I'm relating strongly to your feeling of relief. I was shocked at how much better I feel, knowing that we won't have to endure four more years with Harris as the puppet figurehead of a regime that endorses sex-denying mutilation of minors and the erasure of women.
But I have a slightly more optimistic view of the activism of Democrat TERFs like Kara Dansky. You might be right that the Democrats will never see reason, since they're so heavily invested in trans ideology, both financially and in terms of their morally superior self-branding.
Dansky would love to see the Democratic party evolve, but in the meantime, she's a realist. She works with anyone whose views are consonant with hers, regardless of party or sex. She partners with Republican feminists, usually female athletes and their allies. These women are beasts on the issues of women's prisons and sports. Organizations like Independent Women's Network are doing tremendous work that mirrors the work on the left (with, of course, the exception of abortion).
Also, because she's an attorney with expertise in criminal justice, Dansky understands the legal ramifications of every lawsuit on the docket in the U.S. courts. She communicates with TERFS across the Pond. The other day, JK Rowling and Richard Dawkins quoted her on social media. She's not sitting around waiting for the Democrats to change, she's a change maker, through her actions and her words. Her books, The Abolition of Sex, and The Reckoning, although written to educate Democrats, speak to anybody who cares about the issue. Her reach is broad and non-partisan, and she's indefatigable.
The Democrat party may never relinquish its endorsement of trans ideology because of the financial incentives, but the tide seems to be turning, especially if Trump is well advised and doesn't make the typical Republican error of blowing up the very thing they're trying to fix. I already see a flaw in Trump's promise, which is that he wants to prevent people of any age from transitioning. This is a bridge too far and doomed to backfire, because ADULTS have the right to bodily autonomy, and this libertarian argument will resonate with members of both parties. Personal health decisions should not be legislated as long as an adult has all the facts and is in a position to understand the risks and give informed consent, with the caveat that the rights of women and children must be protected and the term "gender" is stripped of its religious privileges under the law.
It's my expectation that Dansky and others like her will never back down. Her slogan is "if we can be heard, we will win." This assumes that people are capable of listening and the message is intelligible, regardless of party affiliation. One way or the other, we will be heard and we will win.
I love Kara Dansky, and if anyone would get me to vote for a Democrat again, it would be her! She is possibly the ONLY one. I really think we should push for her to start running for 2028. NOW. I wish I had the money to buy copies of her books and just hand them out to everyone I know (as well as people in positions of power). Like you wrote, she has a way of understanding this topic via the legalities, and she explains things in a clear, rational way. I think we need a new party--the Reality Party.
Thank you for this post, Gary! I'm a lesbian living in British Columbia, a.k.a Canada's California. (Where lots of CA draft dodgers went) There was a huge Conservative surge in our recent elections for the same reasons Trump won. Normal gays, Normal lesbians, Normal parents and anyone else who wants to avoid Government control of our thoughts and words and ability to make decisions for our children without losing custody or being thrown in jail, voted out of the hope for a more sane world. I agree that it is crazy and bizarre that Trump is the choice most likely to enable a return to sanity, but that is where we are. That is the world that DEI, the reboot of middle class White-saviourism and Leftist Luxury beliefs have created. People in both Canada and the USA who are surprised by this result are clearly not paying attention. I hate all of the bullshit that is supposedly done in 'our name' to protect Queer Kids. It is abhorrent. I am glad to know you're taking time for your mental health, but also very relieved to read this post. It helps me feel less alone.
Thanks Gary! Your work is excellent and your perspective is so important in this upside down world we have been stuck in. I never thought I could vote for Trump but I did for all of the reasons you have been talking about and you and I are not alone. I really believe that if my daughter had not been encouraged by schools and other trusted adults that it just would not have happened that she became misinformed that she could “change sex”. When I realized that the Biden administration I voted for had dismantled title IX on day one and that our pediatrician and institutions we had trusted were all going along with this lie I was devastated and furious. I had questions. I was shamed into silence and told I was abusive when the pronoun police moved into my house. I dodged a bullet because I very nearly took her to a gender clinic. Something felt so wrong about it in my gut. I wrote to the president, I spoke to the school principal and no one cared.
My daughter still holds these beliefs but we now live in a state where “gender identity” isn’t taught and encouraged in schools. Her ideas around hormones and surgery have softened a bit and she knows that these are not a cure all. In some ways I have still lost her but I am hopeful that with the new administration shining a light this very real issue that has effected many families - they can save other families from never being exposed to this bullshit in the first place. It seems so incredibly obvious that castrating feminine boys and giving double mastectomies to tomboys is the ultimate in homophobia. It needs to end and kids need to be encouraged to be themselves!
OMG...Amen!! Amen!! This, this this!! Thank you. As the mother of a gay man who is trying to get him to see the point of view you express here (and mine which is that this is sick conversion therapy) YES!!!!!!! The other notion I'm trying to dispel in his head is that schools aren't pushing this and that a select few that do are outliers. To Vance's point about "Martha, do you hear yourself? How many apartment complexes is it ok for gangs to take over?" If it's even ONE school, shut that sh-t down - now!
I hope your son comes to grips with being gay, and how great a life he can have as a gay man. As a "trans woman," life would be infinitely harder. I can't believe that any "real" straight man wants a trans, and certainly no gay guy wants a trans woman either. It has to be an incredibly lonely place to be. So I hope he remains gay and discovers just how fabulous that can be!
I'm exhausted by it all but also feel a sense of relief. I'm also focused on contentment too, I'm not writing as much new content. The Democratic party lost their way. The country showed how sick they are of the direction they were going. Now we need to create positive change especially in protecting kids and vulnerable adults from gender ideology and medicalization. We all have a lot of work to do. Let's get to it!
Gary Lucia I just wanted to express my gratitude for your posts on this substack. I'm sure we have minor disagreements on economic policies and religious freedom, but I'm so encouraged that there are gay men like me who have always wondered why we were saddled with "gender fluid", "queer", "non-binary", and "trans". Even worse, why the strategic targeting of children in schools? I bet so many more people would be thrilled if drag queens had "senior reading hour" at nursing homes. In no cases is it acceptable for drag queens to be paraded in front of children.
Glad you’re feeling up to posting again. I wondered where your voice went. I am so relieved also and feeling hopeful about so many things, for the first time since I realized the scope of Pharma capture a good 25 years ago. Go MAHA*MAGA!!!🇺🇸🙏🏻🇺🇸🙏🏻🇺🇸
wow, completely flabbergasted to hear vance actually understand the scam and the harm of gender affirming care. that really amazed me. and thats something gender activists didnt think was possible just a few years ago. the way the republicans have addressed gender ideology has been amazing, from my point of view unexpected.
i didnt vote for kamala or trump. since i live in california it wouldnt have mattered. but i voted red for state assembly and congress, due to dems support for gender ideology, after voting dem my entire life.
OK, I know this is an old post. But I'm a kindred spirit here. I voted for Dan Brown when Kennedy died because I thought Obamacare would be an expensive disaster. My first Republican vote ever. Then I ended up voting for Trump in 2016 because The New York Times made me do it. How? They went so insanely overboard on their criticism of him that I thought, "This guy has been in the public eye for over 30 years, and up until now, most people loved him." So I watched his speeches, and what he said seemed reasonable: make America work for the ordinary guy once again. So I voted for him in 2016, '20, and '24. Not that it made any difference in Massachusetts. It really was kind of an F-you vote.
Now?
The "Democrats" have gone absolutely, friggin' insane! And I don't want to be their "rainbow diversity pet." No thanks. I can't imagine voting for them until they make a complete change. They used to be the party of sanity. Now they are a parody of a political party. Now that Trump is trying to cut drug costs, I'm just waiting for them to come out in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. They've lost their friggin' minds!
And yes. We normal gays have nothing to do with transing children. I'm horrified by what I see today. It's positively Iranian: get the sex change, or we throw you off the roof! I was a pretty girlish boy in the 60s. If I had been born in 2000 or later, I'd be a candidate for a sex change. OMG. I love being a GAY MAN! A sex change would have literally ruined my life.
With Trump, I feel like we have an actual president, not some bureaucratic functionary who is going to follow the rule of some shadowy elite donor class. It's great to see him push the boundaries, and actually work to put America first.
If Trump had won by a single vote, then there would be a moral dilemma here worth discussing. Since he didn't, your vote had the salutary effect of adding to the weight of the message that Democrats need to jettison their progressive politics and stop defending indefensible policies and programs.
Since I, too, am a gay man who cannot stomach the Democratic Party's active participation in trans activists' vicious campaign of censoring and slandering sex realists or the Democrats' normalization and facilitation of every element of the trans agenda, I have taken Trump's victory as a signal to bring the battle to the enemy. Buy that I mean not remaining silent when someone bemoans the fate that awaits the "LGBTQ+ community" under Trump and being proactive in discussions about what Dems need to do differently to regain the trust of the electorate. (Hint: Dump the Queers and the Trans.)
Just this morning I challenged a commenter in a highbrow liberal Substack who brought up Trump's threat to the alphabet "community" to tell us what he thinks a "queer" is and to make a list of the "queer rights" he believes are worth defending. If he's not a gay sex realist of a certain age, the commenter probably has no inkling that "queer" is antithetical to gay people because it isn't a sexual orientation (or, God help us, a gender identity) but a pose, a scene, and a cluster of learned attitudes and beliefs that are attractive to college-educated disaffected youth and adults who want to be seen as edgy. Doctrinaire queers don't believe in binaries such as gay/straight nor do they believe that people have stable and permanent sexual orientations, and they want to change society to fit their views. In other words, if queer is more than just the latest obnoxious youth culture, it is a type of politics. Thankfully, no court or legislature has yet seen fit to make the holders of a particular political view a legally protected class. That's why every middle aged straight MSNBC pundit who spouts off about protecting "LGBTQ+ rights" is talking through his hat. Just as there is no such thing as a "LGBTQ+ community," there is no single set of rights that pertain to all the different types of people who activists stuff under that preposterous umbrella.
Getting back to Vance and the normal gay guy vote, the question is whether or not the enemy of our enemy is truly a trustworthy friend. Don't get me wrong: some of my best friends are straight men. But even though I am a masculine gay man, I just can't warm up to the kind of charismatic bro Joe Rogan exemplifies. He might as well be exuding the aromas of stale cigar butts and dirty sweat socks. I am persuaded by the two sons of the British Empire - one from Northern Ireland, the other from Australia - who host the "Decoding the Gurus" podcast that Rogan is a credulous fan and promoter of conspiracy theories. I don't have the receipts, but they sure as heck do.
As far as Vance is concerned, more power to him if he translates his criticism of gender ideology into actionable policy and law. However, his acid-tongued comments during the campaign make me fear that he, like Bannon and others in Trump's orbit, is coming after America's liberal order, which is not to be confused with the Democratic Party, its platform or members. If it turns out to be all talk and no action, it's not my support Vance will need to scramble for but that of an irate base who took him literally and seriously.
Turning to the Trump and Trumpism, which have sucked all the life and principles out of the Republican Party, there is an unholy alliance of opportunists between Trump and the right wing Protestant and Catholic clerics-cum-activists who want to spark a religious culture war of their own over the next few years. It remains to be seen whether or not Trump will enable their agenda, where repealing the hard-won rights of gay and lesbian Americans features prominently. It has already begun with the baker and web design cases which, despite the dissembling in the opinions were not about upholding freedom of expression but codifying sectarian religious beliefs about sex in such a way that they trump gay people's preexisting civil rights.
Yes, we should always challenge, every time, those who use 'LGBTQ+' and ask what they mean. Usually, they don't know what they mean and it makes them stop and think. Easy to do in an IRL exchange or via an email response or comment, not so easy with pundits on TV. Luckily, TV news is on its death bed.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the religious right have the power they used to. Their numbers are dying too. (Remember that old bumper sticker from decades ago 'The Moral Majority is Neither'? Their voice is small and not so mighty anymore.) I think Gender is the biggest religion we have to fight against.
I also think that the "religious right" have come to terms with "normal gays." There are so many of us now who are openly rooting for other more conservative policies, that they see people like Scott Pressler, Brandon Straka, Rob Smith, Dave Rubin, Douglas Murray, et al, and the rest of us "normal gays" as allies, not enemies.
I agree that genderism is a larger social problem today than homophobic activism because most Democrats and liberal Independents defend it tenaciously, aggressively and loudly.
However, the religious right have the support of the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in the dissent in the web designer case:
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.
Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ibid.
“What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.
Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent. [2]
The implications of this opinion are highly alarming because it could be applied to bar gay and lesbian Americans from public accommodations of other kinds. It's likely the religious right will challenge marriage equality in the courts.
By the way, the majority's First Amendment analysis - that the baker and web site designer should not be forced to engage in acts of artistic expression that offended their beliefs - doesn't stand up, as the dissent pointed out elsewhere in their opinion. The majority will find a way to elevate so-called "religious freedom" over gay people's civil rights even in cases not involving freedom of expression if presented with the right case. At least that's my cynical prediction.
What is the point of protecting gay people if gay people don't recognize themselves? What is the point of gay marriage if gay people are told that a heterosexual woman can 'identify' as a gay man? There ARE no more 'gay bars' or gay businesses, as everything formerly 'gay' has been infiltrated by trans. If I'm reading the court opinion right (the legalese gobbledygook gives me a headache), for instance, a gay dating app for men would be able to bar 'trans men'. This would be welcome news to me, as there are literally no dating apps exclusively for gay men.
I host a talk radio show in Wisconsin and would like to interview you. Please send me your contact info if you are interested! - Meg Ellefson megonair@mwcradio.com
I'm just a "normal lesbian gal. What about the "normal lesbians?" Nobody ever mentions the lesbians, just the "L's." We get totally ignored. It's like we don't exist.
While I am 100% onboard with all the issues many of us are concerned about, primarily the medicalization of kids and the entrance of men into women and girls sports, it kind of flies all over me that because I, a lifelong Dem, voted for Harris, that some perceive me as some kind of immoral, souless, child abuser when nothing could be further from the truth. I agree whole heartedly that the Dems have gone too far to the left. I've become more of a middle roader as I've gotten older. But I just could NOT pull the handle, so to speak, for Trump. I just couldn't do it because there are so many other reasons why I couldn't vote for that man. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who voted for Trump, voted for Putin and their ilk. Voting for the wolf in sheeps clothing. Since 2018 I've been aware of the issues with men in women's spaces, men in women's sports, men "identifying" as lesbians, but most importantly and the biggest issue of all, the medicalization of kids. Its horrible, it's awful and I am 100% against it. But I could just not vote for the orange buffoon because of his treatment of WOMEN as a whole. He's a rapist, and for all we know, a child rapist. He's a misogynist, something he proves over and over again. Why would I vote for him? Was Kamala a perfect candidate? Absolutely not... she and Joe completely bobbled the Israel and Gaza situation. But I voted for a women, and a woman of color, to be president. But that does not make me an awful person, not like your piece suggests. I'm glad to see more gay men and lesbians getting on board with what's happening, but what kills me are my lesbian and gay friends turning a blind eye. I tried to engage one of my lontime male friends in conversation about some of the concerns we all have. He blew me off. That was a like a knife to my heart. I'm sorry, I just couldn't vote for Trump, no matter how much of a commonality I have with his platform on these issues. My props to all of you who did. The Dems definitely hung themselves by their own pitard several years ago and I knew four years ago that Trump was going to take it back this time around based on the issues of our concern. Anyway, this normal, but invisible, lesbian (who would have been considered gender dysphoric in my youth and have been trotted off to a gender clinic had there been such a thing in the 60's and 70's), just wanted to give my way more than two cents. I'm not awful person condoning experiements on children.
That is one thing that irritates me most about the Democrats--they talk about 'reproductive rights'...but does that include the right to reproduce? Because they are literally sterilizing children via 'gender-affirming care'. Children who don't have the capacity to understand that they may want to have children of their own one day.
I seriously believe the Democrats do not care at all about abortion rights. Obama ran with the campaign promise to codify Roe v Wade and he reneged on that promise. Democrats had a majority in his first two years. Abortion is the carrot-on-a-stick that keeps women terrified and voting D. Just look what they did in NY--they lied to voters about Prop 1. They called it an abortion amendment when in reality, it had nothing to do with abortion and enshrined 'gender identity' into law. That passed, and now women in NY have LOST their rights to be their own sex class.
If you Google Tara Reade, you will find many articles about her accusation against Biden--but most will be calling her a liar, or questioning her character. (So much for 'believe all women'.) The media, as we know, will do and has done anything to protect the Democratic candidates. Look how they (and Harris) lied to us for years about Biden's cognitive ability. Even though we could see he was failing with our own eyes. We have also seen with our own eyes just how creepy and disgusting Biden has been with young girls and women--touching them, sniffing them, making inappropriate comments. Anyway, I think this article is pretty damning: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/
Unlike Jean Carroll who was able to bring a case against Trump, while Tara Reade, like Edward Snowden who exposed the NSA spying on citizens, had to leave the country because of harassment and death threats. Last I heard she's in Russia like Snowden.
But you did condone it, via your vote. Not attacking you--pretty much all my friends and family did too (unless they didn't vote at all). I lived through 4 years of Trump already. I can't think of a single thing he did that is worse than pushing sex changes on children. If I had told you ten years ago that a political party believed that little boys who like pink and glitter and don’t like sports should be chemically castrated and turned into girls, you’d have gasped, ‘That’s horrible! So homophobic! Those Republicans are so hateful!”But, no. It’s the Democratic Party that’s doing that. Today. and they're PUSHING it.
As for the rapist allegations, do you know the name Tara Reade? She (and others) accused (very credibly) Biden of rape, but it was ignored by the media and the left. And Bill Clinton is one of the biggest scumbags on Earth, but revered by the Democrats.
Your perspective on being a normal lesbian who is ignored is interesting, because I follow so many lesbians who write on this topic, and I think they're brilliant. The gay men writers? Not so much. They disappoint me constantly. And in real life, I have zero gay male friends locally. I have a couple gay male friends who live far away, and they also voted for Kamala because 'she looks like me' and because the hatred for Trump is so strong. 'Ignored' is my daily existence. I sound the alarm and gay guys don't care. I have always envied the way lesbians band together and support one another...gay men do not do this.
Well, I wrote a big long response to this, but I was on my phone so this website wanted me to re-enter all of that information. Instead of writing all of that again, most of which I can't remember.. I'll say this. I DO NOT CONDONE THE MUTILATION OF CHILDREN. YES, it truly bothers me that the Dems have been taken in by all of this crap. This was a devisive election (well, aren't they all, really?). I guess, really, I don't have many lesbians friends these days as we've all scattered to the wind, but I'm surprised by the few I still am in contact with that have buried their heads in the sand. Yes, you're right, ten years ago I would have been surprised by this stuff, however as of eight years ago my eyes were opened. I do belong to a couple of FB groups comprised of mostly straight women, but we're all on the same page, and I know that a few of them did the same thing as you did.
RE: Joe Biden, I'll do more research, but please provide me with your links as well.
I know what a douchebag Clinton was ... I am 62. Remember it well and how crestfallen and horrified I was when he turned out to be the predator that he was/is.
I wish more gay men were like you and the other guys here and elsewhere. It's disheartening to me to know that so many guys just don't care.
I've lost a couple of friends already who have gotten pissed off by my posts on FB, and these were long time friends. Instead of approaching me to ask me why I have posted things that I have, they just blew me off.
I've always enjoyed your articles ... especially the one when you've shared your story about working for the mouse.
Politics is messy business. While our cause is a powerful one, I needed to vote for the person who is supportive of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. But those are women, not children, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and who have been betrayed by adults who are misguided and misdirected and yes, totally homophobic.
I feel for your position on Trump, and for your disappointment. It's hard to lose a hard-fought election. I live in WA State, where Satan would win if he were a Democrat, so I felt free to cast my third straight write-in vote for president. I farted in both directions, as I did in '20 and '16. That said, I'm (for now) glad to see Trump win, and especially with the most popular votes as opposed to 2016.
Why am I glad for now? Because I think the Democratic Party, and their media amen chorus, very badly needed to face a clear defeat, which this was. Either they will listen to the people and tack toward the center, or they will keep losing national elections. Not you in particular, but the party in general needs to be demoralized. They need to know that they have gone off the rails, and that's what elections are sometimes for.
I didn't view Trump as misogynistic in this campaign. It appears that you say so because of the abortion issue. I see it is an example of cynical posturing, first by the Republicans for decades, and now by the Democrats. I am a born researcher, and recently did the deep dive into All Things Abortion, and saw just how badly the Dems misrepresented it this year.
The sainted Roe v Wade decision (which, by the way, was criticized by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg for some good reasons) allowed states to prohibit late-term elective abortions. Almost all states subsequently set fetal viability as the limit. There was no carte blanche freedom for do anything at all. That has changed in recent years; today, as I write, there are 9 states plus the District of Columbia with no viability limit.
Deduct from the late-term numbers the abortions done to protect the life or health of the mother, or for reasons of gross fetal abnormality, and roughly 8,000 babies who could have lived are killed in the third trimester. Being a gay man with no direct stake in abortion, I still have a problem with murder, which is what I consider those 8,000 late-term elective abortions to be. It is not "misogynist" to oppose them, in my view. I do think women should have the right to choose, but not all the way through a pregnancy.
To put it differently: What did an 8-month fetus do to deserve being killed? You tell me, please.
As for your decision to vote for Harris because she's female, or because she's a "woman of color," well that's certainly your right, but I thoroughly and quite strongly reject the approach. Before I began casting write-in votes in '16, I voted for Obama twice, not because he was black but because I thought he was the better choice. Much better in '08, and marginally better in '12. I don't do affirmative action when I vote. Hate me now.
Anyone who voted for Trump voted for Putin? Oh come on. That's simply not rational as far as I'm concerned. The Ukrainian invasion should never have happened; that situation should have been negotiated to give the Donbass region autonomy, which is a fairly common approach in disputed regions around the world.
Is it OK if I make a note here about you being a 'born researcher'? I may take you up on this for help in the future!
I agree with all your points. One female friend told me recently that in some states if a woman has a miscarriage, the (necessary) procedure she has is considered an 'abortion'. Is that true?! Is it in cases where the fetus is not viable but has a heartbeat? Like you, I am a gay man so I don't have a stake in it, but I want to understand the issue as best I can.
I also think it is important to note the dishonesty and offensiveness of Democrats when they talk about Republicans being 'men wanting to control women's bodies'. This erases the voices of the millions of Republican women who are against abortion on moral/religious grounds.
I looked into this, and came away with a few facts and some preliminary impressions.
1. Miscarriage and abortion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, miscarriages are known in medicine as "spontaneous abortions."
2. One-third of preganancies end in miscarriage, aka spontaneous abortion. This is hardly a rarity.
3. Miscarriages are far from passing inconveniences. The is significant pain and medical risk involved. When a woman has a miscarriage, fetal tissue often lingers. Thus, in states with strict abortion bans, the question arises when removing that tissue: which came first?
Or: When is an abortion induced as opposed to spontaneous? You'd think this is a bright line distinction, but you (and I, before I took a closer look) would be wrong, at least often enough to matter. Further ambiguity arises with the reality that two-thirds of induced abortions are done with drugs, not to mention folk methods that go back for many centuries, even millennia.
So spontaneous v induced abortion is a genuine quandary, at least to some degree. It is not created by liberals, although they are certainly poised to exploit it. There are enough reports of delays or refusals of miscarriage medical care to give me second thoughts about abortion bans. I'm not sure that I can figure out the "which came first" question (a/k/a spontaneous v induced) that lies at the heart of this issue.
If there's a blanket exemption for spontaneous abortions, you can be sure that induced abortions will simply be called miscarriages by abortion advocates, much as gay partners were euphemized as "close friends" in the good old days.
At the same time, if abortion bans are so strictly interpreted as to deny medical care for women who are experiencing spontaneous abortions, I think everyone could agree that this is barbaric, cruel, and wrong.
Look at the March for Life. All of the board members and activists are women. If abortion were to be decided only based on women's votes, it would be illegal everywhere in the USA by wide margins. This idea that it's somehow men is just TOTALLY wrong.
I am (uncomfortably) supportive of early (define it as you wish) abortion, but in an era where women choose their delivery dates, late abortion is murder. I will never win the moral argument, but I think early abortion is a reasonable policy. And apparently 80% of Americans agree.
Don't hate yourself. We love you, no matter who you voted for. But maybe try to dig into the facts about Trump. It sounds like you may have swallowed the mainstream mis-leadia line, hook and sinker. Notice how Trump has put all kinds of women into positions of authority? Not only in the Trump organization, but for example, in his 2016 campaign his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, was the first woman to run a major presidential campaign. And they won! He has appointed really smart women as his press secretaries, and has a number of women in his cabinet. The sex abuse charges are unclear at best.
In terms of policy to benefit the Average Joe, he can't be beat.
I mean... Why? Why are you viewing Trump winning as a good thing? Because "He'll end conversion therapy"? I quit.
Sorry, But I'm unsubscribing. Trump is a MORON. He's going to cause irreparable damage, just as much as Kamala would've. Sure, he will end Gender Madness, but he will cause a million other problems. And you used that as an excuse to demonise the American Left-Wing as all a bunch of corrupt people out to get our kids.
Fuck you. I'm leaving. You want to celebrate and bask in the glory of your Pwecious Wittle Twump? Go on, but do so knowing that he'll also cause damage to international relations. Fuck you, goodbye.
Do you have any idea how DERANGED you sound? Like, frothing at the mouth CRAZY. The hyperbole the left is demonstrating is comical. It's like watching children throw tantrums.
I've lived through a lot of elections. I remember once, in college, a girl wore black for a day when George H.W. Bush won the election, but that was it - people moved on with their lives. Now, their entire personalities are defined by who they support politically and who is opposed.
I'm relating strongly to your feeling of relief. I was shocked at how much better I feel, knowing that we won't have to endure four more years with Harris as the puppet figurehead of a regime that endorses sex-denying mutilation of minors and the erasure of women.
But I have a slightly more optimistic view of the activism of Democrat TERFs like Kara Dansky. You might be right that the Democrats will never see reason, since they're so heavily invested in trans ideology, both financially and in terms of their morally superior self-branding.
Dansky would love to see the Democratic party evolve, but in the meantime, she's a realist. She works with anyone whose views are consonant with hers, regardless of party or sex. She partners with Republican feminists, usually female athletes and their allies. These women are beasts on the issues of women's prisons and sports. Organizations like Independent Women's Network are doing tremendous work that mirrors the work on the left (with, of course, the exception of abortion).
Also, because she's an attorney with expertise in criminal justice, Dansky understands the legal ramifications of every lawsuit on the docket in the U.S. courts. She communicates with TERFS across the Pond. The other day, JK Rowling and Richard Dawkins quoted her on social media. She's not sitting around waiting for the Democrats to change, she's a change maker, through her actions and her words. Her books, The Abolition of Sex, and The Reckoning, although written to educate Democrats, speak to anybody who cares about the issue. Her reach is broad and non-partisan, and she's indefatigable.
The Democrat party may never relinquish its endorsement of trans ideology because of the financial incentives, but the tide seems to be turning, especially if Trump is well advised and doesn't make the typical Republican error of blowing up the very thing they're trying to fix. I already see a flaw in Trump's promise, which is that he wants to prevent people of any age from transitioning. This is a bridge too far and doomed to backfire, because ADULTS have the right to bodily autonomy, and this libertarian argument will resonate with members of both parties. Personal health decisions should not be legislated as long as an adult has all the facts and is in a position to understand the risks and give informed consent, with the caveat that the rights of women and children must be protected and the term "gender" is stripped of its religious privileges under the law.
It's my expectation that Dansky and others like her will never back down. Her slogan is "if we can be heard, we will win." This assumes that people are capable of listening and the message is intelligible, regardless of party affiliation. One way or the other, we will be heard and we will win.
I love Kara Dansky, and if anyone would get me to vote for a Democrat again, it would be her! She is possibly the ONLY one. I really think we should push for her to start running for 2028. NOW. I wish I had the money to buy copies of her books and just hand them out to everyone I know (as well as people in positions of power). Like you wrote, she has a way of understanding this topic via the legalities, and she explains things in a clear, rational way. I think we need a new party--the Reality Party.
Thanks, Gary. I agree. Sign me up!
Thank you for this post, Gary! I'm a lesbian living in British Columbia, a.k.a Canada's California. (Where lots of CA draft dodgers went) There was a huge Conservative surge in our recent elections for the same reasons Trump won. Normal gays, Normal lesbians, Normal parents and anyone else who wants to avoid Government control of our thoughts and words and ability to make decisions for our children without losing custody or being thrown in jail, voted out of the hope for a more sane world. I agree that it is crazy and bizarre that Trump is the choice most likely to enable a return to sanity, but that is where we are. That is the world that DEI, the reboot of middle class White-saviourism and Leftist Luxury beliefs have created. People in both Canada and the USA who are surprised by this result are clearly not paying attention. I hate all of the bullshit that is supposedly done in 'our name' to protect Queer Kids. It is abhorrent. I am glad to know you're taking time for your mental health, but also very relieved to read this post. It helps me feel less alone.
Vance was so good on rogan! We won so bigly.
I never saw this clip before reading this post (12 May 2025), but I totally agree!
Thanks Gary! Your work is excellent and your perspective is so important in this upside down world we have been stuck in. I never thought I could vote for Trump but I did for all of the reasons you have been talking about and you and I are not alone. I really believe that if my daughter had not been encouraged by schools and other trusted adults that it just would not have happened that she became misinformed that she could “change sex”. When I realized that the Biden administration I voted for had dismantled title IX on day one and that our pediatrician and institutions we had trusted were all going along with this lie I was devastated and furious. I had questions. I was shamed into silence and told I was abusive when the pronoun police moved into my house. I dodged a bullet because I very nearly took her to a gender clinic. Something felt so wrong about it in my gut. I wrote to the president, I spoke to the school principal and no one cared.
My daughter still holds these beliefs but we now live in a state where “gender identity” isn’t taught and encouraged in schools. Her ideas around hormones and surgery have softened a bit and she knows that these are not a cure all. In some ways I have still lost her but I am hopeful that with the new administration shining a light this very real issue that has effected many families - they can save other families from never being exposed to this bullshit in the first place. It seems so incredibly obvious that castrating feminine boys and giving double mastectomies to tomboys is the ultimate in homophobia. It needs to end and kids need to be encouraged to be themselves!
OMG...Amen!! Amen!! This, this this!! Thank you. As the mother of a gay man who is trying to get him to see the point of view you express here (and mine which is that this is sick conversion therapy) YES!!!!!!! The other notion I'm trying to dispel in his head is that schools aren't pushing this and that a select few that do are outliers. To Vance's point about "Martha, do you hear yourself? How many apartment complexes is it ok for gangs to take over?" If it's even ONE school, shut that sh-t down - now!
I hope your son comes to grips with being gay, and how great a life he can have as a gay man. As a "trans woman," life would be infinitely harder. I can't believe that any "real" straight man wants a trans, and certainly no gay guy wants a trans woman either. It has to be an incredibly lonely place to be. So I hope he remains gay and discovers just how fabulous that can be!
I don't believe he is at risk at the moment. I think he advocates on their behalf because he sees his journey in theirs.
I'm exhausted by it all but also feel a sense of relief. I'm also focused on contentment too, I'm not writing as much new content. The Democratic party lost their way. The country showed how sick they are of the direction they were going. Now we need to create positive change especially in protecting kids and vulnerable adults from gender ideology and medicalization. We all have a lot of work to do. Let's get to it!
Gary Lucia I just wanted to express my gratitude for your posts on this substack. I'm sure we have minor disagreements on economic policies and religious freedom, but I'm so encouraged that there are gay men like me who have always wondered why we were saddled with "gender fluid", "queer", "non-binary", and "trans". Even worse, why the strategic targeting of children in schools? I bet so many more people would be thrilled if drag queens had "senior reading hour" at nursing homes. In no cases is it acceptable for drag queens to be paraded in front of children.
Glad you’re feeling up to posting again. I wondered where your voice went. I am so relieved also and feeling hopeful about so many things, for the first time since I realized the scope of Pharma capture a good 25 years ago. Go MAHA*MAGA!!!🇺🇸🙏🏻🇺🇸🙏🏻🇺🇸
Thank you! Your recent posts have been soooo great and helpful to me!
Yay! So good to hear! 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Gender is the loose thread I pulled that made the whole garment unravel.
wow, completely flabbergasted to hear vance actually understand the scam and the harm of gender affirming care. that really amazed me. and thats something gender activists didnt think was possible just a few years ago. the way the republicans have addressed gender ideology has been amazing, from my point of view unexpected.
i didnt vote for kamala or trump. since i live in california it wouldnt have mattered. but i voted red for state assembly and congress, due to dems support for gender ideology, after voting dem my entire life.
OK, I know this is an old post. But I'm a kindred spirit here. I voted for Dan Brown when Kennedy died because I thought Obamacare would be an expensive disaster. My first Republican vote ever. Then I ended up voting for Trump in 2016 because The New York Times made me do it. How? They went so insanely overboard on their criticism of him that I thought, "This guy has been in the public eye for over 30 years, and up until now, most people loved him." So I watched his speeches, and what he said seemed reasonable: make America work for the ordinary guy once again. So I voted for him in 2016, '20, and '24. Not that it made any difference in Massachusetts. It really was kind of an F-you vote.
Now?
The "Democrats" have gone absolutely, friggin' insane! And I don't want to be their "rainbow diversity pet." No thanks. I can't imagine voting for them until they make a complete change. They used to be the party of sanity. Now they are a parody of a political party. Now that Trump is trying to cut drug costs, I'm just waiting for them to come out in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. They've lost their friggin' minds!
And yes. We normal gays have nothing to do with transing children. I'm horrified by what I see today. It's positively Iranian: get the sex change, or we throw you off the roof! I was a pretty girlish boy in the 60s. If I had been born in 2000 or later, I'd be a candidate for a sex change. OMG. I love being a GAY MAN! A sex change would have literally ruined my life.
With Trump, I feel like we have an actual president, not some bureaucratic functionary who is going to follow the rule of some shadowy elite donor class. It's great to see him push the boundaries, and actually work to put America first.
Cheers,
Kim G
Roma Sur, Mexico City
Savin Hill, Boston
If Trump had won by a single vote, then there would be a moral dilemma here worth discussing. Since he didn't, your vote had the salutary effect of adding to the weight of the message that Democrats need to jettison their progressive politics and stop defending indefensible policies and programs.
Since I, too, am a gay man who cannot stomach the Democratic Party's active participation in trans activists' vicious campaign of censoring and slandering sex realists or the Democrats' normalization and facilitation of every element of the trans agenda, I have taken Trump's victory as a signal to bring the battle to the enemy. Buy that I mean not remaining silent when someone bemoans the fate that awaits the "LGBTQ+ community" under Trump and being proactive in discussions about what Dems need to do differently to regain the trust of the electorate. (Hint: Dump the Queers and the Trans.)
Just this morning I challenged a commenter in a highbrow liberal Substack who brought up Trump's threat to the alphabet "community" to tell us what he thinks a "queer" is and to make a list of the "queer rights" he believes are worth defending. If he's not a gay sex realist of a certain age, the commenter probably has no inkling that "queer" is antithetical to gay people because it isn't a sexual orientation (or, God help us, a gender identity) but a pose, a scene, and a cluster of learned attitudes and beliefs that are attractive to college-educated disaffected youth and adults who want to be seen as edgy. Doctrinaire queers don't believe in binaries such as gay/straight nor do they believe that people have stable and permanent sexual orientations, and they want to change society to fit their views. In other words, if queer is more than just the latest obnoxious youth culture, it is a type of politics. Thankfully, no court or legislature has yet seen fit to make the holders of a particular political view a legally protected class. That's why every middle aged straight MSNBC pundit who spouts off about protecting "LGBTQ+ rights" is talking through his hat. Just as there is no such thing as a "LGBTQ+ community," there is no single set of rights that pertain to all the different types of people who activists stuff under that preposterous umbrella.
Getting back to Vance and the normal gay guy vote, the question is whether or not the enemy of our enemy is truly a trustworthy friend. Don't get me wrong: some of my best friends are straight men. But even though I am a masculine gay man, I just can't warm up to the kind of charismatic bro Joe Rogan exemplifies. He might as well be exuding the aromas of stale cigar butts and dirty sweat socks. I am persuaded by the two sons of the British Empire - one from Northern Ireland, the other from Australia - who host the "Decoding the Gurus" podcast that Rogan is a credulous fan and promoter of conspiracy theories. I don't have the receipts, but they sure as heck do.
As far as Vance is concerned, more power to him if he translates his criticism of gender ideology into actionable policy and law. However, his acid-tongued comments during the campaign make me fear that he, like Bannon and others in Trump's orbit, is coming after America's liberal order, which is not to be confused with the Democratic Party, its platform or members. If it turns out to be all talk and no action, it's not my support Vance will need to scramble for but that of an irate base who took him literally and seriously.
Turning to the Trump and Trumpism, which have sucked all the life and principles out of the Republican Party, there is an unholy alliance of opportunists between Trump and the right wing Protestant and Catholic clerics-cum-activists who want to spark a religious culture war of their own over the next few years. It remains to be seen whether or not Trump will enable their agenda, where repealing the hard-won rights of gay and lesbian Americans features prominently. It has already begun with the baker and web design cases which, despite the dissembling in the opinions were not about upholding freedom of expression but codifying sectarian religious beliefs about sex in such a way that they trump gay people's preexisting civil rights.
Nobody said this was going to be easy or simple.
Yes, we should always challenge, every time, those who use 'LGBTQ+' and ask what they mean. Usually, they don't know what they mean and it makes them stop and think. Easy to do in an IRL exchange or via an email response or comment, not so easy with pundits on TV. Luckily, TV news is on its death bed.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the religious right have the power they used to. Their numbers are dying too. (Remember that old bumper sticker from decades ago 'The Moral Majority is Neither'? Their voice is small and not so mighty anymore.) I think Gender is the biggest religion we have to fight against.
I also think that the "religious right" have come to terms with "normal gays." There are so many of us now who are openly rooting for other more conservative policies, that they see people like Scott Pressler, Brandon Straka, Rob Smith, Dave Rubin, Douglas Murray, et al, and the rest of us "normal gays" as allies, not enemies.
I agree that genderism is a larger social problem today than homophobic activism because most Democrats and liberal Independents defend it tenaciously, aggressively and loudly.
However, the religious right have the support of the Supreme Court, as demonstrated in the dissent in the web designer case:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.
Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ibid.
“What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.
Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent. [2]
Justitia. U.S. Supreme Court. Dissent (Sotomayor). 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-476/#opinions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implications of this opinion are highly alarming because it could be applied to bar gay and lesbian Americans from public accommodations of other kinds. It's likely the religious right will challenge marriage equality in the courts.
By the way, the majority's First Amendment analysis - that the baker and web site designer should not be forced to engage in acts of artistic expression that offended their beliefs - doesn't stand up, as the dissent pointed out elsewhere in their opinion. The majority will find a way to elevate so-called "religious freedom" over gay people's civil rights even in cases not involving freedom of expression if presented with the right case. At least that's my cynical prediction.
What is the point of protecting gay people if gay people don't recognize themselves? What is the point of gay marriage if gay people are told that a heterosexual woman can 'identify' as a gay man? There ARE no more 'gay bars' or gay businesses, as everything formerly 'gay' has been infiltrated by trans. If I'm reading the court opinion right (the legalese gobbledygook gives me a headache), for instance, a gay dating app for men would be able to bar 'trans men'. This would be welcome news to me, as there are literally no dating apps exclusively for gay men.
Maybe this is "transphobic," but I could never date a "trans man," aka former woman. I'm GAY. I want to date a MAN.
(Thank God I have an adorable BF who's definitely a real man)
I host a talk radio show in Wisconsin and would like to interview you. Please send me your contact info if you are interested! - Meg Ellefson megonair@mwcradio.com
I'm just a "normal lesbian gal. What about the "normal lesbians?" Nobody ever mentions the lesbians, just the "L's." We get totally ignored. It's like we don't exist.
While I am 100% onboard with all the issues many of us are concerned about, primarily the medicalization of kids and the entrance of men into women and girls sports, it kind of flies all over me that because I, a lifelong Dem, voted for Harris, that some perceive me as some kind of immoral, souless, child abuser when nothing could be further from the truth. I agree whole heartedly that the Dems have gone too far to the left. I've become more of a middle roader as I've gotten older. But I just could NOT pull the handle, so to speak, for Trump. I just couldn't do it because there are so many other reasons why I couldn't vote for that man. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who voted for Trump, voted for Putin and their ilk. Voting for the wolf in sheeps clothing. Since 2018 I've been aware of the issues with men in women's spaces, men in women's sports, men "identifying" as lesbians, but most importantly and the biggest issue of all, the medicalization of kids. Its horrible, it's awful and I am 100% against it. But I could just not vote for the orange buffoon because of his treatment of WOMEN as a whole. He's a rapist, and for all we know, a child rapist. He's a misogynist, something he proves over and over again. Why would I vote for him? Was Kamala a perfect candidate? Absolutely not... she and Joe completely bobbled the Israel and Gaza situation. But I voted for a women, and a woman of color, to be president. But that does not make me an awful person, not like your piece suggests. I'm glad to see more gay men and lesbians getting on board with what's happening, but what kills me are my lesbian and gay friends turning a blind eye. I tried to engage one of my lontime male friends in conversation about some of the concerns we all have. He blew me off. That was a like a knife to my heart. I'm sorry, I just couldn't vote for Trump, no matter how much of a commonality I have with his platform on these issues. My props to all of you who did. The Dems definitely hung themselves by their own pitard several years ago and I knew four years ago that Trump was going to take it back this time around based on the issues of our concern. Anyway, this normal, but invisible, lesbian (who would have been considered gender dysphoric in my youth and have been trotted off to a gender clinic had there been such a thing in the 60's and 70's), just wanted to give my way more than two cents. I'm not awful person condoning experiements on children.
That is one thing that irritates me most about the Democrats--they talk about 'reproductive rights'...but does that include the right to reproduce? Because they are literally sterilizing children via 'gender-affirming care'. Children who don't have the capacity to understand that they may want to have children of their own one day.
I seriously believe the Democrats do not care at all about abortion rights. Obama ran with the campaign promise to codify Roe v Wade and he reneged on that promise. Democrats had a majority in his first two years. Abortion is the carrot-on-a-stick that keeps women terrified and voting D. Just look what they did in NY--they lied to voters about Prop 1. They called it an abortion amendment when in reality, it had nothing to do with abortion and enshrined 'gender identity' into law. That passed, and now women in NY have LOST their rights to be their own sex class.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/new-york-proposition-one-parents-rights?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If you Google Tara Reade, you will find many articles about her accusation against Biden--but most will be calling her a liar, or questioning her character. (So much for 'believe all women'.) The media, as we know, will do and has done anything to protect the Democratic candidates. Look how they (and Harris) lied to us for years about Biden's cognitive ability. Even though we could see he was failing with our own eyes. We have also seen with our own eyes just how creepy and disgusting Biden has been with young girls and women--touching them, sniffing them, making inappropriate comments. Anyway, I think this article is pretty damning: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/
Unlike Jean Carroll who was able to bring a case against Trump, while Tara Reade, like Edward Snowden who exposed the NSA spying on citizens, had to leave the country because of harassment and death threats. Last I heard she's in Russia like Snowden.
But you did condone it, via your vote. Not attacking you--pretty much all my friends and family did too (unless they didn't vote at all). I lived through 4 years of Trump already. I can't think of a single thing he did that is worse than pushing sex changes on children. If I had told you ten years ago that a political party believed that little boys who like pink and glitter and don’t like sports should be chemically castrated and turned into girls, you’d have gasped, ‘That’s horrible! So homophobic! Those Republicans are so hateful!”But, no. It’s the Democratic Party that’s doing that. Today. and they're PUSHING it.
As for the rapist allegations, do you know the name Tara Reade? She (and others) accused (very credibly) Biden of rape, but it was ignored by the media and the left. And Bill Clinton is one of the biggest scumbags on Earth, but revered by the Democrats.
Your perspective on being a normal lesbian who is ignored is interesting, because I follow so many lesbians who write on this topic, and I think they're brilliant. The gay men writers? Not so much. They disappoint me constantly. And in real life, I have zero gay male friends locally. I have a couple gay male friends who live far away, and they also voted for Kamala because 'she looks like me' and because the hatred for Trump is so strong. 'Ignored' is my daily existence. I sound the alarm and gay guys don't care. I have always envied the way lesbians band together and support one another...gay men do not do this.
Well, I wrote a big long response to this, but I was on my phone so this website wanted me to re-enter all of that information. Instead of writing all of that again, most of which I can't remember.. I'll say this. I DO NOT CONDONE THE MUTILATION OF CHILDREN. YES, it truly bothers me that the Dems have been taken in by all of this crap. This was a devisive election (well, aren't they all, really?). I guess, really, I don't have many lesbians friends these days as we've all scattered to the wind, but I'm surprised by the few I still am in contact with that have buried their heads in the sand. Yes, you're right, ten years ago I would have been surprised by this stuff, however as of eight years ago my eyes were opened. I do belong to a couple of FB groups comprised of mostly straight women, but we're all on the same page, and I know that a few of them did the same thing as you did.
RE: Joe Biden, I'll do more research, but please provide me with your links as well.
I know what a douchebag Clinton was ... I am 62. Remember it well and how crestfallen and horrified I was when he turned out to be the predator that he was/is.
I wish more gay men were like you and the other guys here and elsewhere. It's disheartening to me to know that so many guys just don't care.
I've lost a couple of friends already who have gotten pissed off by my posts on FB, and these were long time friends. Instead of approaching me to ask me why I have posted things that I have, they just blew me off.
I've always enjoyed your articles ... especially the one when you've shared your story about working for the mouse.
Politics is messy business. While our cause is a powerful one, I needed to vote for the person who is supportive of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. But those are women, not children, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and who have been betrayed by adults who are misguided and misdirected and yes, totally homophobic.
Anyway. I'm a good person. Just sayin.
I feel for your position on Trump, and for your disappointment. It's hard to lose a hard-fought election. I live in WA State, where Satan would win if he were a Democrat, so I felt free to cast my third straight write-in vote for president. I farted in both directions, as I did in '20 and '16. That said, I'm (for now) glad to see Trump win, and especially with the most popular votes as opposed to 2016.
Why am I glad for now? Because I think the Democratic Party, and their media amen chorus, very badly needed to face a clear defeat, which this was. Either they will listen to the people and tack toward the center, or they will keep losing national elections. Not you in particular, but the party in general needs to be demoralized. They need to know that they have gone off the rails, and that's what elections are sometimes for.
I didn't view Trump as misogynistic in this campaign. It appears that you say so because of the abortion issue. I see it is an example of cynical posturing, first by the Republicans for decades, and now by the Democrats. I am a born researcher, and recently did the deep dive into All Things Abortion, and saw just how badly the Dems misrepresented it this year.
The sainted Roe v Wade decision (which, by the way, was criticized by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg for some good reasons) allowed states to prohibit late-term elective abortions. Almost all states subsequently set fetal viability as the limit. There was no carte blanche freedom for do anything at all. That has changed in recent years; today, as I write, there are 9 states plus the District of Columbia with no viability limit.
Deduct from the late-term numbers the abortions done to protect the life or health of the mother, or for reasons of gross fetal abnormality, and roughly 8,000 babies who could have lived are killed in the third trimester. Being a gay man with no direct stake in abortion, I still have a problem with murder, which is what I consider those 8,000 late-term elective abortions to be. It is not "misogynist" to oppose them, in my view. I do think women should have the right to choose, but not all the way through a pregnancy.
To put it differently: What did an 8-month fetus do to deserve being killed? You tell me, please.
As for your decision to vote for Harris because she's female, or because she's a "woman of color," well that's certainly your right, but I thoroughly and quite strongly reject the approach. Before I began casting write-in votes in '16, I voted for Obama twice, not because he was black but because I thought he was the better choice. Much better in '08, and marginally better in '12. I don't do affirmative action when I vote. Hate me now.
Anyone who voted for Trump voted for Putin? Oh come on. That's simply not rational as far as I'm concerned. The Ukrainian invasion should never have happened; that situation should have been negotiated to give the Donbass region autonomy, which is a fairly common approach in disputed regions around the world.
Is it OK if I make a note here about you being a 'born researcher'? I may take you up on this for help in the future!
I agree with all your points. One female friend told me recently that in some states if a woman has a miscarriage, the (necessary) procedure she has is considered an 'abortion'. Is that true?! Is it in cases where the fetus is not viable but has a heartbeat? Like you, I am a gay man so I don't have a stake in it, but I want to understand the issue as best I can.
I also think it is important to note the dishonesty and offensiveness of Democrats when they talk about Republicans being 'men wanting to control women's bodies'. This erases the voices of the millions of Republican women who are against abortion on moral/religious grounds.
I looked into this, and came away with a few facts and some preliminary impressions.
1. Miscarriage and abortion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, miscarriages are known in medicine as "spontaneous abortions."
2. One-third of preganancies end in miscarriage, aka spontaneous abortion. This is hardly a rarity.
3. Miscarriages are far from passing inconveniences. The is significant pain and medical risk involved. When a woman has a miscarriage, fetal tissue often lingers. Thus, in states with strict abortion bans, the question arises when removing that tissue: which came first?
Or: When is an abortion induced as opposed to spontaneous? You'd think this is a bright line distinction, but you (and I, before I took a closer look) would be wrong, at least often enough to matter. Further ambiguity arises with the reality that two-thirds of induced abortions are done with drugs, not to mention folk methods that go back for many centuries, even millennia.
So spontaneous v induced abortion is a genuine quandary, at least to some degree. It is not created by liberals, although they are certainly poised to exploit it. There are enough reports of delays or refusals of miscarriage medical care to give me second thoughts about abortion bans. I'm not sure that I can figure out the "which came first" question (a/k/a spontaneous v induced) that lies at the heart of this issue.
If there's a blanket exemption for spontaneous abortions, you can be sure that induced abortions will simply be called miscarriages by abortion advocates, much as gay partners were euphemized as "close friends" in the good old days.
At the same time, if abortion bans are so strictly interpreted as to deny medical care for women who are experiencing spontaneous abortions, I think everyone could agree that this is barbaric, cruel, and wrong.
Thank you for this!
It’s fascinating that everything seems to always come down to interpretation of words: What is an abortion? What is a woman? What is gender?
Look at the March for Life. All of the board members and activists are women. If abortion were to be decided only based on women's votes, it would be illegal everywhere in the USA by wide margins. This idea that it's somehow men is just TOTALLY wrong.
I am (uncomfortably) supportive of early (define it as you wish) abortion, but in an era where women choose their delivery dates, late abortion is murder. I will never win the moral argument, but I think early abortion is a reasonable policy. And apparently 80% of Americans agree.
Don't hate yourself. We love you, no matter who you voted for. But maybe try to dig into the facts about Trump. It sounds like you may have swallowed the mainstream mis-leadia line, hook and sinker. Notice how Trump has put all kinds of women into positions of authority? Not only in the Trump organization, but for example, in his 2016 campaign his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, was the first woman to run a major presidential campaign. And they won! He has appointed really smart women as his press secretaries, and has a number of women in his cabinet. The sex abuse charges are unclear at best.
In terms of policy to benefit the Average Joe, he can't be beat.
But of course, make up your own mind. Cheers!
What the fuck have you become?
I mean... Why? Why are you viewing Trump winning as a good thing? Because "He'll end conversion therapy"? I quit.
Sorry, But I'm unsubscribing. Trump is a MORON. He's going to cause irreparable damage, just as much as Kamala would've. Sure, he will end Gender Madness, but he will cause a million other problems. And you used that as an excuse to demonise the American Left-Wing as all a bunch of corrupt people out to get our kids.
Fuck you. I'm leaving. You want to celebrate and bask in the glory of your Pwecious Wittle Twump? Go on, but do so knowing that he'll also cause damage to international relations. Fuck you, goodbye.
⬆️TDS
Do you have any idea how DERANGED you sound? Like, frothing at the mouth CRAZY. The hyperbole the left is demonstrating is comical. It's like watching children throw tantrums.
I've lived through a lot of elections. I remember once, in college, a girl wore black for a day when George H.W. Bush won the election, but that was it - people moved on with their lives. Now, their entire personalities are defined by who they support politically and who is opposed.
How old are you? 19? You sure sound like it.