What I’m saying is that maybe we don’t emphasize it or make it a cause. Maybe don’t pass any anti or pro trans legislation at all, and concentrate on more important stuff like shoring up the Federal government against future wannabe-dictators and tyrants. Or cliimate change. Or NATO, or economic inequality and uncertainty. Just about anything other than a highly divisive and controversial issue that ultimately affects a vanishingly tiny number of people relative to the country as a whole.
Or not get in office because millions of their base stay home, since they just see it as another example of how the Democrats consistently stab their own supporters in the back in favor of right wing bigotry. And it’s not like they’d get votes from the transphobics, short of outright calling for the persecution of the transgendered.
I should note that one of the most consistent opinions I see from LGBTQ people is the assumption that the Democrats will backstab them the moment they think they can pander to the Right by doing so. It’s taken as a given. The Democrats aren’t allies, just the best tool to claw back agaisnt the Republicans a little.
Right wing straight white men are the constituency the Democrats care about the most and desperately want to please, and they’ll sacrifice their supporters in a moment to try to do so no matter how many times it fails to work.
So, just let Republicans do whatever they want to them? Revoke their drivers licenses? Fine. Outlaw their healthcare? Better not take a position on it! Lock them up for wearing the wrong gendered clothing in public? Not worth the effort to fight it!
And when this tactic fails, which of us are you going to sacrifice next on the altar of appeasing bigots? Gay people aren’t a big chunk of the population, either. You want to throw us under the bus next?
The article linked to in the OP cites Frank talking specifically about sports. Sports is, at the end of the day, people crossing the finish line on a race, swimming in a pool, putting a ball through a basketball hoop.
If Republicans were talking about denying trans people the ability to drive, vote, or own a house, that would be one thing. But sports is sports. Nobody lives or dies from being given admission to participate in a 400-meter sprint or not.
Is this an issue that’s worth the risk of losing elections on? Notably, this is the only trans issue on which majority public sentiment is against the trans side.
It is Republicans who make Trans rights a cause when they try to trample those rights. Anyone who thinks that Democrats should just lie back and enjoy it: Stay off of my side.
There’s no if about those.
Do you understand that the Republicans are not stopping at sports in their crusade to erase trans people from public life?
And you give in on one issue, and they’ll use that as a hammer to start in on others; that’s how wedge issues work. And there’s no reason to think that throwing trans athletes to the wolves (and more than them, women athletes in general get lumped in for persecution) would help win elections.
When has caving in to the Right on anything ever had a good result?
So the solution is: Continue with a stance (trans MtF belong in and should play in women’s sports,) absorb the unpopularity it brings (in the D’s favor, this is indeed still a relatively minor issue on the overall scale of polling things) and hope for the best election outcomes in an era of very narrow electoral margins?
It might work, but in this era, the Ds don’t have much electoral winning margin to play around in most races, especially considering the Republicans’ built-in advantages in gerrymandering, Electoral College and whatnot. Every lost 1% or 0.5% matters.
If Dems cave on the issue, and they still lose, which part of the Democratic base do you want to sacrifice next?
Is it going to be a part that you’re a member of, or are you just expecting other people to make sacrifices for you?
Again; you are just assuming that backstabbing their base yet again will win them more votes, which in real life never actually works. Why should we think that the result won’t be, yet again, zero gains in return for people staying home and not bothering to vote for them because it’s pointless?
Yeah as mentioned the problem with wedge issues IS that they’re a wedge.
There may be times, yeah, sure I can imagine, you’d find the best you can do when they come at you with stuff about restrooms or sports or what-is-a-woman is say “no I’m not going to answer your dumb trick question, let me tell you about what we need to make everyone’s life better”. Or “that is not what human rights is about, and you know it”. And they’ll accuse you of evading and so what. You can’t always “own” the other guy in the discussion live as it happens. What you can do is get ahead of it, let it be seen you support a progressive position on rights, AND present a general platform that benefits all.
As Tamerlane put it, it’s likely the case Frank finds himself in the situation where the progressive leading edge has lapped him. But in such cases we can just listen politely then go ahead and anyway do what is right and appropriate now.
(I’ve mentioned in some other discussions, that there are many situations in which what we see is people being progressive until society progresses to where they wanted it to progress and then pivot to trying to secure and make permanent THAT.)
Although that maybe takes a different tone if you’re a candidate replying to a debate moderator asking about sports, while the other candidate hasn’t actually said anything yet…
Not a perfect analogy, but I believe this was Obama’s view on SSM. Just my opinion, of course, but I don’t believe he ever bought all that “marriage is between one man and one woman” jive. But he recognized that, at that point, any other position meant he was toast.
Was that cowardly or a realpolitik concession? I think the latter. You can’t be so pure that you don’t get elected. Once in office, your “views evolve.”
I can see the bumper stickers now: “Democrats would win more elections if they only allowed more suffering to occur.”
Nice philosophy; I’ll sleep well knowing I don’t share it.
What evidence do you have that, if some Democrats changed their stance, this would translate to more votes? You realize they could lose votes as well, right?
Sleep well then! But politics is, of course, the art of the possible.
It’s also the art of the desirable, and turning into the enemy isn’t victory.
And as has been pointed out multiple times, the claim that sacrificing the transgender population would actually help the Democrats instead of hurt them is an extremely doubtful assertion with a lot of history against it working.
This is not true.
Same thing we do when the GOP say things like “the democrats want to take you guns away” and other MAGA lies. Ignore the lie, and repeat the stance on LBGT+ rights.
No, simply continue with the stance about LBGT+ rights. The Dems dont need to respond to every MAGA lie, or every lifeboat case. Just keep repeating their stance on LBGT+ rights.
It’s true, I’ve heard it enough times to know that they have such a reputation.