In other words, rules for thee, but not for me.

Everyone needs to be familair with the 14 points of fascism. https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

A tenant is somebody who has a lease, for example to an apartment or one of those big metal sheds for a supermarket, and by analogy, customers of something like Microsoft's "Entra ID" (what was "Azure Active Directory" at least the new name is less confusing)

A tenet is a belief or principle that you believe in absolutely, I think we'd say that this "protects but does not bind / binds but does not protect" idea isn't a tenet of Fascism but instead an observable trait.

(Seriously, gerrymandering, redistricting weaponization, bribery/campaign contributions, and the like are all forms of election corruption.)

Fascism is a specific thing. You're describing the absence of the rule of law, which is common to everything from traditional ruling-family dictatorships to faux democratic communist politburos.

Meanwhile that's not even half the problem with laws like this. They would still be oppressive even if they were enforced uniformly against everyone, because ID requirements have chilling effects and disproportionately impact marginalized groups.

Remember that Snowden quote? Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. It goes the other way too and the people with nothing to say don't much care for free speech either.

> These people will never actually ban pornography, because they consume pornography.

Banning porn won't affect them: mainstream porn will find a way (dealing with rulings will just be a cost of business).

And more than anything, making it technically illegal allows for selective enforcement, which means a lot more power for them to decide who wins and who loses.

https://archive.md/60QZV

Which is funny because Biblical scholars have been pretty clear that the coming of Jesus wipes out all that stuff. It is called the New Covenant.

Religion is about believing things you have no evidence for, that's its whole thing.

There is a series on Disney+ about this, "Mrs America". Worth watching.

There is a bunch of people who ~5 years ago did not identify as evangelical (or even religious) but now do. They still do not attend church. Nobody is sure what it means.

Nobody should be sharing HRT "tips" with other people's children.

Do you apply this rule to all medications, or just ones you’re offended by?

Setting aside trans issues - plenty of non-trans kids are in hormones or puberty blockers for a wide variety of reasons. Should they be blocked from discussing them online?

Do you have any counter-evidence?

So, what is it that you're actually looking for?

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/horm...

And on the subject of the (methodologically trash) cass report:

https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1

CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS

Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report.

In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...

> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.

CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS

The older I get, the more I understand people who prefer quality of life, over longevity.

Question about your good faith:

Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty

Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.

So should everyone under the age of 25 (roughly when your brain becomes fully developed) be prohibited from talking about any kind of medical treatment?

Also, how do you expect people to develop critical thinking skills if they’re never presented with challenging concepts or, you know, required to think critically about things?

Ironically, it's the same right wing folks who so vehemently resist effective computerization of gun registration info, because of how they believe such systems can be abused.

That's what I used to say about Roe v. Wade. "They'll never give up that wedge issue."

Historically Abortion was literally prohibited constitutionally in the Republic. That changed†, one of my friends lived there at the time and she's got a picture somebody made (painted? sketched?) on her wall of the group watching the results come in. But for most of my life, abortion was absolutely illegal in the Republic of Ireland.

So, if you were poor, too bad no abortions, they're illegal. But if you're wealthy you just decide to "go on holiday", maybe a long weekend somewhere nice - and miraculously while abroad you stop being pregnant. No problem

†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_...

> Transgender people will see their existence denied and their rights stripped away under Project 2025. The authors equate ‘transgender ideology’ to pornography, calling for it to be outlawed. While the far-right policy agenda cannot directly ban transgenderism, it aims to do so indirectly by labeling it as pornography, and then outlawing pornography itself – effectively erasing transgender identity from the U.S.

Similarly, legislators put forth legislation like KOSA with the explicit purpose of preventing LGBT kids from connecting with peers or learning anything related to their identities[2]:

> A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online.

> In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers.

[1] https://doctorsoftheworld.org/blog/project-2025-lgbtq-rights...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...

Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

> If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not

...

Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.

[1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

Note the word "literally" in the statement that US state are literally blocking Pornhub.

That is not the case. Pornhub blocked the states preemptively, not the other way around.

Hope this helps.

From "Data Finds Republicans are Obsessed with Searching for Transgender Porn"[1]:

> So far in 2022, more than 300 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed across 36 states – at least one third of which are directed at trans youth. This surge, especially in anti-trans legislation from Republicans, stands in stark contrast to a startling fact.

> Republicans love transgender porn, a lot.

> With more than 4.7 Million transgender porn related Google searches each month (per Ahrefs.com), do Republicans represent those searching most? The answer seems to be a clear yes.

[1] https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsessio...

And if you’re still opposed to it, the solution is regulation - not criminalization.

Reading their comment charitably, one might want the trans youth to also get their information from actual medical professionals and groups rather than random internet strangers.

Analogously, sharing information about DIY at-home abortions with people on the internet is also dangerous as hell and will hurt people. In the world we currently live in it may be better than the alternative, but in a better world both of those are not pieces of information that anyone should need to find online.

It's why there is an age of consent that no kid can waive.

It's why kids aren't allowed to do lots of things, like vote, drive, drink etc.

There needs to be a compelling reason to make an exception for one politically charged thing that comes with irreversible physical changes.

There also needs to be a compelling reason why that decision cannot be deferred until age of majority.

What does the parent's opinion have to do with it? Their opinion is equally ignored when it comes to statutory rape, no?

This is not a "this is a private matter between the child and the parent" scenario. Some things are, but a clear majority of people do not feel that this should be one of those things.

To their "chagrin?" Huh? The meaning of the word is the opposite of whatever you're trying to communicate, I think.