Barney Frank criticism of Democratic Party

[Banquet_Bear]

@bump

My point was that the hospital didn’t come up with it out of craven obsequiousness, but rather were compelled in court to do so.

…I mean, thanks for sharing, but you know this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, right? It materially doesn’t matter how we ended up with detransition clinics, but now we have detransition clinics.

If anything, this:

@bump

Its the state legislature and their awful laws that are at fault here, not the hospital or the courts.

It makes it orders of magnitude worse.

This is a state legislature using its laws to force a clinic that once offered gender-affirming care to now be a detransition clinic. And they did that with a layer of punitive financial damage on top along with a purge of staff.

And they have promised to do that to any other clinic that does the same.

If the “hospital had come up with it out of craven obsequiousness”, then at least in that situation people could have just gone to another hospital. But they don’t have that option here.

This is five-alarm-fire bad. This is “all-hands-on-deck” bad. But I only ever found out about it because it’s a recent story and it popped up while I was searching for something else.

This is criminal overreach that can only lead to worse things in the future. It is SO much worse than if the clinic had decided to do it on its own.

@Sherrerd

The argument that letting sports organizations make rules for participation inevitably leads to putting trans people into concentration camps, is well-represented in this thread.

Nice strawman you’ve set up here.

@Sherrerd

Most voters will not, however, find that position to be convincing.

Since nobody has made that argument, this is completely unsurprising.

@Sherrerd

I’d guess that the position Buttigieg expresses above would be more in line with what most Democrats believe—not the ‘inevitable slide’ theory.

We are watching the “inevitable slide” to banning trans women from playing women’s sports as we speak. It’s inevitable unless we try and stop it.

@Sherrerd

For most Americans there’s a recognition that some people are genuinely transgender and deserve good medical care and full civil rights

The polling suggests that most Americans think it unacceptable to allow a 12-year-old transgender child to take puberty blockers. Do you believe that a 12-year-old trans kid should be allowed to access the healthcare they need? Especially considering it’s a healthcare decision that will, if they are indeed banned from sports in later life, have lifetime repercussions?

@Sherrerd

but also a recognition that a 15-year-old who went through full male puberty has an unfair advantage when playing most girls’ sports.

Which leads to this: if the 15-year-old who went through full male puberty is unable to access the healthcare the need, simply because that’s what most Americans want, then for the rest of their lives they won’t ever be allowed the same opportunities as other women because of decisions made by other people when they were just a child.

And that ignores the fact that the whole idea of going “through full male puberty gives you an unfair advantage when playing most girls’ sports” is scientifically contested. And that in real life, after decades of trans women being allowed to play women’s sports, we never see these advantages have any impact.

What we have are a few studies that suggest that this is the case, along with a few studies that say that it isn’t. There are studies that suggest that after hormone therapy for a few years there are no “observable differences in upper or lower body strength or in maximum oxygen consumption”.

So I don’t think that we should just accept a narrative that is being pushed as part of a multi-million-dollar propaganda campaign that relies on cherry-picked evidence. This shouldn’t be used to decide whether or not a twelve-year-old can play women’s sports in the future.

@Sherrerd

The argument that believing the latter is exactly equal to wanting trans people to be put to death, has not been made convincingly in this thread.

Barney Frank, for all his flaws, does recognize that ‘having concerns about fairness in sports’ is not the same thing as ‘wanting the slaughter of trans people.’

I think it’s quite telling that you are unable to argue with the actual points people have made in this thread, so instead you are arguing with a gross distortion of what people have said in this thread.

@DeadTreasSecretaries

and the strategy to try to maximize acceptance of trans rights doesn’t have to be maximalist one size fits all.

Was it “maximalist” when America abolished slavery? When they said yes, women and Black people have the right to vote?

I don’t see it as “maximalist”; I see it as just the baseline. I think Black people should be able to eat at the same diner as everyone else. And I think trans women should be allowed to play women’s sports.

@DeadTreasSecretaries

I think on the bathroom stuff the conservatives just have no hope in the court of public opinion.

“Nearly half of the states in the country want to check what’s in your pants before you can use the bathroom. Two make using the facilities in line with a person’s gender identity a crime.”

21 states limit transgender people’s bathroom use, with criminal penalties in...

“Public opinion” be damned. It doesn’t matter here. It hasn’t stopped them.

@DeadTreasSecretaries

Americans don’t like to think of ourselves as paternalistic the way Brits are more ok with.

Since we are generalising: Americans are oblivious to what is happening around them and will gladly throw marginalised people under the bus if they think it will make life better for them.

But this isn’t about the Brits being more okay with being “paternalistic”. There is the whole “class” thing going on for starters. But there is the whole people with lots of money and power influencing the discourse thing that is also happening in America and the rest of the world. And a lot of these people with money and power are bigots, and don’t act in good faith.

Americans are just as susceptible to going down the rabbit hole as everyone else. Arguably they are already further along the track.

[Banquet_Bear]

@DrDeth

I am waiting for the same thing to be said about Mayor Pete- but I bet I have a very long time to wait.

… I think Newsom’s a bigot because of other things he has said and done. But that’s out of scope for this particular thread.

I don’t think Mayor Pete’s a bigot. And in a fair and reasonable world where there isn’t a deliberate strategy to take over sports leagues and school boards, then he would have a point. But that’s exactly what is happening. You can’t keep acting in good faith when the opposition is not.

[BigT]

@puzzlegal

I have no objection to a particular league deciding it’s not going to work.

I will push back on this. What we are talking about here is de facto discrimination. As such, I would argue the equivalent of “strict scrutiny” would morally (and possibly legally) apply. If you want to discriminate, you need a provable reason. That’s how we do it with any other potentially bigoted discrimination.

And it is the reasoning behind that lower limit you state, of “not having gone through male puberty.” That’s clearly a point where there is no reasonable way to argue that a trans female athlete could have any sort of advantage.

The reality is that trans female athletes do not reliably dominate other female athletes. It just is not that simple. And unless someone else would actually be negatively be affected, there just is not even the bare minimum of an argument that their right to fairness overrides the trans woman’s right to not be discriminated against.

And, politically, it calls out the actual stated reasons. If they argue that they should be able to further discriminate, they are de facto saying it’s not about unfairness.

[DrDeth]

@BigT

And it is the reasoning behind that lower limit you state, of “not having gone through male puberty.” That’s clearly a point where there is no reasonable way to argue that a trans female athlete could have any sort of advantage.

The reality is that trans female athletes do not reliably dominate other female athletes. It just is not that simple

But the issue is that the parents of other girls may think there is- and those parents are not bigots or transphobic. That is why this is a delicate issue. Parent who are pro LGBT+, vote Democratic, and are otherwise liberal are concerned about this “issue”. And what is driving that is this new “need” to have a fabulous resume for a top college or better yet- a scholarship. Kids are being pushed to get MORE than a straight A record. Parents are not always rational when it comes to their kids. And name calling is not gonna make the situation better- it will just drive them away.

Look, in reality, this issue rarely happens. Just like a cis-male declaring he is now “identifying” as female to get into the ladies room. It is the bigoted MAGAs who are driving this controversy, blowing it all out of proportion.

The Democrats need to just keep repeating their position on LBQT+ rights, and ignore what the GOP wants them to talk about- in order to divide the Democratic vote.

[PhillyGuy]

@puzzlegal

And i think each league will likely draw a different line, with some saying “no problem” and others saying “not if you’ve gone through male puberty” and most somewhere in between.

A big issue in the U.S. is that girls (and boys) often join high school teams in hopes of getting college athletic scholarships. In as much as trans girls are resented by others on the girls teams due to fear of losing a scholarship, the resentment will exist within every sport where universities give substantial athletic scholarships. As for the leagues, I am thinking that the adults who run them commonly have daughters and granddaughters who they hope will get a scholarship, and so have an incentive to keep out trans girls.

One of my sons was a national science olympiad champion. Compared to sports, the college scholarship connection there is, while non-zero, smaller. If high school sports had no more connection to scholarships than the science olympiad, then, sure, the leagues might handle it fairly. But so long as college sports have a lot of money behind them – and the money angle is only getting worse – the leagues will lean against trans girls, and this wedge issue will not be won by progressives. It is an astoundingly helpful wedge issue for right wingers that will not go away anytime soon.

As for what Democratic politicians should say, it depends what kind of state or district you represent. But if trying to win the presidency, coming out in favor of a federal law requiring trans girls to be treated as girls for all high school teams will IMHO be politically impossible for many years to come. And I’m thinking that most of these leagues are not going to come to the rescue. Or am I not giving them enough credit?

[Dr.Drake]

@DrDeth

But the issue is that the parents of other girls may think there is- and those parents are not bigots or transphobic.

What? Of course they are. It’s just that they are transphobic and bigoted out of ignorance, not malice.

One of the first things you learn in anti-racism training is that you’re racist. You can’t help it as a product of our society. Same with transphobia. If you are a good, open-minded person, you can be educated. You can become more observant. You can react differently based on the new knowledge. But if you have the idea that trans girls have an unfair advantage, one that is categorically different from all other types of advantage in athletics, that’s transphobic.

Part of the problem is that people see transphobia as an identity (which is it for some extreme cases) but not a wide spectrum that frankly encompasses most of us to one degree or another. That’s why legislation and enforcement are necessary: nice people simply aren’t often aware that they are acting on unconscious biases.

[bump]

@Banquet_Bear

If the “hospital had come up with it out of craven obsequiousness”, then at least in that situation people could have just gone to another hospital. But they don’t have that option here.

Sure they can. There are LOTS of other hospitals in the Houston area besides Texas Children’s/St. Luke’s.

My point was that public opinion and what the Texas State Legislature do are not necessarily very in sync with each other. They’re basically the proving ground for all the BS the GOP is trying nationally- ridiculous and obscene gerrymandering, etc…

So the hospital didn’t agree, but the jerks in the legislature got to twist their arm and force them in the courts to do this BS. It doesn’t exactly surprise me, but it’s not great either.

[Banquet_Bear]

@bump

Sure they can. There are LOTS of other hospitals in the Houston area besides Texas Children’s/St. Luke’s.

…did you miss the threat to do the very same thing to any other clinic that offers trans affirming care?

@bump

My point was that public opinion and what the Texas State Legislature do are not necessarily very in sync with each other.

Irrelevant.

@bump

So the hospital didn’t agree, but the jerks in the legislature got to twist their arm and force them in the courts to do this BS.

Yes. The state forced the hospital to both stop offering trans-affirming care to kids AND turn that clinic into a detransition clinic.

That’s the equivalent of the state forcing a Planned Parenthood health centre to turn into a sterilisation clinic. You go in for advice on abortion and come out with your tubes tied.

[DrDeth]

@Dr.Drake

One of the first things you learn in anti-racism training is that you’re racist. You can’t help it as a product of our society.

This is not true.

@Dr.Drake

But if you have the idea that trans girls have an unfair advantage, one that is categorically different from all other types of advantage in athletics, that’s transphobic.

They dont think it is categorically different than Little Suzies parents hiring a coach. And, trust me, they complain about that also.

There are about 30000 High Schools and Colleges in the US, each offering at least 10 co-ed sports , so that makes 300,000 instances. So it this was a significant issue, we’d see and hear about examples daily. But we dont. This is just not a significant issue.

Calling those concerned parents “bigots” does nothing bit lose their support and votes.

[Dr.Drake]

I want to distinguish between calling someone a bigot, which is just insulting and antagonising them, vs assessing whether or not they are bigoted, which is a judgement that they don’t really need to hear about individually. There’s no benefit to calling someone a bigot to their face, ever. There is somtimes a benefit to analysing bigotry.

[puzzlegal]

@DrDeth

@Dr.Drake

One of the first things you learn in anti-racism training is that you’re racist. You can’t help it as a product of our society.

This is not true.

Unless you are socially blind, to the point of having a disability, it really is true.

[Sherrerd]

@puzzlegal

I don’t think that many will disagree, even here. I think you can make a robust case for trans people having basic human rights, including medical care, and believe that they ought be able to play sports, without believing that every women’s sport needs to accept every trans woman as a player.

I strongly oppose laws forbidding trans girls from playing in girls sports.

Me, too, as I’ve said:

@Sherrerd

Democrats should say something along the lines of:

All Americans should be able to participate in our civic life, whether they are trans Americans or MAGA Americans or any other Americans. They should face no restrictions of their civil rights.
In sports, all Americans should face whatever rules-for-participation each particular sport decides to enforce. All those trans Americans, MAGA Americans, and other Americans who meet a sport’s participation rules should be able to play those sports; all those who do not, should find some other sport to play. The rules-for-participation should be applied equally to all.

I would like to see Democrats stand up for the civil rights of all, and also stand up for the rights of particular sports organizations to make their own rules for participation. The long history of “doping” and other artificial means of gaining competitive advantage, and the struggle by various sports to thwart this, should be allowed to continue unimpeded.

There is no role for legislation in this.

[my bolding from my own quote]

Democrats should stand firm against laws about trans people in general. (And in particular, no laws banning trans participation in anything should exist.)

[puzzlegal]

I would like to distinguish between calling someone a bigot, which is just insulting and antagonizing them, and observing that a person acted due to bigotry in some situation.

Because the former is assigning a nasty identification to someone, which is extremely unlikely to have any good outcome. Whereas the latter recognizes the possibility that the person made a mistake and can correct it.

As we all have bigoted impulses and can make mistakes, the latter has a lot of potential to be helpful. And it’s best if that message can be delivered in a supportive way, not a hateful way. Because if you just tell someone, “you did that wrong”, their natural impulse is to react “fuck you”. But if you can convey “i think you made a mistake, and violated your own intentions”, they may do better next time.

[bump]

You have to be careful though, the trick is to not let it come across as condemnation, sanctimony, condescension, or criticism.

Nobody likes being told they’re wrong, and doubly so if the person challenging their viewpoint comes across in any of those ways. Especially if it’s a culturally or religiously imparted viewpoint.

[puzzlegal]

Sure. But even if it’s some random politician or something, i think it’s generally more constructive to discuss people’s actions than their nature.

[Der_Trihs]

@bump

You have to be careful though, the trick is to not let it come across as condemnation, sanctimony, condescension, or criticism.

Which means you are agreeing with them, and that it’s you who will be seen as the bigot. If someone avoids calling bigotry bigotry, most observers are going to assume it’s because the person doing so is a bigot themselves and avoiding “saying the quiet part out loud.” And on top of that if the opponents of those bigots refuse to use “condemnation, sanctimony, condescension, or criticism” then they won’t convince the bigots of anything other than they are right, since otherwise their opponents would produce actual arguments instead of agreeing with them.

Which is part of the reason so much of the Democratic base dislikes and distrusts them. Both because they so often act like bigots who are keeping quiet about their actual beliefs to win votes, and because of regardless of their actual beliefs they enable and pander to bigots so hard. Harder than they do to their supposed base.

[Kent_Clark]

What’s the goal of the Democrats supposed to be? To call out bigotry in the strongest possible terms, or to peel off the persuadable voters who don’t hate trans people but have concerns they want to be reassured about?

[Der_Trihs]

I doubt the latter actually exist. Especially in numbers large enough to actually offset the people the democrats lose when they pander to bigots.

[DrDeth]

@Kent_Clark

What’s the goal of the Democrats supposed to be?

Winning elections by mostly honest means, protecting the people, and doing the stuff in the Platform.

[bump]

Absolutely. I should have said that too. Going around telling people they’re wrong/bigoted/stupid/ignorant/whatever isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. It’s just going to piss them off and harden their heart against what you’re going to say, no matter how right you are, or how righteous your motives are.