General Discussion

You are on there right path when you write:

This is a key point you identify.

Because of propaganda and disinformation, many maga believe that "trans" issues are a crisis that has to be addressed, which is to say that they have been told it is much more prevalent than it is. I think actual stats might be something like 12,000 trans people or 12,000 transitions per year, I'm not sure, but certainly not the "epidemic" they think it is, nor is it a disease, nor is it mental illness beyond what is caused by the maga nut cases pressurizing trans people.

Likewise, perhaps there was one incident of a litter box in a classroom to accomodate a furry-identifying child, or perhaps no incident at all. It certainly is not rampant throughout the school system. And if there was, who knows if it was more in jest and fun than being serious.

Further, there is an undercurrent of false information that gives the impression indirectly that being trans might somehow infect other children. That is rather nonsensical, though it is true that the presence of trans or gender-fluid children might increase gender-curiousity. If it does, it soon sorts itself out since true gender identification comes from within.

So when maga believe these things, they might rationally conclude that action needs to be taken and rights reduced. Of course conclusions drawn from false premises are garbage and maybe toxic.

The thing is that the impetus for them to reach their garbage conclusion stems from the same core protection of family instinct we share.

What this means is that, when talking to wobbly crushed magas, it is important to ask them how they reached their conclusion (support tRump because he's anti-trans), i.e. what premises and pieces of information are they operating from. Direct attacks on those premises and misinformation have a big risk of raising walls and hardening perceptions. I think it is best to approach it indirectly, by asking them to show you how the (dis)information. Then you can lead them on a path to questioning the veracity. One useful thing to do is point out how their information does not accord with shared and observed reality.

This is what happens when for example a maga expresses astonishment that the price of the car they wanted to buy has gone up $5,000 due to tariff taxes. There is cognitive dissonance because tRump promised to reduce prices on day one. Work with it.

Also, one can point out that in many cases the maga-tRump approaches are ineffective. For example:


Meet them where their concerns are and acquaint them with reality.