Could you give an example of behavior that "directly" harmed yourself or others which caused you to sever ties?

Politics is almost always indirect, usually with multiple levels of indirection.

People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.

That is, by definition, indirect. So that doesn't qualify as "directly harming" anyone, even if your analysis of those policies is otherwise accurate.

No it isn’t. When people see the anti trans party winning elections they see that as permission to bully trans people. The vote directly leads to abuse.

Yes, it very much is indirect. Direct would be the "anti trans party" passing a law saying that you must bully trans people.

Your definition of direct is terrible

I'd be happy to hear your definition of direct, which somehow includes a bunch of indirect things happening.

voting for trump tells everyone in the country that you dont mind if trans people are abused. This creates a culture that is uninviting even if no one acts poorly beyond the voting. You dont have to physically abuse someone for your actions to have direct consequences

> voting for trump tells everyone in the country that you dont mind if trans people are abused

It literally does not. You can vote for Trump without ever having thought of trans people a day in your life, much less thought of "abusing" them.

AFAIK, Trump himself has never expressed a desire to abuse trans people, according to a normal and accepted definition of "abuse".

How are their lives being destroyed?

Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.

I don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/

Please define "erasing them from public existence". Provide concrete actions that are actively being taken, not vague concepts of "bad things".

I would recommend clicking on the link and scrolling down.

The most relevant link on the website seems to be the one listing bills that actually passed: https://translegislation.com/bills/2025/passed

From a brief scan through, it includes measures like mandating that single-sex spaces are single-sex spaces, collecting accurate statistics on sex, preventing the teaching of gender identity beliefs as if they are facts, and preventing children from being given certain controversial pharmaceutical and surgical interventions.

None of that appears to be about destroying anyone's lives.

"destroying and erasing" trans people = not overtly pushing for there spread and acceptance

Assuming you're actually arguing in good faith, the "erasing" bit has been quite obvious and blatant.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-inn-national...

Removing people from information about a historical event doesn't look good under any lens.

Doesn't this change make it more historically accurate? In 1969, the year of the Stonewall uprising, the "TQ+" hadn't been invented yet as a cultural concept. The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar and was being targeted for that reason.

Not really, no, especially considering the involvement of trans people in the event itself.

For example, see the section regarding "Zazu Nova" on the current page

https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/photosmultimedia/virtual-fenc...

and before the erasure

https://web.archive.org/web/20250202042345/https://www.nps.g...

Interesting to see the difference and I agree that's an inaccurate edit. For historical accuracy it should describe Zazu Nova as a gay man who was also a transvestite or drag queen.

You do realize that "gay man", "transvestite", "drag queen", and "trans woman" are all different things right?

None of them implies the others. And using any term besides trans woman would be disingenuous, as trans people existed before before 1969, with that exact nomenclature already existing. Just because the letters might not have been attached to an "LGBT" title, neither T or Q are new. Only their increased acceptance and knowledge is.

And deleting references to those is, as you can see, seen as an obvious attempt to walk back on that public perception and acceptance.

While ( as often is ) a very summarized version of the history can be found on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history , the sources should lead you to more detailed info, if you do care about learning about the historical accuracy.

The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar so we know that Zazu Nova must have been there due to being a gay man. As the previous iteration of the website describes Nova as "queen", "she" and "transgender woman", this means that in 1960s terminology Nova would almost certainly have been understood to be a transvestite, possibly a drag queen.

Sources on the web refer to Nova having involvement with the Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries group, which fits with that description also.

I did. It's almost nothing but intentionally obtuse terms that mask the actual issues being discussed.

For example, what exactly is "gender-affirming care"? Because I suspect that includes giving life-altering drugs to young children.

Gender-affirming care is good and needed to protect kids.

A lot of people strongly believe this to be true. However, the evidence does not support this.

It’s like when they call abortion “healthcare” as if we couldn’t tell the difference. It’s all semantics. But human lives are at stake so we shouldn’t compromise.

Not answering question.

I don't think they're arguing in a good faith with you.

"“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

This is an oversimplified strawman argument. Biological sex is a complex subject. The cultural understanding of sex is complex. If I has a man take my 2 year old daughter to the men's room is that a bad thing? (For the record I don't have any children)

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should be barred from taking your hypothetical two-year-old daughter into the men's bathroom if the need arises. That's really not the issue.

but I thought "Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad."?

Perhaps think on that a bit more then. Consider for example that female-only spaces don't exclude women who are pregnant with male babies.

I am bi, my "friends" would hate LGBT people, constantly talk how we're pedophiles and so on, and kept voting for parties against equal rights.

If your "friends" were calling you or your other friends pedophiles (and you are not) then yes, absolutely, you should not be friends with them.

So, basically, you believe that everyone who doesn't strictly adhere to your own ideologies is insane.

You're pretty much the exact kind of person that the article talks about.

They said nothing remotely similar.