Where is the quote “direct military action” from? The closest I see in the report itself is:

One example of a successful US Government campaign against a TCO occurred in the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. During this period, the US Government decided the Cali Cartel was a national security threat because the cartel had created a criminal enclave in Cali, Colombia and had captured the state of Colombia through its corruption, which put at risk Latin America’s oldest democracy. Before the Cartel’s takedown, the US Government mounted a campaign that dismantled the Medellin Cartel. The Medellin Cartel takedown was impressive and led to many lessons learned; however, analysts and practitioners agree, the Cali Cartel was a far more sophisticated organization and a much harder target to dismantle.

What ensued from the US Government was a concerted campaign to break the noose of corruption the Cali Cartel had around the neck of the Colombian government. As one cartel member said during his interview, “at this point, when the entire US Government coalesced around defeating us, we knew our demise was imminent.” Once the US Government decided the Cali Cartel was a threat to national security, the resources and agency priorities converged on dismantling the Cali Cartel. The campaign plan had four general lines of effort: diplomacy, building partner capacity, counter threat finance, and direct action. The campaign succeeded because it had the full support of the President of the United States and US Congress as well as an effective partner in the Colombian National Police, which was willing to take aggressive action against the cartel’s command and control. This combined effort resulted in law enforcement action in more than a dozen countries and dismantled a TCO that one DEA official referred to as the “McDonalds of cocaine trafficking” because it had transformed drug trafficking into a global corporate enterprise on par with any licit multinational corporation.

Since the headline is unclear, here’s what it says:

NPR has obtained the draft text of a proposed rule that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients younger than age 18. It also prohibits reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP for patients under age 19.

An additional proposed rule would go even further, blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care.

The current rule “merely” ends federal funding for GAC through Medicaid, and the proposed rule is de facto banning it since hospitals rely on federal funding:

The proposal to condition a hospital’s participation in Medicaid and Medicare on halting gender-affirming care for youth represents an “unprecedented” use of the executive branch’s power to control what medical care is available in hospitals, says Keith.

“Because Medicare is such a significant portion of many hospitals’ revenue,” she explains, the rule would essentially force hospitals to end their gender care programs for transgender youth. That would mean all of those programs’ patients — whether they have Medicaid or private insurance — would lose access.

deleted by creator

There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests

I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”

You cannot compromise with a bigot

To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?

Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.

Why is AGP transphobic? Seems like at best it’s still unsettled science. From the link:

The concept that androphilia in trans women is related to homosexuality in cisgender men has been tested by MRI studies. Cantor interprets these studies as supporting Blanchard’s transsexualism typology.

There’s a loud minority of anti-AI people. Most people don’t reflexively hate it, though.

Good point. Neither prong of the dichotomy bothers me because I think AI is neat and copyright laws are dumb and so reject it entirely. It does create an uncomfortable tension if you dislike AI and like copyright though.

100%, I’m hoping that AI will result in capitalism eating itself up entirely

AI art isn’t theft, so the rest of your question falls apart.

In regards to sharing art, it’s trying to fight technological progress and it’s bound to lose. Copyright is dead and that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t simp for legal systems pushed by and that benefit large corporations over creators.

It can be true that something is both an important right and used unethically by people that don’t actually care about the topic. See Rainbow capitalism as a very related example. Nutomic is right that identity politics are used to create division among the working class, because anything that can create division will be used to do so.