Defending Trans Rights Is Good Politics - The Democrats' problem isn't "wokeness," but rather their failure to counter the Republicans' cruel anti-trans narrative.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Article / Archive

In the wake of the Democrats' devastating loss last month, there has been no shortage of arguments and analyses about what went wrong and how the party should move forward. It has been deeply concerning to see some of these arguments taking Republican fearmongering and propaganda as a basis, particularly on the subject of transgender rights. Falling for Republican propaganda will not only bring terrible harm to the most vulnerable members of society; I believe it is also a losing political strategy for Democrats. Instead, the Democratic Party must be vigilant against Republican propaganda, and must proactively counter it.

The Democrats' failures in messaging on transgender rights were evident throughout the campaign. Despite the Biden-Harris administration's progress - such as signing executive orders aimed at curbing discrimination, expanding health care access, and raising awareness of the societal barriers and violence that transgender people regularly experience - the Harris campaign appeared to studiously avoid discussing transgender people at all.

One of the few exceptions, and thus the most visible mention of trans people by Kamala Harris during the campaign, was in her October 16 interview on Fox News. When the host, Bret Baier, challenged the Biden-Harris administration's policy supporting gender-affirming medical care for prisoners, Harris had an opportunity to make a defense on moral grounds. Instead, she counterattacked by pointing out that the Trump administration followed the same laws, and thus the argument was "throwing...stones when you're living in a glass house." By doing so, she implicitly condoned the narrative that gender-affirming care is a luxury rather than a necessity, or, worse, somehow wrong or shameful, rather than a fundamental human right that should be afforded to all, including incarcerated people.

Setting aside for a moment the moral aspect, try to coldly consider the political message this phrasing sent to voters. After the provision of gender-affirming care was presented as though it were a problem, the Democrats seemed to be saying, 'it is a problem that both we and the Trump administration failed to deal with.' Meanwhile, the Republicans were promising to 'solve' it in the next administration. So why would an uninformed voter, after hearing both parties apparently acknowledge a 'problem' but only one party offer to 'solve' it, be expected to support the Democrats?

If Democrats want to be seen as competent, then they must stop catering to the Republicans' fearmongering and dehumanizing narrative and instead proactively counter it. Democrats must stand up and say yes, our policy is to support the provision of gender-affirming care, and we are proud of this policy. It is not a problem, but a protection of our citizens' basic human rights. The Democrats already campaigned on messages of freedom, self-determination, and bodily autonomy; these are precisely the values that must be applied not only to cis Americans, but to trans Americans as well. It is indeed somewhat astonishing that the Democrats failed to consistently articulate as simple a concept as: our platform of freedom and bodily autonomy also applies to trans people.

Of course, Harris was not the only high-ranking Democrat to weaken their own political position by failing to stand up for trans rights. Senate candidates Colin Allred and Sherrod Brown both ran television ads legitimizing Republican fearmongering about trans kids playing in school sports. After the election, Representative Seth Moulton went farther, portraying trans children as a physical danger to cis children, saying he didn't want his daughters to be "run over on a playing field" by trans students. Trans kids already suffer from bullying, abuse, and depression at significantly higher rates than their cis counterparts, and it's not hard to see why, when even Democratic lawmakers are demonizing them.

Again, let us try to dispassionately consider the potential political effect of such messaging (absurd as it is to set aside the ethical aspects of politicians attacking already marginalized children). The Republicans claim that trans kids are some sort of malign threat, and advertise policies to neutralize this 'threat' by denying them legal protections, further isolating them, and trying to erase the very existence of their identities. In other words, Republicans have presented a (manufactured) 'problem' and a (monstrous) 'solution.' Democrats, meanwhile, appear to implicitly accept the premise of the supposed 'problem,' but do not offer a solution. Again, how is a rational but uninformed voter supposed to respond?

The only logical path forward is for Democrats to explicitly renounce the Republicans' false premises. Trans children are not a threat to cis children, whether on the playground or in the bathroom, and bullying of trans kids not only by other students but by adult politicians is an outrage. Democrats must make clear to the public that while Republicans cynically claim to be "protecting children," they are in fact doing the opposite.

Unfortunately, there is no time to lose. Trump has announced a stream of extremist anti-trans appointees to key administration roles, including Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon), Secretary of Health and Human Services (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), Secretary of Defense (Pete Hegseth), and Secretary of State (Marco Rubio), among many others, who will enable the Republicans to make good on their promises to destroy protections for trans students, prevent access to healthcare and housing, purge transgender servicepeople from the military, promote anti-trans bigotry abroad, and deny transgender people the ability to openly exist in society. Not to mention the possibility of using the military to go after Trump's "enemy from within," which presumably includes trans people and their allies, whom Trump described as representing "a great evil."

The Democrats must unify to counter the Republicans' anti-trans propaganda and impending anti-trans agenda, not only to prevent the further oppression of millions of transgender Americans, but also to maintain credibility as a political movement.
 
IMG_1299.jpeg
That‘s a predator.
 
As you push trans "rights" to the fore, your margins of loss only grow.....

Your ideas aren't popular.

Now DEAL with it.
 
The Democrats must unify to counter the Republicans' anti-trans propaganda and impending anti-trans agenda, not only to prevent the further oppression of millions of transgender Americans, but also to maintain credibility as a political movement.
They have no credibility left to maintain. Their strategy was simply to dust off the 2016 playbook, with the addition this time of two assassination attempts. As a result, they suffered their worst humiliation in US political history. They really do embody "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong!" to a T.
 
Last edited:
What rights?

Also how many trans people are born? What? They aren't born..
What country do trans people come from? What? There is no trans country or ethnic group....

Trans people don't exist. There is no such thing as a trans person, they aren't born, they don't come from another place, they aren't a people or culture. They are literally men and women who one day say they are such. It's no different than putting on a red shirt and expecting everyone to treat people whom wear red shirts as a group of people unable to take that shirt off.

To have rights one must exist and trans is not a real thing, they literally are made up choice thus there is no such thing as trans rights. You can't defend something that doesn't exist.
 
I see the argument is based around trans kids yet again whilst neatly sidestepping the fact that there's no such thing as a trans kid without a predatory adult.

Biasing political policies to appease less than a fraction of one percent of the population whilst alienating pretty much everyone else is not going to win you votes.

Trans rights are good politics?
No.
Trans rights are suicide politics.
 
The only logical path forward is for Democrats to explicitly renounce the Republicans' false premises. Trans children are not a threat to cis children
Properly speaking, this is not the mainstream terf / GC / Republican premise.

The mainstream terf / GC / Republican premise is that male people are, on average, a threat to female people. And a trans identity doesn't change the numbers around that threat.

But I suspect that the author (and most people in his political circlejerk) aren't deliberately being disingenuous. I think a lot of them have been raised in the echo chamber for so long they can no longer distinguish between hyperbolic parodies of the other side and the real thing.

This crowd take Jon Stewart's spittake comedy as a serious analysis of the opposing side.

And for that reason, they are incapable of offering an intelligent rebuke of the other side's stances. They have no idea what the other side's stances are.

I was at the terf vs troon protest in front of the US Supreme Court earlier in the month. All day the terf speaking podium had a broad spectrum of various speakers come up and talk about the (pretty basic) arguments against trooning out kids, from all kinds of perspectives, left, right, and everywhere in between.

The troon podium just blasted shitty dance music. No argument, just yass kweeen slayyyy!!

Kinda says it all.
 
Last edited:
"If Democrats want to be seen as competent, then they must stop catering to the Republicans' fearmongering and dehumanizing narrative and instead proactively counter it. Democrats must stand up and say yes, our policy is to support the provision of gender-affirming care, and we are proud of this policy. It is not a problem, but a protection of our citizens' basic human rights. The Democrats already campaigned on messages of freedom, self-determination, and bodily autonomy."

Did he ever stop and think of why the Democrat canidates lost? It's because enough of Democrat voters jumped ship and voted Republican because of this relentless insistence that people ignore the ugly and at times quite depraved things that enough trans women are doing, and that they need to just feel sorry for them, and just let them run roughshod over women and girls and be let into their places and sports, or they're a big fat meanie bigot.

People hated this stuff and by insisting Democrats double down on it even more despite it being odious, will just alienate even more people.

-edited
 
At the end of the day, the left and Democrats have fallen prey to sunk cost fallacy with the trans issue. Too much time, resources, money, favors cashed in, and lines crossed in acceptable behavior, for them to back down on it. And worse, it would confirm the slippery slope argument was right all along and then bye bye gay rights, which has been shackled to the dirty bomb that is trans rights against its will.
 
Once again: it’s NOT that Harris WOULDN’T counter Trump’s anti-trans rhetoric, it’s that she COULDN’T. The best speechwriters. All the academics. A billion dollars. They had nothing they could say.

Let’s say you decide the political position of your party is that gasoline is a tasty and nutritious breakfast food. No matter how hard your candidate might WANT to counter ads saying that drinking gasoline is a deadly dangerous concept, they aren’t going to be ABLE to counter that message because gasoline is in fact poison.

There is no way for Harris to defend transgender women if she can’t even define what one is. That’s where we are stuck at with zero gate keeping self-id. Zero gate keeping self-id does not keep the obvious pervert men out of bathrooms. It does not protect women’s sports. It does not account for the immaturity of children in their ability to permanently define themselves.

If Harris says a woman is whoever says they are, the average person will punish dems at the voting booth. If she doesn’t say that, her base abandons her. Either way, she loses.

Online dems solve the problem highlighted here by banning any normie who dares question them. That doesn’t work in elections. In fact, it just backfired.

I still can’t believe they ran ads where the premise was telling wives they could secretly vote for Harris and the Trump voters in their lives couldn’t punish them because the voting booth is secret. Followed immediately by mainstream media voices and online types screaming about how they won’t welcome Trump supporting family at Thanksgiving. Which side is it that has to fear the consequences of our position because of overbearing family members again? Yeah. When the Dems are ready to actually explain their insane position and not ban everyone who disagrees INCLUDING THEIR OWN FAMILY then maybe they will find their politicians can actually stand by their views proudly again.
 
Last edited:
Trannies are not reliable voters because they are maximalists, and they alienate a large part of the Democratic base i.g. socially conservative minorities. Also, normies don't want ugly troons playing sports with women or going into their bathrooms. It's such a strange thing to waste political capital on with no clear benefits. It's "good politics" if you think Democrats can win the EC with only coastal states lol
 
Back
Top Bottom