My point is that everything – everything – needs to be connected (because it is!) to the depredations of billionaires and corporate interests. Including the attacks on trans rights. So make it about that, because it is (as is everything else!).
…so again: I’m not seeing where you disagree with me.
If you agree that these questions (“…what are your views on trans access to sports?”) aren’t honest inquiries, but rather bullshit attempts to divide and distract, and therefore Democrats should treat them as bullshit attempts to divide and distract, then maybe we don’t disagree.
…they aren’t “honest enquiries”.
BUT they need to be answered honestly.
Because more than anything else people are tired of the bullshit. You can only use talking points so many times before people run out of patience.
And you end up pleasing nobody.
The talking points used by the dems at the last election on trans rights was “we will follow the law.”
That’s just meaningless bullshit.
It tries to appeal to everyone. But for the dems who oppose letting trans women play womens sports, that doesn’t make them reconsider. For the dems who want them to be louder on trans issues, it pisses them off. And for trans people? For many of them, it just hurts.
It’s a nothing stance. It was likely crafted in a focus-group session by a group of highly paid partisan consultants, designed to be maximally inoffensive.
The messaging needs to be this:
It isn’t enough to just reject the question. Turn the narrative on its head.
I disagree (at least for interviews, debates, media events, etc.). Too much explaining, not enough “eat the rich”. Put that stuff on the website (but don’t forget “eat the rich”, even on the website!).
What about something like:
“I’m not an expert on intramural sports or on medicine, so I’m going to rely on the experts. And I think that David Zeller said it best: Depriving trans athletes of pursuing their passion and enthusiasm is extremely hateful and that has no place in Minnesota. Everyone deserves to play! The only thing I’d add to Mr. Zeller’s words is that it has no place in all of America. That said, I wonder why this is the issue we’re talking about, when it affects a tiny number of Americans, even a tiny number of trans Americans? We have issues that affect tens of millions of our neighbors, and I wonder whether we’re talking about the two dozen or so trans athletes because some people are too scared to tackle the major problems our country faces, like the housing crisis.”
Needs more “fuck you for asking” and “fuck the rich”…
…but you have to answer the question at a debate. You have to answer the question if a journalist asks you. You can only dodge the question so many times before it becomes clear you are dodging the question.
And dodging the question doesn’t do anything to protect trans people.
Here is Zack Polanski answering a bad faith question honestly. It is safe for work, but it is a link to Piers Morgan, so I think that deserves a spoiler link.
I don’t think he was wrong to answer the way he did. It’s better to just answer the question than to tie yourself up in knots.
If someone asks a politician about trans sports, I think they owe it to their constituents to be able to answer the question.
IMO he should have been much more combative. “Fuck you, pervert, why are you so obsessed with what’s inside people’s pants? Leave the fucking people alone. Let people be who they are without disgusting weirdos like yourself demanding to know about their genitals.”
In part because high school and college sports have a much smaller cultural footprint in New York City than in most of the country.
This doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The Dem party and Dem politicians have defined platforms and if their goal was to “uphold the plutocracy” they would have chosen a different, easier platform.
And to stay on-topic, there are times when Dem politicians abandon some of their ideals, like what Frank is advocating in the link in the OP, but the motivation is to get elected, not to get rich.
I can see why Frank or @bump might want to try this approach. I’ve considered it for other planks in the platform, but @iiandyiiii 's point is sound; abandoning trans rights is not going to win votes – better to embrace it and own it.
There’s outdated thinking that in 2026 a candidate gets to define who they are. That’s not the case. A Dem or Pub presidential candidate is defined by what’s being argued on social media, tv, radio, podcasts, etc. Look at the NYT surveys that @ThelmaLou shared in the Leopards thread. They voted for Trump not because of what Harris said, but what they think Dems believe.
…perhaps.
But again: that would be a dodge.
And he would keep on getting the question. Over and over again. And he would have to keep on dodging, because now he’s started, he can’t very well concede, can he?
It’s a gotcha question. A very common one in the UK. I saw a Greens spokesperson do the dodge to the question just a few days ago. Used almost the exact same line as you suggest, minus a couple of f-words.
I think Polanski’s answer was more effective. Its just the plain truth.
Answer the “good” questions on the website (and refer people to it), but savagely attack any questioner who asks about genitals. And, of course, attack the rich. So what if you get asked about it over and over again? That always happens, on a multitude of issues, for prominent candidates.
What planet are you on where you think Democrats will attack the rich? They love the rich.
…you look like all of the dems who dodged the questions last time. When they lost the house, the senate, the executive and the supremes for a generation.
People are tired of the talking points. My position is that you need to listen to the voters and give them something to vote for. That elections need to be won. That politicians should have policies. And politicians should be smart enough to understand their policies and be able to defend those policies.
“Attack attack attack” does none of those things. It views voters as a monolith and not as individual people that need to be won over.
That doesn’t mean “don’t attack”. But I think it’s a one-dimensional strategy that doesn’t give the people anything to vote for. “So you oppose MAGA then. Okay. Now what do you actually stand for?”
That’s not remotely what Democrats did. For the most part, they treated these like legitimate questions, rather than bullshit attempts to divide. They gave cover to the transphobes, acting like the fears and “concerns” were anything but bigotry (and yet another tool of the rich to divide). Walz was at least calling these weirdos out as weird before he was unwisely pulled back.
…can you give me some examples?
Because when I think about dem politicians treating it as a legitimate question, I think of people like this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/29/ruben-gallego-trans-athletes-00374825
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/29/ruben-gallego-trans-athletes-00374825
I agree that these people treated them as legitimate questions. I just don’t like their answers very much. And I wish their colleagues called them out.
They shouldn’t have treated them like legitimate questions, and they shouldn’t have been giving cover to transphobes. Those are exactly the kind of examples I was thinking of.
The big issue I have with iiandyiiii’s logic is that putting it up on the website means none of the people who need to see it will see it. If you’re not actually out there on the campaign talking about it, and getting it into news cycles and the public conversation, then you are “staying silent” on it.
I’m all for calling out the bullshit, but if they don’t then also talk about it on their own terms, and instead try this downplaying strategy, they fail. There’s a reason why calling them out resonated: it felt like the Democrats had a fucking backbone for once, and weren’t just rolling over.
Because apparently they did have some pro-trans stuff on their website, and not even the fucking trans community noticed. That strategy, of hiding your stuff in places where the average person won’t see it, does not work.
Well, that’s the very opposite of what I’m suggesting.