I think Julia highlights how important a wedge trans rights have become, which leads to the sort of behavior she's describing. There are pointless insertions in bills, meddling, introductions of...
Exemplary
I think Julia highlights how important a wedge trans rights have become, which leads to the sort of behavior she's describing. There are pointless insertions in bills, meddling, introductions of bills that revoke de-facto rights (see: Julia's reference to people registering as their identified gender as far back as the 90s, HRT up through the 00s), which lead to a requirement to push back in kind, leading to a discussion that rivals the nation-wide debate of abortion and women's bodily autonomy (arguably, a lot of trans issues come back to bodily autonomy anyway, when it's not just a person's right to exist). When this pushback is presented, it is then neutered into "I don't think trans kids should play sports" when the one doing the pushing is scared of losing votes because the topic has become weaponized by the right.
The pressures that are discussed are sort of a reflection of the amplification of trans issues and the increasing polarization of the topic (we're probably at peak polarization anyway, maybe? things are quite bad). This leads, by and large, to the perception of risk on these decisions when, frankly, it doesn't seem like many people that were going to vote for a Democrat are going to change their vote because a politician supported trans rights. And I completely agree, you're likely not going to lose a blue voter over trans rights, at least to any statistically significant degree, the wide majority are at least minimally token supporters that'll say "You don't want to hurt people? Hell yeah." I'd bet that you're more likely to drive someone away by flip-flopping on the issue, and this individual is going to decide to stay home and not vote. That's not the fault of the trans community, however, that's the fault of a spineless politician who couldn't offer a basic defense, and move on to the rest of the platform.
This article reflected a frustration I can't properly articulate with trans rights becoming some sort of a cudgel that gets wielded against progressive, or even US center-to-left politics. The left-wing politician doesn't get to talk about their general policy, they're forced into this absurd discussion that leaves them explaining this one small part of their policy, ditching part of their platform to avoid the conversation, alienating part of their voter base, and things not improving materially for all of the drama around it. The right winger then wins on their opposition to trans rights, wokeness, etc, and proceeds to burn their jurisdiction (see the 45 and 47th presidential terms).
Her last point is also a particularly frustrating part of this, from the perspective of a voter (I'm not in Texas so I'm not affected by Talarico). If it's down to a Democrat who has cooled on trans rights, or even flipped slightly to reject them on the platform, is it better to vote for Talarico who isn't to hot on trans athletes in high school sports as a vague concept, and the start of a potential slippery slope, or the Republican who has it ingrained in their platform and is already well on their way downhill? It turns what should be a vote for improvement into a vote to hopefully slow the bus down before it flies into the crosswalk, hoping the brakes don't fly off as you're stomping the pedal.
Spot on. It's incredibly frustrating. Sadly, this phenomenon extends beyond trans issues and has the potential to include any issue that is deemed 'far-left' by conservatives. A recent and...
This article reflected a frustration I can't properly articulate with trans rights becoming some sort of a cudgel that gets wielded against progressive, or even US center-to-left politics. The left-wing politician doesn't get to talk about their general policy, they're forced into this absurd discussion that leaves them explaining this one small part of their policy, ditching part of their platform to avoid the conversation, alienating part of their voter base, and things not improving materially for all of the drama around it. The right winger then wins on their opposition to trans rights, wokeness, etc, and proceeds to burn their jurisdiction (see the 45 and 47th presidential terms).
Spot on. It's incredibly frustrating. Sadly, this phenomenon extends beyond trans issues and has the potential to include any issue that is deemed 'far-left' by conservatives.
A recent and unfortunate twist of fate has led me to a position where I now watch a brain-melting amount of cable news. And while cable news is generally one of the last places where one would go to learn something, I feel like it's given me a better understanding of the Democratic Party's tendency to concede to Republican framing and avoid speaking up on "controversial" issues.
Now in an ideal world, the cable news giants would inform their consumers about the issues and policies that are most impactful. However, we don't live in the ideal world, we live in dogshit world. So instead, the media focuses on the horse race and narrows in on the attacks that generate controversy, and any additional context is provided by talking heads in a debate setting that only amplifies the noise. It would be one thing if this was limited to the 24/7 catheter sellers, but their toxic discourse inevitably leaks out to local news and print media, and before you know it, it's the question that gets asked every day and a major category in the debate. It happened to Mamdani last year with regard to Israel and antisemitism allegations, and a similar thing is happening to Abdul El-Seyed this year (only it's much much dumber).
It doesn't matter what race you're in or what year it is, there's always a conservative-made landmine to step on (trans kids in sports, defund the police, CRT, being Muslim, etc. etc.), and the media will latch on to it without explaining a goddamn thing, regardless of how important or insignificant it is. Therefore, it's a much easier route for a candidate to play it safe and avoid taking any position that could ignite a culture war firestorm. This media environment rewards cowardice/capitulation and punishes those who stand firm on their principles. It doesn't matter if you're right, it doesn't matter if you're throwing vulnerable people under the bus, it's harder to win if you have to defend yourself over and over again, so don't even bother. Or at least that's what seems to be a prevailing school of thought within the Democratic party. Can't believe these guys lose all the time.
I kind of want to make commercial media illegal entirely at this point. I'm tired of the well being poisoned. Literally every time I open up YouTube these days, I get an ad for No On 40, the...
I kind of want to make commercial media illegal entirely at this point. I'm tired of the well being poisoned. Literally every time I open up YouTube these days, I get an ad for No On 40, the campaign bankrolled by Surgey Brin that is telling me that teachers and firefighers and everyone in the world are desperately warning me to vote against it and that if I vote for it than lawmakers are going to raise taxes on EVERYTHING. But no, it's the billionaires who are spending a lot of money to fight this one time tax bill because they don't agree with it. And that's just one, relatively tame example. We have entire networks owned by evil billionaires trying to spread fascism.
In the meanwhile I have public radio. LAist produces and otherwise airs award-winning programming and local interest content that I can't get anywhere else, including stuff without a partisan bent. There's also KPFK, which is an entirely independantly run public radio station which never had ties to the government and has completely gonzo programming including far left ideologues and astrologers. They also have They also have programming blocks that switch over to the Spanish language and some dedicated to the native people, so they are the single most representative radio station on the planet as far as I'm concerned. Why can't more media be like them?
And with KPFK in particular, they don't really have sponsors like LAist and NPR stations do. So when they have "ad reads" they aren't really telling you about their "underwriters" or "supporters" or whatever they call them to get around the fact that it wasn't really legal to advertise on those stations. They just tell you to try to support them with a donation. And you know what? That's a great thing! For once, the messages aren't telling you to go out and buy something and line someone else's pockets - it's telling you to go out and support something that's making the community and the world around you a better place! That might be what's got me listening even though the programming is honestly not quite the kind of thing I'd normally be interested in.
Cis lady here. This is a good, thought provoking essay. I think gender in sports is very messy, and there is no exact way to divide groups fairly; one point the author makes that rings very true...
Cis lady here. This is a good, thought provoking essay. I think gender in sports is very messy, and there is no exact way to divide groups fairly; one point the author makes that rings very true to me is that if people are barred from participating in sports based on genetic tests, that sports will not be the end of that segregation. Once laws have been passed for the "protection" of a group of people, based on the villainization and dehumanization of another, I think it creates momentum to continue to segregate the villainized group in new ways. Where is it supposed to stop, particularly in places where a majority believes that those people are inhuman? I realize it's already happening, but it's also very scary. Is it not our moral obligation to fight the systematic marginalization of people, especially vulnerable ones?
I find a lot of the discourse (by cis people) about trans people difficult; I think some cis people use trans people as a shorthand to identify what they hate about modern wokeness, and I think I agree with the author that few, if any, people truly believe that trans people alone are costing politicians elections. But I do think it may also be more complex, that trans people for whatever reason are triggering for a certain kind of social ideology, much in the way that race does. What can be done about that? Is this a case where people who are trans becoming part of typical public consciousness and culture will gradually erode those bigoted feelings from most people, much like lesbian and gay people have over recent decades? Or is this a situation where the erosion of trans rights will continue undeterred for a particular political ideology, much as it has for many racialized people? How can that be stopped? How can the empathy of bigoted people be reached?
Sadly this was true until they became squarely in the crosshairs of the republican party. Since that's happened public perception has gone down, as has perception of all queer identities (we've...
Is this a case where people who are trans becoming part of typical public consciousness and culture will gradually erode those bigoted feelings from most people, much like lesbian and gay people have over recent decades?
Sadly this was true until they became squarely in the crosshairs of the republican party. Since that's happened public perception has gone down, as has perception of all queer identities (we've gone measurably backwards on gay rights/acceptance). In general public perception has trended downwards since every marginalized group got targeted by the right (black perception post BLM, as another notable example), but I do wonder on some level how much of that is because the left has backpedaled significantly or softened on a ton of issues.
I believe that the polarization of the right and the mainstreamification of the radical ideas has directly lead to harm to every marginalized group and my hypothesis is that it is because folks are no longer willing to socially isolate individuals with radical opinions, or rather the window for what is considered acceptable has shifted because we've given an outsized voice to a hateful vocal minority (white nationalists) allowing breathing room to those with ideas that would normally get them ostracized and pushed out of social groups. If you've ever read the book how minds change by David McRaney, there's a portion of it where he examines the literature on how public perception changes and the most plausible academic framework put forward as to why it takes a long time to move much but then changes swiftly is a model in which it's done via social stigmatization - when a problematic view is held by a small enough portion of a social group it becomes reasonable to exclude that voice for causing harm but this can only happen when that group is small enough. By forcing a public debate in which we give platforms to a vocal hatemongering minority we give the perception that it's an "accepted" or "okay" viewpoint to have and it emboldens those who have those opinions and encourages others to fall in line or discuss it like it's valid if they lean in that direction. It gives social "capital" to the idea and poisons the well.
I don't really get this. Sports already has all kinds of discriminatory bars that are not reflected in broader society. For what it's worth, I do agree with this, strongly -- But I think it...
if people are barred from participating in sports based on genetic tests, that sports will not be the end of that segregation.
I don't really get this. Sports already has all kinds of discriminatory bars that are not reflected in broader society. For what it's worth, I do agree with this, strongly --
Once laws have been passed for the "protection" of a group of people, based on the villainization and dehumanization of another, I think it creates momentum to continue to segregate the villainized group in new ways.
But I think it applies way more logically to things like bathroom bans than sports.
The essay explains it a lot better than I did - typically, I don't think anyone would start talking about taking away the rights of citizens unless they'd been demonized in some way, and there has...
Exemplary
The essay explains it a lot better than I did - typically, I don't think anyone would start talking about taking away the rights of citizens unless they'd been demonized in some way, and there has to be some kind of wedge, slippery slope issue to start society down the path of debating someone's humanity. How do you entice normal, well-meaning people to clamour for segregation?
Sports are an issue that is really low stakes, and which you can use as a Trojan horse to appeal to people's feelings about gender and fairness for children or marginalized women, and that can seem really empathetic while actually having an ulterior motive. Once you open the door of "trans people don't deserve to be in sports, it's unfair", there's now a precedent to everything else - what else might be unfair or inappropriate? Should we be funding gender affirming care for trans minors? What if it's dangerous??? Should we allow discussion of trans perspectives in schools? What if it gives kids bad ideas??? Should we allow trans people to change their driver's licenses? If we already made gender definitions for sports...and on and on. Once that first precedent is set, there's an expectation that the line is now somewhere in the middle, and it's a matter of finding out where it is. We then get to debate as a society how many rights people deserve, which seems deeply dystopian.
The reason why I bring up sports specifically is that I think a lot of people might fundamentally be uncomfortable with a bathroom ban or health care restrictions, but think, "yeah, let's stand up for girls and women, let's give them the right to a fair competition". It seems like it's meant to be supportive, and the essay points out that a lot of the people that clamour about protecting girls don't actually give a shit about girls sports - it's just an excuse to be oppressive.
Another element of this saga is how the proliferation of genetic testing in professional women's sports is going to reveal a lot of very personal information about women who are intersex, and who will subsequently be shamed and attacked over something that no one had any idea about beforehand. Women have committed suicide over these kinds of tests, and it's a burden that is uniquely placed on women. It's absolutely awful. All so people can make money running really fast or kicking balls well. Like, for real??? What are we doing here? How is this "protecting women"?
I think Julia highlights how important a wedge trans rights have become, which leads to the sort of behavior she's describing. There are pointless insertions in bills, meddling, introductions of bills that revoke de-facto rights (see: Julia's reference to people registering as their identified gender as far back as the 90s, HRT up through the 00s), which lead to a requirement to push back in kind, leading to a discussion that rivals the nation-wide debate of abortion and women's bodily autonomy (arguably, a lot of trans issues come back to bodily autonomy anyway, when it's not just a person's right to exist). When this pushback is presented, it is then neutered into "I don't think trans kids should play sports" when the one doing the pushing is scared of losing votes because the topic has become weaponized by the right.
The pressures that are discussed are sort of a reflection of the amplification of trans issues and the increasing polarization of the topic (we're probably at peak polarization anyway, maybe? things are quite bad). This leads, by and large, to the perception of risk on these decisions when, frankly, it doesn't seem like many people that were going to vote for a Democrat are going to change their vote because a politician supported trans rights. And I completely agree, you're likely not going to lose a blue voter over trans rights, at least to any statistically significant degree, the wide majority are at least minimally token supporters that'll say "You don't want to hurt people? Hell yeah." I'd bet that you're more likely to drive someone away by flip-flopping on the issue, and this individual is going to decide to stay home and not vote. That's not the fault of the trans community, however, that's the fault of a spineless politician who couldn't offer a basic defense, and move on to the rest of the platform.
This article reflected a frustration I can't properly articulate with trans rights becoming some sort of a cudgel that gets wielded against progressive, or even US center-to-left politics. The left-wing politician doesn't get to talk about their general policy, they're forced into this absurd discussion that leaves them explaining this one small part of their policy, ditching part of their platform to avoid the conversation, alienating part of their voter base, and things not improving materially for all of the drama around it. The right winger then wins on their opposition to trans rights, wokeness, etc, and proceeds to burn their jurisdiction (see the 45 and 47th presidential terms).
Her last point is also a particularly frustrating part of this, from the perspective of a voter (I'm not in Texas so I'm not affected by Talarico). If it's down to a Democrat who has cooled on trans rights, or even flipped slightly to reject them on the platform, is it better to vote for Talarico who isn't to hot on trans athletes in high school sports as a vague concept, and the start of a potential slippery slope, or the Republican who has it ingrained in their platform and is already well on their way downhill? It turns what should be a vote for improvement into a vote to hopefully slow the bus down before it flies into the crosswalk, hoping the brakes don't fly off as you're stomping the pedal.
Spot on. It's incredibly frustrating. Sadly, this phenomenon extends beyond trans issues and has the potential to include any issue that is deemed 'far-left' by conservatives.
A recent and unfortunate twist of fate has led me to a position where I now watch a brain-melting amount of cable news. And while cable news is generally one of the last places where one would go to learn something, I feel like it's given me a better understanding of the Democratic Party's tendency to concede to Republican framing and avoid speaking up on "controversial" issues.
Now in an ideal world, the cable news giants would inform their consumers about the issues and policies that are most impactful. However, we don't live in the ideal world, we live in dogshit world. So instead, the media focuses on the horse race and narrows in on the attacks that generate controversy, and any additional context is provided by talking heads in a debate setting that only amplifies the noise. It would be one thing if this was limited to the 24/7 catheter sellers, but their toxic discourse inevitably leaks out to local news and print media, and before you know it, it's the question that gets asked every day and a major category in the debate. It happened to Mamdani last year with regard to Israel and antisemitism allegations, and a similar thing is happening to Abdul El-Seyed this year (only it's much much dumber).
It doesn't matter what race you're in or what year it is, there's always a conservative-made landmine to step on (trans kids in sports, defund the police, CRT, being Muslim, etc. etc.), and the media will latch on to it without explaining a goddamn thing, regardless of how important or insignificant it is. Therefore, it's a much easier route for a candidate to play it safe and avoid taking any position that could ignite a culture war firestorm. This media environment rewards cowardice/capitulation and punishes those who stand firm on their principles. It doesn't matter if you're right, it doesn't matter if you're throwing vulnerable people under the bus, it's harder to win if you have to defend yourself over and over again, so don't even bother. Or at least that's what seems to be a prevailing school of thought within the Democratic party. Can't believe these guys lose all the time.
I kind of want to make commercial media illegal entirely at this point. I'm tired of the well being poisoned. Literally every time I open up YouTube these days, I get an ad for No On 40, the campaign bankrolled by Surgey Brin that is telling me that teachers and firefighers and everyone in the world are desperately warning me to vote against it and that if I vote for it than lawmakers are going to raise taxes on EVERYTHING. But no, it's the billionaires who are spending a lot of money to fight this one time tax bill because they don't agree with it. And that's just one, relatively tame example. We have entire networks owned by evil billionaires trying to spread fascism.
In the meanwhile I have public radio. LAist produces and otherwise airs award-winning programming and local interest content that I can't get anywhere else, including stuff without a partisan bent. There's also KPFK, which is an entirely independantly run public radio station which never had ties to the government and has completely gonzo programming including far left ideologues and astrologers. They also have They also have programming blocks that switch over to the Spanish language and some dedicated to the native people, so they are the single most representative radio station on the planet as far as I'm concerned. Why can't more media be like them?
And with KPFK in particular, they don't really have sponsors like LAist and NPR stations do. So when they have "ad reads" they aren't really telling you about their "underwriters" or "supporters" or whatever they call them to get around the fact that it wasn't really legal to advertise on those stations. They just tell you to try to support them with a donation. And you know what? That's a great thing! For once, the messages aren't telling you to go out and buy something and line someone else's pockets - it's telling you to go out and support something that's making the community and the world around you a better place! That might be what's got me listening even though the programming is honestly not quite the kind of thing I'd normally be interested in.
Ah, Sorry for the tangent.
Cis lady here. This is a good, thought provoking essay. I think gender in sports is very messy, and there is no exact way to divide groups fairly; one point the author makes that rings very true to me is that if people are barred from participating in sports based on genetic tests, that sports will not be the end of that segregation. Once laws have been passed for the "protection" of a group of people, based on the villainization and dehumanization of another, I think it creates momentum to continue to segregate the villainized group in new ways. Where is it supposed to stop, particularly in places where a majority believes that those people are inhuman? I realize it's already happening, but it's also very scary. Is it not our moral obligation to fight the systematic marginalization of people, especially vulnerable ones?
I find a lot of the discourse (by cis people) about trans people difficult; I think some cis people use trans people as a shorthand to identify what they hate about modern wokeness, and I think I agree with the author that few, if any, people truly believe that trans people alone are costing politicians elections. But I do think it may also be more complex, that trans people for whatever reason are triggering for a certain kind of social ideology, much in the way that race does. What can be done about that? Is this a case where people who are trans becoming part of typical public consciousness and culture will gradually erode those bigoted feelings from most people, much like lesbian and gay people have over recent decades? Or is this a situation where the erosion of trans rights will continue undeterred for a particular political ideology, much as it has for many racialized people? How can that be stopped? How can the empathy of bigoted people be reached?
Thanks for sharing.
Sadly this was true until they became squarely in the crosshairs of the republican party. Since that's happened public perception has gone down, as has perception of all queer identities (we've gone measurably backwards on gay rights/acceptance). In general public perception has trended downwards since every marginalized group got targeted by the right (black perception post BLM, as another notable example), but I do wonder on some level how much of that is because the left has backpedaled significantly or softened on a ton of issues.
I believe that the polarization of the right and the mainstreamification of the radical ideas has directly lead to harm to every marginalized group and my hypothesis is that it is because folks are no longer willing to socially isolate individuals with radical opinions, or rather the window for what is considered acceptable has shifted because we've given an outsized voice to a hateful vocal minority (white nationalists) allowing breathing room to those with ideas that would normally get them ostracized and pushed out of social groups. If you've ever read the book how minds change by David McRaney, there's a portion of it where he examines the literature on how public perception changes and the most plausible academic framework put forward as to why it takes a long time to move much but then changes swiftly is a model in which it's done via social stigmatization - when a problematic view is held by a small enough portion of a social group it becomes reasonable to exclude that voice for causing harm but this can only happen when that group is small enough. By forcing a public debate in which we give platforms to a vocal hatemongering minority we give the perception that it's an "accepted" or "okay" viewpoint to have and it emboldens those who have those opinions and encourages others to fall in line or discuss it like it's valid if they lean in that direction. It gives social "capital" to the idea and poisons the well.
I don't really get this. Sports already has all kinds of discriminatory bars that are not reflected in broader society. For what it's worth, I do agree with this, strongly --
But I think it applies way more logically to things like bathroom bans than sports.
The essay explains it a lot better than I did - typically, I don't think anyone would start talking about taking away the rights of citizens unless they'd been demonized in some way, and there has to be some kind of wedge, slippery slope issue to start society down the path of debating someone's humanity. How do you entice normal, well-meaning people to clamour for segregation?
Sports are an issue that is really low stakes, and which you can use as a Trojan horse to appeal to people's feelings about gender and fairness for children or marginalized women, and that can seem really empathetic while actually having an ulterior motive. Once you open the door of "trans people don't deserve to be in sports, it's unfair", there's now a precedent to everything else - what else might be unfair or inappropriate? Should we be funding gender affirming care for trans minors? What if it's dangerous??? Should we allow discussion of trans perspectives in schools? What if it gives kids bad ideas??? Should we allow trans people to change their driver's licenses? If we already made gender definitions for sports...and on and on. Once that first precedent is set, there's an expectation that the line is now somewhere in the middle, and it's a matter of finding out where it is. We then get to debate as a society how many rights people deserve, which seems deeply dystopian.
The reason why I bring up sports specifically is that I think a lot of people might fundamentally be uncomfortable with a bathroom ban or health care restrictions, but think, "yeah, let's stand up for girls and women, let's give them the right to a fair competition". It seems like it's meant to be supportive, and the essay points out that a lot of the people that clamour about protecting girls don't actually give a shit about girls sports - it's just an excuse to be oppressive.
Another element of this saga is how the proliferation of genetic testing in professional women's sports is going to reveal a lot of very personal information about women who are intersex, and who will subsequently be shamed and attacked over something that no one had any idea about beforehand. Women have committed suicide over these kinds of tests, and it's a burden that is uniquely placed on women. It's absolutely awful. All so people can make money running really fast or kicking balls well. Like, for real??? What are we doing here? How is this "protecting women"?