this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
72 points (100.0% liked)

transgender

143 readers
23 users here now

Made to use piefed's features.

Overview:

The Piefed place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.

Rules

  1. Keep discussions civil.

  2. Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.

  3. No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

I do find some of the language in this inflammatory. I don't think I could have voted for this. Here is the full text rather than only the unobjectionable part.

  • Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted Christian, who boldly lived out his faith with conviction, courage, and compassion;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk was a dedicated husband to his beloved wife, Erika Kirk, and a loving father to their daughter and son, exemplifying the virtues of faith, fidelity, and fatherhood;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk, at 18 years old, founded Turning Point USA in 2012, a student movement with the mission to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government”;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;
  • Whereas the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not only a heinous act of violence, but a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society;
  • Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debated—not silenced—with civility, reason, and mutual respect;
  • Whereas the rise in targeted violence against individuals for their political beliefs undermines the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society;
  • Whereas leaders at every level—government, education, media, and beyond—must stand united in unequivocal condemnation of political violence, regardless of their ideology;
  • Whereas the tragic loss of Charlie Kirk must not be allowed to deepen the divides in our Nation, but instead serve as a turning point to recommit ourselves to better angels, and to the timeless American principles of liberty governed by truth and the virtues of peaceful dialogue; and
  • Whereas Charlie Kirk would not have us respond to his death with despair, but rather with renewed purpose—to speak truth with courage, to stand firm in faith, to seek unity while standing firm in principle, and to serve as living reminders of the values he championed: faith, family, and freedom: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

If you look at what the actual honoring is calling for, there is a lot of non-partisan good things there that ultimately aim for a goal that is opposed to political violence on both sides.

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

The problem with just condemning violence "on both sides" is that you are buying into the right-wing framing that violence from the left and the right are in any way equivocal. That the left calling the fascist things the wannabe fascist president is doing fascist is in any way equivalent to the right saying immigrants are invading the country, or that trans people are groomers that are abusing kids, or that homeless people should be euthanized.

From just a quick PBS article I found with like 5 minutes of looking:

Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.

"Both sides" do not bear anywhere near the same level of responsibility for the current state of political violence in this country.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why is it a problem for you to condemn political violence? Either you oppose it or you don't, end of story. If someone asked you condemn sexual assault, would you do it or claim the prob with condemning it is people still voted for Trump?

I never said not to condemn political violence. I said not to accept right wing framing when you do. They are trying to pretend like 80% of extremist political violence isn't committed by right wingers.

The left calling the fascist actions of the wannabe dictator president fascist is not the same as the right calling all undocumented immigrants violent criminal invaders, or trans people vile pedophile groomers.

You fucking clown.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)