Why do transgender people skew towards being Liberal?

 

Why do transgender people skew towards being Liberal?

This is a question that has a simple and logical answer.  Liberals put a greater priority on the rights of the individual than they do for the community's need for individuals to surrender their rights to the collective for its preservation.  For example, who do we value more?  Do we value the contentious objector to a war fought for questionable reasons, such as Vietnam?  Or, do we value the drafted soldier who may give up his life fighting in the same war where our nation's goals were not achieved?  Whose rights matter more, the individual or the community?

Historically, gender was viewed as a binary in Western culture. Either one was born male or female, and then slotted into the roles assigned to the associated gender.  Household and community tasks were assigned to the genders, and rarely did things not match accepted Western cultural norms. Reproduction was a higher priority than it is today, as both a large number of women died in childbirth, and many children died before they were adults. Homosexuality was discouraged, and being transgender was totally out of the question. As you can guess, people who did not meet these norms had to hide their true selves in order to survive.  

The 20th century brought us great change.  We had 2 world wars.  We entered the computer age. And Christine Jorgensen made news with her sex change (now called gender confirmation/correction surgery). Things people took for granted as unchangeable could now be changed.  Gender may be the first attribute assigned to identify a person, and traditionally has been based on a person's visible genitalia for good reason. This can scare people with weak self identities. These people tend to cling to traditional ways of identifying people, and reject transgender people as freaks - simply because they don't understand the emotional pains of people born with a brain that develops with the characteristics of one gender, while the body develops with the characteristics of the other. In short, those that reject transgenders as being weird are simply looking to conserve traditional ways of understanding the world.

When people are rejected by a collective group of people, they gravitate to others that will accept them. Liberals tend to be much more diverse in views and expressions, as they accept non-traditional ways of defining the world.  This is why transgenders tend to associate with liberals - we are accepted for who we are, and not being forced to comply with others' ways of looking at the world.

Yet, there will always be some transgender people who identify with others that hold "conservative" values - even when those others reject them because of being transgender.  I'll never understand why some people keep trying to belong to groups that would reject them. But then, humans are a tribal species, and none of us enjoys being rejected by our peers.  One trans person I've met moved to a "conservative" region of my state and decided to go to the local church - and was rejected because she was transgender.  I don't know what happened to this trans woman since then, but I know the rejection must have hurt her very much.

So I have to ask, have you noticed how political conservatives are using the "fear of the other" to control the masses?  Look at Trump's lie, saying that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH are stealing dogs and cats, then eating them.  This has "given permission" to crazy people to terrorize the residents of this city, and has forced schools, offices, and public events to be shut down for public safety. Contrast Trump's lies with objective reality - the Haitians have been a net benefit to Springfield, law abiding people who have helped in the rebirth of the city.  No wonder why transgenders skew towards being liberal - we have suffered like most of the groups that have been defined as "the other".

So, what do you believe and why do you believe it?

 

Another sad day for America

 

When I started this entry, I had no idea of exactly when the next Trump indictment was coming, but I knew that it should be happening soon.  Too much seems to be going on, and I thought that the next shoe was to drop soon.  And drop it did on June 9th.  Trump was indicted in the Southern District of Florida on 7 felony counts, and now we're waiting for the next indictment - most likely from Georgia.

The trouble with waiting for an indictment is that the public sees little progress towards the goal.  In the case of our ex-president, one political tribe believes in the rule of law and order, while the other simply wants power.  The funny thing is that we're seeing psychological projection on both a micro level and at a macro level.  Trump keeps saying that he is a victim, someone who never does anything wrong.  Yet, he projects the crimes he commits onto the very people charged with enforcing the laws.  At a macro level, we see the GOP claiming election fraud and the weaponization of the Justice Department.  And yet, this was done by the GOP to keep Trump in power.  Tribal loyalty kept a large part of the population from exercising common sense, and is allowing the lunatics in that party to run its asylum.

I'm not sure of what is worse, having an ex-president run for office who may be on trial for crimes committed in 2, 3. or 4 jurisdictions (both state and federal), or a party who can't put up someone better to run for our nation's highest office.  As I see things, the Georgia case (regarding election interference) against Trump (as leaked to the public) is strong enough to get a felony conviction. And the Federal case (regarding wrongful possession of government documents) is also strong enough to get a felony conviction. Only the New York case may end up resulting in a misdemeanor conviction. Why can't they support someone better for the presidency?

What I fear most is that this clown gets reelected while in trial.  How do we deal with someone awaiting trial, and who would be immune from being put on trial once he swears the oath of office?  I would hope that the courts keep him from taking the oath until his criminal trials have ended.  But if not, I'll ask a simple question: 

Where is John Wilkes Booth when we need him?

I am disgusted at what America has become

 

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about non-transgender issues.  A former friend triggered some thinking about favors and about interpersonal relationships.  My exhaustion at work has gotten me to think about my own mortality.  The daily news has gotten me to think about the nation America is becoming - and I have gotten disgusted.

The other day, TCL talked about a book club whose meeting she was going to attend.  TCL is much more concerned about the Covid-19 virus than many people, and she would prefer to do things outside with people as long as the weather permits.  The book club leader scheduled an indoor meeting at which she planned to go maskless.  This bothered TCL, so she suggested meeting outdoors, as it was going to be a nice day. When the book club met, all the people save one had been vaccinated. Although the one person didn't give her vaccination status, claiming it was a personal matter, we both think she wanted to hide the fact she didn't get her arm stuck.

It seems that most people in the most heavily vaccinated areas are proud to mention their vaccination status, and it has become an indicator of one's political stance.  Although many Republicans have had their arms stuck, there is a correlation between being unvaccinated and being both a registered Republican and Trump Supporter.  In the case of the book club leader, she comes from a highly Republican part of town.  Luckily, TCL was able to get the library to remind the book club leader that masks were required indoors, and that no exceptions would be made.

The above incident ended in an acceptable way.  No one got hurt, and everyone wore a mask.  But what happens when unvaccinated tourists attempt to go out to eat in a NYC restaurant?  Recently, 3 unvaccinated Texans attempted to do just that at Carmine's and started a fight with the hostess who only did her job - ask to inspect the potential patrons' proofs of vaccination.  The hostess was sent to the hospital, while the 3 Texans only got charged with misdemeanors.  If I were the proprietor of the restaurant, I'd have come out with a baseball bat and stopped the fight with extreme prejudice.  My justification would be simple - I have to protect both my staff and my patrons to the best of my ability. Mind you, I don't think my actions would pass muster with a lawyer.  But they might pass muster with a NYC jury.

We are now a country of two warring tribes.  One gives a damn about what happens to their neighbors, and will make sacrifices to keep them whole.  The other tribe is selfish, and doesn't care about what their actions and policies do to people who don't agree with them.  Luckily, Covid-19 is much more likely to kill an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person.  Maybe, we'll have proof that Darwinian selection can help with issues like this, and we can again have a nation I can be proud of.

 

 

 

PS: I've heard of an alternate explanation for the incident at the restaurant which puts the Texans in a much different light.  The fight may not have been started by the three women at first, but when their husbands met them at the restaurant.  I'll post more on this incident when I have more information....