If you’re saying no politician got elected President on a platform of civil rights social change, you’d be correct. But there were a many governors, senators, and representatives who ran and won on that platform, including,Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota, Paul Douglas in Illinois, and Albert Gore, Sr. in Tennessee. Gore and his Tennessee colleague Estes Kefauver risked their political careers by breaking with other Southern Democrats in their support for even the relatively weak Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s. (They still managed to be reelected.)
…trans women are women. That is settled here on the dope. We are not going to relitigate that debate.
So in that context, let’s rephrase the question. Are cis women banned from men’s sports? In social circumstances, largely not. At the competitive level? Depends on the sport.
But if cis women only had a single option, both at the social and the competitive level, that they had to compete against men, do you think as many cis women would continue to play sports? Because that’s the only option trans women now have in many sports.
And that doesn’t make any sense. Because trans women are women.
In the UK right now the new code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission is so convoluted that it isn’t clear what bathroom trans men are allowed to use any more. They are allowed to be excluded from both men’s and women’s toilets.
I mean, what’s up with that? How completely and utterly rediculous the levels that people are prepared to go to in order to exclude a statistical handful of people that don’t hurt anyone from participating in society.
But the answer to your question is that trans women risk assault when using mens bathrooms. It isn’t safe.
And trans women are women. There isn’t any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to use women’s bathrooms.
The point of such rules is for them to be impossible to satisfy; the hated group is put into an unwinnable situation where no matter what they do, they are in violation. Which is also a reason to focus on bathrooms; people need to use the bathroom, so applying an impossible to satisfy rule to using bathrooms forces the targets to violate that rule instead of avoiding it.
Although the new code of practice is generally shocking and appears to allow, in fact encourage, the exclusion of trans people from most single sex services, toilets are the one area where even the code admits it would be ludicrous to try that kind of bullshit:
13.148 The service provider should consider whether there is a suitable alternative service for the trans person to use. In the case of services which are necessary for everybody, such as toilets, it is very unlikely to be proportionate to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are allowed to use.
To reiterate, this is not a defence of the code, but a small reassurance that bathroom bans at least are not encompassed by it, although many single sex services are.
…oh, WOW.
Political Correctness?
I haven’t heard that term used unironically in over a decade. Is that still a thing in some circles? You know that it a rather meaningless term, right? Because:
Words change usage. That’s just a thing that happens. You can’t pick and choose what is “PC” and what is normal word evolution. We don’t use the word “coloured” to describe Black people any more. But we wouldn’t lable that “PC.”
We can in the context of the question I was asked.
Being gay isn’t a “get out of jail” card, and neither is ignorance. Barney Frank should know better.
I think it reflects his personal views. That he really doesn’t care enough to even try to do better.
Nah.
Just look at this thread. At a time when globally trans people are trying to be removed from society, a not insignificant number of people, including you, including Barney Frank, think the best thing to do is just be quiet about it.
What a legacy he decided to leave. Imagine using your dying words to chide trans people for desperately trying to stop this global oncoming storm.
Nobody expected the Democrats to “die on this hill”.
I think Mamdani’s approach was perfectly fine. He put out a two-minute video that unequivocally supported trans rights. He was vocal about it on the campaign trail when asked. He understood his own policies. And he’s largely started implementing them. He isn’t without criticism. He hasn’t moved on the issue of some trans healthcare centres being shut down after pressure from the Trump administration, for example.
But largely that really is what most trans people and allies were asking for. Unconditional and unequivocal support.
Instead, and you can see it in this thread, they are being asked to concede things they fought long and hard for. When asked about trans issues they say nonsensical things like “We will follow the law.”
Mamdani released a video that was two minutes and four seconds long, and that was approximately two minutes longer than what the Democrats said in total at the last convention. Journalist Katelyn Burns counted how many times the word trans was used at the convention, and they only ever said the word once.
What you keep ignoring is the fact that people want trans people to not exist any more. And they are starting by making it increasingly difficult for them to participate in society.
We are now in the position where if we don’t “die on that hill” then trans people will die on that hill.
That wasn’t the case a few years ago. We are in that position now because those with political power and agency are not unlike Barney Frank in the way they think.
Because there are multiple hills we should have died on. We should have died on the “abortion hill.” Now abortion is illegal in multiple states. We should have died on the hill of voter suppression.
(We as in the collective “we” not including me; I don’t get a vote; however, using “you” seems inappropriate, so I went with we)
Things are different now. Before Trump the Dems and the GOP were roughly even on the battlefield. Then MAGA took over, and they surrounded the Dems on all fronts.
And with Trump’s re-election, they’ve broken the lines. Trans people will die on that hill unless you put up a fight.
People keep saying that.
In the UK, when Hannah Spencer won the by-election, the media questioned why they didn’t say anything about trans people in their electioneering that was targeting Muslims in her electorate. The implication being that if they knew the Greens were loud and proud trans-rights supporters, they wouldn’t have voted for them.
But that is based on the rather prejudiced assumption that Muslims oppose trans-rights and refused to acknowledge that the reality is much more complex.
You look at some of the loudest defenders of trans rights in the American political system and you will find are Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Zohran Mamdani. Because it really isn’t that complicated.
But what it takes is a sustained effort to do something very simple: stop dehumanising trans people. Stop talking about them in the abstract. As if speaking about trans women in women’s sport is some sort of disaster that will ruin the Dems chances at winning elections forever.
The reality is the exact opposite. The Dems have spent the last few years deliberately avoiding talking about trans people and issue as much as possible. And they lost the house, the senate, the executive and the supremes for a generation.
They did what you wanted. And it doesn’t look like it helped.
So I’ve got nothing to prove here. I think “not talking about trans rights” isn’t the key to winning elections. And with the stakes so high now, why not try to do something different?
Are Democrats just not fundamentally capable of doing multiple things? I don’t get this argument. Do you think the Dems should only ever talk about two things?
Then what exactly is the argument here?
“I think trans women should be allowed to play trans sports” isn’t some big “push” for trans rights. That’s just how it’s been for decades. MAGA wants to take away those rights. The Dems should oppose that.
What’s the big deal? It doesn’t have to be any bigger than that.
“To much of the country, Black people are extremely strange and unsettling.”
“To much of the country, African people are extremely strange and unsettling.”
“To much of the country, Palestinian people are extremely strange and unsettling.”
“To much of the country, Asian people are extremely strange and unsettling.”
Do you understand how weird the statement that you made sounds?
I get that some people find brown people extremely strange and unsettling. But should I stop fighting for the right of brown people to use the bathroom, to play sports, to access medical care? No, I should not.
Brown people, Black people, Asian people, Palestinian people - they are all just people. Trans people are just people.
Trans people just want to play sports. Go out for dinner. Use the bathroom safely. They are just normal, everyday people wanting to live normal everyday lives. That’s what we are fighting for. Until it’s done.
And the reason this is a “big uphill fight” is because the big tanks, the heavy artillery, and the air support are all being held in reserve. The morally right thing to do is to not let the people on the front lines die on that hill.
…as I said: it isn’t clear what bathroom trans men are allowed to use any more. They are allowed to be excluded from both men’s and women’s toilets.
Just before that it says:
This is confusing. And the reason why it’s confusing is because what the transphobes in power want is for trans women to use the men’s toilets and for trans men to use the men’s toilets. But there is no logically consistent way for them to word that without revealing them for the hypocrites they are.
So they give us this nonsense. And trans men legitimately don’t know what bathroom they can use without risking someone else’s “discomfort”.
And the service provider gets an “out”. It is arguably proportionate to tell a trans man to use the men’s toilets and proportionate to tell trans women to use the men’s toilets. They both are allowed to use that service. It’s just a cover for the hypocrisy.
Re: “to not exist any more”: this is not impossible, but it’s going a bit too far at present.
What they want for trans people, and gay people, and brown people and women who don’t “know their place,” isn’t for them to cease to exist altogether, but to cease to exist in public. They are fine with trans people being trans people in a few specific, marginalized trans spaces, probably including sex workers, where “normals” don’t have to deal with them. They’d be perfectly content if gays went back into the closet, and women stopped seeking equity in the workforce.
At the moment, nobody actively wants to kill them. The Holocaust from WWII shows that it might escalate to that. As the policies they are enacting are leading to real and literal deaths, they pretty clearly don’t mind if trans people die, but I don’t think they see the cause and effect there the way we do.
I say all of that because I think it’s absolutely critical that what we fight for is trans people’s rights to exist in public, with the same privilege to do so as heterosexual cisgendered white men. Sports and bathrooms are one way to chip away at that; temporarily waiving their civil rights struggles so they don’t handicap the Democrats is another. Those are exactly the same thing: ceding space that they ought to have free access to, just like the rest of us.
…I need people to understand what the ramifications of this actually are.
What does “not exist in public” actually mean?
It means one of these things: either they hide. Or they run. Or they risk trying to pass. Or they detransition. Or (trigger warning) they kill themselves.
Those are the options.
I have, unfortunately due to another topic I’m passionate about, had to dive deeply into the definitions of genocide and the Genocide Convention. And the convention doesn’t require people to “actively want to kill them.” It requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such..
The convention was drafted before the concept of identity was really mainstreamed. However, I think it fits here. Because when you are given the choice of either running, hiding, or to stop being who you are, that is indistinguishable to what they did to the Uyghur. That’s why Texas forced the trans-affirming care clinic to become a detransition one.
We are at the early stages of a trans genocide. I think as countries around the world are rolling back trans rights, I think that’s undeniable. It won’t look like the genocide you are probably imagining. They aren’t going to get rounded up in concentration camps. They won’t have to. Banishing them from society will be enough.
Which is more or less what I said, except that I didn’t use (or deliberately avoid) the word genocide.
The bit you quoted doesnt use the word toilets.
It’s referring to single sex services, which includes but is not limited to changing rooms, counselling, gym classes and so on. The bind you describe that allows trans peope to be banned from both male and female services is real and deliberate and awful. But it explicitly doesn’t cover toilets and at a time as you say of great confusion and fear, it is I think worth being clear about what is not covered both to avoid adding to that confusion and fear and to avoid ceding an inch to transphobes, who will be only too happy to magnify that fear and push the boundaries farther back than even the code allows.
…I’m quoting from the very same section you quoted from. And the snippet you provided doesn’t say “trans men can choose what toilet to use.” It suggests that “it is very unlikely to be proportionate to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are allowed to use.”
What trans people in the UK are saying (not me) is that trans women could be refused access to the women’s toilets because they caused “discomfort or distress for other service users” but be allowed to access the men’s. That would mean there was a service they could use.
These are deliberately written to be ambiguous. That’s why they didn’t use the word ‘toilets’.
Trans people have every right to be confused and fearful. They have every right to express just how confusing and bad this is.
You don’t think this will include toilets? Just watch as the gender-critical movement camp outside women’s toilets and make it their life’s mission not to let trans women in.
Because fear is the point. The letter of the code matters less than the intent. Especially because of this:
Just like how the Supreme Court decision was misinterpreted and used by the gender-critical crowd this will be as well. There are no upsides to this. And calling it like it is isn’t “ceding an inch to transphobes.” The transphobes wrote this. They knew exactly what they were doing. They’ve pushed this probably exactly as far as their lawyers would allow. It’s now up to the loyal GC footsoldiers to do the rest.
As a practical matter, it absolutely does include toilets. Just like those anti abortion laws have led to a measurable increase in maternal mortality because they are ambiguous enough that doctors are afraid they might go to prison if they perform even a life-saving action, this is ambiguous enough that a trans person (or, let’s be real, any gender-non-conforming person) can get in trouble for using either public restroom under rules like this. Enough trouble that as a practical matter, they can’t safely use public restrooms.
It is not what you said. You tried to argue that they don’t want us to not exist by saying they only don’t want us to exist in public. He pointed out those are ultimately the same thing.
What he left out is the attempt to remove trans healthcare, which doesn’t just stop us from existing in public. Even when they limit it to children, the point is that they will die before they become adults.
It really is about getting rid of us. And there is nothing gained by pretending otherwise.
(Sure, maybe we slow roll that argument in public, because people may just see it as absurd without the full knowledge, but that doesn’t mean we here need to deny it.)
Yes, and that is also what I was trying to say. The distinction I was trying to draw is between their motivations and the effects. You two are so concerned with the effects (not unreasonably!) that you are not seeing my point. But it doesn’t matter: we don’t disagree.
I’m not sure how far apart Mamdani and Frank actually are. I just watched Mamdani’s video again.
He says that he wants New York to cherish and protect trans residents. He says he wants city lawyers to protect trans rights. He explicitly mentions their right to gender affirming care. No where does he mention sports. I don’t think he mentioned it anywhere in his campaign.
And what did Frank actually say? He said that Democrats should work on securing trans rights incrementally, and not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
“Being where I agree with them on the end, I think they make a mistake by taking the most controversial parts of the agenda and turning them into litmus tests.”
“We didn’t get to marriage until after these other things had been resolved. And that’s what I’m suggesting that we do today,” he said.
Yes, he used hurtful language. And it’s true that this isn’t the first time Frank threw trans people under the bus to advance gay rights. But it’s also true that Frank did a lot for the LGBTQ community, and I’m pretty sure that his net lifetime impact on trans rights was positive.
I liked the take of this article:
Right. Just keep hammering LGBT+ rights, dont get down into the nitty gritty where the MAGAs want you to go. Mandani has the right idea, and so did Frank.
From your cite-
Despite this progress, the GOP has increasingly used transgender identity as a primary political wedge issue, calling transgender people a threat to women’s sports, privacy, or traditional definitions.
and this-
Then there’s the matter of Frank’s health. Watching the interview with my partner, who is a physician, he noted that Frank seemed under the influence of powerful medications to make him more comfortable in his dying days, which might explain why he wasn’t fully lucid. At times during the interview, he couldn’t even keep his eyes open.
and finally=
The bottom line is that Frank did so much in his lifetime to advance LGBTQ+ rights and equality. What I will remember most is when he came out in 1987.
…do you really not see the difference between these two positions?
Let’s start with something very important that Mamdani and his team did with that video.
It centred on the life of Sylvia Rivera.
Sylvia was at times a messy, at the time divisive, controversial person. Just like the rest of us. They didn’t try and find an example of the “perfect” trans person. Trans people are just people. Immediately after watching the video for the first time I went to find out more about her. She was very much the antithesis of Barney Frank’s approach at the time. The video talks about how trans people were often excluded from the greater queer community. How they were discouraged from walking at Pride.
Even the speech from Sylvia that was used in the video has historical, important context.
This was at the fourth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Trans people were dealing with the same “respectability politics” arguments that people are still making now. Listen to the boos. Then listen to her turn the crowd around.
And by “team” it means Mamdani surrounded himself with people who clearly knew what they were talking about. It’s one of the hallmarks of great leadership. There were many subtle but perfect choices in this two-minute video. Like the choice of song, “It’s okay to cry” by trans singer Sophie who passed away in 2021.
This video has fucking layers. At a surface level the messaging is quite clear. But if you know the history? This video sings to you.
The point of the video was to be unequivocal. “This administration will stand for and protect trans rights. No ifs and buts.” But it also sent another message to the trans community. “We hear you. We know you. And we are with you in this fight.” Now he is in office Mamadani has established the “Mayor’s Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs”, the first city agency to be held by trans person, Taylor Brown.
But compare that with what Barney Frank has chosen to do with his platform. From your cite:
What Frank said was nothing new. If you know his track record, you know he has long argued for an incremental strategy to secure trans equality. Since the mid-2000s, he has emphasized a “granular” approach to transgender rights.
…
Believing an inclusive bill lacked the votes to pass the House, Frank intentionally stripped protections based on gender identity, pursuing a “sexual orientation–only” strategy to secure Republican support and pass a narrower bill.
What he said on his deathbed wasn’t an aberration. This is what he believed. This is what he put into practice.
This isn’t a thread about Barney Frank’s legacy. The truth is I don’t give a damn about his legacy. If people want to start a thread about his legacy, I will promise you I won’t participate because I have absolutely nothing to say.
But this thread is about the words that Barney Frank said and the strategy that he advocated for, the one the OP shared here and asked for our opinions on. I think that Barney Frank’s position is one that is mirrored by the Dem establishment. I think that it’s a problematic position predicated on bad assumptions that will lead to a regression of trans rights.
Because five years ago a trans women athlete in America had the opportunity to represent the US in the Olympics in women’s sports. Now they can’t.
Five years ago a trans woman could have played for the US women’s rugby team. Now she can’t.
Five years ago a trans woman could have used the women’s bathroom at any of the facilities across the Capitol and House office buildings. Now she can’t.
Five years ago a trans kid could have gone to the Texas Children’s Hospital and accessed trans-affirming care. Now if they went, they would be presented with the option of detransitioning.
Frank’s position of “securing trans rights incrementally” falls apart instantly when confronted with the speed and pace at which trans rights are being attacked and regressed. Trans people already had these rights. They have been taken away.
Many of these rights weren’t memorialised in law. But that doesn’t change the fact that many of the things trans people used to be able to do they can no longer do, or they can no longer do them safely.
So the key difference between the two is that Mamdani recognises the existential threat that trans people are facing and has drawn a clear line.
But Barney Frank simply didn’t. He never did. We are now in the position of having to re-litigate trans rights at a time when evil people are spending millions of dollars on anti-trans propaganda that the establishment Dems have no counter to and have no interest in countering.
What matters here isn’t Frank’s legacy, but the fact that the establishment Dems and even many people in this thread think he had the right approach. I think that’s a mistake. I don’t think you can ignore the propaganda. I think that “incrementalism” isn’t a strategy that works when we are at the beginning of what I believe to be a global trans genocide.
It certainly isn’t too late to stop it. But I’m not choosing my words lightly here. Incrementalism is a dated strategy from another era that isn’t applicable when the fascists have the White House. Those fascists took down the USAID in a week because the richest man in the world and a bunch of punks said, “Let’s take down the USAID.” That’s how different the world is now. That’s how quickly it all can happen. They are using blitzkrieg tactics while the Democrats are sitting inside the Maginot Line.
From Erin in the morning:
Bolding mine. Erin highlights a key to Mamdani that I think the Democrats are struggling with: authenticity. This in large part explains (paradoxically) why voters are drawn to the likes of both Trump and Mamdani. Neither are locked into the parties’ talking points. Trump will just say whatever bullshit is in his brain at the time. And Mamdani’s positions on everything from Gaza to trans people are grounded in his core values even if they are at odds with his party.
People are tired of the bullshit.
And Mamdani’s final message in his video was an important one.
“In a time of darkness, New York must be the light.”
I think that message would resonate everywhere. I think the spirit of that message is what the Democrats need to embrace along with a moral backbone. Even with that white church-going housewife in Nebraska.
Trans people aren’t scary; they aren’t out to get you; they aren’t out to “trans” your kids. Not many of them play sports, and the ones that do largely aren’t very good at it anyway. They are just normal everyday people. Not perfect. Not different. They just want to live their lives.
If the Democrats can’t sell that message, then there is something seriously wrong with them.
I’m quoting this because i think this is your strongest point
This is not your strongest point. It’s probably true, but it’s not about “authenticity”. It’s about saying things that are attractive to voters whether or not they are true.
Trump lies all the time, almost reflexively. Mamdani promised to do all sorts of stuff a mayor can’t even do. While i certainly prefer someone who urges us to be our best over someone who plays on our nastiest fears and impulses, i really don’t want to sign up to be the party that (also) lies.
…I don’t recall suggesting that Trump tells the truth. His supporters think he tells it like it is. I’m going by the definition of authenticity that says “the quality of being genuine, real, and true to one’s own character and values.”
That’s what Trump does. He lies. He’s nasty. He’s mean. He’s evil. And he tells it like it is. He is a loathsome individual and his supporters love him for it.
Well then, be prepared to never ever vote for a political party or a candidate ever again. I think the volume of lies coming from Mamdani is significantly less than we ever got from Biden or Harris or any of the establishment Dems.
And if I had a choice between Mamdani and his commitment to the defense of trans people or Barney Frank, who went to his deathbed throwing them under the bus, I’d be picking Mamdani every single time.
I’ll always vote for better of two. So i think i can still vote. I’m more aware of promises Mamdani can’t fulfill than of lies from the others you mention. But I would have voted for him for mayor, because he was clearly better than the opposition. But quite honestly, I’m waiting to see how effective a politician he is, and what he accomplishes as mayor. Frank was, for all his flaws, an effective politician who i usually agreed with. I love Mamdani on trans issues. But i also want to vote for a guy who will accomplish a lot of what he promises.