive causes should synergize with labor actions, because bigotry is part of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the landlord class.
In practice, I see so many politicians and activists treating these as separate - even ideologically oppositional - issues. As though you have to choose between feminism and a fair wage. Or you need to be aligned with American imperialism against the Evil Foreigners if you want to be taken seriously on LGBTQ issues.
leftist parties would have way more success if they focused on helping 90% of the population (the working class) instead of the minority 1%
I don't see a shortage of leftist groups advocating on behalf of the working class. But for the handful that do break away and champion some bourgeois pet issue, they'll periodically get a windfall of cash and instant celebrity. And then I'll suddenly get an earful about how Brianna Joy Grey talking about vaccine refusal or Adam Friedland interviewing Chet Hanks is the face of American Leftism.
There's very clearly one of those the party will support to court left wing voters. Rainbow capitalism doesn't achieve either.
For instance in Canada Trudeau was a very right wing politician but whenever he was getting bad press he would do something akin to "law that protects trans people now includes trans people" and it was just rewriting gender identity to trans.
The focus on labor should be first above all else. If you aren’t equal in labor rights you are never going to be equal gender or sex or race etc etc etc etc etc. labor must come first. The rest is implied through the labor fight.
The focus on labor should be first above all else.
Read Settlers.
If you aren’t equal in labor rights you are never going to be equal gender or sex or race etc etc etc etc etc.
It's the other way around. We can - and have - enjoyed a kind of National Socialist economic equity, from the 1940s to the 1960s. A heyday for the white male working class. And then it was the introduction of PoC and women to the labor market that became an excuse to dismantle labor organizations piecemeal.
Because the predominant ethnic majority and the dominant gender could not stomach minorities and women in their union halls and labor groups, they were neatly pitted against their lower-caste peers (and their working class peers abroad) until the only "good" jobs remaining were for the police and their auxiliaries.
Without a unified proletariat, any labor rights you achieve are at best temporary and at worst illusionary. Gender and race and religious and national differences must be reconciled, or you're always going to have a bolt-hole for capitalists to flee down. You're always going to have a cohort that the public is trained to believe deserves oppression.
The problem is not what policies I support.
The problem is aunt Ben that lives in the middle of nowhere. Who hates the gays and communists. But lives paycheck to paycheck.
The social left/social right split is about 50%. Some places higher, some lower. But there is a LOT of working people. And most of those will not vote against their own interests. It's only when they have to choose between "not my best interest, but at least there won't be drag queens in my son's school" and "probably my best interest, but they also want to put drag queens in my son's school. So they're probably lying about the good things, politicians always lie". They'll choose the latter.
It doesn't matter that there is no political party that wants to put drag queens in schools. It is only important that aunt Ben thinks that is true.
If you focus on the economy, and ignore the social left, will the left gain enough votes to have power.
Only when you have power you can slowly go for the social issues.
This is what the right has done in the US. They've been claiming they'll bring the good economy, and just leave the social issues as they were before. Slowly the US economy has drifted rightwards. So much so that the only 2 parties are economic right. So now it is the time to turn the social right on. They went full fascism and are killing the minorities and whoever supports them in protest.
Just follow the same playbook. "We're leaving the rules as they are, we won't engage in discussions about culture wars", "but we're gonna tax the rich and give US citizens universal healthcare". Once both parties are pro-universal healthcare, go for public transport, then anti-anti-union measures. And once the economy is leftwing enough, you can start with the culture wars.
Always remember how much the party, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc all hated Bernie Sanders. Freaked out about him more than Donald Trump back in 2015/2016. Then the cold shoulder to to AOC, a Bernie Sanders campaign organizer, and the squad, most of them endorsed Bernie in 2020. Then the lack of support for Mamdami even after he won the primary from the federal level democratic elected public servants in the northeast/NY. Vote blue no matter who Schumer, Booker, Torres, etc were pretty absent in the NYC mayor race after Mamdami won the primary
Besides that, remember that the US involvement in the Vietnam war was escalated and then into a full scale invasion with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was a moderate that threw a bone to the left with the great society initiative but at his core he was not a part of the progressive wing of the party. His evil in Vietnam far overshadowing Great Society would be the end of New Deal Democrats and contribute heavily to the decline of the US because of the cost the the Vietnam war would do the US let alone the millions of innocent killed in southeast asia.
The progressive wing of the democratic party was only really powerful with FDR and it mostly died with FDR and Huey Long and the new deal probably wouldn't have been as progressive as it was without pressure from the left of FDR from Huey Long. After that it was nonsense ever since Harry Truman was pushed as FDRs running mate in the 1944 democratic national convention. Truman was the choice for the business interest side of the democratic party rather than FDR's previous VP. They didn't want FDR's previous VP to president if FDR died in office. So we got shitty Truman and in general every president since has been a bad person at least behind the scenes when it comes to foreign policy. A lot of slaughtering of non-Europeans whites.
Lack of success post Lyndon Johnson had the party trying to find success and they stumbled into with Bill Clinton who crashed the primary and beat Al Gore for the nominee in 1992. The important background for both Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton is that in the 60s, they were Barry Goldwater supporters. Hilary herself was a high school young republican and worked the republican presidential campaign for a Rockefeller. Barry Goldwater is a foundation for both the modern republican and democratic party. For republicans, he was the foundation Ronald Reagan's economic policy path. And the democratic party, their economic path and also their approach to social politics.
Goldwater was like, appeal to racists but don't be too racist to appeal to the rest of the country and win national elections. Nixon did it better and then Reagan perfected it. So then the democrats with the Clintons come in as economic conservatives but socially liberal and pulled some of the thunder from republicans. They were Goldwater economist for people that weren't hyper racist, hyper religious, hyper anti-LGBTQ. And Obama is a part of that lineage. Effectively they're all pro-color and sexuality diversity but they're conservatives when it comes to economics and foreign policy.
And it shows with how measured they were in when they adopted pro-X views. Like listen to Bernie Sanders on gay people in the 90s or 80s, he may even have writing from the 70s, and compare them to the Clintons and Obama up to like 2012. Bernie was the worst contrast for the old guard of the democratic party in 2016 and 2020. Bernie has been consistent since the 60s whereas the Clintons would identify as republicans as high schoolers or up to their early 20s.
That era of 80s/90s era democrats that came to power are now just losing their grip on power. And I bring up Bernie because so many of those old 80s/90s era democrats that dominated the party to this day are about Bernie's age and their political allies/protoges/descendants like Obama, Wasserman Schultz, Booker, Jefferies, etc aren't lining up to be big public supporters of the new progressive wing of the party that started with AOC and the squad back in 2018. Because the party is in the middle of an inner identity struggle and they're on the Goldwater/Clinton economics and foreign policy/intervention wing of the party. They're the pro-mass surveillance wing of the party too. Those old ones, compare what they were doing in the 60s and 70s compared to Bernie. In the civil rights era where they all love to draw credibility from, they were hyperfocused on their careers/moving up their state political machines. Bernie was an activist and it would show once he finally got into politics and became a mayor. edit - I looked it up, Bernie supported the towns first pride parade in 1983 while the rest of the party heavyweights wouldn't really become pro-gay marriage until just about after the 2012 election - lol for the social progressive high-grounding the 2016 Clinton campaign was portraying
Mamdami is on the progerssive wing and in California Beccera will be in that old Clinton/Obama/Biden wing. And Biden's 4 years were actually the best of the three but that's after so much complacency and foreign invasion/politiking to neglect the domestic people. Biden was decades of assholery but not nearly as assholery as say like Newt Gingrich to 4 years of being OK. Like how they were all late to the pro-gay marriage party, they're all already late to supporting the new progressive wing of the party (should have started in 2016 or at least 2018). Pushing Biden in 2020 was their pushback against economic progressivism. 2024 was unrelenting pushback against supporting Palenstine and ending Isreali apartheid to see themselves fail again like 2016
American's live in Barry Goldwater's America
I hope I’m alive when this guy becomes president.
If they can ratify an amendment that allows naturalized citizens to run, that is.
We got a rapist in office. Why should we give a shit about law, if it is solely in service to evil?
Yeah I forgot about that part.
Maybe they'll try to do that for a president musk.
Watch the republican and democrat party join together in the next decade to this new way of thinking. That’s what happened in Mexico when PRI and PAN were mortal enemies but when a new party threatened their power, they decided to join forces.
That’s the typical story whenever socialism seems to be gaining traction: the liberal and social democrat parties join forces with the fascists because they are fundamentally all bourgeois parties.
Our politics today are pretty much an exact duplicate of the last days of the weimar republic. Centrists will sacrifice everything to keep progressives out of power-- even catering far to the right and ultimately ceding power to them so a fascist can emerge and tear everything down.
Because unfortunately as much as the "both sides" thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system. The government mostly only works for them now. That being said Democrats are still the only party doing anything for us. Meh
You're so close!
Generally bullshit, eh?
For labor, USA has been surpassed by Poland; their pay is slightly less, but benefits for workers include healthcare, family leave, vacation, and many other benefits most US workers can barely dream of.
How is it that labor parties throughout Europe can somehow outperform Democrats? We've been surpassed by Eastern Europe, even though they have far less money. The results are undeniable.
BoTh SiDeS are anti-labor and pro-corporate. We've got two parties that are very happy to argue about bathrooms for YEARS while doing NOTHING.
BoTh SiDeS are anti-labor and pro-corporate. We’ve got two parties that are very happy to argue about bathrooms for YEARS while doing NOTHING.
You're so close!
Republicans obstruct, which is so much easier to do in our system. And yet, Democrats have still passed some leglslation that's helpful. Republicans haven't.
You easily see the corruption across the entire system. What you don't see is that it still matters, and that the parties are not the same.
Many billionaires donate to both parties. There are a few who lean more heavily towards one side but mostly it's bribery for unelected power.
Because unfortunately as much as the “both sides” thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system.
Make it make sense.
Saying "both are the same" isn't correct in most cases, but when it comes to class war, both parties are generally captured by capital to a similar degree.
They're both going to the same place. The democrats want to be kinder about it.
Edit: they're also the only ones it might be possible to turn.
This reads like you're trying to blunt his message.
Well duh. It's a lot of the reason we are where we are. Nobody gives a shit about the working class, so people switch back and forth from red to blue and back, always disappointed in whoever is in power.
Lost its focus on everything except their job security and their corporate donors. Toss in a few strong words defending rainbow crosswalks to appease the masses.
When did they have that focus?
I'd argue at the state level they often have, it just gets lost in the noise. At least in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where I've been.
I’d argue at the state level they often have
Californians would like a word.
You have to seperate out Dem establishment/leadership and their base/new politicians. The party can have these values if we primary often and hard enough. We really need to find a way to keep people engaged.
At least into the '80s. It was gone by '92.
The backbone of society should get the lions share of support.
while the gop threw them away
SPOT ON! Get this dude to the White House!!!!
Seems like every democrat is saying the exact same thing he's saying. The strategy of the Dems seems to be be "Democrats suck. So vote for me, a democrat, because I agree with you about how much democrats suck!"
The real problem is the US has become a fascist society. But Americans are too narcissistic to do any introspection so instead just look for someone to blame. But keep telling yourself that it's the fault of democrats that you're too obsessed with your image on social media to just cast a vote for the not-fascists.
No shit. They also painted themselves into a corner by allying with radical SJW ideologues that are thirsty to censor anyone that slightly challenges their ideology
The current Republican administration literally banned the phrase "clean water", shut the fuck up.
Really convincing me to vote blue no matter who! The anger and "bonus hole" bullshit pushed by the dummies over the last decade has blown up spectacularly in the faces of those who peddled the bullshit. Gl winning with your dogshit attitude 🫡
So why are you part of it?
"If capitalism bad why you buy stuff" ass question
This guy isn't simply buying stuff, he's the ceo of a corporation also people buy stuff because they have no other choice this guy has plenty of choice to run with other parties if he doesn't like what the democrats do.
Oh, people do have a choice. Buy stuff or be misreable and/or die.
Same as Mamdani, even if his choices' consequences are less extreme for him (get a platform big enough to make change even if not the ideal one, or fall into irrelevance having achieved nothing).
Purists like you are the resson the left is so divided. Nothing like waiting for the (nonexistant) perfect candidate while letting psss the (existing) unperfect candidates.
Purists like you are the resson the left is so divided.
Red and blue have been cycling in power for the past century ruling with the same authoritarian policies, none of these two are "leftist" they are both shit.
No offense, you give the same vibes as anarchists that say it is better to not vote at all to show they are against the state.
What would be your plan, Mamdani making a party of his own and getting nowhere because he has no platform to stand on, allowing a Republican or an average Democrat to get in power instead?
In an ideal world, he wouldn't need to use Democrat's party as a platform. But we aren't in an ideal world, so if you want change, you need an existant platform to stand on.
What would be your plan, Mamdani making a party of his own and getting nowhere because he has no platform to stand on
Running for corrupted parties with a century old history of doing shit will not get anyone anywhere. If you actually want to get some change the best option is to build and support a new platform where to stand on, like the one you are using right now.
And where will that end up? Oh, in one of the two biggest parties getting the votes anyways because it's where most people go to, but with a worse candidate.
But go on about how it is more useful to be irrelevant and correct than relevant and half correct.
Honestly, the thing I don't see going anywhere is this conversation. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not gonna change yours. If you think it's more useful to start from zero, that's your belief, I got mine. Hope you have a great day.
And where will that end up?
In a democracy if you get elected you end up in power.
To be part of the change he is asking for
Just more lip service from the fake leftist that is mamdani.
All downvotes of this comment will be from simping mamdanistans
Isn't he doing more for leftism than you are?
What is he doing, exactly, if anything at all?
A non-zero amount, which is more than can be said about people whining toothlessly on the internet
Name one thing he's done.
Fine, he balanced the NYC budget. This is the part where you either admit you're wrong, call that fake news, or pretend that it doesn't count for some reason. I can tell from your previous posts that the first isn't going to happen so which of the other two options are you going to pick?
Explain what you mean by "balancing the NYC budget" (i.e. how, elaborate). A source would be cool, while you're at it.
FYI, if you've read my posts, you'd know I don't retort w "fake news" as a counterargument.
This looks good.
The article says he's doing it through taxing the rich, but what that tax looks like isn't really mentioned much from what I can tell. That's the only other thing I'd be interested in knowing.
Though I retain suspicions on him due to his flip-flop stance on Palestine; and unfortunately one mayor can't fix the whole of USA.
He's doing a tax increase on second homes in NYC that is worth over $5 million dollars and tax on private jets landing in NYC, IIRC. All the while, he's trying to negotiate with the Katie Hochul to get her support for a billionaire tax.
That's solid.
We ask this about Schumer and you never have an answer.
Why do you hold progressives to such a high standard while making endless excuses for do-nothing geriatrics?
I never made any excuses for anyone.
If you have unresolved anger towards others, take it out on them.
I'm lucky enough to live in a civilised country, rather than the shit show that is 'Murica
I have no skin in the game of New York politics, but I'm downvoting you because you're a fucking idiot who is just trying to be a dick because you crave attention
Unless, you're actually as stupid as you appear to be
I which case, while I despise you,
I pity you even more
I mean... he is moving the overton window 🤷
And smashing the assumption leftist candidates can't win general elections.
"I believe Democrats believe exactly what Fox News says they believe" would have been a more succinct, more honest post.
A good example is trans rights in sports. It seems fairly obvious to me...
While your larger point is worthwhile, this part is indistinguishable from the positions where it "seemed obvious" that africans not as smart as europeans, or that women were not as mature as men, or that the poor were less deserving of the rich.
Trans women who go through HRT are essentially indisinqyusihable in ability from Cis women. There may be a reasonable bar in some sports for trans girls who are old enough to have undergone male puberty and aren't on HRT or puberty blockers, but blanket bans aren't at all supported by science.
Personally, my response is "these are children." Yes, our daughters should be free from being assaulted by fully mature men. But so should our sons.
I agreed with the post until there might be a reasonable bar part. When a person switches hormones the body follows. The whole concern about trans folks is also truly rooted in bigotry, not sportsmanship. Let’s not forget that part.
Which studies? Done with what methodology? And what are the rebuttals against their claims? Did the study differentiate trans women who are not on HRT, newly on HRT, and on HRT past the several year adjustment period? Same question, for age at which HRT or puberty blockers began. And does the reported difference fall outside the expected range for feminine athletes? Did the study include a group of cis boys or cis men as contrast? Were trans boys and trans men also included to show the presumable equivalent disadvantage?
There have been some infamous studies recently done by transphobes and cited as evidence of their bigoted viewpoint. Science thankfully doesn't itself care about politics and these studies will either be refuted or confirmed as more science is done.
And as I alluded to before, even if merely having been assigned male at birth gave some advantage in competitive sport, that advantage is entirely irrelevant to scholastic activities and only relevant to professional conpetitions if it puts trans women substantially outside the range of expected competitors.
You didn't even read the fucking articles you linked. You just googled articles for trans athletics and vomited them here, assuming they would back your claims.
From your first paper:
While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research.
So the first article contradicts your claims and explicitly says there is no evidence to justify sports bans.
TW amateur volleyball players displayed similar exercise-related performance results when compared with CW volleyball players. However, TW showed lower haemoglobin and total testosterone levels than CM amateur volleyball players. Being TW was a negative predictor for handgrip strength, CMJ performance and V̇O2max compared with CM.
The second paper you linked contradicts your claims. You're full of shit.
@underThunder @WoodScientist I have no skin in this game, but you just lost any argument you were making.
Did anything I say have anything at all to do with academics?
Yes. In America -- the country which the Democrats are a political faction of -- the only places where government has standing to regulate the specifics of sport as such are in those leagues attached to schools. Professional and recreational leagues are only governed by employment and public-access law.
(You're free to, say, create a private club that allows only white men and play whatever games you want. You just won't get any tax breaks or liability protection, and would have a hard time renting stadiums or selling coverage of your matches)
And since you decided to focus only on the trans issue in my comment I should remind you the thrust of my argument was in regards to Democrats putting identity politics before good governance
I'm sorry, I thought my position on the matter was clearly While you may have a valid point regarding the democratic party's over-reliance on identity based anti-bigotry and their messaging to non-aligned voters, the sole supporting example you provided of either was phrased in a way that I found so odious and wrong-headed as to render whatever else you said irrelevant.
Throwing minorities under the bus is neither good governance nor good politics. Especially when said minority is facing prohibitions so ornerous that they could be fairly described as genocidal.
(Although genocide is not strictly possible for any LGBTQ+ letter since trans and queer humans have existed for as long as humans have and would reappar naturally even if you killed every last living example.)
Science doesn’t support your belief that trans women have physical advantages. Do you understand the role that hormones have and the effects on the body?
Whether the comment you responded to is based in reality or not, you're playing into the described perception by responding this way. The best response to someone who clearly doesn't give a shit about trans people, and won't no matter what you say, is something like:
Trans people make up >1% of the population, trans athletes even less so. Let's focus on issues that impact all of us like healthcare and income inequality.
Don't go along with the culture war bullshit. That's the only strategy they have. Talk about real solutions to real problems and you will win others over. Probably not the person you are talking to, but that rarely happens anyway. Others listening or reading will take notice. That's exactly what people like Bernie and Mamdani do. It's why people listen to them. They don't get sucked into some pointless debate about hormone levels with people who are only bringing it up to distract from real problems.
This is a great point. Thanks for stating it. I am often too easily roped into these kinds of arguments. Logical ones are so much better.
Wow, you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about do you? Is vomiting fox news talking points all that Republicans can do nowadays? Do better.
It seems fairly obvious to me that a trans woman should not be able to compete in women’s sports simply because of the biological advantage of having a male body.
Who cares what the actual science says, you're a trust your gut type, aren't yah? If the science says trans women have no advantage, that doesn't matter, because "underThunder" jacks off to trans porn and views trans women as men. So we just have to go with their assumptions, science be damned.
Yes. And they contradict your claims. You just vomited studies without even reading them.
Do not take the "Trans Bait."
MAGA has nothing going for it, so Trans rights are the only thing the they have, because it doesn't gain votes from anyone, and it loses center and independent votes. So they will try to steer EVERY conversation to Trans Rights, and we have to IGNORE it, not engage, and pivot to one of the many MAGA problems, and keep the conversation there.
Do NOT respond to any Trans Bait, and insist on talking about Corruption (Weaponization Fund, Ballroom, Pool, Arch, etc.) Treason (Jan 7, Weaponization Fund), Pedophilia (Epstein Files), Incompetence (War, Affordability, etc), and more.
I believe the condescension you mentioned is real, but it’s magnified tenfold because we're all trapped in media echo chambers. Most normal people aren't obsessing over these niche topics, but the media and political machines weaponize them to keep us divided.
It perfectly exposes the hypocrisy on free speech on both sides. The left’s online gatekeepers treat disagreement as a moral failing, effectively chilling free speech through social conformity. On the flip side, the right screams about censorship while using state power to ban books, police classroom speech and insist that Christianity is the only acceptable religion. Both parties rely on these culture wars to control what we can say and think, all while abandoning any real, material help for the working class.
Republicans have just done a better job of identifying the issues facing everyday people and campaigning on them, but they rarely have a plan to actually fix them. Spencer Pratt's website for LA mayor is a great example of this. While he highlights the exact issues hurting regular people, there is zero substance or realistic plan on how any of it actually gets done.
it’s always ‘you’ll eventually come around to seeing things the right way, like I do’.
Have you heard the phrase "irreconcilable differences"? It's argued this way because support for trans rights, abortion, human rights in general, or fascism versus democracy are not negotiable positions. There's no middle ground or compromise that can be made on issues like these. I agree with you though that the Democrat party does not actually represent the working class.
AGREED! YOU are Right and EVERYONE else is WRONG! Which is EXACTLY why Democrats with YOUR Viewpoint keep WINNING!
Don't breed
In Alabama, when they were considering bans on youth transgender therapy, one of the GOP senators made them do a study. It turned out that over the past decade there were, on average, something like 5 minors undergoing any kind of gender-affirming treatment. 5. In the whole state of Alabama. They decided it wasn't worth implementing a whole government oversight system to oppress that few people.
Now think about how many of the people, under 18, are both self-aware enough to realize they're trans-fem (because no one raises a fuss about trans-masc athletes) and super excited about competing in women's sports. We are talking about a handful of people across the whole country.
And that's what makes them such a great wedge issue for the right. Essentially no one has personally encountered a transgender youth athlete, so they can make up whatever stories they like, based on "sounds reasonable."
Meanwhile, competitive sport is essentially all about rewarding genetic freaks. People with some gene mutation that lets their muscles work faster, lets their blood carry more oxygen, lets the build mass faster. If you worry about the biological advantage that a chemically suppressed hormone might have, you're starting down a path where you have to police what other biological traits might give someone advantage. It'll be "too tall to compete in basketball."
just want to note that trans masc athletes are de facto banned from all competitive sports because they take testosterone, a performance enhancing substance that disqualifies them from competing. thats why no one talks about them. as soon as you think about including trans mascs in mens sports you open up a whole messy can of worms about policing hormone levels, which spills over into womens sports and leads to a fundamental reexamination of sport as a whole, leading back to your point about sports rewarding inherent genetic advantages.
honestly i think sports and structured competition in general is fundamentally flawed. taken to its logical conclusion it becomes a technological competition, which people introduce more and more convoluted rules to prevent, ultimately undermining and corrupting the original purpose of the competition. you can see it in every single sport; swimming banning fancy suits and swimming underwater too far, cycling banning aerodynamic optimization, running banning fancy shoes, vehicle racing banning all kinds of technology, etc. every sport runs into it eventually, and our bodies are just the next untapped frontier for technological improvement. taken to its logical conclusion one questions why we bother with sports at all, if we aren't going to seek ever greater improvements.
Reality is non consistent with your claims of biological advantage.
And this is why we don't put civil rights up to a "gut check." You're simply wrong. You have a bigoted belief that trans women have a male sex, so you assume that trans women perform the same as cis men in sports. Your bigotry blinds you to reality. Your gut is just a bigoted assumption. The actual science shows that trans women do not have advantages over cis women in sports. Or the advantage is so minute that it's dwarfed by advantages like the income of your parents.