Dee Answers Conservative Questions for Liberals!

A while back, I collected questions my Conservative friends (and their friends) had for Liberals/leftists/etc and asked a number of my more left-leaning friends to respond to them as openly as possible. Now, sleep-deprived and exhausted from the constant care of two mini-demons, I decided to answer those questions myself instead of wracking my overtaxed brain for a new blog post idea.

....ta-da!



I tried to answer with as little sass/attitude/anger/defensiveness as possible, and I'm actually going to commend myself, because I think I did a good job, especially considering the personal stake I have with many of these issues. So, right-leaning readers (if you even exist,) if you've ever been curious about my stance on topics without my trademark rage, this post is for you!

Also, please do your best to forgive grammatical and form inconsistencies in this post, my imaginary readers. I cannot emphasize how exhausted I've been for the past 4.5 months. I spend most days feeling like I'm living my life with a fishbowl on my head.

1.          Why do you support abortion?/How can you morally support abortion?

Abortion is such a multi-faceted issue, and we treat it like it’s black and white. That’s always bothered me.

I hate abortion. I truly do. I don’t like the idea of ending a potential life when it has barely even taken root. I don’t like that unwanted pregnancies are a thing at all. I hate the shame, the fear, the social stigma, the pressures that someone experiencing an unwanted pregnancy endures. I don’t like that anyone has to make such a difficult and dire decision.

I support the practice of abortion because I value life and human rights. Abortion is a necessary procedure. Whether a hopeful mother receives devastating news that her fetus has a terrible illness or condition that is incompatible with life outside the womb or a couple had a slip-up that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is an absolutely necessary practice to ensure the health and wellbeing of women. Full stop.

I value the life of the mother over the life of the embryo/fetus/baby/unborn child, as does the medical community in this country. That’s why, if something goes wrong in pregnancy or labour, the life of the mother is always the first consideration. You may feel that a potential life should hold precedence over a fully-formed existing one. I feel differently. The loss of a pregnancy is devastating. The loss of a wife, partner, sister, daughter, mother, is far worse. If we do away with the practice of abortion, we are stripping away the rights of a fully-formed human being. That is never okay.

I understand that the fact that pregnancy is a “choice,” or something that requires a specific (not always) consensual act in order to occur is a sticking point. “Why should an unborn baby suffer because their parents were too stupid not to use protection?” I often hear.

I’m going to blow your mind right now and say that I totally get that line of thinking. I really do. Decisions have consequences, and they should. I agree. If you fuck up, you should deal with the consequences. But where conservative thought and I differ is in taking into account the factors behind unwanted pregnancies. So far as I’ve seen, conservative viewpoints prefer to lay everything out in black and white: If you have unprotected sex, you should go through with the pregnancy. That’s it and that’s all.

I would be able to better understand that line of thinking if we lived in a country where everyone has equal access to science-based sex education, free and open access to birth control, and free access to healthcare. If everyone had that access and some still got pregnant, I’d understand the viewpoint of You fucked up. Deal with it.

But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country where birth control is expensive and unavailable to many, many people for many reasons (financial, religion of parents, etc.) We live in a country where women having sexual impulses, especially in adolescence, is shamed and punished, and that a young girl getting birth control means they’re “planning to sin.” Science-based sex education is practically nonexistent or completely nonexistent in countless schools across the country, and there is absolutely no regulation on what is taught in sex education classes in most states. As a result, far fewer people are fully equipped to prepare for and understand their own sexual impulses in safe and sane ways. Our culture is set up to make it impossible for many to have that knowledge and understanding before their sexual urges kick in.

On top of that, without access to free healthcare, we cannot do everything we can do ensure that an unwanted pregnancy will be safe and non-life-threatening for the mother. Pregnancy is so much more dangerous than we like to think. I know this from going through a twin pregnancy and learning about all the horrible things that can happen, even in singleton pregnancies. It’s a full-body change, and your body is never the same afterward, and I’m not just talking about breast firmness or skin elasticity. Without free access to healthcare, many women with unwanted pregnancies cannot see a doctor, putting her life and the life of her unborn child (that could possibly be put up for adoption) at grave risk.

If we want to eliminate or severely reduce the rate of abortions, and we all do, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on, we need to have universal science-based sex education, free and open access to birth control and protection, and universal healthcare. We also need to change our attitudes about sex—especially about women having sex. In schools that teach science-based sex education, or with children that have such conversations with their parents, you see a significant reduction in STIs, unwanted pregnancies, and said children tend to have sex later than their uneducated, unprotected counterparts.

In my opinion, the significant reduction in unwanted pregnancies is not as simple as outlawing abortion, which is an inhumane and unconstitutional solution. It’s a multi-faceted issue that requires far more work. If you truly oppose “killing babies in the womb,” to borrow a harsh term, then I firmly believe you must support universal science-based sex education, free and open access to birth control and protection, and universal healthcare. And have realistic expectations about sex and the fact that people are going to have it.

2.          Why do you support abortion but oppose the death penalty?

I actually do respect this question because it can seem a contradictory belief on its surface. I spent my teens and early 20s being on the fence about the death penalty. If someone murdered a loved one of mine, I would want them dead. Immediately. In a slow and agonizing way. Preferably by my hand. And I do absolutely believe that certain acts are deserving of such a death. However, my bottom line is that I’m not comfortable with the government, the law, etc, doling out death sentences. Mankind is too fallible. Our prejudices, the ones we know about and the ones we don’t, make us too vulnerable to making mistakes to allow us to enact such an irreversible decision.

TL/DR: Our system of justice makes too many mistakes to be allowed to make such a final decision.

Now, as to how it pertains to abortion—I hope my overly-long explanation of my beliefs make my reasons for this clear. I believe we should value the life of a mother/fully fledged human being over potential/unborn life, and blah-blah-blah sex ed, birth control, healthcare, sex attitudes, inform the need for abortion, as opposed to the death penalty, which is the justice system enacting revenge and little more, which I wouldn’t have a problem with, honestly, if our system was foolproof. Alas, it’s a bit of a shit show.

3.          Why do you believe in more than two genders and what's the point?/wtf is 'nonbinary?'

“Gender” and “Sex” are two different things. “Sex” is chromosomal, and even then, there aren’t just two sexes in that department, but we won’t get into that because we’re talking more about gender in this point than chromosomal sex.

“Gender” is, to me, a certain set of behaviours, aesthetics, and roles expected of people depending on their bits. Broadly. There absolutely are biological bases for some of this, but not nearly as much as you’d think. Gender is largely taught through the culture in which one lives. It’s a construct. And in patriarchal societies (I know, y’all hate that term, but stay with me) like ours, gender is a very rigid thing. There isn’t a lot of wriggle room, and those who don’t confirm to their prescribed gender expectations are bullied, ridiculed, even abused or killed.

Having two distinct genders with rigid expectations is stupid, dangerous, and sells the complexity of humankind short. Gender is a spectrum, which is why men and women don’t all naturally look and act the same all over the world. I’m a huge believer in personal freedom and expression (understatement,) and so I fully accept and embrace those who deviate from unnatural norms placed upon them. In short: Don’t shove people in boxes.

Now, I’m not enby (non-binary,) so I don’t think I’m the best person to define it, but hey, I’ll try anyway: Being gender nonbinary generally means that you don’t strongly identify with capital M Masculine or capital F Feminine gender presentation. If gender is a spectrum, my enby darlings are in the middle, or thereabouts. I’d describe what they look like, but it really varies.

Because this is not my wheelhouse (I am definitely a cisgender person, which means that my gender identity and my chromosomal sex match up pretty well,) here is a link that explains things far better than I ever could:

https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive

4.          Why do you think masculinity is toxic? How can it be dangerous and fragile at the same time?/why do you hate men being men?

All right, kids, grab a snack and get comfortable, because this is my shit right here, especially now that I have son.

I’m kidding. I mean, this is a subject I’m extremely into. I’m short of an advocate only because I don’t have the resources to advocate beyond my day-to-day life at the moment. But I’m going to try to make this as simple to understand as possible, because I really, really find this important to understand and accept.

I don’t think masculinity is toxic. I think toxic masculinity is toxic.

Toxic masculinity refers to certain traits that we as a society have decided are masculine. These traits are harmful. They include a proclivity for violence (“boys will be boys,”) stoicism and repression of emotions (“boys don’t cry,”) and an entitlement of sex. It also includes the explicit rejection of boys exhibiting anything resembling “feminine” traits. Boys who dare shed tears, show affection toward their mothers or romantic partners in front of other men, play with dolls, show an attraction to other men, etc, are shunned and often met with violence.

As a feminist (again, I know y’all hate that term, but bear with me!) I want to eliminate elements of toxic masculinity. I want my boy to show me affection, be friends with girls, play with dolls if he wants to, wear a dress if he wants to, without fear of him being attacked.

I don’t hate men. I don’t have a problem with masculinity (Exhibit A: My strong, protective, muscly husband.) I have a problem with trying to fit the entire spectrum of human being into rigid, unnatural boxes, and erasing those who don't fit in them.

5.          Why don't you support border security?

I do. I just support border security methods that actually work, unlike a wall, and the racism ingrained in the conservative focus on the Southern border is blatantly obvious.

Sorry for assuming you’re talking about the Southern border, but I don’t hear a lot of talking points about dangers of Canadian immigrants, soooo…

Also, I promise this will be my only semi-sassy response.

6.          Why do you think socialism is better than what we have?/Why does the Left hate capitalism?

This is a difficult one for me because I honestly don’t feel fully educated on the subject of economic systems. I am, however, studying this, and at this moment, I am a bit hard on the US’s form of Capitalism.

I have to return to this one later or I will NEVER post this blog. I promise I'll get back to it after I've given it longer thought.

7.          What's wrong with traditional values?

Hoo, boy. All right. Let me attempt to keep this brief.

“Traditional values” is a big catch-all term that seems to be used whenever social norms beholden to the right are attacked, so it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Hopefully we all have some broad idea of what we’re talking about so I can respond without turning this into a novel.

In short, “traditional values” ignore, exclude, and demonize too many people, religions, sexualities, relationships, and ways of life. They represent a very small ideal of what it means to be American (or human,) namely: Nuclear family, some sort of Christian, straight, cisgender, most often white, dominant men and submissive women.

A lot of people live their lives within this blueprint, and that’s fine. It really is. I don’t care, kids. You do you. But when we hold up “traditional values” as the absolute ideal and actively attack anything deviating from that ideal, it’s incredibly narrow-minded and dangerous. It literally kills people.

So, there’s nothing wrong with you holding “traditional values” in your own life, but when you push that on other people, when you use your own values as a bludgeon against anyone who deviates from them, you’re wrong. Full stop.

…I keep saying ‘full stop.’ Fuck it, I’m not editing this bitch.

8.          What’s with “safe spaces?”/Don’t safe spaces shelter people so they don’t have to hear differing opinions?

I’ve found “safe spaces” to be one of the most misunderstood and maligned practices I’ve come across, so I’m truly happy this question came up!

The term “safe space” originated in gay and lesbian bars in the 60s. It meant “this bar is a place where you can be LGBT without getting murdered,” pretty much.

Safe spaces today are just spaces where those whose voices or experiences are usually silenced, oppressed, or shut down are...not silenced, oppressed, or shut down. Literally every demographic has safe spaces.

Churches are safe spaces for people to practice their religion without atheists rolling their eyes (as an atheist, I apologize for that brand of asshole. #notallatheists.)

Trump rallies are safe spaces for Trump supporters, whose ideals are (rightfully) ridiculed and shunned from most public spaces.

Fox News is a safe space for a very particular brand of conservatives.

The oft-maligned use of safe spaces at colleges doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Designating a college or classroom or class as a ‘safe space’ just means that if you’re a minority, if you have a mental illness, or are otherwise largely ignored by larger society, that you are safe to share your experiences there, and you won’t be condemned. I’ve never been in a classroom that rejects differing opinions unless they’re oppressive (white supremacy, for example) or non-academic (flat-earthers, Milo Whatever-the-fuck-douche-nozzle.) The non-academic certainly makes sense to me, as colleges are, by definition, academic institutions. I mean…that’s what they are. They’re under no more obligation to entertain non-academic ideas than churches are to include evolution in their sermons.

Is the term “safe space” abused and misused? Absolutely. But that doesn’t invalidate the entire practice. I highly doubt anyone would want their churches shut down or forced to host atheist speakers. Safe spaces are important for everybody.

9.          Why do college campuses silence voices on the right?

They don’t! Colleges all over the country routinely have conservative speakers. Hell, they have conservative professors, conservative board members, conservative Presidents, and they certainly have conservative donors.

Most colleges do, however, not allow racism and other forms of discrimination and, as I discussed before, speakers whose talking points are not academic. And unfortunately many popular conservative speakers fit that bill.

Now, if we’re talking about conservative speakers being protested and the rare riots occurring due to that, that’s another thing. If a conservative speaker is neither racist, discriminatory, or non-academic, they should be given a peaceful platform at a college, absolutely. Protests will happen, I’m sure, because they happen everywhere, and in this country we have the right to protest. But riots and violence against academic non-discriminatory speakers is not something I support.

10.       Why when the government so clearly does a horrible job effectively and efficiently managing large programs does it make sense to give them more control? Do you think that more control will cause all programs to be more effective or is that not an issue because the current state of affairs is, from the right point of view, lacking eloquent phrasing- completely fucked?

I mean this very politely, but in order to answer this question, you kind of have to start from the belief that government-run programs are all doing horrible jobs. I don’t believe many of them are. And for those that are struggling, it often has to do with a lack of funding.

I do think that the government should run certain institutions. I think this because, historically, when the government regulates something, people stop getting sick and dying. The private sector has its uses, but when it runs certain institutions, the greed that Capitalism naturally encourages wins out over basic ethics.

I do believe that more control and more regulation is needed in many areas because it’s been proven to be necessary. The FDA and the EPA are excellent examples of this. The FDA is single-handedly responsible for saving the United States from the Thalidomide disaster that much of Europe endured because a German country wanted to make money and gave zero fucks if its product horrifically disfigured babies. We need only look to history to see what happens when regulations don’t exist. People die. Horribly. And rich people make money.

It’s really easy to forget that so many of today’s regulations are written in blood. Like anti-vaxxers, we’ve lived so long in a world free of the consequences of not having vaccines(regulations) that we’ve forgotten what it was like. And the private sector has proven again and again (and again and again and again and again) that it will choose profit over the wellbeing of employees, clients, and even the country.

I’m not saying that all regulations are good. I’m sure we overstep in many places. We actually had a health inspector come in at work recently and I was flabbergasted by how anal-retentive some of the minor complaints they had were. It feels ridiculous sometimes.

But when given the proper funding and attention, government-run agencies in certain fields are absolutely vital for the health, safety, and wellbeing of all Americans, not just the ones with money in their pockets or white skin.

Thank you for enduring all of my aesthetic paragraph breaks in this response.

11.       If a conservative moderate who leaned slightly conservative financially but socially liberal ran against a very left-winged liberal, would you consider the conservative or automatically vote against him because of the current state of affairs with the Republican Party majority?

I take two things into consideration when voting for a candidate for office (President, I’m guessing you mean in this question?)

1. How well do my values align with theirs?

2. Can they win against a candidate I feel is dangerous (like Trump?)

I always hope that both of these points align when I vote, but when they don’t, I put #2 over #1 and vote against the larger threat, because I’m a realist, not an idealist. That’s why I voted for Clinton and not…erm…Jill Stein! Had to Google her…in the 2016 election. Among other reasons, but those aren’t valid here. Even if I loved Jill Stein, which I didn’t, I would have voted for Clinton because she actually stood a chance against Trump, who is horrible, dangerous, and unequivocally The Worst™. My values may have aligned a smidge closer with Stein’s than Clinton’s, but Clinton had the better chance to fight the foe.

Now, in elections with less dire stakes, I might vote a bit differently, but in general, that’s how I do it. So to answer your question directly, it would depend on how truly terrible the conservative candidate was. I myself am a very left-winged liberal, I suppose, so I would very likely vote for that candidate, especially since I have my personal issues with someone who calls themselves “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.”(won’t discuss here because it’s not relevant.) But if we had another Trump situation and the moderate had the absolute best chance of beating him, I’d vote for that moderate because I consider that the best thing to do—to protect those most vulnerable to the extreme-right wing in this country, whose lives will be destroyed. They should never be shoved aside so I in my privilege can throw away my vote for some smug sense of moral righteousness.

That’s right. Come at me, third party voters.

12.       You believe that a gun ban would be a way to solve the shootings in this county. However, how does your gun ban prevent 1. People from procuring them illegally and doing the same thing. 2. How the evolution of 3D printers and technology will be advanced enough in the next few years that anyone could print a gun “ghost gun” with no tracking numbers or accountability. What are your solutions to these two issues?

I don’t believe in a gun ban. I believe in sane and strict regulation of firearms. I want to answer the rest of the question, but I don’t believe in a gun ban, so I feel I can’t, really. However, strict and sane gun regulation would go far in making it harder for guns to be procured illegally. It wouldn’t eliminate it, of course, but it would make it much harder and significantly reduce its occurrence, and I find that 100% worth doing.

As far as the “ghost gun” 3D printers, that idea kind of smacks of conspiracy. As technology advances, we advance our laws and regulations to manage it. Sometimes slowly and out-of-step with technology (hello, social media,) but if we vote for the right people and prioritize the right issues, we’ll get shit done. If “ghost guns” become a big thing, we’ll handle it. Not with a gun ban, but with sane and strict regulation.

I apologize that my response doesn’t really answer your question, but I don’t align with its foundational assumption.

13.       Why do you think healthcare and college should be free?/what about personal responsibility?

I firmly believe that healthcare is a right, especially in wealthy and prospering nations. I also believe that higher education, since it is now required by the vast majority of employers (yes, even trades, like construction) must be a right as well, just like K-12 education. I see no downside to having a healthy and educated nation. In fact, it will boost us in our competitions with other developed nations, where we’re seriously lagging behind in certain vital departments, like STEM, that could eventually invalidate us altogether.

The phrase “personal responsibility” is valid in decisions you make in your daily life and living with those decisions, for sure. But when it’s applied to healthcare and higher education, it ignores other factors in one’s access to them, like where they were born, what family/class they were born into, and what colour their skin is. “Personal responsibility” assumes that the USA is an even playing field for people of all races, genders, creeds, etc. It isn’t. So healthcare and college should absolutely be free.

14.       Why do you support a $15 (or high) minimum wage when it will cause inflation?

Because it won’t! I know that conservative thinking isn’t often influenced by statistics (that wasn’t a jab, I promise, it’s a truth,) there is no evidence to support the claim. Inflation has risen consistently while minimum wage has stagnated. They have little effect on each other.

Minimum wage was developed to be a living wage, and it needs to be a living wage. That’s what it was created for.

15.       Why should private companies provide birth control for their employees?

I could be an asshole and say they shouldn’t have to because I believe in universal healthcare and leave it at that, but I’ll be nice.

Birth control is healthcare. The reasons for opposing private companies providing it all have to do with the sexist idea that women shouldn’t be having sex for pleasure, which is invalid, especially since birth control is a necessary medical treatment for a variety of non-sex-related conditions, or religious reasons, which are constitutionally irrelevant when legally employing people.

Why should they? Because it will cut down on levels of abortion and ensure the health of many female employees. Because they cover other elective medications taken for non-life-threatening reasons. And because where you work shouldn’t be able to pick and choose what they want you to do with your own body.

16.       Why did/do you support Obamacare when it often doubled or tripled payments for people in the middle class tax bracket, single 20-somethings who made too much for subsidiaries, or retirees who retire before 65, as examples?

Like many of the people who responded to this sort of question before me, I supported Obamacare as a means to an end, that end being universal healthcare. I didn’t like or support its issues, whether they were embedded into the text itself or whether they were created by the opposition picking it apart.

I also supported and continue to support Obamacare because it covers millions upon millions of people who would otherwise have no healthcare. I know people whose lives were saved by Obamacare. I know people whose parents would not have had any healthcare otherwise when disaster struck after they retired (before 65.) I will continue to support Obamacare until we have universal healthcare, while supporting legislation to remedy its ills (should the Senate deign to keep it alive…morons.) Those who have been maligned by Obamacare are valid and their issues are important, and that’s why I want the Senate to fix the bugs until this country nuts up and goes all-in with universal healthcare.

17.       Why don’t rich people deserve to keep the money they’ve worked for/why do you support more taxes on the wealthy?/why do you want the rich to pay for everything?

Rich people deserve to keep the money they’ve made/accrued/inherited. However, they live in the same society as the rest of us, and they must be required to pay their fair share of taxes, which, in this country, they are not.

18.       Why does the left overall have such a bad opinion for people who live in rural areas?

I’m honestly more with you guys on this one than many of my liberal/left/etc friends. I grew up in a tiny rural farm town, graduating high school with 56 people, most of whom I’d known since elementary school, if not kindergarten. With a population of under 5,000, we had more cows than people. Though I’d always been an odd fixture in my Bible-thumping, Evangelical, straight (or else!) conservative town, I enjoyed growing up there. I loved having a yard and woods in which to explore. I loved being left to my own devices for most of the summer, normally spent biking around the neighborhood with friends, making silly games or home movies. I loved that everyone knew each other, that I had to cut across farmland to get to the grocery store (while avoiding the meaner horses on that particular farm.) I loved that our “town center” was pretty much just a little Italian restaurant that served as first-time employment for so many of my peers and housed our drama club celebrations after our performances.

It really bugs me that so many of my city-living friends (who are, yes, mostly liberal) look down on people in rural areas. The stereotypes of everyone there being conservative rednecks who are insanely slow to change/behind the times drive me nuts.

However, they drive me nuts in part because there is a lot of truth to them.

Rural areas are slow to change with the times, especially when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of other beliefs/cultures/races/etc etc etc. They are notoriously behind the times. Many people in rural areas make no effort to be understanding of another’s experience, so it is a bit hypocritical for them to turn around and cry intolerance when someone does the same thing to them.

I wouldn’t be comfortable in my hometown today. I’m a bisexual atheist, a feminist, a loud SJW with a particular soft spot for outcasts and the oppressed. I’d feel very alone in my hometown, very silenced. And I would be.

For better or worse, people want to be somewhere they’re accepted. For many of us on the left, we were raised in rural areas where who we were/are would not be accepted. Many of us had horrible experiences, traumas, due to this. While it’s utterly obnoxious to see yet another stuffy sitcom set in NYC (as if that’s the only place in freaking America) making yet another tired joke about the yokels in Ohio, I do understand where it comes from.

19.       How do you factor in the so-called income inequality between men and women with the fact that women are the ones who choose to leave work to have children, which definitely factors into those numbers?

Although that is a factor of the income disparity, it’s a very, very small piece of the puzzle. That doesn’t account for, for example, the fact that certain women of colour are paid far less than white women. As with most issues, it’s multi-layer: Gender roles, gender power dynamics, race, etc, all come into play when it comes to this issue. It’s a massively complicated issue with no quick and easy solution, and it certainly, 100% isn’t all about babies.

As to the women leaving work thing itself, as a feminist, I do have a major bone to pick with that. But it’s a big, messy, societal bone. Whenever I try to discuss income disparity with someone who leans more to the right, I invariably get the “Women decide to have children, it’s a choice” response. Yeah, it is. But why do we expect a mother’s entire work lives to change or end for their children and not the father? They both just had kids, after all. Men are equally responsible for their spawn. The fact that child-rearing is still heavily expected to be a woman’s work is something that desperately needs to change, and, thankfully, is in my generation.

20.       Why should we automatically believe rape claims when our justice system is built on the premise of “innocent until proven guilty?”

We shouldn’t.

We also shouldn’t dismiss, ignore, or actively silence victims and survivors of alleged sexual assault.

Their claims should be investigated like all other crimes, and historically, and unfortunately currently, they aren’t. From college campuses to rural suburbs, sexual assault is ignored and grotesquely mishandled by all levels of our justice system. They’re dismissed, ignored, and silenced in our cultural sphere. A sexual assault victim’s claims are so often met with disbelief. Men and women who come forward are ridiculed, even attacked. The #MeToo movement is a consequence of this pervasive culture.

It’s a difficult subject. As a survivor myself, I try my absolute best to hear and support those who come forward. But it’s never so black and white as always believing claims or always denying them. I’ve had friends accuse one another of assault, sexual and otherwise. It’s an extremely difficult place to stand when rumours like that spread. The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard story wreaked havoc on my conscience, and I have zero personal stake in that other than being an assault survivor and a Johnny Depp fan. It’s a messy topic. It really is. But I think it’s absolutely, undeniably vital to listen to claims of assault. Maybe not believe. Maybe not condemn. But to listen to them and treat them with the seriousness they deserve. And, as I said, historically, they haven’t been taken seriously. It’s not about believing every rape claim. It’s about taking a possible crime seriously and demanding action—like investigation.