cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/54506028

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/politics/p/1270828/iowa-dem-josh-turek-releases-anti-trans-ad-calling-for-a-federal-funding-ban-on-trans-care

On Saturday, Oct. 24, Josh Turek, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Iowa, released a new ad targeting transgender people—perhaps the worst anti-transgender ad of the entire election cycle to come from a Democrat. The ad begins with Turek talking about his disability and the importance of not discriminating, before immediately turning to adopt discriminatory policies toward transgender people. One such policy is a sports ban, a position sadly becoming increasingly common among high-profile Democrats in competitive races, and one that alone would have made this yet another newsworthy anti-trans ad. But Turek then goes further, advocating for a new policy: a proposal to ban federally funded gender-affirming care in the United States, one that would impact a substantial number of transgender people and make their care difficult to impossible to receive.

  • SouthernShao@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    No that wouldn’t be possible. A slave is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, property of another against their will. If you consent to it, it wouldn’t be slavery.

    It’s like theft. If you consent to give it to me I’m not stealing from you. In such an instance, you’re selling it to me, trading it to me, gifting it to me, or maybe just giving it to me as a gift. What manifests theft as theft from a fundamental idea of the essence of the idea itself is that I would need to be violating your consent - your will, as it were.

    Theft is only theft when you violate will. Rape is only sex if everyone partaking consents. Even murder no longer becomes murder if there’s consent. In fact, you can kill someone who didn’t consent to dying and it still wouldn’t always be murder because the person may have consented to a risk that just so happened to end their life. Take for example if you consent to go skydiving and you fall to your death. The skydiving company didn’t murder you because you agreed to the risks of the situation that lead to your death.

    Now had someone pushed you out of the airplane before you put your parachute on - which wasn’t something you agreed to have happen - then the person who pushed you out of the plane would have murdered you.

    Slavery is the same thing. You’re not a slave if you’re OK with it. Now if you consented to be someone else’s property and you also consented for you to never be able to change your mind about it, well you’re an idiot. That’d be like agreeing to give your house away to someone and then being upset when you change your mind and ask for it back and they tell you no. You would never do that, so why would your own autonomy be any different?