all 62 comments

[–]worried19[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The implications are unclear, but this certainly doesn't bode well for the protection of single-sex spaces. I'm most worried about prisons, domestic violence and rape shelters, and women's sports, in that order.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I afraid mostly about young lesbians and pressure created against them, on a same level that exist in very conservative homophobic countries, on pressure that is already making homosexual conversion therapy common practice and will only be increasing.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agreeing with this! Even in Tavistock data - at least half of transitioned girls named reason of transition as "I like girls" or "I like both girls and boys". Reminds me my youth in homophobic society, when I was trying to run out of myself, married on a man to "look normal" and later tried to become "a man" to let homophobia go away.

https://4thwavenow.com/2016/04/27/shrinking-to-survive-a-former-trans-man-reports-on-life-inside-queer-youth-culture/comment-page-1/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJyDa6EW7A

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was forced to go on testosterone during my youth as part of treatment to "cure" me from loving women. Today's gender movement is reminding me those times, they are even using same wordings and same tactics.

[–]censorshipment 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Section 1. Policy. Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.

What if you're a female/XX who fears the entire male (including intersex males) population and want to avoid them by having female/XX-only things?

What if you're a black person who fears the entire white/Anglo-Saxon/Aryan/Caucasian population and want to avoid them by having black-only things?

What if you're a homosexual female (XX) who fears heterosexual/bisexual males (including intersex males) and don't want anyone born with a penis/prostate/testicles near you?

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What if you are muslim woman (or teen girl in school or university) and your religion not allows you to undress or show face in presense of male-born people and now you will fear to undress and uncover face outside of home?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (33 children)

Sounds like prejudice, maybe those people should work on that.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

One of the most ignorant comments you’ve ever made. Congratulations.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

Can you explain why it’s ignorant though?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It’s not prejudiced for females to be weary of males or want spaces free from them.

It’s not prejudiced for poc to be weary of white people and feel unsafe around them, or to want safe spaces for themselves.

It’s not prejudiced for lesbians to not want to have to be around/share spaces with males.

Can you explain why it’s prejudiced?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (16 children)

Because it fits the definition. From wiki:

"Prejudice[1] is an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived, usually unfavourable, evaluation of another person based on that person's political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics."

You just feel that their prejudice is justified due to the statistics of the situation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It’s not prejudiced to want to have safe spaces. And it’s not prejudiced for oppressed people to want spaces free of their oppressors, be it females wanting spaces free of males or poc wanting spaces free of white people. Females wanting to have male free spaces is not just about fear. It’s about comfort, it’s about equality. It’s about not allowing males to dictate even womanhood. Females have a right to not want to change around males. To not want to compete for female specific opportunities against males. It is ridiculous to say that females are prejudiced for wanting female rights and spaces to remain for them. Was it prejudiced for suffragettes to march and protest to begin with? Because if you don’t think suffragettes were wrong, how is it now wrong for the new generations of females to want to maintain what our mothers and grandmothers and aunts etc fought for? (And lesbians have every right to want lesbian spaces to be for lesbians. Not males. Males can’t be lesbians. Because they are biologically male.)

And poc can want poc spaces because they have the commonality of not being white in a white dominated society. That’s not prejudice. It’s literally wanting a safe space for themselves. It’s disgusting as fuck for you to say that poc wanting to have their own spaces is rooted in prejudice. How out of touch must you be to say that?! I’m fairly confident that you are a young white male who understands nothing about how the world works outside of your bubble. If not, you’re just lost as fuck (and frankly if you’re not white your ignorance is disgraceful) and I hope time opens you eyes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Fearing that a general set of people will harm you, as opposed to specific individuals, is prejudice. Sorry if that bothers you.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Didn’t say anything about harm... literally said it’s not just about harm lmao

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

You using too narrow of a definition of harm. If you believe that safe spaces for particular groups exist because of benefits those spaces offer for those particular group, then you implicitly believe that removing those saces by making them more inclusive would constitute a harm.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So how do we visually detect which males mean harm and which do not? Or do you mean that no woman anywhere is justified in excluding males and should always assume any male is harmless until she is harmed?

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Statistics is not prejudice. Biological reality is not prejudice. People feeling comfortable among their own group is not prejudice either.

Gay men, even in todays society, are given bad gaze, or called out. We thought to act in one way or another, with a lot of stereotypes. Having free space from straight people, from their prejudice is not prejudice, it is just space, where we can feel free and not get annoying comments or looks. Same for people of color, same for females.

Your position is victim blaming and you are calling to promote prejudice and to not let people living under prejudice to have their spaces free of it. Which does not feel very good position to stand for and defend.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You just feel that their prejudice is justified due to the statistics of the situation.

Statistics? How many sexist/racist/homophobic encounters does an individual have to personally endure before they’re allowed to want their own spaces, where they can feel safe amongst people who have common lived experiences? You realize (hopefully) that poc, women, and the lgb all experience encounters, treatment, language, abuse, ridicule etc that you chalk up to statistics on a regular basis? That it’s not “statistics” it’s reality. We don’t want our own safe spaces because of history- we want it because of present day issues. For example: you telling us that wanting space for ourselves free from people who are more privileged than us who treat us like shit makes us prejudiced. We want those spaces to get the fuck away from people like you.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Statistics is saying that such places should be in place, thought.

Statistics saying that unisex spaces have hundred times more rape cases than separated spaces, statistics saying that lack of female spaces in schools and universities makes women to skip lessons during menstruation, statistics saying that almost all violence women are encountering is coming from men.

So statistics are saying that such places must exist for general safety and comfort of each party involved. It is not prejudice, it is general safeguarding.

Little kids can be unsafe around lone older men. So should we now let kids to go out with any man asks them, with anyone giving them candys and asking to check his new amazing van? And because we not letting kids with such men - we have a prejudice? Kids having their own spaces - toilets and showers without grown ups is prejudice too? How stupid this argument is?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

You're allowed to want whatever, but that doesn't disqualify what you want from being an example of prejudice.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Lmao I almost admire your ability to cling to the horrible things you say even when nobody (except maybe masks) agrees with you and everyone thinks what you’re saying is shitty and insensitive to others. You’re the embodiment of the phrase “the confidence of a mediocre white male”. Must be nice.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Black people should stop being so prejudiced to white people?

Really? You don’t see something wildly wrong with that statement?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

Not at all. Prejudice is prejudging people based on flawed reasoning. Those cases all qualify.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m sorry I know I commented a lot but this is bothering me for a few reasons.

By your definition, you yourself are the most prejudiced person on this post. You’re judging poc, lgb members and females for wanting safe spaces. You’re saying we can’t have our own safe spaces to be safe from the prejudice we experience from others without being prejudiced ourselves. You’re victim blaming (which is apparently okay on this sub as long as it’s not aimed at qt) and ignoring the reality of sexism, racism, and homophobia that exists in the world so that you can make your argument. You’re essentially saying that we should just take the abuse we receive and not form outlets to cope and escape because it is excluding the very people who often exclude, dismiss, talk over and harm us. And I’d bet every cent I have that you have no issue with trans people having their own spaces, despite what you’re saying to us.

Talk about flawed reasoning.

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

White liberals want a big melting pot so they can control minorities. Integration is about dominance.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

So you’re saying that black people are being prejudiced, and not say, reacting to the racism they experience? If a black person wants to meet with other black people with similar experiences?

Muslim women are prejudiced against men, not part of a religion that does not encourage just hanging out with some dudes?

Nah just prejudiced against the poor ol downtrodden white blokes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

"So you’re saying that black people are being prejudiced, and not say, reacting to the racism they experience of a black person wants to meet with other black people with similar experiences?"

What? This statement has a non-standard structure and I can't understand your meaning

"Muslim women are prejudiced against men, not part of a religion that does not encourage just hanging out with some dudes?"

Religious sexism is still sexism and thus prejudice

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Wow that’s ignorant. Spoken like the most privileged of white dudes.

An ‘if’ become an ‘of’. If that makes a paragraph incomprehensible no wonder you can’t see how racist you are being.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

How ableist of you. Sorry I couldn't read your fucked up sentence, we're not all perfect

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Wouldn’t you calling their sentence “fucked up” also be ableist???

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Fine, but they were being mean about it, acting like any "sensible" person should automatically grasp their message.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow now aggressive for no reason. My dude you are hitting the typical privileged male trifecta!

On topic, can you explain precisely why and how rape victims or abuse victims should work on themselves to better accommodate men?

[–]divingrightintowork 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

dude drop the intersex whangdoodle - The average person may encounter 0-5 CAIS males in their entire life, and probably don't really know much about it, reasonably so - because there's so few of them. Though are you saying people with Klinefelters aren't men?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It’s the “equal treatment” thing...

Equal treatment means TW have their own and women/females have their own. That’s equality. Forcing females to be housed, classed, and share spaces and sports with select males is literally the opposite of equality. This is what I wish people would understand.

I support trans people not dealing with discrimination- allowing females to have their own spaces, sports, and the ability to be classed and defined apart from TW is not discrimination.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, equality does not mean treating all distinct groups exactly same.

It means acknowledging and accommodating people's differences so that everyone has an equal chance to participate fully in life. Like providing ramps and lifts for wheelchair users; written material in Braille for the blind; captions and sign-language interpreters for those with hearing impairments.

It means having sidewalks for pedestrians, people pushing prams, and wheelchair users; bike lanes for bicyclists; lanes for cars and taxis; and lanes during rush hours for buses exclusively. The TRA position is basically that buses who "identify as" something other than buses should be able to barrel down the bike lanes, the car and taxi lanes and on the sidewalks, too - and they don't cares how much carnage that will cause.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women sports was created to include women in sports, not to "exclude men" - because only in this way we received equal opportunity and fair competition, only this way female youth is able to achieve something and become professional athletes.

Same with locker rooms and toilets. In few African countries (like Kenya) there are only unisex toilets, so girls are missing school lessons during periods, so they are getting behind in study. Segregated spaces would be inclusive, to include them into normal school life and process.

And so on. Thee a lot of instances where separation and segregation is done for inclusive reason.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

To OP's comment saying

I'm most worried about prisons, domestic violence and rape shelters, and women's sports, in that order.

I just want to add that another area of concern to some of us is long-term health care facilities - aka nursing homes.

In the US, the majority of nursing home residents - 70% - are elderly women who need assistance with "activities of daily living," which often includes bathing, dressing and toileting. Most of these vulnerable, frail women are 80 or older.

The trans lobby and its allies and enablers have been pushing hard in recent years to get nursing homes to stop assigning roommates and separating toilets and bathing facilities by sex as traditionally has been done, and instead to make "gender identity" be the deciding factor.

Trans ideologues also want nursing home residents and their families no longer to be able to stipulate that intimate care, such as bathing and bottom-wiping, be provided solely by persons of a particular sex. They say what should count is a carer's "gender identity," not his or her sex.

In 2015, The Atlantic ran a story extolling the work Loree Cook-Daniels, who in 1998 founded an organization called the Transgender Aging Network (TAN). Cook-Daniels describes herself as "a former lesbian" and "former lesbian activist" whose partner "transitioned to male" in the 1990s. Cook-Daniels says she initially was not accepting of her partner's trans identity, but later "saw the light."

Cook-Daniels and other employees of TAN

regularly host workshops and trainings on transgender aging issues for health-care professionals, elder-care providers, and national aging organizations.

The most common questions, she said, are ones about segregated living spaces: “People want to know, ‘What gender roommate do I give [a transgender senior]?,’ ‘What bathroom do they use?’,” she said. “There’s still a basic lack of understanding of how gender identity trumps biological sex, and that people should have access to facilities that match their gender identity.”

I've written another post about the push to impose the idea that "gender identity trumps biological sex" on those who provide and need elder care, and the insistence that roommate assignments, bathroom access and staff duties in nursing homes be based on "gender identity" claims, not sex. But I fear the information I reveal in it, and its tone, might cause me to get banned from this sub were I to post it here. So I've decided to post it in on GC instead. When it's up, I'll come back and provide a link.

In the meantime, some numbers for perspective. There are 219,000 women incarcerated in prisons and jails in the US. That's a large number.

As of 2018, 3.4 million girls in the US participated in HS sports, and 216,000 participated in college sports governed by the NCAA.

All those girls and women are entitled to fairness, safety, dignity, privacy, peace of mind, humane treatment, full civil rights and protection against all forms of discrimination, abuse and violence.

There are also nearly 8 million women over 80 in the US today. The number of women age 65 and up is now nearly 30 million.

Nearly 1 million elderly women in the US today live in nursing homes.

Many millions women of advanced age and/or with disabilities and chronic health conditions live at home and rely on carers such as home health aides, companions and visiting selected and sent by agencies.

According to the US government, 70% of the nearly 30 million American women who today are 65 and over will develop "severe long-term services and support needs" before the end of our lives that will make us dependent on others. Nearly half of us will rely on paid carers - whether in nursing homes, assisted living facilities or our homes.

Of those of us who remain in our own homes or live with relatives and usually rely on family to provide support and care, a majority will need to stay in nursing homes, hospitals or assisted living facilities for periods of time; many will go back and forth between home and care facilities.

Long-term care facilities like nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the US are generally privately run. The industry is very poorly regulated. Same goes for all the home health agencies that provide care workers, companions and support assistants to women who live at home but rely on paid help.

Women in nursing homes and assisted living facilities are losing the right to share their rooms and bathrooms only with those of the same sex. They and their families are also losing the right to stipulate that intimate care - help with bathing, using the toilet, dressing, having their adult diapers changed - of these women be provided solely by other females.

Women who live at home but are dependent on paid carers are losing our right to stipulate that the home health aides, nurses and other carers who come into our homes be female as well. Most women in these situations live alone; it is very scary to be in such a vulnerable situation and not be allowed to insist that the people who come into our homes supposedly to help us be of our own sex.

Depending on the jurisdiction, and the specific home care agency involved, women who inquire in many places now will be told that whilst all efforts will be made to honor our request that our in-home carers and helpers be female only - and by female we mean sex not "gender identity" - it's no longer possible to guarantee that our wishes will be met. Coz just as "gender identity" now trumps sex, gender identity discrimination is seen as far, far worse than sex discrimination.

One of the only reasons this hasn't become a big scandal yet is that over 90% of the people who work as home carers in the US are female.

[–]grixitperson 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

But I fear the information I reveal in it, and its tone, might cause me to get banned from this sub were I to post it here.

As long as it is reasonable, you will not be banned.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

That's good to know. Thank you. I am always nervous posting here, in part coz in the sidebar under "Moderation" it says

Rules are interpreted subjectively...

Permanent bans are instated upon mod discretion.

As a result, a lot of posts I've composed for this sub end up getting shunted off to a computer folder called "BNCI" (better not chance it), LOL.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

From what I’ve seen nobody gets banned. There was the whole rape apologist scenario and he’s not banned. You cannot be more offensive that that was.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That person was banned, although I have stopped short from making it permanent at the moment. They lost their ability to participate for 30 days.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not what I was told when I brought it up on a different account (different mod told me I was free to take a break but no rules were broken) but glad to hear he was actually finally held accountable for the rampant misogyny he posts.

May I ask which 30 days? I’ll be leaving again once they are up and he is allowed back.

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I didn't know this until I started using my laptop... Saidit has public moderation logs: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/about/log

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh that’s excellent to know! Cheers!

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The ban took place immediately after the incident, so there 6 days remaining. They may or may not actually participate again, but if they do and make any similar statements or violate our rules, I will ban them permanently.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really appreciate you temp banning and giving a rats about the whole situation. Moderation is a shit of a job, so thank you.

I trust your decision.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In general, we take a light touch. If something violates a stated rule, I’ll usually ask for the user to edit. Most commonly it’s because they used a disallowed term or directly misgender a user. The only person whose actually been banned was masks.

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Was that from the old sub or the new sub?

I feel bad for Masks. She seems very unhappy.

[–]grixitperson 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, i'm the founder of this sub, and i do not intend for it to be censored as long as people stay on topic. Which is why i'd like you to be a mod. Are you interested?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure I would be suitable to be a mod for a couple of reasons. But I'm honored to be asked, and I'm interested in discussing further. I've long wanted to find out what modding entails - I am clueless - and how people become mods. I'm also curious about how sub rules are established on matters such as the terminology considered acceptable - and what the procedures are for questioning/challenging them and suggesting other alternatives.

I think these issues might be of interest to others as well. How about we start a thread on the topic and discuss both the generalities and my specifics in coming days?

[–]grixitperson 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A thread in private mail or on this sub?

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like a lot will depend on how it is interpreted and used to create rules. I worry especially about that talks about sports. That just seems like an area where it is just so clear that no exceptions should ever be made or sports for women and girls will just cease to be. It’s good that they reference Bostock because at least that one was based on trans people being protected because of gender noncomformity, not gender identity. The EO does use the words gender identity elsewhere unfortunately. 😐

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's up to the Supreme Court. If they ratify it (no idea if that's the correct term) then next time the Libs try to convince anyone how important voting for the blue Republican is because of the Supreme Court picks, we can just point to this.

In Orwellian news: 'gender identity' actually refers to the exact opposite of what they mean. They are trying to erase their gender identity & replace it with cross-gender self-identification.

[–]MrFahrenheit46Gen Z butch dyke 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I strongly dislike it. I definitely would have voted for Biden if I was old enough, but that does not mean I won't be just as critical of him as I would be for any other politician. Principles and values matter more to me than party affiliations.