TBayXXXVII

Good one.

Under 18, never. Period. Just like every other thing in this country. Over 18, do what you want... it's your body. As long as you don't force me to participate in your delusion. If any policy that is put forward that supports Under 18, then I don't care what else is in the policy, it gets 100% ignored and the answer is "No". Period. There will forever be pushback on this.

The conservative approach is quite libertarian. That's why you don't encounter what you want to hear from libertarians. Prior to 18, cosmetic changes only. Still need to use a gender appropriate bathroom (not your chosen gender), or uni-sex bathroom. Boys can NOT participate in female specific activities. PERIOD! Bullying and ostracizing will ensue if you allow it based on participants acceptance. Meaning, if you have a girls basketball team and there are 6 girls who are ok with a boy, but 3 not... the 6 will bully the 3 until they acquiesce. Once you make an allowance for one, you have to do it globally... no picking and choosing. Post 18, do what you want... who cares, it's your body. You still can't go out into society and get the rights and privilege's to the gender you chose. You don't have the right to force others to accept your choices. In both circumstances, go see any doctor you want. Because we know there are activist doctors, lawyers, and judges, all people need to do is to continue to search until you find the right one for you... confirmation bias, right? Well, you solve that problem by not allowing anyone to take pharmacological options until their adults. Libertarians believe that women should have their rights protected. If a man says he's a woman, he's still not a woman, hence he is NOT afforded the protected rights women have. They also believe that your rights don't trump someone else's rights. That's why you won't hear anything to your liking from Libertarians.

Why didn't you just blanketly come out and say "Listen to radical leftists"?

No, he's saying that he hopes that one day we all refer to people as they want to be referred to, as well as allowed to live as such, regardless if it's true or not. Meaning, he hopes that if a man says he's a woman, the world will acknowledge that he is a woman, and that he'll have all the special rights and privilege's afforded to women... even though he's a man (and vice versa). He hopes that black people will be treated like every other race, even though it's him and his party who are preventing that.

ETA... @EternalShinyAndChrome (post), and @Strike (post), beat me to it.

Just so we're clear... I can change my looks (make-up and such), and clothes and say I'm a woman. The "Woke" crowd would stand behind me and say that everyone should call me a woman and participate in everyday life as woman. But if I change my looks (make-up and such), and clothes and say I'm black, the "Woke" crowd would call me racist.

Darrius Heyward-Bey 2.0??

Would they be wrong if the guy they want turns out to be the next Pat Mahomes/Tom Brady? Meaning, I think it's only a bad idea if we in hindsight look back at what transpired. If they're right about the guy they want, and he's a stud... and they don't pay whatever the cost, they'll be kicking themselves forever. If in that same sense they trade the farm and they're right, willing to bet they don't give two shitz about what they gave up to get him.

Is that anything like LeBron and Co who claim to be against slavery & "fascism", but take money from a company (Nike), who's making said people million/billionaires by selling their "brand", using slave labor in a communist (which is worse than fascism), country?

Political trial still going on I see.

Racist cops!!! Oh, wait, dude is white? What's the narrative now? "If dude was black, he'd have been shot and killed!!!" That's my guess.

So you're just believing the Democrats because they're Democrats. Got it. All you had to do was say "Yes" to my question. LOL To note, I already knew that was the answer. No reply was necessary.

No, I'm not making a completely different argument, I was calling out his inconsistency. He's ok with Summer of 2020 but not Jan 6 (that's what he's referring to when he says "Trump's goons"). What you did was prove my point. My assertion at the equal treatment was a guess based on the fact that the media never really reported it. THAT should be a bigger issue to EVERYONE, not that I got it wrong. I got it wrong because it was never reported. Let that sink in.