Who banned Amaris?

One thing I've seen - presumably it's not uncommon elsewhere but specifically - among more trans people than I am comfortable recalling is the frustration/depression/desperation that comes from a personal Kobyoshi Maru. It becomes isolating because many of the people around you realize your fatalistic assessment of your life situation is actually correct, and those who DO try and pep you up with "it'll get better" and such like can only be read as entirely insincere.

An example: I'm acquainted with a trans woman who lives in Tupelo, only met her IRL a couple of times but we're Facebook friends. I originally met her when I reconnected with a woman who was a teacher on the same hall as me in my previous life, my friend had taken her in because she literally had no where else to go. Coming out had aleianated her from her family and other than still having a job, she had no anchor.

This person is at least 6'7", something like 350 (and that's more "defensive end" that empty fat) and....well...ugly for a female by any definition. She's convinced her life will never be tolerably happy and I'd be less than sincere if i tried to convince her otherwise. I *HURT* for her because no one deserves that shitty hand in life but I'm at an utter loss to how to have a relationship with someone who's deeply morose for perfectly valid reasons.

As a side not, that's why I'm so very incensed by this current campaign to prevent kids from getting treatment to block puberty. What would her life have been like, and how much better, had she had that chance? And this is true of probably the majority of trans people (myself included) but some got a far worse hand than others.

Back to Amaris, from what I know of her shit circumstances I grieve for her, and even more so now that I know she's stuck behind the mask on top of all the rest. But how do I say "It'll get better" when... will it tho?

There comes a time when you should look out for yourself, though. Especially if, IIRC, the source of the obligations are there due to their own life choices and not chance.

Amaris’ life was stolen from her. As @Shirogayne said, her high school graduation gift was signing her life over to care for her ailing mother. She may have thought it only temporary at the time, but it’s been 20 years. Bernie’s policies would have gone a long way to freeing her from those responsibilities and giving her her life back. But all assholes here could do is bitch about Bernie bros being responsible for trump’s presidency - basically justifying the continued theft of the rest of her life. Even if she were freed of those responsibilities today, she’s got to be pushing 40 if not older. It would be very difficult to convince a potential employer - even in Ohio, that you don’t have a job history but can start now with “whatever you need me to do.”

Don't know her circumstance but for me, I was deeply marinated in that culture and part of it was that people like me were "freaks" that should be seeking for God to "fix" them - which I did! Because i knew very well the social cost of telling the truth about myself (I knew about my gender "problem" from the age of 5 or 6 but never knew there were others until Renee Richards appeared in the headline in '76) especially in the 1980s in Mississippi. Having been indoctrinated into the idea that it was to be "repented of" and "healed" that's the road I choose: Pray it Away.
Not just pray but double and triple down by trying to be THE most faithful and diligent "Christian Man" I could and "claim by faith" the idea that God would eventually relieve me of my burden.

He didn't.

And the longer one endures that, as Mal said, long wait for a train don't come, the more you either fall apart or become more of an ass.
We're all aware which path I was on. Maybe Amaris fell down the other. (not to say the intensity isn't a form of "becoming an ass" in the eyes of those around you - maybe they aren't really two different paths at all)

I hate to get off topic here, but I can't be the only one that sees a username like that and decides, without entertaining a one of their thoughts, that this is a fundamentally unserious person who's existence I should avoid.

TBH finding out that she was struggling with her gender (which I knew about a while back, just not the resolution of it) made me more tolerant of the "communist" bit because I saw it as the outward manifestation of the inward flailing to get a grip on who she was. I would guess that should she ever get a better life circumstance she'll regress some towards the political mean.

and have a lot of regret about the stridency)

Agreed, and that's not a negative attribute if you can find ways to act constructively. It sounds like she's tied down too much to do much about it.

If you don't mind my asking, in genuine curiosity, what do you mean by this? That you just preferred to do "girly" things instead of "boy" things, or that you outright felt like you were supposed to be in a girl's body?

IMHO high self-esteem and a good self image start with being awesome. Sadly not everybody can pull that off.

Well, don't stop trying.

How would you know that?

don't stop trying to reign it in that is! Much like the universe itself, my awesomeness might be expanding at an ever increasing velocity. Granted that's just one theory. I posit the "steady state" of my awesomeness, which assumes no beginning and no end to it.

The latter.
Frankly, I wasn't overtly "girlish" at the time, other than being shy and bookish and not interested in "outdoorsman" stuff like my brother.

I have a hypothesis about that, my mom before she passed couldn't remember if there's any evidence for this or not. I have a two inch scar on my right wrist, that looks deliberate but that I cannot remember ever having a wound there. when we were young (my brother is two years younger than me) my asshole dad kept me in a crewcut (literally until almost puberty) while my brother had a normal ordinary haircut - and it wasn't my idea, I HATED it (for obvious reasons), my "father" was always obviously disappointed with me, particularly that I wasn't interested in "fixing" things, or hunting/fishing/camping/westerns - you get the idea. My hypothesis is that when I was too little to realize that you weren't supposed to, I told my dad about it and he went into "By god no son of mine!" mode.

Anyway, I don't remember much about pre-school but I don't remember ever feeling "right" - like everything was as it should be. When I started first grade (no Kindergarten in MS in '69) I rode a bus with a little blonde girly-girl (she didn't grow up to be, as it turned out, more of a tom-boy but apparently her mom went for "cute little darling" for first day of school) and my brain organized itself - "THAT'S IT. THAT is how you were supposed to be!"

I've never not been convinced I should have been a girl even one hour since - even when I was preaching I was begging God to fix me because I never had any other understanding of who I was. I sought every opportunity to cross dress until too much puberty stole that from me (female cousins, etc) and then I stopped that. But I always knew specifically what the problem was - once I first realized - even when I thought I was the only such "freak" in human history.

This is why I exhort people to read The True Believer. It explains much about many people, including Amaris. The best converts to an extremist view are those who were extremists in the opposite direction, not middle-of-the-road folks.

And as hard as it might be for people to believe, there is some overlap between Bernie Bros and Trumpers. Both of them feel that society isn't working for them, and the middle-of-the-road politicians (regardless of party) don't offer any real hope to them. Somebody, anybody, who offers a radical change to the system is the only thing that seems to provide hope for them. One side of the spectrum offers immediate relief, while the other side will reduce everyone to the same level that the True Believer is presently at. Any society that comes about after this might offer them a chance at a better life.

Their current life, however, offers them nothing but the same, no matter how hard they might work. We all know the old saw that basically goes, "Democracy is a terrible system of government, the only thing worse than it are all the other systems that we've tried." The implication, of course, is that however flawed our democratic institutions might be, there's nothing that can be done to improve them. This strikes me as wrong. If a system of government isn't enabling a large number of people to be able to have their voices heard, then there's a problem. That doesn't mean that those people should be able to get exactly what they want, but there should at least be a dialogue between the different groups, and if there can't be, then what choice does one have? Besides burning everything down. The reality, however, is that we need to recognize our democratic systems can always be improved, and we don't have to burn everything down to accomplish this.

Because violent revolutions only have about a 20% chance of bringing more democracy to a country, while non-violent ones have a 53% chance.

This is exactly the kind of shit I spoke about. Amaris needed empathy. Not an analysis of why you think she was wrong.

In the discussion around white supremacy, Biden, and all that, Amaris was certainly not shy about sharing her analysis of why people were wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that. Empathy is always good, but you'll have to excuse people if they don't reach out and try to empathize when they're talking about violent political revolution.

He's already given that in spades throughout the post. Nearly everyone has. Normally, anyone who deletes and leaves Wordforge after such a display would have been laughed off, so it speaks to how well-respected she really is that this isn't happening. Anyone that wants to extend sympathy knows how to find her on Starscape or Facebook.

At any rate, he's right: sudden, scattershot overturns of government rarely end well even for the majority groups, let alone the marginalized groups. You will find plenty of progressive blacks that advocate to abolishing the police but very few who subscribe to straight up anarchy for exactly this reason. Anyone who thinks a violent overthrow of government led by either party will benefit BIPOC in short- or long-term is either naive or lying. And they certain aren't hearing us *or*learning.

@Shirogayne said it better but for the record I didn't read Tucker's post in that light.

Fair enough. But..., we’ve all had the freedom to make the choices we made. She didn’t.

How would Bernie have helped?

His policies. $15 minimum wage. UHC, taxes go toward college (God forbid I say “free college”).
A UHC would have provided the help she needed with her mother and ability to “afford” college would have help toward getting a job later.

Except those are all up to congress.

Biden campaigned against a UHC. Just the continuation of the ACA. Which was an expense Amaris could ill afford. I don’t recall “free college” being on his agenda. Regardless of being bills in congress, there’s little incentive for the committees to put that bill forward over another if there isn’t political pressure to push it forward.

And the president, because the Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate to override if Biden drags his heels.

The reality is that the Democrats have this year to get done whatever they want to do. Next year will be bogged down by the election cycle's distractions. The good news is Biden and Co. are not falling for the usual Republican tactic of pulling the football away when it comes to "compromise." The Republicans greatest fear is not overspending or even *OMG* socialism! It's that the hated gubmint will actually help the people they hate.

I don't think it's quite fair to say the Republicans "hate" the people. I think it's more a question of indifference. To the majority of Republicans, the people are a means to an end, that being power to the Republican party. The GOP doesn't care enough about the people to hate them; they simply use them. The driving goal of the Republicans is not "Let's see what all we can do to help the American people." They explicitly refuse that philosophy, saying it is not the place of government to help people. But they still don't actually hate the people. To them, the people are tools to be used, and a good workman doesn't hate his tools. But even when he takes care of his tools, that is never an end in itself. The tools are a means to an end, and that's all. And that end is power to the GOP. Lying, hypocrisy and manipulation are all acceptable, if it gives more power to the Republicans.

Their indifference is thus not rooted in hate for the people, but in their fundamental philosophy of government. Since they don't believe the role of government is to provide for the people, that can't be their goal. So their goal is their own advantage, and nothing more.

I won't say there isn't any of that among the Democrats, but at least it is not the fundamental philosophy of the Democrats. To the extent that Democratic politicians use the people as a means to their own advantage, it is the inevitable result of human failing in even the most honorable undertakings. But to the Republicans, it is part and parcel of their program.

And because they believe government mustn't help the people, every time the government does effectively help the people and the people like being helped, it sends a stake through their belief system just like a young-Earther hearing about dinosaur bones being dated to a hundred million years ago. Those with absolute opposition to government help therefore have to fight against the government helping people whenever possible. If such obstructionist tactics harm Americans far more than helping them, then such people do effectively hate Americans.

@Paladin let the cat out of the bag over a decade ago when he said he didn’t want efficient government because efficient government is harder to cut.

Leaving out the ‘and adding a Public Option’ from ‘continuing the ACA’ is a bit disingenuous.

Interesting that Ghost of Crazy Horse saw fit to rate both of our posts "dumb". Anyway, I'm quite sure that you are correct that the majority of traditional Republicans (the Mitt Romneys and Bob Martinez types) don't hate the great unwashed. However, the new generation led by Trump, Cruz, Rick Scott, do hate working people and spend their lives dreaming of ways to get rid of them so they can make some real money. There's a big difference between running a lean, efficient business and looting a corporation the way Clear Channel did. The corporate looters have nothing but contempt for anyone who's not rich and they currently control the Republican party... ergo...