I've seen a depressing trend of Democratic politicians embracing anti trans talking points and compromising gender affirming care for young people. This is extremely concerning as states and the federal government are undermining access to care now more than ever. Democrats standing by trans people has far more dire consequences now than ever, yet we're being treated as politically disposable by people who used to campaign on lgbtq issues like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg.
I can't say I'm surprised. Liberal papers like the New York Times has been uncritically promoting unscientific transphobia for years that claims alternatives exist to gender affirming care. My guess is that people see a person transitioning as an unfortunate thing, desperately wishing there was another way. They ignore the fact that gender affirming care is both the best treatment for dysphoria, and one of the most successful treatments for any mental condition ever discovered.
To put it simply, making gender affirming care harder to obtain for kids will kill many of them. Kids being kept from care by their parents already drives people to suicide, and a slimy politician preventing supportive parents from helping their kids will do the same. Every time I see people claim these guys are our best shot at beating fascism, I die inside. I have no doubt that they'll eventually axe care for all adults like everyone who was originally "worried about fairness in sports" is currently pushing for. The only way they won't is if we make it a costly issue for them.
Slavery only increased under neoliberal policy. Where does our lithium come from? Slaves and child slaves. Our cocoa? In part, child slaves. Where do most of our goods come from? Sweat shops and exploited third-world countries. Our prison labor, which has absolutely exploded under neoliberal policy, is also by definition slave labor. Before Trump, over 40% of our agricultural labor force were undocumented immigrants - modern slaves.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd see how much suffering and exploitation went into every single item around you.
Ancient history, and none of these things besides suffrage truly represent the left, which is commonly associated with socialism and egalitarianism - the left was historically coined to describe socialists.
Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to egalitarianism, liberal and leftist ideology, and democracy. And it's worth mentioning Democrats are further right than most European center-right parties.
You could even be a bigger fascist and authoritarian than Trump, including being a Christian, and be in support of gay rights. See Peter Thiel, self-proclaimed right-libertarian, who is the opposite of a libertarian in practice.
Democrats flying the rainbow flag is just as gross and meaningless as corporations doing it: it's branding. Except now the branding requires that we sacrifice trans people to appeal to ~~centrists~~ Republicans/old-school conservatives and try to siphon voters from MAGA. Meanwhile, gay marriage is likely going to quickly be dismantled like everything else, while Democrats stand silent.
Will this come in time to address the fresh water crisis? Will it come in time to address the climate crisis? How many trans people will die by suicide because it's "too radical" to support them even a little bit? How many people will die because of preventable disease? How many people will forego higher education? How many people will be laid off and rendered homeless until we establish UBI? How many child slaves will be sacrificed in the mines so we can have new iPhones every year? I could go on and on and on.
Progressives have been playing ball way more than you suggest. Enough. It's become a game of dodgeball where progressives can't throw, only take hits from the Democrats and everybody else. Shifting to the right is not an effective strategy for Democrats, not even a little bit. 1/3 of the country doesn't vote, why the fuck is nobody looking at that group?
Saw your edit:
A Supreme Court decision. Which was never codified into law by Democrats...
You're going to sit there and say you wouldn't have voted for fucking Lincoln because he didn't "really" end slavery?
I'd like to believe that I would be arguing for the abolition of all social, race, and class-based hierarchies, among other things, but this isn't then and I wasn't born in that time period.
Suppose I were born at that time, had access to a very good education, and possessed roughly the same spirit as I do now; I'd likely be politically active and influencing people like Lincoln as best I could.
Nobody is entitled to another's vote though, and I'll just leave it at that.
Edit - I thought on it and I feel it's necessary to amend this for those curious why I would respond in such a way:
If it came down to it, I'd likely vote for Lincoln. Regardless of some of his statements, he showed deep principles:
Very few involved with politics in the present day are even 1% as principled and vocal about what they believe to be right as Lincoln - he was so incredibly ahead of his time.
Well I would definitely 100% be supporting moderate pussy Lincoln because the Confederacy fucking sucks and I don't want their supporter to win.
Sorry to hear you were on the fence about it.
There were historically people calling Lincoln's abolitionist ideas not radical enough, so bite me.
You'd likely unquestionably vote for a self-proclaimed Zionist committing a genocide, and that was your point in reality - to shame me for having principles in general and in particular in regards to how I vote. You are free to push the Democratic party to the left or away from supporting genocide at any point instead of attacking me - I don't vote for genocide and my vote must be earned through representation.
It's basic democracy, the Democrats don't automatically earn or own my vote because they play at being socially liberal when it suits them.
I could imagine you arguing to Lincoln that he actually should be less radical, that he should compromise on his principle of seeing slavery as being wrong. Just allow a little slavery Lincoln... c'mon man.