The Human Rights campaign said that the "word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth."
https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community
This includes trans men, trans woman, people who identify as nonbinary and others.
Vitter cheating on his wife was immoral. If they were in an open marriage, it's a different story.
You and I disagree with the GOP officeholders who compare being gay to pedophilia and bestiality, so that comparison isn't relevant.
We may be arguing past one another on deviance. I'm trying to apply it neutrally to consider atypical sexual practices.
I remember an argument a decade ago that any Republicans talking about deviance should have asked former Supreme Court justice Antonin about his unconventional life. He and his wife had nine children, which is an unusual life choice.
Not every Democrat has to be perfect, but if you want people to vote against their policy preferences for moral reasons, they should be really impressive.
Sometimes arguments from Democrats come across like a school board candidate caught slashing the tires of five cars claiming the other guy cut the tires of twenty cars. You could argue that the other guy is four times worse, but it's still a fight between two lunatics.
I don't like Rick Scott, but I also don't like Elizabeth Warren whose advocacy for cancellation of student debt is toxic on many levels.
You asked me who I voted for and donated money for, which is largely limited to moderates in New York.
Preferences in other races is a different goalpost, partly because even informed people don't necessarily know the specifics of particular races (which are also undecided.) In some cases, a moderate amount of research indicates that a Republican candidate is trash. For example, potential Colorado Senate nominee state representative Ron Hanks does not look like someone I could support.
In Missouri, I would back a normal Democrat over Eric Greitens.
The definition of trans as I understand it is that someone's gender identity does not correspond to their sex at birth.
If someone in college identifies as agender, that is probably not the gender on their birth certificate.
I do want to note again that this is the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign, as well as Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association and GLAAD.
The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 isn't really what anyone's arguing about when it comes to policy implications and exaggerations, especially as 1 in 25 in a general college population may end up being 1 in 20 among a non-random selection of college students (IE- those determined to be female at birth.)
Does this also apply to any left-wing candidates who are motivated by religion. For example, should a devout Christian who wants to increase services for the poor be declared unfit to govern? What is the limiting factor?
I suspect you will very quickly find edge cases.
There is a question of who gets to decide what's true and false, or what falls in the category of things that reasonable people can argue about. What should people on government payrolls be allowed to say about the extent to which higher levels of spending led to increased inflation, or the financial consequences of the Florida legislature's vote against Disney?