ANS -- Dear Ted Cruz: I Do Regret My Transition-- Why couldn’t I have just existed?

Here is one person's response to Ted Cruz and his (Ted's) desire to forbid trans kids from starting their transitions early.  

find it here: https://medium.com/prismnpen/dear-ted-cruz-i-do-regret-my-transition-b445e603858 

--Kim

Alex Mell-Taylor

Mar 29

·

5 min read

·

Dear Ted Cruz: I Do Regret My Transition

Why couldn't I have just existed?

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

Dear Ted,

A little bit about me: I started to "medically" transition at 30 years old. It was the result of years of grappling with insecurities, cumbersome insurance paperwork, and social stigma. I am still balancing this transition as I struggle with what is my correct bra size and how much mascara to use, but I am pleased to be the person I am now. I just wish I didn't have to wait thirty years to get here.

I look at my childhood and see a lot of sadness that didn't have to be there. I could have been a beautiful nonbinary girl learning to do all these things when cisgender girls learned to do them, and it would have hurt no one.

Why couldn't I have just existed?

No, seriously. I am asking: Why do people like you make trans children suffer so long in silence just to be themselves?

So many people like you are claiming to be looking after "the children" when you campaign to take away trans children's access to healthcare. But really, your actions are denying us our ability to become whole people, and it doesn't just fill me with regret — it makes me furious.

When I look at the debate people like you are having about "allowing" children to transition, it's always centered around the fact that we may regret something that is "permanent." Years ago now, you tweeted: "For a parent to subject such a young child to life-altering hormone blockers to medically transition their sex is nothing less than child abuse," (Ted Cruz, 2019). As far as I can tell, you haven't changed your stance.

Yet this fear mongering isn't true, and it pushes the harmful myth that transitioning is dangerous for children. I think you are smart enough to know that. All the research indicates that puberty blockers (medication that pauses puberty) are relatively safe. The moment the child goes off the medication, they will, in most cases, resume the puberty of the sex they were assigned at birth. We know this because cisgender (i.e. not trans) children have been taking puberty blockers for decades, and we are pretty aware of their effects. As Jason Klein, a pediatric endocrinologist, told VICE (Hannah Smothers, 2021):

"Puberty blockers have been used for decades in cisgender kids who either are going through puberty too early, or, in some instances, kids who are going through puberty very quickly. Their use has been FDA approved, well-studied, well-documented, and well-tolerated for a long time now. And it's the exact same medication that we use in trans or nonbinary children to basically put a pause on pubertal development. Exactly the same medications, at exactly the same doses."

There might be some more information we will learn about this medication over time, but that's the case with all life-saving medicine. Science can tell you nothing with absolute certainty, so when a scientist states that puberty blockers are overwhelmingly safe in most cases, that's about as sure of a thing as you can get.

For those trans children who do take the extra step to socially or medically transition (i.e., not just to pause puberty, but to take on a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth), most don't regret their decisions. Detransitions are not only rare but overwhelmingly happen because of "external factors such as pressure from family, non-affirming school environments, and increased vulnerability to violence, including sexual assault," (2021).

In other words, it's not someone's transition that is the problem, but our society's reaction to it. This entire framing that people like you are putting forth is wrong. This has nothing to do with the welfare of children.

Quite the opposite, by denying trans children the resources they need, you contribute to many of their deaths. The number of trans youth (and adults) contemplating suicide is staggering (Dawn Ennis, 2021). The Trevor Project's National Survey found that 52% of all transgender and nonbinary young people in the US seriously considered killing themselves in 2020. That number went down for those who had access to spaces that affirmed their gender identities and sexual orientations.

If you cared about children, you would not be maliciously increasing the likelihood that children across the US will kill themselves. That's decidedly an anti-children stance.

All I can think when I read these numbers is that I could have been part of that figure. I was 27 before somebody even asked me what my pronouns were. I didn't know being nonbinary was even an option, but the moment I learned about it, the words they/them escaped my mouth within seconds. I had spent a lifetime not realizing that a piece of me was missing — that I could be something more than unhappy. I had to excuse myself to go to the bathroom, so I could weep both tears of joy, but also of profound sadness at the time it had taken to come to this realization.

Suddenly, a lot of depression made sense as dysphoria. I had been suicidal for most of my life, and although other factors contributed to part of that, the inability to connect to my whole self didn't help. There were years spent being uncomfortable about who I was, wishing to no longer exist because I didn't think I was a whole person. I am only here today because of luck. A lot of trans people are.

But if my personhood was denied to me, it's not my fault, Ted; it's yours.

When you deny trans children the ability to learn about themselves, you aren't just deferring medication or surgery by a couple of years. You are preventing them from articulating their personhood, from being able to imagine a whole world beyond what they were taught to be possible. It's like forcing a square into a round hole and blaming the shape for fracturing into pieces. In the process, you watch the person disappear. They crawl into themselves until they cease to exist.

That is murder. It may not be as quick as shooting someone or stringing them up, but it leads to the same outcome—the death of a person.

I indeed regret my transition. I regret that you robbed me of my childhood. That you, and the bigots like you, clawed away at my very sense of self, under the pretext of protecting me, when all you were doing was protecting your own sense of comfort.

You traded my life and the lives of countless others to protect your fragile little ego, and I hate you for it. If there is a God, they will make you crawl on your knees on burning sands, listening to the wails of all the trans children you murdered, before even beginning to consider your pleas for redemption.

Burn in hell, Ted.

ANS -- Who Won the French Election? Democracy Did, And Fascism Didn’t

Here is what umair haque has to say about the election in France, which Macron just won over Le Pen, who is a fascist.  It's very positive for umair haque.  read it.  

Find it here: https://eand.co/who-won-the-french-election-democracy-did-and-fascism-didnt-8f2e056474b7 

--Kim

umair haque

Apr 24

·

7 min read

·

Who Won the French Election? Democracy Did, And Fascism Didn't

What the French Election Really Means, And Why it Matters

Image Credit

Today, Macron — whew — won victory in the French Presidential elections. These are tough times. The far right is ascendant around the world. So much so that for a nation like France to elect a centrist candidate like Macron made the world — which feels like its on a razor's edge — sigh in sweet relief. Thank God for a little bit of sanity.

What does this victory really mean? If all you want to do is celebrate, go right ahead. If you want to think, though, read on.

American pundits are already — in their breathless style — painting this is a "crushing" blow. They seem to think — not knowing nearly enough about French or even global politics — that this was a death blow to the far right. It emphatically wasn't that.

What this was was a mixed victory. Let's put things in perspective — and this is going to be painful to hear if all you want to do is celebrate. The far right in France has doubled — or more — its share of the vote since 2002. Then, Jean Marie Le Pen — Marine's father — faced Jacque Chirac. Chirac won 82% of the vote, and Le Pen just 18%. That's a gap of more than 60%. French people famously took to the streets in 2002 chanting, "Vote for the Crook, not the Fascist."

Today, Macron won — but by a far, far smaller margin, just 10–20%.

So this is a mixed victory. Yes, Macron held the line. But the far right made shocking, stunning gains. It is now a mainstream political force. It wasn't that in 2002. The results of 2002 were a rejection of the far right — almost a mockery of it. But this is different. This is a legitimation of the far right. Enough of the French public counts it as a valid political force — not just a fringe minority.

When I say that the far right is ascendant around the globe, do I just mean that it "wins" everywhere? Of course not. The world is not homogeneous. What it means is that even in a country like France, the far right's vote has surged over the last few decades.

Why "even in a country like France"? Because France is one of the world's great social democracies. These are precisely the places where we should expect the far right to find the least footing — and footing last, too. France isn't America. America has no social protections — none. No public healthcare, retirement, affordable education, transport, media, at a national scale. It is therefore far, far more vulnerable to social collapse by way of demagogues. When hard times arise, then without social protections, people fall into poverty and despair — and scapegoat minorities.

Social democracies have far more protection from this vicious cycle of social collapse. That's not a coincidence. It's by design. What happened after World War II? Europe was rebuilt on the explicit idea that giving everyone a decent life, rich in public goods, would prevent precisely the death spiral of poverty and despair that set in in Weimar Germany, and led to Nazi Germany igniting World War II. The Marshall Plan literally was made for this purpose. That is why Europe's great social democracies offer people these generous social contracts — and ironically, America doesn't. The explicit idea of the modern social contract in nations like France is to defend against fascism.

What Macron's victory shows is that social democracy guardrails still work. For now. They're bent and battered, metal twisted out of shape. But still, they prevent society from going off the rails entirely. All those public goods — think of them. Education, media, transport, housing, income. What do they do? They protect against fascism. They keep people educated, aware, enlightened, informed, not completely desperate and ignorant and hopeless — at least enough of them to prevent a death spiral into fascism.

And yet the guardrails are battered and bruised — and buckling. That the far right has managed to halve the gap — or less — in just two decades, and go from a fringe minority to a legitimate political force tells us that the guardrails will not work forever. They will break, because they are breaking. The far right's potency isn't suddenly going to vanish — France is part of a larger trend, a far right planet, a world moving far right at incredible speed, and though it's a mature social democracy, and it has protection, thanks to the wisdom of the post-war age's brightest, most humane minds, that protection won't last forever.

All of that brings us to what this election really was. Who is Macron? Americans think of him without thinking at all. He's just…a guy. His politics are besides the point to American pundits.

There is a reason for that. Macron is an American style neoliberal, essentially. A little softer than Sarkozy before him — but in the same mold. His governance platform would be signed off on by every American pundit in DC — the same ones who made the Washington Consensus.

And there is a very, very big problem there, for Macron, and for France. Like the rest of the world, France is moving far right for a reason. Living standards are stagnant — and in decline amongst the working class. The middle class feels like it struggles. The lower stratum of society is losing hope and confidence and faith in institutions. Elites on the right, meanwhile, at least some of them, have discovered that demagoguery can be used to turn all this rage at scapegoats.

Macron's answer to all this is that he doesn't have an answer. He wants to effectively begin gutting France's generous public goods. Raising the retirement age, to begin with, then probably privatising the system, maybe moving on to healthcare, financializing what used to a rich set of goods owned by and for the public — it's a familiar enough formula, tried and tested in Britain and America among other places.

Do you see the problem here? These are precisely the guardrails set up to protect against fascism, at the end of the last World War, by the world's brightest minds.

Macron's paradox is this. Does he try to "fix" France's stagnant living standards and its declining social structure by gutting the very public goods which defend against fascism? It's a little bit like selling off the guardrails. Sure, then you have some money. And you can buy dinner for a week. But you also don't have…much protection left for tomorrow.

Do you see the problem? In the long run, this is no answer at all. It only makes things worse.

But so far, Macron doesn't have an answer to France's woes beyond this.

And that is why the French left gave him the cold shoulder. Turnout was historically low in this election. Young people were particularly tepid. That is because young people in France, who lean left, understand precisely the process I've described to you above, even if they don't know it. They have internalised it by living it. They understand through experience that the key to defeating fascism is a social contract rich in public goods, which promotes trust, confidence, investment, the common wealth. For them, to sell of the guardrails is no good at all — yes, it might buy you time, but only at the price of a having a functioning society tomorrow.

American pundits see this as a resounding victory for Macron — and a vindication of neoliberalism. It wasn't. It was a rejection of fascism. Much of France said to itself, holding its nose — well, if the choice is neoliberalism or fascism, we'll have to take the former, even if we don't like it. It's the lesser evil.

But make no mistake, this is no vindication of neoliberalism — turnout was low, enthusiasm was low, and Macron's side was badly, badly split, because many, many people in France understand that Macron has no real vision or agenda for the dilemma he now faces, and selling off, weakening, diluting the Fifth Republic's great institutions isn't much of an answer.

Now. I want to add a note of context. You might think all this is critical, but I don't mean it that way at all. France is one of the world's truly great societies. To be able to resist a tsunami of fascism that has literally drowned nations from America to Russia to China to India in rage and hate and stupidity — that is a major, major accomplishment.

It tells us something. That we should study and learn from France. What makes it such a successful society? Remember, that's relative. At this point, America, for example, would be lucky to have a voting population that was "just" 40% far right, as would Russia, China, and India, Turkey, Hungary, or many others. France is swimming and surviving in the tide of fascism that is drowning the world.

That is a major accomplishment, just to do that. We should all be looking at it and learning.

Learning what? That social democracy still works. It is the most successful political system in human history — you've often heard me say that. What just happened in France is stark evidence of it. This wasn't a victory for Macron or Le Pen. It was a victory for social democracy — as a political form.

Because it is still standing. On the one side, one candidate wants to openly destroy it with hate. On the other, one wants to slowly deconstruct it and sell it off. But there it is, still rising above them both. If anything, this election tells us that while the center is still shift far right, the principles and guardrails of social democracy still defend it. And it tells us, too, that there is only way out of this mess for Macron, which is to ally with the left, if he wants to govern, which is his next challenge, forming a parliamentary majority. In that sense — which is the crucial one — social democracy still works.

For now, at least, that is something very, very important, and to take heart in.

Umair
April 2022

ANS -- This Earth Day, Biden faces 'headwinds' on climate agenda

I have been reading and hearing that Biden "isn't doing anything".  this article lists some of the things Biden is doing, and has tried to do but was stopped from doing.  I think it might prove to be a valuable reference for those arguments where they say he isn't doing anything.  Unfortunately, it's a mixed report, but he's been trying to keep his promises.  

Find it here: This Earth Day, Biden faces 'headwinds' on climate agenda | Xfinity 

This Earth Day, Biden faces 'headwinds' on climate agenda | Xfinity WASHINGTON (AP) — One year ago, Joe Biden marked his first Earth Day as president by convening world leaders for...

--Kim

This Earth Day, Biden faces 'headwinds' on climate agenda

By MATTHEW DALY and CHRIS MEGERIAN, AP / 10:19 am ET Thu Apr 21, 2022

WASHINGTON (AP) — One year ago, Joe Biden marked his first Earth Day as president by convening world leaders for a virtual summit on global warming that even Russian President Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping attended. Biden used the moment to nearly double the United States' goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, vaulting the country to the front lines in the fight against climate change.

But the months since then have been marred by setbacks. Biden's most sweeping proposals remain stalled on Capitol Hill despite renewed warnings from scientists that the world is hurtling toward a dangerous future marked by extreme heat, drought and weather.

In addition, Russia's war in Ukraine has reshuffled the politics of climate change, leading Biden to release oil from the nation's strategic reserve and encourage more drilling in hopes of lowering sky-high gas prices that are emptying American wallets.

It's a far cry from the sprint toward clean energy that Biden — and his supporters — envisioned when he took office. Although Biden is raising fuel economy standards for vehicles and included green policies in last year's bipartisan infrastructure legislation, the lack of greater progress casts a shadow over his second Earth Day as president.

Biden will mark the moment on Friday in Seattle, where he'll be joined by Gov. Jay Inslee, a fellow Democrat with a national reputation for climate action. Biden also is scheduled to visit Portland, Oregon, on Thursday as part of a swing through the Pacific Northwest, a region that has often been on the forefront of environmental efforts.

Administration officials defend Biden's record on global warming while saying that more work is needed.

"Two things can be true at the same time," said Ali Zaidi, the president's deputy national climate adviser. "We can have accomplished a lot, and have a long way to go."

Zaidi acknowledged that "we have headwinds, we have challenges," but also said the president has "a mandate to drive action forward on this."

Kyle Tisdel, climate and energy program director with the Western Environmental Law Center, said Biden has not lived up to the promise of last year's Earth Day summit.

"Climate action was a pillar of President Biden's campaign, and his promises on this existential issue were a major reason the public elected him,″ Tisdel said. "Achieving results on climate is not a matter of domestic politics, it's life and death."

Biden had hoped to pass a $1.75 trillion plan for expanding education programs, social services and environmental policies. But Republicans opposed the legislation, known as Build Back Better, and it failed to get the unanimous support necessary from Democrats holding a slim majority in the Senate.

The final blow came from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who owes his personal fortune to coal and represents a state that defines itself in large part through mining that fossil fuel. Democrats hope to revive the bill in some form, but it's unclear exactly what Manchin would support, putting any possible deal in jeopardy.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said this week that negotiations were ongoing even though Biden wasn't publicizing them. "Just because he's not talking about it doesn't mean those conversations are not happening behind the scenes," she said.

Administration officials are expected to speak Saturday at a rally outside the White House as climate, labor and social justice groups urge Congress to pass climate legislation before Memorial Day. Similar events are planned in dozens of cities as activists stress the need for major investments to boost clean energy and create jobs.

The White House wants to win approval for more than $300 billion in tax credits for clean energy that advocates describe as crucial for meeting Biden's goal of reducing emissions by up to 52% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Without the tax credits, "I don't see a pathway," said Nat Keohane, a former Obama energy adviser who is now president of the independent Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Reaching the midterm elections in November without them "would amount to a failure on the promise of the first year,'' he said.

Asked if Biden's goal of reducing emissions is still achievable, Psaki said, "We are continuing to pursue it, and we are going to continue to do everything we can to reach it."

Psaki noted that the $1 trillion infrastructure law includes an array of climate policies, including funding for the construction of 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations. However, an analysis by the consultancy McKinsey estimates that nearly 30 million chargers are needed by 2030.

The Ukraine war has worsened the political challenges at home by sending shockwaves through global energy markets and increasing gas prices.

It's also caused Biden to change his tune on oil drilling. Last week, Biden moved forward with the first onshore sales of oil and gas drilling leases on public land, a move that environmental groups blasted even though the administration said it was only doing so under a court order.

Although the legal battle is ongoing, in the meantime Biden is encouraging new domestic production.

"The bottom line is if we want lower gas prices we need to have more oil supply right now," Biden said in March.

The leasing plan "is an ugly betrayal of Joe Biden's campaign promises and his administration's rhetoric on environmental justice and climate action,″ said Collin Rees, U.S. political director at Oil Change International.

"Biden is choosing to stand with polluters over people at the expense of frontline communities and the future of the planet," he added.

The war in Ukraine has also frustrated diplomatic efforts to address climate change.

John Kerry, Biden's international climate envoy, has focused much of his efforts on prodding China, the world's top consumer of coal, to transition to clean energy more quickly. But that work "is harder now" amid China's defense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Kerry said Wednesday.

"Some of the differences in opinion between our countries have sharpened and hardened, and that makes diplomacy more difficult," he said during an online discussion on climate finance with the Center for Global Development.

Kerry's aides have downplayed talk he might leave the administration now that he's served more than a year, and he remains a loyal defender of Biden's climate efforts. But his tone has become more pessimistic recently, especially as Biden's climate proposals remain stalled in Congress.

The administration was also rattled by recent reports that Biden's domestic climate adviser, Gina McCarthy, plans to step down. McCarthy called the reports "simply inaccurate" and said she is "excited about the opportunities ahead."

Another one of Biden's climate-related efforts could divide the environmental community. His administration plans to offer $6 billion in funding to prevent financially distressed nuclear power plants from closing. Although the facilities produce carbon-free electricity, they're viewed warily by some activists because of concerns about how to dispose of nuclear waste and the potential for devastating accidents.

"We're using every tool available to get this country powered by clean energy by 2035," Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement.

Abigail Dillen, president of the environmental group Earthjustice, said that "spirits have dimmed" after the failures of the past year. Although she praised some of the policies that Biden has achieved so far, she said that "it's not at the scale of climate action we need — full-stop."

Now Republicans are poised to retake control of at least one chamber in Congress in November's midterm elections, meaning there's a limited window for making progress. Dillen and some other activists have suggested that Biden declare a climate emergency and use the Defense Production Act to boost renewable energy.

"It's time to pull out all the stops,″ she said.

___

Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report.