It’s not hyperbole to say our Fourth amendment rights are considerably weaker than they’ve ever been. One hundred years ago a person could communicate freely without any possibility of the government monitoring. Government monitoring of citizen conversations and communications is now the default. For everyone. All the time. Not even with probable cause!

It’s an absolute hyperbole to come to the conclusion we’re on a downtrend in civil rights and becoming China, NK, and Russia because of one issue.

The last part is indeed hyperbolic, but I don't see how you can witness the last few years of American political life and conclude the equivalent of "it can't happen here."

In terms of following China, Russia, etc. there have been significant moves that affect the whole population in ways that are very important.

- Reduced access to firearms (safety, individual power) - Social Security and Medicare (financial independence, retirement, health) - Mandatory health insurance (health and financial freedom). - Formerly abortion (much less than 50%).

Gains have been for increasingly small groups.

- Sexual preference (affects about ~5% of population). - Transgender (<1%).

Then things like the Supreme Court’s recent gun cases have mostly just foreclosed future restrictions, but haven’t increased access to those sorts of small arms that would be needed in an e.g. Ukraine-type situation. This obviously leaves the American people closer to Russian, Chinese, etc in terms of their capacity forcibly defend their rights.

>Gains have been for increasingly small groups.

It's a common misperception that gay/trans rights only benefit gay and trans people. Fundamentally, gay and trans rights arise from an understanding than men don't have to do certain things a certain way merely because they're men and women don't have to do things a certain way merely because they're women. This understanding benefits anyone who's not a completely stereotypical man or woman.

This is true for gay people, but not for those who identify as trans. Instead, their activism seeks to fundamentally redefine women and men as based on gender identity, rather than sex.

I mean, it would be great if males who enjoy doing things that are stereotypically considered feminine, like applying lipstick and wearing skirts and dresses and so on, would acknowledge that they are men challenging restrictive gender norms. Instead, most of them want to be regarded as women both legally and socially.

In my opinion, this is a step backwards, as it embraces stereotypes rather than challenging them. It's also incompatible with gay rights as previously understood, because this activism redefines sexuality in terms of gender identity instead of sex.

I think you’re completely wrong to suggest that people who advocate for trans rights are opposed to cis men or women engaging in gender non-typical behavior. But as always in such cases, it would lead to a much better discussion if you’d point to specific examples rather than “trans activism” in general.

You are right of course that there should be room for men or women to behave in a gender non-typical way without the assumption that they must therefore be trans. I’m skeptical of the suggestion that it’s trans people or advocates for trans rights who are confused about the distinction between being trans and behaving in a gender non-typical manner.

We’re in fact making progress in both dimensions, which suggests that they are not particularly opposed. For example, legal recognition of trans rights is slowly increasing, while we’re also seeing cis men being more comfortable with non-traditional dress or make up (see e.g. Harry Styles).

I would like to counter your points with my own, but when I post a comment doing so, it gets flagged soon afterwards. So unfortunately we'll have to leave the conversation here.

(Curiously, my initial comment was also flagged and then rapidly unflagged around the same time, so I expect that blocking discussion of this topic is some hidden moderator action.)

> (Curiously, my initial comment was also flagged and then rapidly unflagged around the same time, so I expect that blocking discussion of this topic is some hidden moderator action.)

It could just be because its a controversial topic as both flagging and unflagging (via vouching) is somthing regular users can do to some extend. Would be nice if there was a public moderation log though (including user flags/vouches).

I disagree. The trans (and previously gay) agendas have not been to make homosexual conduct acceptable, but primarily to divide men into straight and gay groups. Masculinity was far broader in the 200s, 1700s, and early 1900s than in the 1960s and 2020s. Now - if you dress in a dress - you’re no longer a man who wears a dress, nor even queer, but you’re not even a man at all! If you have sex with men, you’re not just a man you’re a gay / bi / etc man. In the 1800s men did all of these things and were just men. They suggest that you can’t just be who you are, but must actively claim pronouns, etc.

So the stuff you care about is not going the way you want we’re becoming like China, NK, and Russia? That’s what it sounds like. Why the disregard for minority groups? Or is it only what you care about that matters?