@seren-g.bsky.social
I think she *should* be called out for her shortcomings. By all means, keep giving her flak! I'd love to see her start putting up more of a fight!
She may not be lifting us up the way I'd like, but I still disagree that she is dragging us all down.
She may not be lifting us up the way I'd like, but I still disagree that she is dragging us all down.
November 20, 2025 at 8:49 PM
I think she *should* be called out for her shortcomings. By all means, keep giving her flak! I'd love to see her start putting up more of a fight!
She may not be lifting us up the way I'd like, but I still disagree that she is dragging us all down.
She may not be lifting us up the way I'd like, but I still disagree that she is dragging us all down.
I'm not arguing that she's awesome. I've been disappointed by her plenty. I just don't think she deserves the level of hate she gets. She makes it hard for anybody to depict her as radical, and thus normalizes trans identity. I'm glad she was elected. Now we need a fighter to push for our rights!
November 20, 2025 at 8:22 PM
I'm not arguing that she's awesome. I've been disappointed by her plenty. I just don't think she deserves the level of hate she gets. She makes it hard for anybody to depict her as radical, and thus normalizes trans identity. I'm glad she was elected. Now we need a fighter to push for our rights!
I'm really happy to see you post this. I've made this same case in my earliest comments on BlueSky. The responses made me feel alienated from the trans community and like I didn't belong and wasn't welcome. McBride is problematic, but nobody seems to be able to acknowledge any of the good she does.
November 20, 2025 at 8:00 PM
I'm really happy to see you post this. I've made this same case in my earliest comments on BlueSky. The responses made me feel alienated from the trans community and like I didn't belong and wasn't welcome. McBride is problematic, but nobody seems to be able to acknowledge any of the good she does.
From what I understand, our current passports are still valid.
That said, as Erin has mentioned before, this opens the door for them to work on revoking existing passports next. So, even though your passport is still valid and legal today, that could change in the coming weeks/months.
That said, as Erin has mentioned before, this opens the door for them to work on revoking existing passports next. So, even though your passport is still valid and legal today, that could change in the coming weeks/months.
November 7, 2025 at 12:15 AM
From what I understand, our current passports are still valid.
That said, as Erin has mentioned before, this opens the door for them to work on revoking existing passports next. So, even though your passport is still valid and legal today, that could change in the coming weeks/months.
That said, as Erin has mentioned before, this opens the door for them to work on revoking existing passports next. So, even though your passport is still valid and legal today, that could change in the coming weeks/months.
That's inaccurate, Katelyn. I'm not mad at you or trying to be a jerk. Many of your posts do not allow replies. Maybe it's a setting on your phone app or something? Your can see that the reply option is darker.
September 20, 2025 at 7:50 PM
That's inaccurate, Katelyn. I'm not mad at you or trying to be a jerk. Many of your posts do not allow replies. Maybe it's a setting on your phone app or something? Your can see that the reply option is darker.
Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, the rules for gender markers on new or renewed passports have been fluctuating. I'd hate to be in that process at this time. So far I haven't heard about existing passports becoming invalid though, so this had me worried.
September 20, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, the rules for gender markers on new or renewed passports have been fluctuating. I'd hate to be in that process at this time. So far I haven't heard about existing passports becoming invalid though, so this had me worried.
Can anybody clarify Julia's mention of taking away trans people's passports? I think this is in reference to them not allowing or correct gender markers on new/renewed passports, but it makes it sound like they plan to revoke existing passports.
September 20, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Can anybody clarify Julia's mention of taking away trans people's passports? I think this is in reference to them not allowing or correct gender markers on new/renewed passports, but it makes it sound like they plan to revoke existing passports.
We love you AG. I barely engage with any posts here on Bluesky because some members of my own communities make me feel unsafe and unwelcome. The reason I am here is because of you, and others like you, who are doing the hard work to keep us informed. Please don't let them get you down!
September 10, 2025 at 9:06 PM
We love you AG. I barely engage with any posts here on Bluesky because some members of my own communities make me feel unsafe and unwelcome. The reason I am here is because of you, and others like you, who are doing the hard work to keep us informed. Please don't let them get you down!
I believe the same thing is coming to all of the ACA insurance plans next year, which will effectively eliminate coverage for gender-affirming care for everybody. The rule was finalized by HHS on June 25th.
www.kff.org/private-insu...
www.kff.org/private-insu...
New Rule Proposes Changes to ACA Coverage of Gender-Affirming Care, Potentially Increasing Costs for Consumers | KFF
This brief examines a proposed rule that seeks to change how ACA plans would cover gender affirming care services. If finalized the rule could lead insurers to drop coverage or shift costs to individu...
www.kff.org
August 20, 2025 at 9:23 PM
I believe the same thing is coming to all of the ACA insurance plans next year, which will effectively eliminate coverage for gender-affirming care for everybody. The rule was finalized by HHS on June 25th.
www.kff.org/private-insu...
www.kff.org/private-insu...
Plus, if things are so bad that NINETY year-olds who are in need of a nap are dragging themselves out to the streets to protest... that isn't exactly a point in his favor, either.
August 20, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Plus, if things are so bad that NINETY year-olds who are in need of a nap are dragging themselves out to the streets to protest... that isn't exactly a point in his favor, either.
Still not hearing any better solutions. You can scream about how bad the Dems are screwing up all you like. I don't disagree. But what solutions do you propose if they don't course correct? Letting MAGA win again is just not an option.
July 17, 2025 at 2:51 AM
Still not hearing any better solutions. You can scream about how bad the Dems are screwing up all you like. I don't disagree. But what solutions do you propose if they don't course correct? Letting MAGA win again is just not an option.
I have the same question for you that I asked that Wormhole person. If we get to election time and the nominees are Newsom and Vance, how will your vote (or lack of vote) help trans people, or any other minorities? Give me a better solution and I'll happily take it.
July 17, 2025 at 1:42 AM
I have the same question for you that I asked that Wormhole person. If we get to election time and the nominees are Newsom and Vance, how will your vote (or lack of vote) help trans people, or any other minorities? Give me a better solution and I'll happily take it.
I haven't, though. I've simply stated that, if we are presented with a choice between a bad nominee and a worse one, I believe we should suck it up and vote for the bad nominee. You are the one being accusatory.
July 17, 2025 at 1:42 AM
I haven't, though. I've simply stated that, if we are presented with a choice between a bad nominee and a worse one, I believe we should suck it up and vote for the bad nominee. You are the one being accusatory.
That isn't the argument I have made. I have stated that, given the option between Vance and Newsom, I would vote for Newsom to keep MAGA from maintaining power. This is a classic example of the "trolley problem". Both outcomes are bad, but one is worse and the worse one will happen if we don't act.
July 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM
That isn't the argument I have made. I have stated that, given the option between Vance and Newsom, I would vote for Newsom to keep MAGA from maintaining power. This is a classic example of the "trolley problem". Both outcomes are bad, but one is worse and the worse one will happen if we don't act.
Both will result in a net loss for trans people. Both will mean trans youth don't get the care they need and deserve. Both are awful options. But if there is no viable third option, I will suck it up and try to reduce the amount of harm done.
I hope the Dems give us a better option.
I hope the Dems give us a better option.
July 16, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Both will result in a net loss for trans people. Both will mean trans youth don't get the care they need and deserve. Both are awful options. But if there is no viable third option, I will suck it up and try to reduce the amount of harm done.
I hope the Dems give us a better option.
I hope the Dems give us a better option.
Um... I AM a trans person. What are you even talking about?
I hope we have a better choice, but if we are faced with "GAC for trans youth is a tough issue" and "Trans people are pervert groomers and should be eliminated", I'll vote for the less harmful option in order to prevent the worse one.
I hope we have a better choice, but if we are faced with "GAC for trans youth is a tough issue" and "Trans people are pervert groomers and should be eliminated", I'll vote for the less harmful option in order to prevent the worse one.
July 16, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Um... I AM a trans person. What are you even talking about?
I hope we have a better choice, but if we are faced with "GAC for trans youth is a tough issue" and "Trans people are pervert groomers and should be eliminated", I'll vote for the less harmful option in order to prevent the worse one.
I hope we have a better choice, but if we are faced with "GAC for trans youth is a tough issue" and "Trans people are pervert groomers and should be eliminated", I'll vote for the less harmful option in order to prevent the worse one.
Who have I shamed? I have stated that I think it is dangerous and naive to withhold our votes when so much is at stake. I say naive because I believe those who are arguing this stance have good morals and intentions but are ultimately risking more lives by refusing to bend.
July 16, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Who have I shamed? I have stated that I think it is dangerous and naive to withhold our votes when so much is at stake. I say naive because I believe those who are arguing this stance have good morals and intentions but are ultimately risking more lives by refusing to bend.
You are just talking in circles now. I've already agreed, multiple times, that Dems need to nominate a better candidate. But in the end, if the US is faced with a bad option and a worse option, I will do what I can to prevent the worse option.
July 16, 2025 at 6:20 PM
You are just talking in circles now. I've already agreed, multiple times, that Dems need to nominate a better candidate. But in the end, if the US is faced with a bad option and a worse option, I will do what I can to prevent the worse option.
That may be, but I have zero doubt that Newsom would do less harm to trans rights than Vance. Same for immigrants, POC, the climate, etc.
Both of these hypothetical options suck and I hope we have a better choice when it comes time to vote, but it is imperative that we prevent the worst case.
Both of these hypothetical options suck and I hope we have a better choice when it comes time to vote, but it is imperative that we prevent the worst case.
July 16, 2025 at 5:31 PM
That may be, but I have zero doubt that Newsom would do less harm to trans rights than Vance. Same for immigrants, POC, the climate, etc.
Both of these hypothetical options suck and I hope we have a better choice when it comes time to vote, but it is imperative that we prevent the worst case.
Both of these hypothetical options suck and I hope we have a better choice when it comes time to vote, but it is imperative that we prevent the worst case.
When the other option is someone who actively tries to exterminate you, I think it is.
July 16, 2025 at 5:10 PM
When the other option is someone who actively tries to exterminate you, I think it is.
Because, while it feels good to take a stand, the reality is that it harms more people. I wish we had a better system. For example, ranked choice would allow us to vote with our hearts, but we don't have that option at this time.
July 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Because, while it feels good to take a stand, the reality is that it harms more people. I wish we had a better system. For example, ranked choice would allow us to vote with our hearts, but we don't have that option at this time.
Probably not. I understand wanting to vote FOR a candidate and to feel good about your vote. I don't think people who won't vote for somebody like Newsom are bad (unless they are voting for somebody like Trump). I just think it is naive and puts more people in danger.
July 16, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Probably not. I understand wanting to vote FOR a candidate and to feel good about your vote. I don't think people who won't vote for somebody like Newsom are bad (unless they are voting for somebody like Trump). I just think it is naive and puts more people in danger.
Better options? I still see none. I see a choice between bad and devastatingly evil. I don't want either, but if those are the options, we MUST prevent the worse option from winning. By not voting or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, you will be helping bring about the worst case scenario.
July 16, 2025 at 4:47 PM
Better options? I still see none. I see a choice between bad and devastatingly evil. I don't want either, but if those are the options, we MUST prevent the worse option from winning. By not voting or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, you will be helping bring about the worst case scenario.
Nope. This is all in discussion about a hypothetical situation, but one that is likely representative of what we will face in 3 years. I'll fight along with you to keep people like Newsom from winning the primary, but when it comes to the general, I'll vote for less evil if that is the best option.
July 16, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Nope. This is all in discussion about a hypothetical situation, but one that is likely representative of what we will face in 3 years. I'll fight along with you to keep people like Newsom from winning the primary, but when it comes to the general, I'll vote for less evil if that is the best option.
I'm not talking about nominations. I have already agreed with you that the Dems should nominate somebody who protects trans rights. I have no argument with you on that at all. You are not addressing the issue of how to vote AFTER a bad nominee is already selected.
July 16, 2025 at 4:24 PM
I'm not talking about nominations. I have already agreed with you that the Dems should nominate somebody who protects trans rights. I have no argument with you on that at all. You are not addressing the issue of how to vote AFTER a bad nominee is already selected.