Because if you had bothered to open that article you would’ve noticed they cite examples of why they come to that conclusion. You on the other hand have offered nothing except a single video (forgot to add, from the same authoritative site) you deliberately interpret in a way that suits your opinion. If nothing else you’ve proven you’re clearly biased, they haven’t.
So I’ve read all that, and all I can see is a man who has changed and abandoned us.
“Trans people deserve dignity and equality, those are certainly principles and values that I still hold, and that stem directly from my faith.”
Insulting us, and banning us from sports is exactly what he claimed to be against.
When someone tells you who they are, you listen. Maybe he had a stroke, maybe he believes he can win if he sacrifices us, either way I cannot support it.
My bad, looking into it he wasn’t one of the ones calling us “biological men” must be getting mixed up with Andrew’s or Kaptur who said that during the same week.
“Every sport has to be safe and fair,” Talarico said on Fox News. “As a former public school teacher, I care a lot about our student athletes, I care a lot about our students. And so I will oppose trans athletes playing in girls’ sports if it risks safety or fairness.”
“There are going to be rules where sometimes it’s not allowed. That’s actually how you solve a public policy problem with love for trans folks but also for our athletes, who need a fair shot at competition.”
He does cede to bullshit transphobic talking points on sports however. Weasel words about safety or fairness don’t change the underlying message.
Why couldn’t we still have the 2021 Talarico out there, instead of the more conservative 2026 model.
“Some things are more important than perfectly fair competition in sports,” Talarico said in 2021.
Why couldn’t we still have the 2021 Talarico out there, instead of the more conservative 2026 model.
I’ve already addressed this.
Being openly pro-trans in a deeply anti-trans state means you’re not going to have any shot at doing anything good.
And to go back to the root of this thread, what you’re wanting is him to be the perfect candidate instead of a viable candidate. He can either be a perfect candidate and have no shot or give some concessions and have a shot to actually do something good.
Also the concession in question isn’t even that bad of a concession. You view it through the lens that only the first part of the sentence matters and the rest doesn’t. If you look at it as a whole what he’s actually saying is that he doesn’t oppose trans athletes UNLESS someone proves it risks safety or fairness of the sport. From my point of view he’s approaching the same issue from the perspective of the conservatives to get them to agree with him.
I don’t know why you’re struggling to understand someone trying to take away a demographics human rights is not a viable candidate for that demographic, and no amount of screeching will convince someone to vote their rights away, lol.
Another play from the bad actor playbook. Keep going, continue proving you’re a bad actor.
Then tell me why a news outlet appealing to a demographic is more authoritative than a literal, actual person from the demographic.
Because if you had bothered to open that article you would’ve noticed they cite examples of why they come to that conclusion. You on the other hand have offered nothing except a single video (forgot to add, from the same authoritative site) you deliberately interpret in a way that suits your opinion. If nothing else you’ve proven you’re clearly biased, they haven’t.
So I’ve read all that, and all I can see is a man who has changed and abandoned us.
Insulting us, and banning us from sports is exactly what he claimed to be against.
When someone tells you who they are, you listen. Maybe he had a stroke, maybe he believes he can win if he sacrifices us, either way I cannot support it.
I keep seeing this being brought up and not a single time do I see anyone actually citing where he’s done that.
My bad, looking into it he wasn’t one of the ones calling us “biological men” must be getting mixed up with Andrew’s or Kaptur who said that during the same week.
He does cede to bullshit transphobic talking points on sports however. Weasel words about safety or fairness don’t change the underlying message.
Why couldn’t we still have the 2021 Talarico out there, instead of the more conservative 2026 model.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/09/james-talarico-trans-sports-reversal-lgbtq-rights-texas-us-senate-race/
I’ve already addressed this.
And to go back to the root of this thread, what you’re wanting is him to be the perfect candidate instead of a viable candidate. He can either be a perfect candidate and have no shot or give some concessions and have a shot to actually do something good.
Also the concession in question isn’t even that bad of a concession. You view it through the lens that only the first part of the sentence matters and the rest doesn’t. If you look at it as a whole what he’s actually saying is that he doesn’t oppose trans athletes UNLESS someone proves it risks safety or fairness of the sport. From my point of view he’s approaching the same issue from the perspective of the conservatives to get them to agree with him.
I don’t know why you’re struggling to understand someone trying to take away a demographics human rights is not a viable candidate for that demographic, and no amount of screeching will convince someone to vote their rights away, lol.