Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:25 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,333
As for trans rights, I endorse this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
From Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLK
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.
  #52  
Old 06-09-2019, 11:06 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No they don't. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections.
Everyone has a race, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, etc. So yes, everyone is protected by those laws. You can't be fired due to your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
  #53  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:37 PM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No they don't. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections.
You'd think a lawyer would know better than this bit of nonsense.
  #54  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No they don't. People who have the characteristics outlined in the laws are protected. Those who have the overwhelming majority of other characteristics that others find objectionable, but are not listed in the law, do not have any protections.
Reference to those laws as " anti-discrimination laws" is pretty vague. You'd have to be more specific to be meaningful. The fourteenth amendment however, is pretty straightforward in discussing equal protection.
  #55  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:33 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is it a fundamental right to have protection under anti-discrimination laws? If that was the case then everyone would always have protection under those laws.
Am I on an ignore list? Am I screaming at the ocean? Like, you asked what we wanted as a group, and I gave you a nice list. I don't really care if they are "fundamental".
  #56  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:50 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I'm a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn't gay marriage won in the courts in most states?
Not in Minnesota!
We voted down a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting equal marriage rights, and then next spring, our Legislature & Governor passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

It only took 40 years for elected officials to catch up -- our Democratic-Farmer-Labor party had passed a platform plank supporting equal marriage rights iway back n 1972!
  #57  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:56 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
A representative from an LGBT rights advocacy legal group came to speak to my law school in the wake of the US v. Windsor decision. Apparently there had been some real controversy among advocates as to how and when and with whom to challenge DOMA in the courts. Some, like the org this speaker represented, wanted to wait a little longer, both to allow more time for attitudes to evolve and to find the perfect sympathetic test case, in order to have the best shot at victory. Others, like Edie Windsor, didn't want to wait.
Actually, Edie wasn't the one pushing this. It was the IRS demanding a third of million dollars tax on her inheritance from her spouse, which would have been tax exempt had the IRS recognized their marriage. (That was what the SCotUS actually ordered.)
  #58  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:00 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
No change will ever be so gradual that it won't bother some people. There's no point in trying to slow progress down enough to accommodate these people. All that you can do is move forward despite their protests and know that most of them will eventually realize that the change was a good thing and their concerns was baseless.
  #59  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:58 PM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,621
...or die.

There's people whose voiced concerns are real, true, genuine: those are likely to change their minds once they see the sky is, in fact, not falling down. But for others, the stated concerns are actually a smokescreen: they want to put Those People down, to keep Those People away, because if Those People get a chance, Those People will get the job / scholarship / whatever. It's a defense mechanism for those who know they're really not up to par. And those won't change their minds; if they could, they wouldn't need to keep the competition away by denying them access.

Last edited by Nava; 06-09-2019 at 11:01 PM.
  #60  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:56 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Heck, some people still don't think women should have rights, and we've been around for a while.
I want to know who is telling John Oliver what I'm thinking of :looks suspiciously to both sides:

While he puts his piece about ERA in terms of women's rights because that's how it began, it's an issue which affects everybody. The problem isn't "trans rights", it's "people rights".
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #61  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:08 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
The problem isn't "trans rights", it's "people rights".
Exactly.

As I pointed out on the pit thread, all we need to do is to look at the abortion rights debate in America. So-called abortion "moderates" on the left have tried to be reasonable with anti-abortion radicals. They've tried to strike a compromise, with time frame limitations and so forth, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the "reasonable" and "moderate" side wants when the other side has no intention of being reasonable; they simply want to impose their will on the rest of us. There can be no moderation when it comes to protecting individual human rights, and I can't think of any right more important than having the power to establish your own identity and to make personal health choices to that end.
  #62  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:31 AM
MeanJoe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
So, you don’t have any transgendered neighbors? Really? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
This is a fair question and generally speaking I would agree - if I lived in your typical midwestern city suburb. The city I live in as a whole is pretty progressive. Sure there are some suburbs that are more conservative but as a whole it's a very LGBT friendly city. In my neighborhood there is an very high percentage of gay and lesbians, this has been the case for 20+ years now. At one point the city had a higher percentage of LGBT per capita than San Francisco and we have the 2nd largest pride event in the midwest (Chicago is #1). Back to my neighborhood specifically, many of our friends and acquittances are gay or lesbian. Sure, there may be a few trans people in the neighborhood but pretty much everyone knows everyone (for good and bad, the gay gossip thing can be brutal) and after living here for 12 years I think -someone- would have mentioned it by now or we'd have run into each other at any number of the large neighborhood events.

So I'm not coming from a perspective of living in a place where there would be low percentage and low visibility of LGBT people. Yet I only know one person who is trans and she now lives in Canada. I've not researched all of the available studies out there but a quick search seems to indicate less than 1% of the adult population in the U.S. identifies as trans. So yeah, I don't think it is an unreasonable statement that even in a more open and progressive city like where I live most people don't personally know a trans person.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #63  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:15 AM
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,272
I have nothing to add to what has been said above, but I'll add a loud "no" to the overall question posed by the OP.
  #64  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:43 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,225
I can't find the quote online, but ISTR it was Dick Gregory who said "Take your foot off my grandmother's neck now! Not one toe at a time!".

There is no benefit to fighting inch by inch for one's rights. Better to push for them as hard as you can and see how far you can get and how fast you can get there.
  #65  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:51 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeanJoe View Post
So I'm not coming from a perspective of living in a place where there would be low percentage and low visibility of LGBT people. Yet I only know one person who is trans and she now lives in Canada. I've not researched all of the available studies out there but a quick search seems to indicate less than 1% of the adult population in the U.S. identifies as trans. So yeah, I don't think it is an unreasonable statement that even in a more open and progressive city like where I live most people don't personally know a trans person.
I am greatly appreciative of Ronald Raygun and other posters who have been kind enough to share their experiences publicly so that we cisgendered folks can learn a little bit. But, my understanding is that it is not a movement to a third category of 'trans' but a transition from assigned at birth gender to actual gender and so there very well could be people in your life who have transitioned in the past but even in Seattle, they are not interested in rehashing their trans experience. You perceive and interact with them as their post-transition gender which is the goal.
  #66  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:59 AM
MeanJoe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
I am greatly appreciative of Ronald Raygun and other posters who have been kind enough to share their experiences publicly so that we cisgendered folks can learn a little bit. But, my understanding is that it is not a movement to a third category of 'trans' but a transition from assigned at birth gender to actual gender and so there very well could be people in your life who have transitioned in the past but even in Seattle, they are not interested in rehashing their trans experience. You perceive and interact with them as their post-transition gender which is the goal.
As am I. I have responded to some but read everyone's comments and thinking about their experiences and point of view.

And again, a fair point but if in the U.S. only .6% of the adult population identifies as trans -and- if a percentage of them transitioned and no one can tell... this pretty much supports my earlier statement that most people in the U.S. do not personally know a trans person. They may know Susan in the Accounting Department but they don't know she is trans, transitioned in the past, and her birth gender was male and her birth certificate said "Charles". As a result, they're not making that association to KNOWING a trans person. They just know Susan in Accounting and she can help you with all you finance questions. It's a small enough percentage of the population to be less likely that the average person connects "trans issues/advocacy" they are hearing about on the news or social media with Susan in Accounting is trans. As the gay rights movement started really gaining steam, I knew many gay people so it was hard to separate the political/social debate from my friend Bill who is gay and the status quo hurts him. Not sure I'm making sense or beleaguering a point already understood.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #67  
Old 06-10-2019, 12:14 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
I'm a bit skeptical that the government was trailing behind the populace when it came to gay rights. In many states when the issue of gay marriage came to a vote by the people it was a no. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, had a population that voted for same sex marriage or civil union but wasn't gay marriage won in the courts in most states?
I agree. I think that xkcd is interesting, but it really hinges on a question with "approval" wording being neatly applicable to legislation.

I don't think that it is. Like, I could be wrong about the level of racism in our society, but I find it hard to believe that 50+% of the US population was in favor of legally restricting people of different races from marrying each other in 1990. Clearly, whatever people are thinking about when asked if they "approve" of interracial marriage, it's not the same thing as if you asked them what the law should be.
  #68  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:11 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 237
I think in terms of "too much, too soon", there may be a case to be made in strategic terms. "Can this hill be taken and held?" is a valid concern. However, this hill, and many others, are absolutely the birthright of all the people who deserve equal protection under the law. Whether society at large is "ready" or not is irrelevant to the dignity and liberty of the individual and some non-zero number of societal Luddites will be ever dissatisfied with how "those people" (whoever "they" may be in the speaker's case) are getting "uppity.

Questioning whether a particular legislative goal is actually achievable is a calculation that unfortunately must be made. It may also be the case that having temporarily achieved a goal, the reversal of said legislation may prove more deleterious, for reasons of procedure or precedence. So, I am a realist about this. However, as far as ethics and "society being able to deal with it" goes, I say when any of us are less free, all of us are less free. And we should nearly always err on the side of pushing aggressively for liberty. People are more adaptable than you may give them credit for and more-so when the adjustments to be made are legitimized by law.

FWIW, I was never racist, but was raised a white, nominally Christian, male in the Deep South and did internalize homophobia and trans-phobia, before coming to reason. I have openly and stridently advocated for LGBT rights and I was greatly relieved that I came to my senses many years before my daughter came out as bisexual. We love each other so much and, if I was still a homophobe, it would have broken my heart to think that there was any lingering doubt that I accepted her orientation only because of our kinship.

We should also recognize what we are asking from people in order to accommodate trans-folks. It really isn't much. Don't fire them for being trans. Don't deny housing or other services. Use their preferred pronouns (if you are even aware that these aren't "correct" regarding their anatomy/chromosomes). I've long thought that some people's need to know another's "real" gender was so they could accord them the proper degree of respect. Wouldn't want all that manly respect going to girl who was just pretending! Or even worse, a man who would degrade himself to live like a woman! Horrors!

I'm polite and friendly to peers and subordinates, male or female. I'm duly respectful to those in authority, male or female. Because no adjustments to how I treat others based on gender is needed, I don't care what someone's gender presentation is or if it comports to their anatomy or genome (or even if those agree with each other). The only people who should care about your gender are your lovers and doctors.

The dichotomy of sexual identity, preference, and expression is this: on one hand, it is completely irrelevant. If someone is not a potential lover (unlikely, since I am married and monogamous), these things just don't matter. But, on the other hand, who you are sexually can be a huge facet of your identity and it can be hurtful to be attacked on this basis (beyond the obvious, manifest, and often devastating harm that can come from overt bigotry). How would (male) detractors of civil rights respond if they were forbidden the right to grow beards, to wear ties or business-style suits, watch sports, use male pronouns, or demonstrate romantic or domestic pairing with women? They'd probably say it made them "feel like less of a man", not even realizing that their gender-identity and expression was so important to them. Blissfully unaware, largely because it had never been attacked.

Sorry, getting a bit into the weeds on that. Just my two cents. Personally the public education system in the South could do with a lot more Stonewall Riots and a lot less Stonewall Jackson.
  #69  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
...
We should also recognize what we are asking from people in order to accommodate trans-folks. It really isn't much. Don't fire them for being trans. Don't deny housing or other services. Use their preferred pronouns (if you are even aware that these aren't "correct" regarding their anatomy/chromosomes). ...
The bathroom thing is a rather hot topic, and altho I am in favor of most public restrooms being all gender, that isnt a hill to die on, right now.

And, how would you know what the preferred pronouns are?

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-11-2019 at 01:35 PM.
  #70  
Old 06-12-2019, 01:00 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not sure I agree with one of the assumptions in the OP. I don't believe that all that many people fundamentally changed their view on SSM. Sure, some did, but the reason that support went from the high 20s to the high 60s was the passing of the torch to another generation.
It is partly this but why were the "new" generations ok with it when generations galore going waaay back in time were no ok with it? Why this generation?

I believe it was gay men coming out of the closet in full force when the AIDS epidemic hit. Till then gay men hid their sexuality from society which allowed the bigotry against them to perpetuate itself.

But when AIDS hit it became imperative that something be done. Lots of people were dying miserable deaths. So a greta many gay many came-out and all of a sudden people found they knew gay people. People they liked. People they loved. People they looked up to and realized there was nothing "spooky" about them.

A new generation grew up in this environment and all of a sudden their parents could not pass on their bigotry as easily.

But make no mistake, it was gay men working hard for decades to be accepted and not some magical change in attitude that brought this about.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #71  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:01 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
I think there is an elephant in the room here. We are alive at possibly a unique juncture in the history of US democracy when the survival of its fundamental values and norms is far from certain.

This is not a time when you want to fuel the bigots and ignoramuses who support Trump and his Republican Guard and who may not even for vote from him in 2020 if left undisturbed. The lesser evil may be to not champion - temporarily - transgender rights.
I agree. We are at a time in history when we can ill-afford the luxury of idealism. This is what worries me about the far left. Pragmatism and realpolitik doesn't necessarily require we sell our souls. Retreats can be strategic. I can completely understand how even the political center is put off by Democrats. Even as a liberal Democrat, it seems to me the Dems spend an awful lot of time campaigning on identity politics. I'd much rather see the Dems spend their time and energy bringing the white middle class into the fold. When people start to support a party, they tend to slowly adopt the rest of the platform as their identity adopts "Democrat." You don't ask your parents for a new car the day you bring home a report card full of F's and you don't ask the the American people to accept something to the left when it's in the middle of a far right hissy fit. The legislation we'd all like to see enacted for the LGBTQ community can, paradoxically, be enacted faster if we stay silent until at least 2020.
  #72  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:02 PM
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
I think there is an elephant in the room here. We are alive at possibly a unique juncture in the history of US democracy when the survival of its fundamental values and norms is far from certain.

This is not a time when you want to fuel the bigots and ignoramuses who support Trump and his Republican Guard and who may not even for vote from him in 2020 if left undisturbed. The lesser evil may be to not champion - temporarily - transgender rights.
If we extinguish the light, maybe they'll go away and quit threatening us?
  #73  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:37 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 197
Trans rights are not a new car.
  #74  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:07 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,437
For all the talk about how it is Democrats who campaign on identity politics, I think you folks have it wrong.

Republicans are every bit as much about Identity Politics. "Christian" "White" "Conservative" "Pro-Life", etcetera. They wear these identities as badges of honor and then whine about how the other side are the ones doing it.

Let's just be perfectly clear about this: You Be You. Stop worrying so much about other people having an 'identity' that, while it may challenge your world view or not match up to your chosen IDENTITY*, doesn't actually affect you.


* If you're a Conservative Christian and you believe being gay is wrong, this is due to your ideology, your world view, your IDENTITY. Congratulations, you're playing the Identity Politics game too.
  #75  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:19 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
For all the talk about how it is Democrats who campaign on identity politics, I think you folks have it wrong.

Republicans are every bit as much about Identity Politics. "Christian" "White" "Conservative" "Pro-Life", etcetera. They wear these identities as badges of honor and then whine about how the other side are the ones doing it.

Let's just be perfectly clear about this: You Be You. Stop worrying so much about other people having an 'identity' that, while it may challenge your world view or not match up to your chosen IDENTITY*, doesn't actually affect you.


* If you're a Conservative Christian and you believe being gay is wrong, this is due to your ideology, your world view, your IDENTITY. Congratulations, you're playing the Identity Politics game too.
Don't assume they will have a rational response to the inescapable logic of your argument. Better not to poke the beast lest it stir to vote. If Trump wins in 2020 it may be generations before trans rights (among others) are ever enshrined.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 06-13-2019 at 05:20 PM.
  #76  
Old 06-13-2019, 06:59 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I agree. We are at a time in history when we can ill-afford the luxury of idealism. This is what worries me about the far left. Pragmatism and realpolitik doesn't necessarily require we sell our souls. Retreats can be strategic. I can completely understand how even the political center is put off by Democrats. Even as a liberal Democrat, it seems to me the Dems spend an awful lot of time campaigning on identity politics. I'd much rather see the Dems spend their time and energy bringing the white middle class into the fold. When people start to support a party, they tend to slowly adopt the rest of the platform as their identity adopts "Democrat." You don't ask your parents for a new car the day you bring home a report card full of F's and you don't ask the the American people to accept something to the left when it's in the middle of a far right hissy fit. The legislation we'd all like to see enacted for the LGBTQ community can, paradoxically, be enacted faster if we stay silent until at least 2020.
I'm going to reply to this again, because I find it rather offensive. My rights are not "the luxury of idealism". Honestly, I'm more sympathetic to transphobic views when they boil down to "those people are weird and gross and socially disruptive", because I had to overcome my own internalized transphobia, which presented itself as "I am weird and gross and socially disruptive". It's also clear for me how to combat it, by existing in the world as an open and pleasant person. What I don't understand is saying that certain people deserve rights, and we want them to have rights, but... uh... not now. Being used as a bargaining chip is dehumanizing in a way that is far worse.
  #77  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:19 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm going to reply to this again, because I find it rather offensive. My rights are not "the luxury of idealism". Honestly, I'm more sympathetic to transphobic views when they boil down to "those people are weird and gross and socially disruptive", because I had to overcome my own internalized transphobia, which presented itself as "I am weird and gross and socially disruptive". It's also clear for me how to combat it, by existing in the world as an open and pleasant person. What I don't understand is saying that certain people deserve rights, and we want them to have rights, but... uh... not now. Being used as a bargaining chip is dehumanizing in a way that is far worse.
Nowhere did I imply that trans people should not exist in the world openly, or that they be used as bargaining chips. Nor did I say they shouldn't have rights now.

I'm also not saying (though I wasn't explicit) that trans persons should not be vocal about their rights. What I'm saying is that politicians should not be campaigning on it. If I gave you these two options:

1. Democrats stay silent on trans' rights while campaigning in order to increase the odds of getting elected in 2020, at which time they pass the Trans' Rights Act of 2020, and the Democratic president reverses Trump's executive orders and decrees a few of his/her own.
2. Democrats campaign on trans' rights because, well, God damn it, they should be able to because we're dealing with rights here, lose the election, at which time they pass nothing. But hey, they'll get it done in 2024 (after the new President reverses the 3 more anti-trans executive orders enacted in the meantime).

Would you really choose option 2?

You can debate whether trans' issues will put 2020 at risk, but that's a different argument.

What I meant by the "luxury of idealism," is an insistence that politicians champion trans causes during the 2020 campaign "because they SHOULD be able to." I think many on the far left are more interested in indulging their righteous anger than getting the policies they want passed. I believe anyone who chooses option 2 is doing just that.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 06-14-2019 at 08:20 AM.
  #78  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:01 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
I'm going to do a twitter and read the headline (ahem, thread title) and respond to that.

"Fuck. No. What bare minimum of basic human rights trans people have clawed out is under constant attack by bigoted assholes who either are the religious right or are bankrolled (shall we say "AstroTERF'd") by the religious right to attack LGBTQ rights around the globe as a whole and sow internicene conflict within liberal feminism, and the idea that they're getting "too many" rights is insane, because they should have all the rights, right fucking now, just like everyone else, because trans rights are human rights."

Okay, now that that's out of my system, let's actually read the OP.

It seems to be about pragmatism. We see a fair bit of this from people saying we should "drop the T" to make it easier on ourselves. Again, trans rights are human rights, so actually doing this for pragmatism's sake is monstrous on the face of it. You're sacrificing the rights of one of the most marginalized groups on the planet for the sake of having an easier time defending your own - that seems pretty shite on a purely moral level.

It's also really bad strategy. Okay, let's say you "drop the T". What happens to all those groups that sprung up against trans rights? Do they just shut up and go away, having achieved their goals? No, because "protecting women from gender trenders" (note: please do not actually speak that way, anyone talking about "gender trenders" is usually a bigoted fuckstick not worth engaging with*) is not the extent of their goals. Remember, these people are bankrolled by far-right US conservatives. That wouldn't happen if they were anti-trans, and pro-everything-else.

Spend some time on /r/GenderCritical or Mumsnet (two of the most well-known hangouts for TERFs) and you'll find that they're not just "gender" critical (speaking of shitty euphemisms...), but that a great many of them are just straight-up anti-LGBT bigots. The constant "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" rhetoric being spewed has led to them spearheading a campaign to bring back article 28, and schools shutting down classes on LGBT issues meant to combat homophobia and transphobia. They went after a "drag queen reading hour" program and tried to get it shut down.

Trans issues are the thin edge of the wedge. Far from the idea that if we accept this pushback on trans issues, this will stop, the exact opposite is true - once we give in on trans issues, the exact same rhetoric will immediately be turned on LGBT people. What, you don't feel safe sharing the bathroom with a "biological male" (another nasty fucking slur for transwomen*) because "he" has a penis? Why should you feel any more safe around lesbians, who you know want to fuck you? "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria"? Swap out one word and we're right the fuck back to talking about homosexuality as a "contagion". That rhetoric they use talking about non-binary people? Bisexuals are already dealing with it.

These arguments are designed to sound almost reasonable when talking about trans people, and to be directly transferable to anyone else on the LGBT spectrum.

So if you care about LGB rights, dropping the T is the absolute last thing you should do. You should fight these homophobic, transphobic fucksticks where they are, because if you don't, they will be coming for you next. The people bankrolling them don't want a world where LGB rights are enshrined and protected. The people bankrolling them don't just want a world where Obergfell is overturned. The people bankrolling them want a world where Lawrence V. Texas is overturned. It will not stop just because we appease them. And in this case, "appease them" means turning our backs on an extremely marginalized and at-risk population and throwing them to the wolves.



*I legitimately have not read any posts in the thread other than the first as of writing this so if it turns out someone is already talking like this in this thread, which I sincerely hope not, I hope they learn their lesson from this and fucking stop it. That shit ain't cool, and I will gladly explain to any moderator who is curious some of the history and meaning of common anti-trans slurs that may have flown under their radars.
  #79  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I agree. We are at a time in history when we can ill-afford the luxury of idealism. This is what worries me about the far left.
This is how we lose.

This is how we give up inch after inch of ground until there is no ground left to give and there is no option for us but to jump into the void.

"Idealism".

What do you think the right has been doing?! Look, you can see this EXACT PATTERN with abortion. The left won a major legal victory in the 70s, and the religious right spent the next 40 years NEVER LETTING UP. They took every inch we gave (TRAP laws, Casey, NIFLA, etc.) and as soon as they had it they demanded more. And gradually, they continued to win on the issue, even though their actual position was never actually popular. (Even in Alabama, only around 25% of the population wants a full ban on abortion!) And every step of the way, the left just... gave ground. And was surprised, again and again, when that giving of ground led to the republicans wanting more. And now we're on the verge of seeing Roe overturned, we have states openly pushing bills to ban all abortion with the express purpose of overturning Roe, and we stand back and wonder like the dope in that comic, "Whoa, how did we let that happen?"

Meanwhile, you wanna talk about idealism? There's a whole bunch of progressive voters who stayed home in 2016. Many of them probably felt they didn't have someone they could believe in with the safe centrist democrat.

Idealism fuels the left. It gives people something to believe in. And failing that, it shifts the overton window. That's the other thing the right has consistently been doing, and the left has consistently been letting it do. But that's the thing - any change can be seen as "radical" or "extreme". $15 minimum wage probably sounded pretty fucking crazy when it was first proposed. Now, it's being implemented in more and more places. Hell, gay rights were super extreme the first time around, and have progressively become less and less extreme. In 2004 it was a wedge issue for the bigots; in 2012 it was a wedge issue for the liberals. If you want change, "strategic retreat" is the worst possible thing to do.

Quote:
Retreats can be strategic.
But this isn't. We're compromising on human rights, and for what? What's the win state here? They're not going to stop pushing. We're going to see that exact same backsliding. "Oh, we can't care about trans rights, it's too divisive". Then, a few years later, when they start coming for Obergfell, "Oh, we can't care about gay marriage, somehow it became more divisive."

Remember, all the language they're using to attack trans people? Half of it was intentionally created to apply just as well to LGB people; the other half was just straight-up adopted from the "gay panic" language. Seriously - look at what these people are saying, and slot in "gay" for "trans" in their arguments - it's not hard to notice if you look for it. If we accept that trans issues (friendly reminder that, for trans people, these issues are literally a matter of life and death) are "too divisive", they will immediately move on to their next target. This doesn't stop just because we give the genocidal mass-murderer the sudetenland. (Sorry, couldn't find a more apt comparison when talking about people's lives.)

Quote:
Even as a liberal Democrat, it seems to me the Dems spend an awful lot of time campaigning on identity politics.
Well there's a dead fucking giveaway that you see this as a hypothetical issue that doesn't really matter.

HEY BUDDY, GAY KIDS ARE DYING.

Fuck this "identity politics" bullshit. You know what that phrase means in this context? "Something that doesn't affect straight cishet white men". That's it! That's literally what it means! When we talk about LGBT rights, we are talking about the human rights of real goddamn people. "Identity politics" is the only politics they get, because the moment they push for their basic fucking rights, everyone and their dog starts screaming, "IDENTITY POLITICS! IDENTITY POLITICS!" because cishet white dudes are unable to see outside their own skin for five seconds and realize that sometimes, one's identity has an impact on politics! My fundamental human rights are just "identity politics"? Do they not matter? Am I a bargaining chip to be traded in when you need to appeal to the votes of people who are real nice folks, except that they'd rather see me tied to a cross and burned to death?

Quote:
I'd much rather see the Dems spend their time and energy bringing the white middle class into the fold.
Yep. Of course you would. The cishet white male middle class. That majority stakeholder of the nation that everyone and their dog feels we should pander exclusively to. In fact, anything that doesn't explicitly pander to them and how they feel is "IDENTITY POLITICS" and must be crushed. Or, as TheEstablishment put it: thank god for identity politics:
Thank god for Identity Politics.

You know why? Because you know what we had before Identity Politics? I’ll tell you.

We had White Dudes.

We had white dudes as the pinnacles of power. We had white dudes on all our TV screens, we had white dudes reporting all our news, we had white dudes writing all our books. Sometimes they were accompanied by attractive white ladies (as all the white dudes were straight). But mostly, we had white dudes.

And if you were not a white dude? You didn’t exist. Laws were not written for you, infrastructure was not built for you, history was not written about you. You did not exist in film, television, or novels. You were not a part of the American dream.

And do you know what has been changing all of that? Do you know what has been saving this country from the monotony and tyranny of white, cis, heterosexual dudes? Identity Politics.
  #80  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:43 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Fuck this "identity politics" bullshit.
Yes, if you ever finding yourself using the phrase "identity politics" sincerely, please punch yourself in the face.

Excellent post, BPC.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings ë/ëm/ës, é/ém/és, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, Ë/Ëm/Ës, É/Ém/És, E/Em/Es.)

Last edited by Acsenray; 06-14-2019 at 09:44 AM.
  #81  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:25 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
This is how we lose.

This is how we give up inch after inch of ground until there is no ground left to give and there is no option for us but to jump into the void.

"Idealism".

What do you think the right has been doing?! Look, you can see this EXACT PATTERN with abortion. The left won a major legal victory in the 70s, and the religious right spent the next 40 years NEVER LETTING UP. They took every inch we gave (TRAP laws, Casey, NIFLA, etc.) and as soon as they had it they demanded more. And gradually, they continued to win on the issue, even though their actual position was never actually popular. (Even in Alabama, only around 25% of the population wants a full ban on abortion!) And every step of the way, the left just... gave ground. And was surprised, again and again, when that giving of ground led to the republicans wanting more. And now we're on the verge of seeing Roe overturned, we have states openly pushing bills to ban all abortion with the express purpose of overturning Roe, and we stand back and wonder like the dope in that comic, "Whoa, how did we let that happen?"

Meanwhile, you wanna talk about idealism? There's a whole bunch of progressive voters who stayed home in 2016. Many of them probably felt they didn't have someone they could believe in with the safe centrist democrat.

Idealism fuels the left. It gives people something to believe in. And failing that, it shifts the overton window. That's the other thing the right has consistently been doing, and the left has consistently been letting it do. But that's the thing - any change can be seen as "radical" or "extreme". $15 minimum wage probably sounded pretty fucking crazy when it was first proposed. Now, it's being implemented in more and more places. Hell, gay rights were super extreme the first time around, and have progressively become less and less extreme. In 2004 it was a wedge issue for the bigots; in 2012 it was a wedge issue for the liberals. If you want change, "strategic retreat" is the worst possible thing to do.



But this isn't. We're compromising on human rights, and for what? What's the win state here? They're not going to stop pushing. We're going to see that exact same backsliding. "Oh, we can't care about trans rights, it's too divisive". Then, a few years later, when they start coming for Obergfell, "Oh, we can't care about gay marriage, somehow it became more divisive."

Remember, all the language they're using to attack trans people? Half of it was intentionally created to apply just as well to LGB people; the other half was just straight-up adopted from the "gay panic" language. Seriously - look at what these people are saying, and slot in "gay" for "trans" in their arguments - it's not hard to notice if you look for it. If we accept that trans issues (friendly reminder that, for trans people, these issues are literally a matter of life and death) are "too divisive", they will immediately move on to their next target. This doesn't stop just because we give the genocidal mass-murderer the sudetenland. (Sorry, couldn't find a more apt comparison when talking about people's lives.)



Well there's a dead fucking giveaway that you see this as a hypothetical issue that doesn't really matter.

HEY BUDDY, GAY KIDS ARE DYING.

Fuck this "identity politics" bullshit. You know what that phrase means in this context? "Something that doesn't affect straight cishet white men". That's it! That's literally what it means! When we talk about LGBT rights, we are talking about the human rights of real goddamn people. "Identity politics" is the only politics they get, because the moment they push for their basic fucking rights, everyone and their dog starts screaming, "IDENTITY POLITICS! IDENTITY POLITICS!" because cishet white dudes are unable to see outside their own skin for five seconds and realize that sometimes, one's identity has an impact on politics! My fundamental human rights are just "identity politics"? Do they not matter? Am I a bargaining chip to be traded in when you need to appeal to the votes of people who are real nice folks, except that they'd rather see me tied to a cross and burned to death?



Yep. Of course you would. The cishet white male middle class. That majority stakeholder of the nation that everyone and their dog feels we should pander exclusively to. In fact, anything that doesn't explicitly pander to them and how they feel is "IDENTITY POLITICS" and must be crushed. Or, as TheEstablishment put it: thank god for identity politics:
Thank god for Identity Politics.

You know why? Because you know what we had before Identity Politics? I’ll tell you.

We had White Dudes.

We had white dudes as the pinnacles of power. We had white dudes on all our TV screens, we had white dudes reporting all our news, we had white dudes writing all our books. Sometimes they were accompanied by attractive white ladies (as all the white dudes were straight). But mostly, we had white dudes.

And if you were not a white dude? You didn’t exist. Laws were not written for you, infrastructure was not built for you, history was not written about you. You did not exist in film, television, or novels. You were not a part of the American dream.

And do you know what has been changing all of that? Do you know what has been saving this country from the monotony and tyranny of white, cis, heterosexual dudes? Identity Politics.
I'm guessing you didn't read or chose to ignore my response to Ronald Raygun.

In that post, would you choose option 2?

Go ahead and indulge your moral outrage. I'm just trying to get people the rights they want and deserve as fast as possible.

I agree that shifting the Overton Window is critical. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing a fantastic job of that. But you know what she isn't doing? Running for fucking president in 2020. I'm not saying the left stay quiet - I'm saying Presidential candidates should. Until they get elected.

You really think 2020 is the same as 2016? Progressive's stayed home in 2016 because they never envisioned the nightmare to come. Any progressive that stays home in 2020 because they aren't inspired by a centrist candidate and needs to be "fueled with idealism," is not someone whose rights I care to put my energy into championing.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 06-14-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #82  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:01 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Don't assume they will have a rational response to the inescapable logic of your argument. Better not to poke the beast lest it stir to vote. If Trump wins in 2020 it may be generations before trans rights (among others) are ever enshrined.
I wish people would stop pushing this crap.

Do you honestly think there is an entire army of people who would vote for Trump if you make them angry - that didn't already vote for Trump?

Do you think Trans-rights is the single issue that is going to pull them out in the millions?

No, this is a foolish argument. One meant to stop people from supporting what is right out of fear. If you're pushing this, you're a Trumpie or a right winger trying to deter others from opposing you.
  #83  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I'm guessing you didn't read or chose to ignore my response to Ronald Raygun.

In that post, would you choose option 2?
Missed it, sorry.

I think it's a very silly dichotomy. For starters, democrats are hesitant to even talk about trans rights, and the party's history with trans rights is mediocre at best. That said, these issues are ones where we're winning, and winning pretty fast, at least on the public perception front.

It feels like you're catering to a political demographic that doesn't exist any more.
Moving to the suburbs, the supposed home of the swing voter, not to mention all kinds of micro-trendy constituents Democrats have been told to court, such as “Soccer Moms” and “Security Moms.” It turns out that suburbs are no longer particularly politically “independent.” They are now, in fact, mostly Democratic. Designing a strategy to appeal to voters who are maybe moderate, but honestly, mainly marginalized Republicans in areas that now have a plurality of Democrats, seems like a good way to depress Democratic turnout.

It goes without saying that political campaigns should attract as many votes as possible, and that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with broad-based appeals. It also doesn’t make much tactical sense to go out of your way to alienate or insult certain groups of voters. But the fact is, many of the policy positions that are considered “left wing” by the chattering class—even the “socialist” Green New Deal—actually have majority support. In an environment in which 76 percent of the public wants to raise taxes on the rich, trying to pick off a few center-right votes with a handful of tax credits—the cornerstone of the “centrist” Democratic policy playbook from the 1990s and early 2000s—feels shortsighted, at best, and likely not the best way to mobilize Democratic voters. And mobilizing more Democratic voters is the key to the 2020 election.

In 2016, over 4 million Democrats who voted in 2012 for Barack Obama didn’t show up at the polls to pull the lever for Clinton. It’s not that they voted for someone else; they simply didn’t vote at all. And as a reminder, Trump won three states by a total of 76,000 votes. The reasons for this are many, but the lesson is clear. Rather than obsess about winning back the voters that switched from Obama to Trump, Democrats should instead focus on inspiring those Obama voters who stayed home, who are “mostly young and nonwhite” and “share the progressive policy priorities of Democrats,” argued Sean McElwee, Jesse H. Rhodes, Brian F. Schaffner, and Bernard L. Fraga in the New York Times. Based on their careful analysis of the data, they advise Democrats to forget about those swing voters and figure out “why a campaign [Hillary’s] that sought to energize young voters of color failed to do so.” Here’s hoping the 2020 Democratic nominee gets the message.
Quote:
You really think 2020 is the same as 2016?
I think that to many of these people, the answer here hinges on whether the democratic candidate is willing to fight for what they believe, or whether the democratic candidate is Joe Biden. Yes, vote for anyone who isn't Trump, obviously. But you need to inspire liberals. We know this by now. And ceding ground to the right is not inspiring. It doesn't make people wanna get up and canvas for you. It makes them want to lie down and rot.

Who are these people who are so concerned about hating LGBT people that they would vote Trump if we stood up for trans rights, and aren't already pulling the lever for him anyways? Do they actually exist? Seriously, inquiring minds wish to know.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-14-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #84  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:26 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The bathroom thing is a rather hot topic, and altho I am in favor of most public restrooms being all gender, that isnt a hill to die on, right now.
Who's dying on that hill?

https://time.com/4698392/transgender...oom-bill-poll/
A poll released Friday by the Public Religion Research Institute shows the majority of Americans oppose so-called “bathroom bills” that would require transgender people to use the bathrooms that correspond with their sex at birth rather than their gender identity, but there is a sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats.

Just over half (53%) of the roughly 2,000 people interviewed for the survey in February said they oppose such measures, including roughly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) but just over one-third of Republicans (36%). In total, about 40% said they support such measures, with about one-in-ten saying they had no opinion on the subject.

[...]

The PRRI poll also found that a strong majority of Americans — 70%, including 60% of Republicans — support nondiscrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in areas including public accommodations.
And fuck, that was in 2017, when this was still a hot-button issue. How's it looking now?

https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/the-...cting-trans-ge
KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

In 2017 and 2018, most of the focus on limiting trans and gender non-binary individuals’ rights has been in the form of “bathroom bills.” While many of these measures have been introduced, most have not progressed,
In 2019, only Indiana (IN HB 1525) has introduced a traditional ‘bathroom bill.’ Measures moving forward in 7 states primarily work to expand the rights of trans and gender non-binary individuals,
In 2019, discriminatory measures in Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas target the LGBTQIA community through criminalizing trans and gender non-binary body exposure in public facilities, and under the guise of religious liberty or exemption.
Far from being a "hill to die on", this is a battle we are winning. Hell, even back in 2017, it was a huge PR victory, with NC's bigotry costing the state billions of dollars:
Despite Republican assurances that North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” isn’t hurting the economy, the law limiting LGBT protections will cost the state more than $3.76 billion in lost business over a dozen years, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Over the past year, North Carolina has suffered financial hits ranging from scuttled plans for a PayPal facility that would have added an estimated $2.66 billion to the state’s economy to a canceled Ringo Starr concert that deprived a town’s amphitheater of about $33,000 in revenue. The blows have landed in the state’s biggest cities as well as towns surrounding its flagship university, and from the mountains to the coast.
I don't think it's the pro-trans people who are going to die on this hill.

Quote:
And, how would you know what the preferred pronouns are?
You ask them. This isn't about psychically knowing every person's gender (do we still have to remind people that "did you assume my gender!?!1" is a bullshit right-wing meme, not what anyone actually thinks?), it's about not being an asshole by intentionally misgendering them - y'know, the kind of behavior that will get you banned from this forum.
  #85  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:29 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
The TL;DR of the last two posts is that this is not just the right thing to do, most people know it's the right thing to do and there are non-trivial majorities for laws protecting the rights of LGBT people. This is yet another place where an extremely vocal minority of reactionaries are wielding utterly outsized power. We should not fear them, we should not be afraid of "losing votes" because of this. Doing the right thing is politically expedient and will fire up the base. Just do the right thing, stop looking for excuses to not stand up for us.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-14-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #86  
Old 06-14-2019, 01:21 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I wish people would stop pushing this crap.

Do you honestly think there is an entire army of people who would vote for Trump if you make them angry - that didn't already vote for Trump?
No, but I fear there are a few percent - possibly THE critical vote - who, if aroused, may complement the vote of Trump base and swing the election in his favour.

I am sorry you believe my thoughts on this issue to be "crap".
  #87  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:14 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Missed it, sorry.

I think it's a very silly dichotomy. For starters, democrats are hesitant to even talk about trans rights, and the party's history with trans rights is mediocre at best. That said, these issues are ones where we're winning, and winning pretty fast, at least on the public perception front.

It feels like you're catering to a political demographic that doesn't exist any more.
Moving to the suburbs, the supposed home of the swing voter, not to mention all kinds of micro-trendy constituents Democrats have been told to court, such as “Soccer Moms” and “Security Moms.” It turns out that suburbs are no longer particularly politically “independent.” They are now, in fact, mostly Democratic. Designing a strategy to appeal to voters who are maybe moderate, but honestly, mainly marginalized Republicans in areas that now have a plurality of Democrats, seems like a good way to depress Democratic turnout.

It goes without saying that political campaigns should attract as many votes as possible, and that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with broad-based appeals. It also doesn’t make much tactical sense to go out of your way to alienate or insult certain groups of voters. But the fact is, many of the policy positions that are considered “left wing” by the chattering class—even the “socialist” Green New Deal—actually have majority support. In an environment in which 76 percent of the public wants to raise taxes on the rich, trying to pick off a few center-right votes with a handful of tax credits—the cornerstone of the “centrist” Democratic policy playbook from the 1990s and early 2000s—feels shortsighted, at best, and likely not the best way to mobilize Democratic voters. And mobilizing more Democratic voters is the key to the 2020 election.

In 2016, over 4 million Democrats who voted in 2012 for Barack Obama didn’t show up at the polls to pull the lever for Clinton. It’s not that they voted for someone else; they simply didn’t vote at all. And as a reminder, Trump won three states by a total of 76,000 votes. The reasons for this are many, but the lesson is clear. Rather than obsess about winning back the voters that switched from Obama to Trump, Democrats should instead focus on inspiring those Obama voters who stayed home, who are “mostly young and nonwhite” and “share the progressive policy priorities of Democrats,” argued Sean McElwee, Jesse H. Rhodes, Brian F. Schaffner, and Bernard L. Fraga in the New York Times. Based on their careful analysis of the data, they advise Democrats to forget about those swing voters and figure out “why a campaign [Hillary’s] that sought to energize young voters of color failed to do so.” Here’s hoping the 2020 Democratic nominee gets the message.


I think that to many of these people, the answer here hinges on whether the democratic candidate is willing to fight for what they believe, or whether the democratic candidate is Joe Biden. Yes, vote for anyone who isn't Trump, obviously. But you need to inspire liberals. We know this by now. And ceding ground to the right is not inspiring. It doesn't make people wanna get up and canvas for you. It makes them want to lie down and rot.

Who are these people who are so concerned about hating LGBT people that they would vote Trump if we stood up for trans rights, and aren't already pulling the lever for him anyways? Do they actually exist? Seriously, inquiring minds wish to know.
I just don't find the argument in the article you quoted persuasive (and there are a lot more pollsters who would disagree with him than agree). In any other year (and for sure as hell in 2016), I'd probably agree that motivating the voter base is key. But not in 2020.

There is a huge segment of the white working class that can be recaptured from Trump. These are the fundamentally decent, hard working middle class, that basically voted for Trump because he talks plainly and, more importantly, about THEM. It's not that these people are racist, or transphobic, or want to see Dreamers launched by giant slingshots back to Mexico. It's that they want their politicians to be talking TO THEM about the issues that matter to them.

Quoting from a Democrat who voted for Trump (from a Time Mag article entitled "Democrats Who Voted for Trump Speak"):

“Clinton would go out of her way to appeal to minorities, immigrants, but she didn’t really for everyday Americans.”. (yes, I noticed the casual racism)

The subset of Americans who feel that way is huge. The book "White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America," by Joan Williams is an excellent analysis of why Clinton lost and how we can win these voters back (don't be put off by a blurb by Biden )

I don't want Biden either. But if I've got a candidate who's polling 60% vs Trump and another polling 55, I'm taking the former.

As someone who supports a more progressive position than Biden (I'd prob take Warren myself), I see a potential upside to a Biden win in 2020. We're overdue for a recession. If a progressive wins, and the economy goes in the shitter, you can say bye bye to the progressive agenda for the next 12 years. If a centrist wins, there's at least a chance the electorate will go for a progressive in 2024.
  #88  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:36 PM
Kamino Neko's Avatar
Kamino Neko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alternate 230
Posts: 15,278
Do you really think the timorous wee beasties who are letting the transphobes set the agenda now will stop when it changes from 'but I might not get the job' to 'but I might not get to keep the job'?
  #89  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:03 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
The legislation we'd all like to see enacted for the LGBTQ community can, paradoxically, be enacted faster if we stay silent until at least 2020.
"We?" Pretty sure you mean "you" in this context. Or are you personally volunteering to sacrifice your rights here?

And Karl, if sacrificing core liberal principles is necessary to win this super important election, why focus on the very marginal issue of trans rights, which is swinging virtually nobody's vote, and go for something big ticket like gun control, or abortion. That would get a whole lot of Trump supporters in our side! But that's not going to happen, because the election isn't important enough to sacrifice an issue you actually care about, is it? The important thing is someone else gets thrown under the bus.
  #90  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:23 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,333
You're right, we don't win the election by backing trans rights. But we don't lose it by backing trans rights, either.

We win the election by backing prosperity. We win the election with a candidate who spends 70% of their air time talking about jobs and growth and hope and fairness.

But the other 30%? I want them to support human rights. Trans rights, black rights, Arab rights, gay rights, women's rights. And to oppose climate change, which is probably our greatest existential threat. Neither of those planks should preclude a candidate from talking about how to create jobs and bring prosperity back to the middle class. Nor about how to lift the unemployed, underemployed, and impoverished into the middle class.
  #91  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:54 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,299
I do wonder about timing. I hear the standard narrative about NAACP's gradual efforts that culminated in Brown, with the understanding that it wouldn't have gone so well if they'd attempted it earlier. But I couldn't tell you if that narrative is correct.
I don't know how well Obergefell would have gone in, say 2005. IIRC Obama wasn't openly supportive of gay marriage when he campaigned. Would he have been elected if he had been? It's not really a useful question for GD because you can't prove it one way or another.

But I think public opinion swung because people were loud and because of exposure, and maybe throwing into the campaign could have moved it faster. Or maybe not. My gut says to not go slow when it comes to basic human decency, but I do also see how something like a poorly-timed court case could set things back.
  #92  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:00 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
"We?" Pretty sure you mean "you" in this context. Or are you personally volunteering to sacrifice your rights here?

And Karl, if sacrificing core liberal principles is necessary to win this super important election, why focus on the very marginal issue of trans rights, which is swinging virtually nobody's vote, and go for something big ticket like gun control, or abortion. That would get a whole lot of Trump supporters in our side! But that's not going to happen, because the election isn't important enough to sacrifice an issue you actually care about, is it? The important thing is someone else gets thrown under the bus.
Jesus Christ. Read my posts caaarreeefullly because you clearly didn't. Or indulge your kneejerk moral out rage because it feels soooo good.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 06-15-2019 at 11:01 AM.
  #93  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:10 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Jesus Christ. Read my posts caaarreeefullly because you clearly didn't. Or indulge your kneejerk moral out rage because it feels soooo good.
Please do understand that while you urge caution on some fairly flimsy premises, people are dying.

Like, you say this:

Quote:
There is a huge segment of the white working class that can be recaptured from Trump. These are the fundamentally decent, hard working middle class, that basically voted for Trump because he talks plainly and, more importantly, about THEM. It's not that these people are racist, or transphobic, or want to see Dreamers launched by giant slingshots back to Mexico. It's that they want their politicians to be talking TO THEM about the issues that matter to them.
There's also a huge segment of progressives who voted in 2012... and just did not vote in 2016. I can't help but wonder if that may be easier to recapture than the people who voted for a serial liar because "he talks plainly" - read: people who fell down the right-wing propaganda rabbithole. You say yourself:

Quote:
“Clinton would go out of her way to appeal to minorities, immigrants, but she didn’t really for everyday Americans.”. (yes, I noticed the casual racism)
Yeah - your go-to example is someone who thinks that Clinton didn't care about white people - a belief that makes about as much sense as the belief that Trump was going to stand up for "the little guy". These are not beliefs people come to from actually listening to Clinton talk, they're beliefs that are fairly difficult to come to if you aren't taking right-wing propaganda at face value. And, like it or not, the moment any democratic candidate does any amount of outreach to anyone who isn't a straight, cisgendered white person (which they will, because the democratic coalition is more than just cishet white people), they're going to get that exact same propaganda fed to them again. It won't matter if that involves outreach to trans issues or not.

In the least convenient possible universe, where we knew for a fact that you're right, I'd agree with you. But we don't - in fact, I'm fairly convinced that you're just flat-out wrong about this one.

Quote:
The subset of Americans who feel that way is huge. The book "White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America," by Joan Williams is an excellent analysis of why Clinton lost and how we can win these voters back (don't be put off by a blurb by Biden )
Again: so is the subset of Americans who stayed home in 2016 who previously voted Obama. And I think we'd be better off trying to reclaim them than the people who started drinking the FOX News kool-aid between 2012 and 2016.
  #94  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:30 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
. . . the subset of Americans who stayed home in 2016 who previously voted Obama. And I think we'd be better off trying to reclaim them than the people who started drinking the FOX News kool-aid between 2012 and 2016.
That is a fair point - do we know the numbers in the two groups, or at least which is larger?
  #95  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:35 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
". . . But that's not going to happen, because the election isn't important enough to sacrifice an issue you actually care about, is it? The important thing is someone else gets thrown under the bus.
Temporarily muting one's support for someone else's rights with the intent of advocating for them in 20 months is hardly throwing them under the bus. Especially when there may be a risk of having their rights ignored for a generation if the strategy of overt support backfires.
  #96  
Old 06-15-2019, 04:51 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Temporarily muting one's support for someone else's rights with the intent of advocating for them in 20 months is hardly throwing them under the bus.
...are you going to just magically become an ally in 20 months time? What is it, specifically, are you planning to do differently in 20 months?

And while trans people are crying out for support over the next 20 months and you refuse to support them: how can you not characterize that as "throwing them under the bus?"

Look at this timeline.

https://www.hrc.org/timelines/trump

Look at what they've already done in the last couple of years. Imagine what they are going to do over the next 20 months. The very least you can do is let the LGBT community know that you are on their side. Muting your support sends a very clear message. Can you guess what that message is?

Quote:
Especially when there may be a risk of having their rights ignored for a generation if the strategy of overt support backfires.
This sentence will look really fucking silly if Trump gets reelected in 2020. And if he does get reelected: how long do you think people should keep up the strategy of "refusing overt support?" What objective conditions need to exist before "overt support" should be allowed? What does that world look like?
  #97  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:10 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,118
Is it support for, or action on, trans rights that you seek?
  #98  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:12 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,444
Yes.
  #99  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Is it support for, or action on, trans rights that you seek?
...I'm seeking answers to my questions.
  #100  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:10 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,447
Going back to the "passing the torch" idea, while it's true old, recalcitrant folks die off, it's a dangerous mistake to assume the backlash dies with them. There are plenty of homophobic youngsters out there, trust me. I've known them and lived among them. And it's not the oldsters, by and large, who are committing violent crimes against the LGBTQ population.

The reason for changing attitudes is that the media, social and otherwise, has enabled more people to see past the stereotypes and get to know trans people. And why did media start doing so? Pressure from advocates, for one thing. Unfortunately, there are also media sources inciting hatred and reenforcing stereotypes. And this is why there can be no slowing down. The anti-LGBTQ forces are not going to mute themselves. Society doesn't remain static.

Going about your life as a trans person or cross-dresser should not be an act of courage.

Last edited by nelliebly; 06-15-2019 at 06:10 PM. Reason: fix typo
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017