cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13118934

Josh Turek of Iowa, Democrat, comes out with one of the worst anti-trans ads yet.

Not only is it an anti-sports ad, it proposes a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care. That would hit all medicaid and medicare patients, and any ACA federally-subsidized plans as well.

It's a bad take, for sure, but I encourage any voter in Iowa to read about his platform on every other subject: https://turek4iowa.com/platform/

From his site

Health care is a human right. All Americans deserve access to basic care.

Guess thats not really true huh? So which is it, are trans people not Americans or are they not human?

If you want to abandon an entire set of people to win an election then dont ask people to care about his other opinions. Why should anyone who is or knows a trans individual believe him after this take?

Also from his site

We must protect and defend our fundamental freedoms

Guess that freedom only applies to some people.

This guy believes I have a fundamental right to go to a specialist and walk out looking like a cat or a Picasso — I can get sharpened teeth and implanted magnets and a bifurcated tongue or penis — but someone can't decide to look and live like the gender that is right for them? That is some cognitive dissonance there.

The "all or nothing" approach to voting is not realistic. If Turek checks all but a few of your boxes and Hinson checks none, then vote Turek into office. THEN you can work on him to change his mind about whatever issue you have. You'd have zero chance to do that with Hinson.

I'd argue you should even stump for him. Go out to your trans friends and say "what he said is gross and awful, but his stance on expanding healthcare, lowering the minimum wage and refunding SNAP will help all marginalized people, including trans folk."

Is this post actually recommending that people go vote for the proven nazi pedophiles in that case?

Sure it’s a shit take but obviously we must not vote for the GOPedos, because you have to be reasonable about these types of things

It says a lot that this a twitter video, cross posted from .ml

With a headline completely misrepresenting what the ad actually says.

There's gonna be a bunch of this shit till midterms are over.

Did you even listen to the ad?

Or did you just read OPs headline?

It's not cognitive dissonance if you don't believe that playing in sports leagues is a fundamental right.

Look at you, out here campaigning for right wingers.

THEN you can work on him to change his mind about whatever issue you have.

Complete bullshit, this is a lie you tell yourself and others to make you feel better about it. The best time to pressure a candidate to change a stance is before they have your vote, because once they've got it, why on God's green earth would they ever give a single shit what you think?

I’d argue you should even stump for him. Go out to your trans friends and say “what he said is gross and awful, but his stance on expanding healthcare, lowering the minimum wage and refunding SNAP will help all marginalized people, including trans folk.”

Fuck that completely. An attack on one is an attack on all. Cutting trans people off their health care will not "help" trans folk, and this divide and conquer shit is exactly how the ruling class keeps us weak and divided.

All marginalized people should pay attention to the fact that the liberals will throw groups straight under the bus the very moment they see it as electorally convenient. They did it to Palestinians, now they're doing it to trans folks (as I and many on the left predicted), there's no limit to it. These people would ban interracial marriages if they thought they could appeal to the right with it and get away with it. These politicians do not believe in anything and do not care for anyone but themselves and their own political status, their own power.

It's better to lose one seat than to set a precedent that this is acceptable and strategically viable. Hopefully he eats shit and the party learns their lesson.

With a headline completely misrepresenting what the ad actually says.

Bullshit. What part of it isn't in the video?

We need to fucking ruin the quisling 'campaign consultants' who insidiously recommend this losing MAGA-courting shit.

campaigning for right wingers.

Really? Their comment didn't seem to support Turek at all.

This is not a recommendation for anything, I just want to spread awareness of this guys transphobia. What things do you suggest we should be reasonable about?

What do you think he meant when he said "I oppose tax-payers paying for anyone's sex changes too"? Is that not a promise to gut health care for trans people that depend on medicaid or medicare to get the care they need?

If a male transitions to female...

They are female.

They are no longer male.

That's what the whole "transitioning" thing means...

It seems like you're arguing that the gender assigned at birth is permanent and transitioning doesn't change anything...

Is that what you really mean?

Health care is a human right. All Americans deserve access to basic care.

This is kinda off-topic but the juxtaposition of "Health care is a human right. All Americans deserve access to basic care" just jumps out at me. Are non-americans not human? Do foreigners living in the US not have the same human rights as citizens of the US?

“I oppose tax-payers paying for anyone’s sex changes too”?

You really need to understand the context is Turek's actual support on LGBT issues:

Iowa Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ashley Hinson released an ad immediately after the June 2 primary that said her Democratic opponent, state Rep. Josh Turek, supports “sex changes” for minors.

The ad makes two similar but distinct claims. Its narration says Turek “supports kids changing gender without parental consent.” But the on-screen text says “sex changes for kids,” while video of surgeons in an operating room plays behind an image of Turek. Hinson’s social media post sharing the ad also used the phrase “sex changes for kids.”

“Sex change” is not a standard medical term. Gender-affirming care can include a range of approaches to support a person’s gender identity including, for minors, using a different name or pronouns. According to medical best practices, gender-affirming treatments are available only to adolescents and can include puberty blockers, hormone therapy and in rare cases, surgeries for older teens. Medical intervention for minors requires parental consent.

The ad distorts Turek’s position. The law cited in the ad as evidence does not mention medical interventions or “sex changes.” It has to do with notifying parents when a student expresses a different gender identity at school.

https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jun/05/ashley-hinson/josh-turek-sex-changes-for-kids-iowa-senate/

He was accused of wanting to pay for surgery on kids without their parents consent.

We can't get society to pay for anything, why the fuck would an Iowan Senator decide to start paying for gender affirming surgery?

He supports preferred pronouns in schools, he supports hormone blockers for minors, he supports adults having surgery.

Have you even fucking looked at what his Republican opponent wants to do on this topic?!

You're ripping all context out of this, and trying to decrease Dem turnout, seemingly somehow aware that is a million times worse....

Quick edit:

Seriously how is "people can do it but the state won't pay" fucking "anti-trans"?

I'm allowed to eat ice cream, but the government won't pay for it, does that make the government "anti-icecream"?

Do you think it is ok to make it illegal for women to compete in women-oriented sports because their AGAB was incorrect? That's what's getting promised here. What if I told you that this is merely a smoke-show to hide what they really want to push, namely incarcerating trans women along with men. Because if you truly believe that women need to be split along AGAB lines for competing in sports you surely believe this for incarceration as well. And one of those would have an effect on more than, like, half a dozen people in the entire state.

Yay. Another Dem asshole shooting themselves in the foot because they are a Nazi. Use your fucking brain Dems. You don’t have to erase trans people to win you need to talk about how you are going to fix the economy you dumb fucking Nazi. I swear to fuck!

He supports preferred pronouns in schools, he supports hormone blockers for minors, he supports adults having surgery.

Where are you getting this? I'm not seeing anything about it on his platform. That would be good to hear, but as it stands all I have him saying "I oppose tax-payers paying anyone's sex changes too" in his latest ad. Right after saying "women should not be in women's sports if they're trans" too, which is already plenty transphobic before threatening to take away the healthcare of literally any person that needs a sex change (and lets not pretend that this isn't a widely used statement to mean all gender affirming care).

Seriously how is “people can do it but the state won’t pay” fucking “anti-trans”?

Because it is making gender affirming health care less or in-accessible to trans people that rely on medicare or medicaid. Getting a gender affirming surgery is quite different from getting ice cream and definitely not something someone does "just because they wanna". It's incredibly intense surgery, with a whole lot of after-care. And again, let's not pretend that "sex change" is not widely used code, especially in politics, for all gender affirming care.

He is obviously courting republican transphobes with this ad. He is capitulating to the fascists on the cultur war they started in an transparently desperate attempt to win over some of them, as if anyone who cares this much for getting a transphobe elected would go for the transphobe-lite when they can have the real deal.

You’re ripping all context out of this, and trying to decrease Dem turnout, seemingly somehow aware that is a million times worse…

Should we all just pretend the transphobia isn't there, keep mum about it, don't mention it, hush hush? Is that really your suggestion?

He is obviously courting republican transphobes with this ad

He said something that anyone with basic critical thinking easily can understand, because they know a male who transitions to female is no longer male...

Will republicans hear it differently and think he's "anti-trans"?

Yeah ...

That's literally why all these red state candidates to keep fucking phrasing it that way.

What the fuck is wrong with tricking stupid bigots?

Again, take a look at what his opponents stance is on this.

And try to give me some sort of answer based in logic for why you're trying to get the Republican alternative in Iowa elected.

If Turek loses, how do you think that's better for the trans community?

To give context, Iowa isn't going to be giving a Senate seat to a Democrat anytime soon but I did some digging and it's actually a little more depressing than just this ad. Turek won the Democratic primary against a very pro-LGBTQ candidate, Zach Wahls (he's son of two lesbian moms, even). It seems a lot less likely Wahls would run these types of ads.

That primary was around 60-40, but I'm not Iowan so my knowledge of why Wahls lost is limited. If I had to guess, it is due to centrist Democrats, but it's a reminder that Democrats aren't monolithic and if 11% more Iowan Dems voted better in the primaries, you'd see different ads... though I doubt either would win in a state like Iowa.

Edit: saw comments from Iowas on another platform and yeah, same primary nonsense about "safe bets in general" and establishment dems screwing over progressives with endorsements and money. I guess I'm grateful we see cracks in that finally, with better candidates in places like Michigan and such.

Wild you're not complaining about the Republican...

Considering her main platform for Senate has been wanting to make anti-trans federal law...

Other than that she's only known for protecting the Epstein class and voting to keep records secret.

If you think Dems might be lying, why is that worse to you then Republicans openly trying to do it?

So you're deliberately ignoring what he obviously means.

I recognize that trans people are who the gender say they are. Turek obviously doesn't.

We both know full well what he's saying and pretending otherwise as a "gotcha" is meaningless. Keep playing dumb and people will start thinking you're not playing.

Again, if you have anything that demonstrates that he is not planning to take health care away from trans people or have women banned from womens sports if they trans then please do share it! I would love it if he isn't actually anti-trans, that would be really great news! Why wouldn't I be happy about that?

He said something that anyone with basic critical thinking easily can understand, because they know a male who transitions to female is no longer male…

But they don't know that he knows that. His platform doesn't even mention trans people (or queer or LGBT or any of those terms) at all. All there is right now is him repeating what the republicans are saying they want to do to trans people verbatim. Hopefully there is a clarifying statement in the next days, I would love nothing more than to eat crow on this. Because if people have to defend someone so hard after his own ad then it clearly is a shit ad and will get pulled and buried. Why confuse your electorate by saying the exact opposite of what you're planning to do just to maybe pull like a 0.1% percent advantage...

I recognize that trans people are who the gender say they are

(Edit: to be honest you phrased that poorly, but I'm assuming you're recognizing that gender transition actually changes genders)

So if a male transitions to female...

And plays on a team with females...

No male is on the team.

We all agree with the statement Tutek said then.

We both know full well what he’s saying

You have an assumption flavored by the headline you read before watching the video.

Me and you can't be sure how Turek meant it, but we know for a fact what his Republican opponents stance is. She actually wants to make transitioning illegal.

So why aren't you spending this time trying to get people to not vote for her?

Right now you're helping her, even if you still don't realize it somehow.

Pointing out your team's bad strategy isn't an endorsement of the other side. There is a difference between analysis and support.

Why would I complain about the republican on a forum that's already staunchly anti-republican? It's not really necessary, but there are a lot of people here that might not be aware about the ongoing capitulation of democrats to the republicans on trans rights. Or think it's not such a big deal.

Buddy...

Why do I have to prove it, when you don't?

Again:

Look at the Republican candidate for this Senate seat, she openly wants all the things you think the Dem might want...

You do understand that if Turek loses, it's worse for everyone nationwide, right?

Everyone in America will be worse off if the Republican wins.

And you are spreading propaganda to help that Republican, which helps trump.

Based on your assumptions.

Why the fuck would anyone not try to stop the Republican by voting Dem?

Edit:

Not even just everyone in America will be worse off...

Look at all the shit trump is causing internationally.

A Dem Senate would reign him in.

The list of countries that would benefit from Lurek losing is very short, and it will only not get worse for the wealthiest there.

I don't care what country you live in, you should want to limit trump, unless you agree with him of course

but there are a lot of people here that might not be aware about the ongoing capitulation of democrats to the republicans on trans rights

Again, that is based on your assumptions about what they mean, which is obvioused flavored by twiiter and/or .ml. two places widely known for propaganda against progress and explicitly LGBTQ issues.

Which always seem to ignore that Republicans are openly worse in every regard, openly say they want what you're afraid of, and definitely want even worse than they'll say publicly

Like, what the fuck is your goal two weeks before an election besides trying to help Republicans hold onto a Senate majority?

Why do I have to prove it, when you don’t?

What do you mean, my assertion that he is blowing the pro-discrimination dogwhistles like "no males in womens sports" and "no taxpayer money for GAS" is well proven by this ad that I shared. Your assertions that

a. He supports preferred pronouns in schools
b. he supports hormone blockers for minors
c. he supports adults having surgery

aren't. What have I forgotten to give proof for? I'll provide it. All I'm asking for is anything to hold on to that this guy isn't the transphobe he is making himself out to be (supposedly to "trick stupid bigots").

And you are spreading propaganda to help that Republican, which helps trump.

I'm spreading his own fucking ad! He literally delivered and then endorsed the message! I'm spreading what he wants everyone to know about him!

Again, that is based on your assumptions about what they mean,

Yeah, obviously. As is your counter-argument. The difference between us is that he is literally saying what I think he is saying, whereas you assume he is playing some trick to get the maga vote based on something you won't share or even mention.

no males in womens sports

But...

You already said you believe that transitioning literally describes changing genders and a male who transitioned to female is no longer male...

Well, you said you believed that, to be honest I've had my doubts and they just keep growing.

I’m spreading what he wants everyone to know about him!

No, you cross posted from .ml who got it from Elon Musks pedo playground...

I seriously doubt his campaign used the same headline you did, and I doubt you're not aware most people on social media only read headlines.

You're spreading Republican propaganda with that headline. It doesn't really matter if you understand it or not. It's what you're doing.

So it'll totally be fine if the next guy campaigns on "no cripples in government" because you know, accessibility costs money and you shouldn't have to pay so this guy can have a job.

/s obviously

But fuck this guy for punching down when he's already been punched down on his whole life. Do better man.

We all agree with the statement Tutek said then.

Jesus Christ, why are liberals like this?

No, I don't agree with the statement because I understand what it means in context, because I'm not a fucking idiot. You also know what it means, you're just pretending that you don't for the sake of wordplay and pedantry.

You have an assumption flavored by the headline you read before watching the video.

No, I have an assumption flavored by the context that we live in.

Let's play along with your obvious bad faith game. If Turek did mean that cis males wouldn't be allowed in women's sports, then why would he say that? There is no debate or discussion over that whatsoever. The only discussion is over trans women, who are often misgendered and called "males," as Turek very obviously did here. So there is no other reasonable interpretation.

Your stupid fucking language games and technicalities and weaseling, none of it fools a single person, including yourself. You are saying it in obvious bad faith.

Pay attention, everyone. This is exactly how shitlibs will justify it when they sell you down the river next.

Me and you can’t be sure how Turek meant it

We both absolutely can be sure, and we both are absolutely sure how he meant it. You're just lying and pretending not to.

Right now you’re helping her, even if you still don’t realize it somehow.

You shouldn't vote for either one. If I'm helping her by saying don't vote for him, I'm also helping him by saying don't vote for her. So you're completely full of shit on that point too.

The difference between us is

You're insisting you're assumption has to be right, and all I've done is point out that you literally agree with what he said:

No males in female sports

Any male that transitions isn't a male. A male that transitioned to female, is now female.

That's what those words mean, literally.

You're the one insisting the way he used those words is how a Republican uses them, and ignoring the only other option for this seat has no confusion around their stance. It's worse than you think the Dem might be.

So what is the point of any of what you're doing besides helping republicans and trump?

A person is born and assigned the gender of male.

Later they transition to female.

Do you believe they are:

A. Male

B. Female

If I’m helping her by saying don’t vote for him, I’m also helping him by saying don’t vote for her. So you’re completely full of shit on that point too.

No, because decades of statistics show that Dems win with high turnout, and Republicans win in low turnout...

That's just facts, the more people in America that vote, the more progressives win.

Depressing turnout, helps Republicans and trump.

Why do you spend so much time helping trump?

You’re insisting you’re assumption has to be right,

So are you 🙂 Why wouldn't I keep insisting on this in the face of no evidence to the contrary? I keep repeatedly asking for you to give me anything but you either refuse to or more likely lack it.

I’ve done is point out that you literally agree with what he said

Yes if we ignore all of the context of these phrases in the political arena, the baggage they carry and what they are being used to push for in legislation and only focus on the literal meaning in the way I would use them then I agree I guess. But it isn't even me using them so it already falls flat even by that standard. Do you really not understand that "he is only sieg heiling to secure the klan vote, he obviously isn't hailing a nazi victory but a dem victory" is a really shit argument when you have nothing (0) to back that up?

B. Female. Obviously.

Now ask Turek, because the only thing that matters here is what he meant when he said it.

Except that we obviously don't have to ask him, because there is no reasonable interpretation of what he said other than that he was referring to trans women as "males."

Now that I've answered your question, it's your turn to answer mine. Why would he say it if he wasn't talking about trans people? I know you won't answer, because there is no answer, because we both know exactly what he meant. You're just going to weasel your way out of it like the utter slime you are.

Sadly they are running a campaign based on being an independent like republican not anything that people actually want.

They're running ads like the governor candidate already saying they will be republicans just not trump republicans 😭😭😭

One of their campaign ads is look how much I vote with Republicans

https://turek4iowa.com/news/new-josh-turek-for-iowa-releases-new-ad-prove-it/

“In the Senate, Josh will work with anyone to clean up corruption and secure the border, including President Trump,” the narrator says in the ad. “And he’s got 700 votes to prove it.”

Ok then, as a trans woman, I'll punch up:

Fuck this sitting in his own shit, limp catheter dick, spaghetti leg having motherfucker, but not in his numb ass, in his mouth, with a dirty, feral, rabid, porcupine dick!

And, I grant permission for anyone to punch him up for me. You're hired! You speak for me when you besmirch hot wheel hitler over here.

Using your platform as a disabled person who "understands discrimination" to torture trans people and call them out as "the ones who are doing the discrimination" by existing?! By needing healthcare?! To paint us as men trying to hurt women?! That is far worse than trump or any able-bodied white male doing it!

You want to stand with the white men who's legs work? Ok! Roll out down the stairs like a real man then!

Your ass is gonna look so dumb trying to round up minorities while we slowly just walk through the gravel. Get fucked! Even if trump gave you a participation trophy, your ass couldn't get up the plinth to accept it!

Raggedy-ass ragdoll fuck of a man. You know who is the real danger to women? This "nice guy" Sitler, Josh Turek. He'll get you alone with his little poor me couldn't hurt a fly gomer pile looking haircut and vacuous eyed smile, and then he'll rape you with a broom handle because he's mad at his spagheto cock. And no one will believe you because he's "just a nice guy". You've been warned.

You've all been deputized. Now get out there and show this nay-walker his place wriggling on the pavement like the worm he is.

Man if we could bottle and distribute this level of rage, things might actually change!!

I agree with the sentiment you meant.

But let's be real, if we could bottle and distribute this level of rage, under fascist capitalism, trans women would be factory-farm stuck in a cage, motionless hucows being sucked dry for the military and MMA, with the leavings sold to the magat man-boys who larp stoic.

I genuinely don't get the sport thing. Like I can understand blanket prejudice, but specific to sport just strikes me as bizarre. How did someone cook this up and why does it seem to have traction?

Of all the things one could care about, why this? Maybe it involves hormones being more effective than most people know? Maybe it's just a lie badly test, or just a dog whistle? A bonus sexism?

It kinda trips me out.

It's easy to use. Same with the bathroom argument

do you want your little girl to lose to a man or God forbid be in a locker room with them(ignoring that they could have male coaches. Same with how attacked gay marriage over nothing and before that integration

Now ask Turek,

Why didn't you?

Why can you make an interpretation and it's fact unless someone disproves it?

Do you know thats a common propaganda technique?

because the only thing that matters here is what he meant when he said it.

No, what matters is the only other option in this election openly says she wants to do even worse than you think thebDem might. And I think we'll agree that Republicans always want worse than they admit.

Like, his opponent was one of the few House reps against disclosing any Epstein info...

It's a binary choice, it matters what the only other alternative is, especially when on the narrow topic you've chosen to make most important, the Republican is worse.

I don't understand what's hard to understand here.

Worst case scenario, he's better than the Republican on this and every other issue.

Is it the Epstein stuff? You want more republicans in the Senate to block the Epstein list?

So are you

No, I've said that could be the option, and walked you through what the sentence means multiple times...

But logic just isn't working here