I really enjoyed this interview with Rep. McBride. She is - I hope - representative of a new generation of politicians coming in who have seen how damaging extreme social media rhetoric is and...
I really enjoyed this interview with Rep. McBride. She is - I hope - representative of a new generation of politicians coming in who have seen how damaging extreme social media rhetoric is and want to try a new way - in her words, want to try grace.
I think grace in politics means, one, creating room for disagreement: assuming good intentions, assuming that the people who are on the other side of an issue from you aren’t automatically hateful, horrible people... The fact that we have real disagreements, the fact that we have difficult conversations, the fact that we have painful conversations is not a bug of democracy. It’s a feature of democracy. And yes, that is hard and difficult — but again, how can we expect that the process of overcoming marginalization is going to be fair?
I changed the title of the link because while she does talk about "why the left lost on trans rights," I think that title was a little unfair to her. I would've called it something like "Sarah McBride on trans rights and the need for grace."
I don't think you should editorialize the article's title, just because you think it was unfair to her. I would suggest reading what trans people think about her, and this article, and perhaps...
I don't think you should editorialize the article's title, just because you think it was unfair to her.
I would suggest reading what trans people think about her, and this article, and perhaps reconsider why you thought editorializing it was a good idea.
This is a remarkably unhelpful comment. If you'd like to discuss something or even call me out, fine, but "educate yourself and then reconsider" doesn't contribute to discussion. It certainly...
I would suggest reading what trans people think about her, and this article, and perhaps reconsider why you thought editorializing it was a good idea.
This is a remarkably unhelpful comment. If you'd like to discuss something or even call me out, fine, but "educate yourself and then reconsider" doesn't contribute to discussion. It certainly doesn't make me think "oh no I did something bad." It just leaves me annoyed.
(I also think the implication that trans people have one, unified voice regarding Rep. McBride or this interview - which was released yesterday - is ridiculous.)
I've already called you out for editorializing the headline, because you felt it was unfair. Given everything I've read from trans folks online, regarding this article no less, I don't think it...
I've already called you out for editorializing the headline, because you felt it was unfair. Given everything I've read from trans folks online, regarding this article no less, I don't think it was unfair at all. Sarah McBride is becoming increasingly polarizing herself, in large part because she seems to be throwing the wider trans community under the bus.
I understand that people in general, and trans folks in particular, are not a monolith. But for every person I see supporting the views expressed in this article, I see many, many more denouncing it. Among those denouncing it are friends of mine who actually have a bone in the fight, so to speak.
The original title was "Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights." I find all this extremely confusing. When I was talking about fairness, I meant because she discussed a ton of things...
've already called you out for editorializing the headline, because you felt it was unfair. Given everything I've read from trans folks online, regarding this article no less, I don't think it was unfair at all... for every person I see supporting the views expressed in this article, I see many, many more denouncing it.
The original title was "Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights."
I find all this extremely confusing. When I was talking about fairness, I meant because she discussed a ton of things and to focus on just one bit of it wasn't fair. (Some would call the NYT's original title............editorializing.)
But clearly you're implying that I was trying to shield her from criticism in changing the original title. Which I just don't get, because I don't see how the original title is in any way objectionable. I think it's a dumb title, but the notion that transgender people who don't like McBride would somehow find the original title more fair baffles me.
What would make the most sense to me is if you didn't know what the original title was, don't like Rep. McBride, saw me mention fairness, assumed the original title was something like "McBride: trans traitor?", figured I changed it to protect her, and then lashed out. If that's what happened, cool - now we both know what the original title is and it's all fine.
This is seriously the weirdest conversation I've been a part of on this website. Did you read the article in question? Because even to say "the views expressed [by McBride]" is a confusing choice of words. She talked about like 50 different things. Which views are we talking about?
Your title seems fine. The article is quite literally a transcript of Ezra Klein interviewing Rep. McBride. Your title describes it such that it does what it says on the tin.
Your title seems fine. The article is quite literally a transcript of Ezra Klein interviewing Rep. McBride. Your title describes it such that it does what it says on the tin.
The view among those with personal stakes that I know is that Sarah McBride is, in effect, blaming the victim for the state of trans rights and trans people in the USA. That view towards Sarah...
Exemplary
The view among those with personal stakes that I know is that Sarah McBride is, in effect, blaming the victim for the state of trans rights and trans people in the USA. That view towards Sarah McBride is not limited to this one article; her actions and statements since being elected to the House, to some, reflect this view as well.
The title, "Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights," indicates that the article is about trans people and trans rights. She and Ezra may talk about a lot of things, but the article focuses on trans people and trans rights. It was not just "an interview with Sarah McBride"; it was an interview about her views on trans rights. The title of the article itself is controversial, because it is taking the framing of "trans rights" as something that The Left lost on. In effect, it is blaming the recurrence of Donald Trump as President, and the situation we're in right now, on trans people - either because of "the left" and its support of trans people at all, or because of a view that "the left" has been beholden to trans rights extremism - which simply isn't true, if one looks at the language used by most politicians viewed as being on "the left" about trans people.
So, by editorializing on the headline away from "Why The Left Lost on Trans Rights" to simply "an interview" takes the teeth out of what was actually said in the interview, how it has been framed by its author, and dismisses its focus on trans rights. It waters the whole thing down to "a chat" where it is actually a postmortem on trans rights as viewed in recent history.
Now, people that have read the article in full (I'm reading through it now) rankle at certain statements that Sarah McBride makes, such as:
Ezra Klein: I want to connect two things you said there, because I hadn’t thought about this exactly before. You made this point that there’s been a generalized gender regression — which is true. And you also made this point that people had this metaphor in their minds: I was wrong about gay marriage, I didn’t understand that experience, so maybe I’m wrong here, too.
But the one thing that’s maybe different here is there’s a set of narrow policies, like nondiscrimination, and then a broader cultural effort — everybody should put their pronouns in their bio or say them before they begin speaking at a meeting — that was more about destabilizing the gender binary.
And there people had a much stronger view. Like: I do know what it means. I’ve been a man all my life. I’ve been a woman all my life. How dare you tell me how I have to talk about myself or refer to myself!
And that made the metaphor break. Because if the gay marriage fight was about what other people do, there was a dimension to this that was about what you do and how you should see yourself or your kids or your society.
Sarah McBride: I think that’s an accurate reflection of the overplaying of the hand in some ways — that we as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage.
I also think there were requests that people perceived as a cultural aggression, which then allowed the right to say: We’re punishing trans people because of their actions. Rather than: We’re going after innocent bystanders.
In effect, Sarah McBride is saying that the act of simply stating one's pronouns was seen as "cultural aggression", something that the rest of the country was unprepared for and was "overplaying the hand" of trans rights. I, and many others, patently disagree with this. To say that something as minimal as stating one's pronouns is "Trans 201" and is far too radical a step feels just wrong. It's asking for a bare minimum of respect, and according "to some" this was a bridge too far.
Now, Sarah McBride does hedge her language throughout as stating that the blame doesn't fall on trans people. She does state:
We’re not in this position because of trans people. There was a very clear, well-coordinated, well-funded effort to demonize trans people, to stake out positions on fertile ground for anti-trans politics and to have those be the battlegrounds — rather than some of the areas where there’s more public support.
That statement is immediately followed by (emphasis mine):
We’re not in this position because of the movement or the community, but clearly what we’ve been doing over the last several years has not been working to stave it off or continue the progress that we were making eight, nine, 10 years ago.
Within the context of the rest of the interview around those quotes, she is stating that what "the left" and what trans people have been doing has been wrong, has been ineffectual, has had the effect of actually ceding progress. The two statements, in my mind, don't gel - she says we're in this position because of a well-coordinated and -funded effort to demonize trans people (correct), and we're also here because whatever the trans community has been doing, hasn't worked - even though what the trans community has been doing has, in effect, allowed for Sarah McBride to achieve her political position and have this interview in the first place.
And again, I would ask ... what has been so radically demanded by the trans community? What is so radical about basic respect vis-a-vis pronouns?
I'll get to reading more of this article, but as it stands ... I'm not convinced that the problem is a lack of persuasive skills on the part of the left. I think the problem, as Sarah McBride has already stated herself, is a multi-billion dollar, coordinated effort to demonize trans people.
The notion that you have to only ask for so much, and that asking for too much is a bridge too far, just baffles me. Loving vs. Virginia was incredibly unpopular - far more unpopular in its time than it is now. It was incredibly unpopular ... until it wasn't. People like to think that the Civil Rights Movement had this deep but quiet support from people, particularly "the left" - and it simply never did have that support in its time. So the fact that trans rights may be unpopular now does not necessarily mean that trans people need to start asking for less; I would argue the opposite, that they need to keep asking for what they have been asking for - equal rights and basic respect.
I should also add that Sarah McBride is catching a lot of heat for her views and actions, as though she should be the perfect, idealized standard for trans people and the trans rights movement. That is putting too much pressure and unrealistic expectations on one person; in an ideal world, in a correct world, she would have the outspoken support of her peers on both sides of the aisle. As it stands, she is the first trans person to have achieved multiple political positions of note, and as far as I am aware she is the only one at the highest levels of American politics. Whether she likes it or not, she is representative of the trans community to some extent, and what she says and does ripples down across the country.
So when she doesn't stand up for herself or for her rights (see: Nancy Mace's bathroom bill), everyone sees it. When the first, and only, trans person in Congress does not stand up for her own right to use the bathroom that aligns with her gender identity, what does that tell everyone else? And when, even after accepting those decisions (and I would say, losses), her peers do not stand up for her, what does that say about "the left" (as defined by Republicans) and its support of trans rights?
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the entire article, I do find myself agreeing with Sarah McBride on a number of things. The notion that change happens slowly, incrementally - then seemingly all at once. Our politics has, of course, become too polarized (more on this in a moment). We do, of course, need to maintain hope for a better future.
Where I disagree is in many aspect of how those things are. I don't believe that the Civil Rights Movement made what progress it has by asking for proverbial scraps from the table. They demanded equal rights, and were roundly hated for it from both sides. They didn't stop asking for equal rights; folks didn't ask for fewer rights as a compromise, they didn't ask for states to determine individually what rights they were allowed to have - they persisted in requesting equal rights. Whether we've gotten there or not is debatable, but the fact remains that progress was made not in asking for less, but in persisting in asking for the same and forcing the Overton Window to shift towards their position.
Asking for less, in my view, only ever means you get less. You never become an equal by asking for inequality. Again, in my opinion.
Politics has definitely become more polarized, insofar as the Republican Party has become insistent on eliminating rights. I don't know how you seek compromise with someone who wants you removed from public life. What is the compromise position between "I want equal rights" and "I want to remove trans people from public life"? And yes, "not all republicans" and all that - but when the leader of your party wants you and your kind dead and gone, where are the voices from within the party saying no? Silence is complicity.
I lament the polarization only insofar as it's become a spigot of hatred from the political far-right, which hasn't been pushed back against by either "the left" or from within the Republican or Democratic parties. It's constant "we need to find compromise", and never "no, you're wrong actually".
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that this is a difficult topic in a difficult time, and there’s a lot of pain out there right now, some of which you’re no doubt feeling. I get it. I feel it...
Exemplary
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that this is a difficult topic in a difficult time, and there’s a lot of pain out there right now, some of which you’re no doubt feeling. I get it. I feel it too.
I think your question about McBride not standing up for herself is a good jumping off point. She talks about her reasoning for that at length in the interview. Rather than quote a snippet, I’ll put the whole thing in a dropdown. It's long, but I think the point she is making in its entirety is important and can't really be shortened down to just a single line.
Full Quote
The folks who are coming after me — I mean, look, that’s been hard. But I know that they are coming after me not because they are deeply passionate about bathroom policy. They’re coming after me because they’re employing the strategies of reality TV. And the best way to get attention in a body of 435 people is to throw wine in someone’s face. That gets you a little attention. But if the person you’re throwing wine on, if they respond by throwing wine in your face, it creates a beef, which gets you a season-long story arc.
I knew that they were trying to bait me into a fight to get attention, and I refused to be used as a political pawn. I refuse to give them not only the power of derailing me but the incentive to continue to come after me.
And this was a prime example of fighting smart that is demonized on our own side. Because the grace that I didn’t get wasn’t just on the right. There was a lot of critique on the left.
I understand that, when you’re a first, people viscerally feel your highs, and they also viscerally feel your lows. But what would my fighting back in that moment have done? It wouldn’t have stopped the ban, and it would only have incentivized further attacks and continued behavior like that.
Sometimes we have to understand that not fighting, not taking the bait, is not a sign of weakness. It’s not unprincipled. Discipline and strategy are signs of strength.
And I think in the social media world, we have lulled ourselves into thinking the only way to fight is to fight. It’s to scream and it’s to yell and it’s to do it in every instance. And any time you don’t do it, you’re normalizing the behavior that’s coming your way.
It’s a ridiculously unfair burden to place on every single human being — to have to fight every single indignity.
But also by that logic, the young Black students who were walking into a school that was being integrated in the late ’50s and ’60s, who were walking forward calmly and with dignity and grace into that school as people screamed slurs at them — by that definition, that student was normalizing those slurs by not responding.
Instead, what that student was doing was providing the public with a very clear visual, a very clear contrast, between unhinged hatred and basic dignity and grace, which is fundamental to humanity.
And for me, one of the things that I struggled with after that was the lack of grace that I got from some in my own community, who said that I was reinforcing the behavior of the people who were coming after me, that I was not responding appropriately to the bullying that I was facing.
When the reality is: That behavior has diminished significantly because I removed the incentive for them to continue to do it. Because the incentive was so blatantly about attention, and I wasn’t going to let them get the attention that they wanted.
That makes a lot of sense to me, and it resonates strongly with my own experiences. I spent a chunk of my life doing queer advocacy in a very conservative area that was broadly, openly hostile to LGBTQ people. If you need my bona fides, I’ve been spit at, threatened, and held at knife point. Furthermore, none of the advocacy that I did was aggressive, in-your-face activism designed to get a rise out of people. Instead it was, like McBride is advocating for, patient and strategic.
When she talks about “Trans 101” I don’t think she’s saying that the “101” is simply “uninformed” — it’s that anyone at the “101 level is outright misinformed. This is what can make something as simple as pronoun declaration look like a big deal -- something she emphasizes lives in their perceptions, rather than reality.
When and where I was doing queer advocacy, gay people were considered deviant, evil, and filthy. The people being awful to me largely thought they were being "reasonable" with their awful actions too, in part because they thought gay people were SO outrageously bad that violence against us was warranted. My “101 work” wasn’t about gay basics, it was about undoing that perception and getting people to see my humanity and the humanity of people like me by proxy.
McBride has, in my opinion, done this very well. Have you read her memoir? It’s heart-wrenching. Deeply human. Furthermore, she helped get Biden, the President of the United States of America, to move on trans issues.
I think it's only fair to account for stuff like this if we're sizing up McBride, which is something I hate doing in the first place because it feels icky, tokenizing, and regressive. I think indicting her for "not standing up for herself" as you have ignores McBride's own stated strategy and goals. I find it to be a pessimistic reading of a person who is a rare source of hope these days.
And I get it, it's hard not to be pessimistic right now. Things are unbelievably shitty. The worst they've been in my lifetime. I think it's a misfire, however, to aim that pessimism at her. I think taking down McBride is only possible if we displace blame onto her rather than onto the people putting her and all other trans people into impossible and awful situations.
If I'm reading you correctly, it's this principle that you take issue with in McBride, feeling that she's putting the blame on trans people or the left instead of the anti-trans Republicans and the right. I get how that feeling can rankle. I'm feeling it as well. I've gotten heated about it here before. I personally don't believe that's the point she's trying to make, but I can also see that such an argument has surface area in what she says.
You asked us to think about our responses, so I'm going to ask you, in full good faith, to do the same here. I think you and I share a common goal: we want trans people to be able to have rights and live with dignity. So my question to you is, do you think that a different headline and continued criticism of McBride advances that platform?
I ask that not as a rhetorical question that has an implicit answer. It's entirely fine if you say "yes." Personally, however, my answer is "no."
Thank you for the response. I have not read Sarah McBride's memoir, and I have zero doubts that it's full of heartbreak and trauma that I cannot begin to imagine. I ought to add it to my reading...
Thank you for the response. I have not read Sarah McBride's memoir, and I have zero doubts that it's full of heartbreak and trauma that I cannot begin to imagine. I ought to add it to my reading list.
After reading the entire article I have to admit that I'm more torn than I was going into it. Most of what I know about Sarah McBride comes through the lens of what my trans friends see in her - and my trans friends do not have a high opinion. I agree with her on many things that she put into that interview, as I've indicated in my EDITS throughout this thread.
To summarize my thoughts as they stand ... I agree that we need to find ways to work with the wider population to promote equality and get everyone "on board" with equal rights. I understand the optics that Sarah McBride is going for - she wants to be seen as someone above the attention-seeking behaviors of those around her, as someone moving towards equality without resorting to "reality TV" behavior. What I'm seeing from my friends, though, is that they want someone to be fighting for them - and there doesn't really appear to be anyone in the upper echelons of government doing so. Sarah McBride, being the trans person in the House, has the unique position to do exactly that - to visibly fight for trans people - and she does not appear to be doing so.
Notice I said appear. She's certainly doing it in her way! I have zero doubts about that. People are placing a lot of pressure on her to be a particular kind of person, and she's not going to appease everyone. However, I feel that she does her constituents (and trans people looking for a fighter) a disservice by suggesting that "the left" is asking for too much, too quickly. She seems to be taking the position that politicians follow in the wake of public opinion, rather than being in the unique position to shape it.
Based on everything I know about public opinion as it pertains to the Civil Rights Movement, public opinion followed the political decisions which support(ed) equal rights - not the other way around. The same, as I understand it, is true about Gay Rights, about marriage equality, and about damn near everything in such circles.
So, to state that "the left" is asking for too much, that it's too "academic" in its language (which is a right-wing talking point, as I'm sure you know) ... it doesn't feel like it's helping.
To answer your question - "do I think that a different headline and continued criticism of McBride advances [trans rights]?" - the answer I arrive at here is ...
No, but kind of?
I rankled at the headline change in large part because it diminishes the content of the interview. The interview is about trans rights. Sure, the headline may have been "engagement bait", but that's the headline that the NYT went with. To change the title from an interview discussing trans rights, to insisting that it's about "nothing in particular" as has been done throughout this thread, seem disingenuous to me.
I also rankle at the headline change because I believe in sharing articles via their headline, with editorialized views following. I'd be making the same complaint elsewhere, as I come across it. Others have done so across Tildes as well.
As for continuing to aim criticism at Sarah McBride, that's more complicated to me. I don't think any politician should be viewed as above criticism, but I also agree that Sarah McBride is receiving quite a bit more heat than she necessarily deserves. It's the unfortunate result of the current media system, which is so, so focused on disseminating hate towards trans people - Sarah McBride included. She's become the focus of a lot of hate, and the majority of it is undeserved.
But when an interview comes out where "the left" seems to be blamed for where things are right now, while simultaneously identifying the actual source of the blame (the billions poured into these hate campaigns) ... well, it could be that Sarah McBride's message is getting filtered through the eyes and words of the interviewer in a tremendously unfair manner. That's entirely possible, if not likely given what the NYT's position towards trans people has been (not great).
So, it's complicated. If times were different, views towards Sarah McBride on all sides would likely also be very different.
The way I interpreted her position on that was less "the left is to blame" and more "we got over our skis." Meaning we got a big win on gay marriage and we (rightfully) pressed the advantage....
But when an interview comes out where "the left" seems to be blamed for where things are right now, while simultaneously identifying the actual source of the blame (the billions poured into these hate campaigns) ... well, it could be that Sarah McBride's message is getting filtered through the eyes and words of the interviewer in a tremendously unfair manner.
The way I interpreted her position on that was less "the left is to blame" and more "we got over our skis." Meaning we got a big win on gay marriage and we (rightfully) pressed the advantage. Other forces, primarily economic, as well as weakened institutional power (compromised RNC, inept DNC) lead to a shift in the political landscape. Being in an aggressive forward posture meant that on the changed political terrain civil rights messaging was off balance. In a sense I feel like we got baited 2016-2020 and doubled down versus adapting our strategy.
Edit: I've said elsewhere that I don't think civil rights was a difference maker in the election and I think blaming civil rights groups is a diversion tactic by institutional dems away from their ineptitude.
To add to what McBride was saying, social media is not a great medium for left-wing ideas. Something I've noticed, but haven't really seen articulated, is the problem of what I call the "trickle...
To add to what McBride was saying, social media is not a great medium for left-wing ideas.
Something I've noticed, but haven't really seen articulated, is the problem of what I call the "trickle down effect" of left-wing ideas. You have complicated concepts that require a good deal of knowledge to not only understand, but also accurately convey - especially to someone unfamiliar with them. You have academics writing books about an idea, thought leaders distilling that information into essays and videos, then us regular people trying our best to regurgitate that information to the uninitiated in short little internet posts. It's like trying to recount every important detail from a movie through a letterboxd review.
There's a lot of ways for that to go wrong. Nuanced takes on something like intersectionality and socioeconomic conditions turns into stuff like:
No 👏 more 👏 white 👏 men 👏
or: white privilege = every white kid is privileged.
On the other side, you have well-funded think tanks researching the most effective ways to exploit wedge issues through simple talking points that appeal to our social biases, then distributing them through a vast media ecosystem until something sticks. In this case, it was trans women in sports that stuck after a failed attempt at bathroom stuff.
It's how you get guys like Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh dunking on college kids with quick little one-liners. How is a 19 year old going to explain gender as a social construct, or the impacts of HRT on testosterone in that setting? How does one do that in a tweet or Instagram post?
To make matters worse, it takes so much effort to debunk misinformation whereas spreading it only takes a sentence or two.
I think that's why trans issues and "defund the police" got the biggest pushback. Just getting someone to understand those positions requires they basically unlearn everything they've heard since birth, and you have to do it in 60 seconds or 150 characters.
This is not about the complexity of left thoughts IMO, this is that it's relatively easy to dunk on college students, especially when you edit your own videos. "Man on the street" bits on late...
It's how you get guys like Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh dunking on college kids with quick little one-liners.
This is not about the complexity of left thoughts IMO, this is that it's relatively easy to dunk on college students, especially when you edit your own videos. "Man on the street" bits on late night shows demonstrated that it's not just 19 year olds either.
I appreciate your good faith reply. This helps me better understand your criticisms and intent. I admittedly was someone who was skeptical from your initial post. Tildes as a community...
I appreciate your good faith reply. This helps me better understand your criticisms and intent.
I admittedly was someone who was skeptical from your initial post. Tildes as a community unfortunately has a checkered past regarding trans people getting shouted down or spoken over, so when I saw your initial posts — ones I perceived to be primarily about taking down McBride — I was worried we were headed down that path again.
My feelings also sit on the larger backdrop of trans takedowns online in general. It’s always tough for me to see a bunch of anti-trans garbage about someone from the right, only to then look to the left and see what looks like agreement in spirit but not in letter.
Now, I have my own thoughts on all of the topics on the table right now, of course, but I think it’s far less important for me to voice them than it is to acknowledge the common ground we stand on. We might disagree on strategy but we agree on outcomes.
I know you’ve had plenty of other replies to manage as well, so I appreciate the time you took to respond thoughtfully to me. Thank you.
If I've learned anything from the past several years, it's to stop and listen to the people most directly affected by a given issue. I try to practice that as much as I preach it. It's very easy...
If I've learned anything from the past several years, it's to stop and listen to the people most directly affected by a given issue. I try to practice that as much as I preach it.
It's very easy to disagree online; Sarah McBride would say as much. It's much harder to work towards solutions. On those, I listen to trans folks, Black folks, whichever group is in the crosshairs on a given topic.
In this case, it's my trans friends that I listen to, and they're not particularly happy with things.
That's her whole point. The gatekeeping tendencies of the left create a system of attrition that filters out people that we can work with to initiate change. This is bigger than trans rights, we...
I should also add that Sarah McBride is catching a lot of heat for her views and actions, as though she should be the perfect, idealized standard for trans people and the trans rights movement. That is putting too much pressure and unrealistic expectations on one person; in an ideal world, in a correct world, she would have the outspoken support of her peers on both sides of the aisle. As it stands, she is the first trans person to have achieved multiple political positions of note, and as far as I am aware she is the only one at the highest levels of American politics. Whether she likes it or not, she is representative of the trans community to some extent, and what she says and does ripples down across the country.
That's her whole point. The gatekeeping tendencies of the left create a system of attrition that filters out people that we can work with to initiate change. This is bigger than trans rights, we see it on most planks of the leftist platform. Making perfection the inhibitor of progress.
I think she does understand herself to be a representative of the trans community. Near the end of the conversation she illustrates exactly how she navigates the personal dynamics of congress as someone filling this role.
My argument, though, is ... what is unreasonable about the movement from the left for trans rights? How are they asking for more than, say, what the Civil Rights Movement asked/asks for? EDIT TO...
My argument, though, is ... what is unreasonable about the movement from the left for trans rights? How are they asking for more than, say, what the Civil Rights Movement asked/asks for?
EDIT TO ADD: coincidentally, I've now read to the point where Sarah McBride compares the efforts towards trans rights to the efforts during the Civil Rights Era. I'm not convinced that the Civil Rights Era was all about compromise the way she does.
I've also noticed that she frames a lot of this interview as an "intolerant left" situation - where there's this hotbed of intolerance brewing among "the left" towards anyone that isn't ideologically pure on every issue. And, to a limited extent, that may be true! But she also notes that "real-world" interactions aren't like those on the internet. She simultaneously acknowledges that interactions on the internet do not necessarily reflect real peoples' views on things, and real peoples' ability to cooperate with each other - while also bemoaning the state of online discourse as somehow shaping the opinion of the left-wing side of politics. I'm not certain you can have it both ways.
My thoughts on politics and social justice movements were shaped by Heifetz' book Leadership without easy answers which I was assigned to read in a class nearly 30 years ago. The book compares...
Exemplary
My thoughts on politics and social justice movements were shaped by Heifetz' book Leadership without easy answers which I was assigned to read in a class nearly 30 years ago.
The book compares president Johnson to Rev Dr Martin Luther King to make a broader case that leadership from within elected positions necessarily looks different than leadership from outsiders and that both kinds of leaders are needed to effect change.
I don't know how well that thesis has stood up to time and research but it changed the way I think.
Politics, like poker and war, can require deception and ambush tactics to achieve goals.
To change the angle of what I am saying slightly, elected politicians have to be crowd whisperers.
Thanks for listening to my Ted talk. I don't know whether McBride is correct in her choices as a politician.
Obama employed strategic ambiguity on same-sex marriage: in his first term, he was against it but supported same-sex unions. In his second term, he came out fully in support of gay marriage. There...
Politics, like poker and war, can require deception and ambush tactics to achieve goals.
Obama employed strategic ambiguity on same-sex marriage: in his first term, he was against it but supported same-sex unions. In his second term, he came out fully in support of gay marriage. There is evidence that he always supported gay marriage at a personal level, but he understood that he had to play the greater game.
I don't envy the work of politics. It's important, necessary work, but the nature of a healthy democracy demands severe compromise. If you do your work right, you earn few friends: your enemies will never stop hating you, and your allies will inevitably feel betrayed.
Carter did something similar with regard to political rights for black people. Then in office he appointed many minorities and women. He also aggressively enforced civil rights laws.
Carter did something similar with regard to political rights for black people. Then in office he appointed many minorities and women. He also aggressively enforced civil rights laws.
No one said we are asking for anything unreasonable. This is a strategic conversation about means because we agree on the ends. We want change today, but I don't have a magic wand to do that. What...
My argument, though, is ... what is unreasonable about the movement from the left for trans rights? How are they asking for more than, say, what the Civil Rights Movement asked/asks for?
No one said we are asking for anything unreasonable. This is a strategic conversation about means because we agree on the ends. We want change today, but I don't have a magic wand to do that. What we have is a country where the majority of people support adult bodily autonomy (cited in the podcast/article) and divided on many other points. Let's have the political power to take what's on the table. Let's have a coalition that has power to defend those laws through changing political winds.
The "Civil Rights Era" generally refers to 10-15 years in the middle of the 20th century. But the foundation of work that lead to a successful civil rights movement happened before and during that critical decade.
I've also noticed that she frames a lot of this interview as an "intolerant left" situation - where there's this hotbed of intolerance brewing among "the left" towards anyone that isn't ideologically pure on every issue. And, to a limited extent, that may be true!
I think you've illustrated the point by citing the groups who are attacking her and calling her a traitor. We see the same thing with Bernie-bros who hopped the trump bandwagon: "if we can't have it all we gotta burn it down." In this conversation we hear the thought process and strategic politics of the person most well positioned to effect change on this issue. If they prefer more fiery rhetoric and punches thrown, cool, I like that too. But we can also let her cook and recognize what an awesome asset she is for the movement.
Okay, I'll rephrase: in what way did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the...
No one said we are asking for anything unreasonable.
Okay, I'll rephrase: in what way did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to play in sports leagues that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for their pronouns to be respected?
Again, I understand that Sarah McBride and I will almost certainly align on just about everything we'd discuss, were that to actually happen. The optics here aren't great, and while I hate to play the "it matters not just what you said, but how you say it" card, I'm having to play it here - partly because being the most visible trans legislator in the nation puts a big spotlight on your actions, but also because I'm being told I'm being "antagonistic" in how I respond.
I also rankle at the very libertarian notion that things like bodily autonomy, trans kids' access to life- and gender-affirming care, and the like are "state issues". When your rights disappear if you travel across an imaginary line (a state border), you don't really have those rights, do you? If my marriage exists in Delaware but not in West Virginia, then does it truly exist in The United States?
It triggered a public backlash to democratic candidates in general. Many of those issues poll very poorly, especially the sports issues. A minority of democrats polled support it, let alone the...
in what way did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to play in sports leagues that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for their pronouns to be respected?
It triggered a public backlash to democratic candidates in general. Many of those issues poll very poorly, especially the sports issues. A minority of democrats polled support it, let alone the general public.
It makes democrats and democratic candidates sound like out of touch ivory tower residents.
Trigger backlash against democrats -> democrats lose political power -> republicans have free reign to implement more draconian policies.
I don't think trans rights triggered a backlash towards Democratic candidates in general, considering there's been an international movement away from liberal democracy in recent years. One could...
I don't think trans rights triggered a backlash towards Democratic candidates in general, considering there's been an international movement away from liberal democracy in recent years.
One could argue that the Democratic Party's refusal to back their trans constituents, and their allies, could just as easily have led to the results we saw.
Still, I personally do not consider "asking for basic rights" to be "overplaying their hand". I don't think that argument would have held water in the 1950s; in fact I seem to recall several civil rights leaders criticizing exactly that sentiment.
Trump’s trans related ads were extremely effective. From Harris’s own superpac The results proved the opposite. NY swung from +20D to +5D. Overwhelming liberal centers swung right last election....
Trump’s trans related ads were extremely effective. From Harris’s own superpac
According to an analysis by the Democratic super PAC Future Forward, "Kamala is for they/them" was one of Trump's most effective 30-second attack ads, shifting the race 2.7 percentage points in favor of Trump after viewers watched it.
One could argue that the Democratic Party's refusal to back their trans constituents, and their allies, could just as easily have led to the results we saw.
The results proved the opposite. NY swung from +20D to +5D. Overwhelming liberal centers swung right last election.
Still, I personally do not consider "asking for basic rights" to be "overplaying their hand".
That’s seems to be conflating two different things. It’s fine if your personal ethics are such that you consider that line an uncrossable one - that’s an entirely different matter than the political question of whether or not supporting a statement backfires politically.
I don't see how the framing of that ad contradicts what I said, but c'est la vie. Harris did not support her trans constituents in response to that ad, did she? Regarding the political question, I...
I don't see how the framing of that ad contradicts what I said, but c'est la vie. Harris did not support her trans constituents in response to that ad, did she?
Regarding the political question, I think the general response towards Sarah McBride (online, I know) would indicate that her statements on the matter may be backfiring. Time will tell, both in terms of Sarah McBride and in terms of trans rights support being a political poison pill.
I get that politics involves contorting one's views and opinions to fit their constituents and to fit the political climate, but I don't think that the correct response to widespread revocation of rights is to say "let's stop asking for them so loudly".
What is the endgame of that? If continuing to maximalist ends with repeated republican control? If it means that Democrats realize they must make a coalition without this segment? Ultimately, you...
I get that politics involves contorting one's views and opinions to fit their constituents and to fit the political climate, but I don't think that the correct response to widespread revocation of rights is to say "let's stop asking for them so loudly".
What is the endgame of that? If continuing to maximalist ends with repeated republican control? If it means that Democrats realize they must make a coalition without this segment? Ultimately, you need to be in power in a democracy to make a difference.
There’s no point in being right, without being in control.
I think it’s poignant that Obama is remembered these days as the President who presided over legalized gay marriage in the US. But when asked on the campaign trail on it, this is what he had to say
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
The order of operations in democracy is always to change the minds of the public first, then to push for legislation.
I don’t think the point is for trans advocates to stop advocating. They should keep doing that, with the goal of changing minds. The call from McBride and Klein and others is that
a) political figures like Harris need to meet voters where they are. As a senatorial candidate, or presidential candidate, or DNC chair, your job first and foremost is to win elections. Nothing else happens without won elections.
b) advocacy groups should be more than welcome to, well, advocate, especially during the primaries. But once elections matchups are determined, they need to not eat their own. Rally around the coalition leader, and rally against the very obvious boogie man.
I would argue that you don't change the minds of the public without leading the conversation yourself, which Sarah McBride doesn't seem to be doing in that interview/article. Saying that you "need...
I would argue that you don't change the minds of the public without leading the conversation yourself, which Sarah McBride doesn't seem to be doing in that interview/article. Saying that you "need to meet people where they are at" and "you need to take the lead, but not too far" seems to be placing the emphasis for political opinion-changing on the public, rather than on the politicians who are in best position to shape that public opinion.
And yes, she does say to "lead, but not too far" ... to which I would ask, how far was too far for what trans people were asking for? How do you only get "a little rights"? When Roe v. Wade was decided, it wasn't to grant the right to an abortion only sometimes - it was the right, period. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, it wasn't just to grant the right to interracial marriage for some people - it was for all of us.
I agree that a politicians' first job is to win elections, and without going into the Harris campaign too far I believe there's a fairly simple reason as to why she lost. I don't think her support (or, really, lack thereof) for trans people ranked as high a disqualifier in the eyes of the general population as did the fact that she is a Black and Indian woman. But this thread isn't about Kamala Harris, so I'll stop there.
There’s a difference in the end between elected officials and unelected advocates. The former fundamentally needs to, and is expected to, express the views and interests of their electorate....
There’s a difference in the end between elected officials and unelected advocates. The former fundamentally needs to, and is expected to, express the views and interests of their electorate.
Saying that you "need to meet people where they are at" and "you need to take the lead, but not too far" seems to be placing the emphasis for political opinion-changing on the public
Yes, it is. Elected politicians are in a uniquely bad spot to do this.
How do you only get "a little rights"?
Very easily? “Rights” aren’t a monolith to begin with. Sports aren’t all that high on maslow’s heirarchy.
I agree that a politicians' first job is to win elections
Then you would agree with McBride if you did think that some of these maximalist policies are a political albatross?
I disagree; politicians are in the unique position to talk directly to millions of people. The fact that political opinion has been pushed so hard against trans people having equal rights came...
I disagree; politicians are in the unique position to talk directly to millions of people. The fact that political opinion has been pushed so hard against trans people having equal rights came down through demonization of them from politicians working in tandem with political organizations. People didn't just spontaneously hate trans people more; they were taught that it's okay to do so, from political groups and politicians working together to engineer that hatred. Democrats should try it sometime!
I wasn't just talking about sports and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, although trans inclusion in youth sports is a canary in the coalmine for wider rights. But I don't think we're going to agree on what a "right" is, are we? The right to be a trans person means having the right to be yourself - if you are a woman, you should be allowed to choose what that looks like. Trans representation in sports is being used as a cudgel to remove the rights of trans people generally.
I don't know that I agree that "maximalist policies" are a political albatross, because I honestly don't know what these "maximalist policies" are. I don't believe trans people have been asking for anything other than equal rights, which should not be controversial - but here we are, apparently.
I don't think it's actually anything specific to trans people at all. In my opinion, everything McBride is saying fits into a wider issue: that there seems to be a section of the left that wants...
And again, I would ask ... what has been so radically demanded by the trans community? What is so radical about basic respect vis-a-vis pronouns?
I don't think it's actually anything specific to trans people at all. In my opinion, everything McBride is saying fits into a wider issue: that there seems to be a section of the left that wants to do purity testing and norm policing even of people who largely agree with them instead of focusing on outcomes.
I don't mean to be rude but you're kind of doing it right now. Why focus on the title at all? You're jumping through all sorts of hoops to try and demonstrate how the title change is problematic but to what end? It's just creating antagonism in what otherwise is an interesting discussion.
I'm not jumping through hoops here; I'm addressing the content of the article itself. The article, title included, is about trans rights. Sure, it can be extrapolated to many subjects - but the...
I'm not jumping through hoops here; I'm addressing the content of the article itself.
The article, title included, is about trans rights. Sure, it can be extrapolated to many subjects - but the article, by framing and by content, is about trans rights.
I understand if you want to frame my position and posting here as "antagonistic", but I would ask that you wrestle with the question you've quoted from me. Please, don't redirect the focus of the question away from its subject - which was what I was arguing about in the first place, vis-a-vis the title of the article.
There are countless articles submitted to tildes where the submitter changes the title to make things (in their own opinion) clearer or less attention grabbing. The submitted title is accurate and...
There are countless articles submitted to tildes where the submitter changes the title to make things (in their own opinion) clearer or less attention grabbing.
The submitted title is accurate and more descriptive than what is honestly an engagement bait title from the NYT. I don’t see why we need to attempt to make the OP feel bad about this decision which is quite antagonistic.
Conversely, I've seen multiple instances on Tildes (and elsewhere) where editorializing the title has been reversed, simply because one's personal opinions of said article should not be allowed to...
Conversely, I've seen multiple instances on Tildes (and elsewhere) where editorializing the title has been reversed, simply because one's personal opinions of said article should not be allowed to color the perception of it.
I'm still failing to see how I've been antagonistic throughout this whole exchange, other than the fact that my first footstep into it was glib.
Can you not see how this is deeply paternalizing at best? In my experience this kind of statement is used as a stand in for "go fuck yourself" while appearing to maintain decorum.
Can you not see how this is deeply paternalizing at best?
I would suggest reading what trans people think about her, and this article, and perhaps reconsider why you thought editorializing it was a good idea.
In my experience this kind of statement is used as a stand in for "go fuck yourself" while appearing to maintain decorum.
This was my morning commute podcast the previous two days. I agree that the title "[...]on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights" doesn't really represent the conversation. It's vague because it could...
This was my morning commute podcast the previous two days. I agree that the title "[...]on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights" doesn't really represent the conversation. It's vague because it could be "Why the Left Lost [the election because of our position] on Trans Rights" versus "Why the Left Lost [the fight on] Trans Rights." The latter reading doesn't really make sense because the fight isn't lost; society is undergoing a backslide on all issues of rights trans rights included. But the former reading doesn't fit either because this is not a 2024 Post Mortem.
Rather this conversation is about nuance in discourse and how the left has become less liberal in rhetoric and played into the conservative "winner take all" strategy. She isn't saying that there isn't a place for harsher, absolutist rhetoric from rights activists and leaders. But change isn't going to happen overnight. Progress happens step-by-step and we need majorities in the legislative branches to pass those changes when they come to vote. We need presidents who will sign those bills and who will nominate judges who will defend our rights. Securing political structure will necessitate accepting people into our movement who agree with us 70% of the time and playing ball with people who agree with us 55% of the time.
She didn't really say anything new, this seems quite similar to her interview on whichever Pod Save podcast it was she was on, even the gulag line is word for word. I disagree with her portrayal...
She didn't really say anything new, this seems quite similar to her interview on whichever Pod Save podcast it was she was on, even the gulag line is word for word. I disagree with her portrayal of the current status quo and where the blame lies, even as I'm pretty much an educator myself and would prefer someone asking genuine questions to someone who pretends to be the perfect ally while saying shitty things. I agree with those points, but also it's absolutely nothing new or insightful. (I disagree firmly about cisgender being a bridge too far, "straight" and "heterosexual" had the exact same pushback - I'm not X I'm normal)
It's great she's able to pass bills, especially as a new legislator, and I think it's clearly more important to her than to make a stand. And positionally that's the call she's making. It's probably the best one politically for her.
Quite simply she's neither the leader nor the leftist that many trans folks would like her to be, and that's fine in the sense that she gets to make that choice. I think it's mildly ironic given her point that things aren't fair and that it's incumbent upon minorities to educate - where's the similar obligation on our rare examples of representation to lead on behalf of those same minorities; it seems contradictory. There seems comparable to me with the dichotomy between people who want to pass/assimilate vs the people who want to represent. The former can still be representation, but they're probably not going to be perceived as a leader for justice and equality, rather an exception to the rule.
For folks that are perhaps confused why there's a reaction to McBride like there is from many trans folks it's because her statements can be actively contrasted with things like this article from...
For folks that are perhaps confused why there's a reaction to McBride like there is from many trans folks it's because her statements can be actively contrasted with things like this article from two days ago.
The president's son falsely claimed during a recent conversation with right-wing pundit Benny Johnson that the man accused of murdering and attempting to murder Democratic lawmakers, who had a list of Democratic elected officials and other progressive activists he intended to target, is actually a left-wing extremist with connections to the trans community.
“It’s like the radical transgender movement is per capita the most violent domestic terror threat, if not in America, probably the entire world … because you have all these shooters and murderers or attempted murderers in such a tiny population," Trump Jr. said, contrary to all available evidence.
I could spend another fifteen minutes disproving all of this, from how the assassin in MN was anti-queer and delivered sermons to this point, to how trans folks are statistically more likely to be victims of crimes, all nicely sourced and linked. But this is all just lying and turning trans people into a scapegoat yet again. And it continues to be amplified in right wing spaces by both large and small voices. (This isn't limited to trans folks, every Facebook pride post is drowning in comments about mental illness and delusions and the like to an extent I've not seen possibly ever but certainly in the past decade.)
I would have to spend my entire day debunking horrific lies being shared in the press, and still be told that my introducing myself with pronouns, using cisgender, or thinking trans girls and women should get to play sports is a bridge too far. That the left is being too uncivil.
And I just don't think, in this world we're in, that this accurately reflects the current circumstances. Yes, change is often incremental, but I don't think I can be convinced that "we" reached too far, too fast when the backlash - from trans healthcare to sports to the ads during the election - is based on fictions rather than facts. So after we calmly discuss through it, and I compromise on what I've asked for, do we actually think they'll stop calling trans people violent, mentally ill terrorists? I don't.
It's why I said I agree with her in a generality, but it isn't a good "take" IMO and is not different from her same takes before (why this interview now NYT?) nor does it grapple with the reality of the rhetoric we see today.
Many trans folks want(ed) her to be an advocate and a leader for them not just a run of the mill Congresswoman, and their feelings of abandonment are valid. Because it feels like you don't even have the person who should get it in your corner, while being called the most dangerous violent domestic terror threat in the world, for advocating for your rights or just existing. At the same time she gets to choose this path and maybe it is indeed the best one long term.
But if you keep getting run over by a car, someone who says that eventually we can convince all the cars to stop if we're patient enough and keep calm enough is not likely to be anywhere as reassuring or immediately helpful as someone that leads a group of people to run over and pull you out.
I really enjoyed this interview with Rep. McBride. She is - I hope - representative of a new generation of politicians coming in who have seen how damaging extreme social media rhetoric is and want to try a new way - in her words, want to try grace.
I changed the title of the link because while she does talk about "why the left lost on trans rights," I think that title was a little unfair to her. I would've called it something like "Sarah McBride on trans rights and the need for grace."
I don't think you should editorialize the article's title, just because you think it was unfair to her.
I would suggest reading what trans people think about her, and this article, and perhaps reconsider why you thought editorializing it was a good idea.
This is a remarkably unhelpful comment. If you'd like to discuss something or even call me out, fine, but "educate yourself and then reconsider" doesn't contribute to discussion. It certainly doesn't make me think "oh no I did something bad." It just leaves me annoyed.
(I also think the implication that trans people have one, unified voice regarding Rep. McBride or this interview - which was released yesterday - is ridiculous.)
I've already called you out for editorializing the headline, because you felt it was unfair. Given everything I've read from trans folks online, regarding this article no less, I don't think it was unfair at all. Sarah McBride is becoming increasingly polarizing herself, in large part because she seems to be throwing the wider trans community under the bus.
I understand that people in general, and trans folks in particular, are not a monolith. But for every person I see supporting the views expressed in this article, I see many, many more denouncing it. Among those denouncing it are friends of mine who actually have a bone in the fight, so to speak.
The original title was "Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights."
I find all this extremely confusing. When I was talking about fairness, I meant because she discussed a ton of things and to focus on just one bit of it wasn't fair. (Some would call the NYT's original title............editorializing.)
But clearly you're implying that I was trying to shield her from criticism in changing the original title. Which I just don't get, because I don't see how the original title is in any way objectionable. I think it's a dumb title, but the notion that transgender people who don't like McBride would somehow find the original title more fair baffles me.
What would make the most sense to me is if you didn't know what the original title was, don't like Rep. McBride, saw me mention fairness, assumed the original title was something like "McBride: trans traitor?", figured I changed it to protect her, and then lashed out. If that's what happened, cool - now we both know what the original title is and it's all fine.
This is seriously the weirdest conversation I've been a part of on this website. Did you read the article in question? Because even to say "the views expressed [by McBride]" is a confusing choice of words. She talked about like 50 different things. Which views are we talking about?
Your title seems fine. The article is quite literally a transcript of Ezra Klein interviewing Rep. McBride. Your title describes it such that it does what it says on the tin.
The view among those with personal stakes that I know is that Sarah McBride is, in effect, blaming the victim for the state of trans rights and trans people in the USA. That view towards Sarah McBride is not limited to this one article; her actions and statements since being elected to the House, to some, reflect this view as well.
The title, "Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights," indicates that the article is about trans people and trans rights. She and Ezra may talk about a lot of things, but the article focuses on trans people and trans rights. It was not just "an interview with Sarah McBride"; it was an interview about her views on trans rights. The title of the article itself is controversial, because it is taking the framing of "trans rights" as something that The Left lost on. In effect, it is blaming the recurrence of Donald Trump as President, and the situation we're in right now, on trans people - either because of "the left" and its support of trans people at all, or because of a view that "the left" has been beholden to trans rights extremism - which simply isn't true, if one looks at the language used by most politicians viewed as being on "the left" about trans people.
So, by editorializing on the headline away from "Why The Left Lost on Trans Rights" to simply "an interview" takes the teeth out of what was actually said in the interview, how it has been framed by its author, and dismisses its focus on trans rights. It waters the whole thing down to "a chat" where it is actually a postmortem on trans rights as viewed in recent history.
Now, people that have read the article in full (I'm reading through it now) rankle at certain statements that Sarah McBride makes, such as:
In effect, Sarah McBride is saying that the act of simply stating one's pronouns was seen as "cultural aggression", something that the rest of the country was unprepared for and was "overplaying the hand" of trans rights. I, and many others, patently disagree with this. To say that something as minimal as stating one's pronouns is "Trans 201" and is far too radical a step feels just wrong. It's asking for a bare minimum of respect, and according "to some" this was a bridge too far.
Now, Sarah McBride does hedge her language throughout as stating that the blame doesn't fall on trans people. She does state:
That statement is immediately followed by (emphasis mine):
Within the context of the rest of the interview around those quotes, she is stating that what "the left" and what trans people have been doing has been wrong, has been ineffectual, has had the effect of actually ceding progress. The two statements, in my mind, don't gel - she says we're in this position because of a well-coordinated and -funded effort to demonize trans people (correct), and we're also here because whatever the trans community has been doing, hasn't worked - even though what the trans community has been doing has, in effect, allowed for Sarah McBride to achieve her political position and have this interview in the first place.
And again, I would ask ... what has been so radically demanded by the trans community? What is so radical about basic respect vis-a-vis pronouns?
I'll get to reading more of this article, but as it stands ... I'm not convinced that the problem is a lack of persuasive skills on the part of the left. I think the problem, as Sarah McBride has already stated herself, is a multi-billion dollar, coordinated effort to demonize trans people.
The notion that you have to only ask for so much, and that asking for too much is a bridge too far, just baffles me. Loving vs. Virginia was incredibly unpopular - far more unpopular in its time than it is now. It was incredibly unpopular ... until it wasn't. People like to think that the Civil Rights Movement had this deep but quiet support from people, particularly "the left" - and it simply never did have that support in its time. So the fact that trans rights may be unpopular now does not necessarily mean that trans people need to start asking for less; I would argue the opposite, that they need to keep asking for what they have been asking for - equal rights and basic respect.
I should also add that Sarah McBride is catching a lot of heat for her views and actions, as though she should be the perfect, idealized standard for trans people and the trans rights movement. That is putting too much pressure and unrealistic expectations on one person; in an ideal world, in a correct world, she would have the outspoken support of her peers on both sides of the aisle. As it stands, she is the first trans person to have achieved multiple political positions of note, and as far as I am aware she is the only one at the highest levels of American politics. Whether she likes it or not, she is representative of the trans community to some extent, and what she says and does ripples down across the country.
So when she doesn't stand up for herself or for her rights (see: Nancy Mace's bathroom bill), everyone sees it. When the first, and only, trans person in Congress does not stand up for her own right to use the bathroom that aligns with her gender identity, what does that tell everyone else? And when, even after accepting those decisions (and I would say, losses), her peers do not stand up for her, what does that say about "the left" (as defined by Republicans) and its support of trans rights?
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the entire article, I do find myself agreeing with Sarah McBride on a number of things. The notion that change happens slowly, incrementally - then seemingly all at once. Our politics has, of course, become too polarized (more on this in a moment). We do, of course, need to maintain hope for a better future.
Where I disagree is in many aspect of how those things are. I don't believe that the Civil Rights Movement made what progress it has by asking for proverbial scraps from the table. They demanded equal rights, and were roundly hated for it from both sides. They didn't stop asking for equal rights; folks didn't ask for fewer rights as a compromise, they didn't ask for states to determine individually what rights they were allowed to have - they persisted in requesting equal rights. Whether we've gotten there or not is debatable, but the fact remains that progress was made not in asking for less, but in persisting in asking for the same and forcing the Overton Window to shift towards their position.
Asking for less, in my view, only ever means you get less. You never become an equal by asking for inequality. Again, in my opinion.
Politics has definitely become more polarized, insofar as the Republican Party has become insistent on eliminating rights. I don't know how you seek compromise with someone who wants you removed from public life. What is the compromise position between "I want equal rights" and "I want to remove trans people from public life"? And yes, "not all republicans" and all that - but when the leader of your party wants you and your kind dead and gone, where are the voices from within the party saying no? Silence is complicity.
I lament the polarization only insofar as it's become a spigot of hatred from the political far-right, which hasn't been pushed back against by either "the left" or from within the Republican or Democratic parties. It's constant "we need to find compromise", and never "no, you're wrong actually".
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that this is a difficult topic in a difficult time, and there’s a lot of pain out there right now, some of which you’re no doubt feeling. I get it. I feel it too.
I think your question about McBride not standing up for herself is a good jumping off point. She talks about her reasoning for that at length in the interview. Rather than quote a snippet, I’ll put the whole thing in a dropdown. It's long, but I think the point she is making in its entirety is important and can't really be shortened down to just a single line.
Full Quote
That makes a lot of sense to me, and it resonates strongly with my own experiences. I spent a chunk of my life doing queer advocacy in a very conservative area that was broadly, openly hostile to LGBTQ people. If you need my bona fides, I’ve been spit at, threatened, and held at knife point. Furthermore, none of the advocacy that I did was aggressive, in-your-face activism designed to get a rise out of people. Instead it was, like McBride is advocating for, patient and strategic.
When she talks about “Trans 101” I don’t think she’s saying that the “101” is simply “uninformed” — it’s that anyone at the “101 level is outright misinformed. This is what can make something as simple as pronoun declaration look like a big deal -- something she emphasizes lives in their perceptions, rather than reality.
When and where I was doing queer advocacy, gay people were considered deviant, evil, and filthy. The people being awful to me largely thought they were being "reasonable" with their awful actions too, in part because they thought gay people were SO outrageously bad that violence against us was warranted. My “101 work” wasn’t about gay basics, it was about undoing that perception and getting people to see my humanity and the humanity of people like me by proxy.
McBride has, in my opinion, done this very well. Have you read her memoir? It’s heart-wrenching. Deeply human. Furthermore, she helped get Biden, the President of the United States of America, to move on trans issues.
I think it's only fair to account for stuff like this if we're sizing up McBride, which is something I hate doing in the first place because it feels icky, tokenizing, and regressive. I think indicting her for "not standing up for herself" as you have ignores McBride's own stated strategy and goals. I find it to be a pessimistic reading of a person who is a rare source of hope these days.
And I get it, it's hard not to be pessimistic right now. Things are unbelievably shitty. The worst they've been in my lifetime. I think it's a misfire, however, to aim that pessimism at her. I think taking down McBride is only possible if we displace blame onto her rather than onto the people putting her and all other trans people into impossible and awful situations.
If I'm reading you correctly, it's this principle that you take issue with in McBride, feeling that she's putting the blame on trans people or the left instead of the anti-trans Republicans and the right. I get how that feeling can rankle. I'm feeling it as well. I've gotten heated about it here before. I personally don't believe that's the point she's trying to make, but I can also see that such an argument has surface area in what she says.
You asked us to think about our responses, so I'm going to ask you, in full good faith, to do the same here. I think you and I share a common goal: we want trans people to be able to have rights and live with dignity. So my question to you is, do you think that a different headline and continued criticism of McBride advances that platform?
I ask that not as a rhetorical question that has an implicit answer. It's entirely fine if you say "yes." Personally, however, my answer is "no."
Thank you for the response. I have not read Sarah McBride's memoir, and I have zero doubts that it's full of heartbreak and trauma that I cannot begin to imagine. I ought to add it to my reading list.
After reading the entire article I have to admit that I'm more torn than I was going into it. Most of what I know about Sarah McBride comes through the lens of what my trans friends see in her - and my trans friends do not have a high opinion. I agree with her on many things that she put into that interview, as I've indicated in my EDITS throughout this thread.
To summarize my thoughts as they stand ... I agree that we need to find ways to work with the wider population to promote equality and get everyone "on board" with equal rights. I understand the optics that Sarah McBride is going for - she wants to be seen as someone above the attention-seeking behaviors of those around her, as someone moving towards equality without resorting to "reality TV" behavior. What I'm seeing from my friends, though, is that they want someone to be fighting for them - and there doesn't really appear to be anyone in the upper echelons of government doing so. Sarah McBride, being the trans person in the House, has the unique position to do exactly that - to visibly fight for trans people - and she does not appear to be doing so.
Notice I said appear. She's certainly doing it in her way! I have zero doubts about that. People are placing a lot of pressure on her to be a particular kind of person, and she's not going to appease everyone. However, I feel that she does her constituents (and trans people looking for a fighter) a disservice by suggesting that "the left" is asking for too much, too quickly. She seems to be taking the position that politicians follow in the wake of public opinion, rather than being in the unique position to shape it.
Based on everything I know about public opinion as it pertains to the Civil Rights Movement, public opinion followed the political decisions which support(ed) equal rights - not the other way around. The same, as I understand it, is true about Gay Rights, about marriage equality, and about damn near everything in such circles.
So, to state that "the left" is asking for too much, that it's too "academic" in its language (which is a right-wing talking point, as I'm sure you know) ... it doesn't feel like it's helping.
To answer your question - "do I think that a different headline and continued criticism of McBride advances [trans rights]?" - the answer I arrive at here is ...
No, but kind of?
I rankled at the headline change in large part because it diminishes the content of the interview. The interview is about trans rights. Sure, the headline may have been "engagement bait", but that's the headline that the NYT went with. To change the title from an interview discussing trans rights, to insisting that it's about "nothing in particular" as has been done throughout this thread, seem disingenuous to me.
I also rankle at the headline change because I believe in sharing articles via their headline, with editorialized views following. I'd be making the same complaint elsewhere, as I come across it. Others have done so across Tildes as well.
As for continuing to aim criticism at Sarah McBride, that's more complicated to me. I don't think any politician should be viewed as above criticism, but I also agree that Sarah McBride is receiving quite a bit more heat than she necessarily deserves. It's the unfortunate result of the current media system, which is so, so focused on disseminating hate towards trans people - Sarah McBride included. She's become the focus of a lot of hate, and the majority of it is undeserved.
But when an interview comes out where "the left" seems to be blamed for where things are right now, while simultaneously identifying the actual source of the blame (the billions poured into these hate campaigns) ... well, it could be that Sarah McBride's message is getting filtered through the eyes and words of the interviewer in a tremendously unfair manner. That's entirely possible, if not likely given what the NYT's position towards trans people has been (not great).
So, it's complicated. If times were different, views towards Sarah McBride on all sides would likely also be very different.
The way I interpreted her position on that was less "the left is to blame" and more "we got over our skis." Meaning we got a big win on gay marriage and we (rightfully) pressed the advantage. Other forces, primarily economic, as well as weakened institutional power (compromised RNC, inept DNC) lead to a shift in the political landscape. Being in an aggressive forward posture meant that on the changed political terrain civil rights messaging was off balance. In a sense I feel like we got baited 2016-2020 and doubled down versus adapting our strategy.
Edit: I've said elsewhere that I don't think civil rights was a difference maker in the election and I think blaming civil rights groups is a diversion tactic by institutional dems away from their ineptitude.
To add to what McBride was saying, social media is not a great medium for left-wing ideas.
Something I've noticed, but haven't really seen articulated, is the problem of what I call the "trickle down effect" of left-wing ideas. You have complicated concepts that require a good deal of knowledge to not only understand, but also accurately convey - especially to someone unfamiliar with them. You have academics writing books about an idea, thought leaders distilling that information into essays and videos, then us regular people trying our best to regurgitate that information to the uninitiated in short little internet posts. It's like trying to recount every important detail from a movie through a letterboxd review.
There's a lot of ways for that to go wrong. Nuanced takes on something like intersectionality and socioeconomic conditions turns into stuff like:
No 👏 more 👏 white 👏 men 👏
or: white privilege = every white kid is privileged.
On the other side, you have well-funded think tanks researching the most effective ways to exploit wedge issues through simple talking points that appeal to our social biases, then distributing them through a vast media ecosystem until something sticks. In this case, it was trans women in sports that stuck after a failed attempt at bathroom stuff.
It's how you get guys like Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh dunking on college kids with quick little one-liners. How is a 19 year old going to explain gender as a social construct, or the impacts of HRT on testosterone in that setting? How does one do that in a tweet or Instagram post?
To make matters worse, it takes so much effort to debunk misinformation whereas spreading it only takes a sentence or two.
I think that's why trans issues and "defund the police" got the biggest pushback. Just getting someone to understand those positions requires they basically unlearn everything they've heard since birth, and you have to do it in 60 seconds or 150 characters.
This is not about the complexity of left thoughts IMO, this is that it's relatively easy to dunk on college students, especially when you edit your own videos. "Man on the street" bits on late night shows demonstrated that it's not just 19 year olds either.
I appreciate your good faith reply. This helps me better understand your criticisms and intent.
I admittedly was someone who was skeptical from your initial post. Tildes as a community unfortunately has a checkered past regarding trans people getting shouted down or spoken over, so when I saw your initial posts — ones I perceived to be primarily about taking down McBride — I was worried we were headed down that path again.
My feelings also sit on the larger backdrop of trans takedowns online in general. It’s always tough for me to see a bunch of anti-trans garbage about someone from the right, only to then look to the left and see what looks like agreement in spirit but not in letter.
Now, I have my own thoughts on all of the topics on the table right now, of course, but I think it’s far less important for me to voice them than it is to acknowledge the common ground we stand on. We might disagree on strategy but we agree on outcomes.
I know you’ve had plenty of other replies to manage as well, so I appreciate the time you took to respond thoughtfully to me. Thank you.
If I've learned anything from the past several years, it's to stop and listen to the people most directly affected by a given issue. I try to practice that as much as I preach it.
It's very easy to disagree online; Sarah McBride would say as much. It's much harder to work towards solutions. On those, I listen to trans folks, Black folks, whichever group is in the crosshairs on a given topic.
In this case, it's my trans friends that I listen to, and they're not particularly happy with things.
That's her whole point. The gatekeeping tendencies of the left create a system of attrition that filters out people that we can work with to initiate change. This is bigger than trans rights, we see it on most planks of the leftist platform. Making perfection the inhibitor of progress.
I think she does understand herself to be a representative of the trans community. Near the end of the conversation she illustrates exactly how she navigates the personal dynamics of congress as someone filling this role.
My argument, though, is ... what is unreasonable about the movement from the left for trans rights? How are they asking for more than, say, what the Civil Rights Movement asked/asks for?
EDIT TO ADD: coincidentally, I've now read to the point where Sarah McBride compares the efforts towards trans rights to the efforts during the Civil Rights Era. I'm not convinced that the Civil Rights Era was all about compromise the way she does.
I've also noticed that she frames a lot of this interview as an "intolerant left" situation - where there's this hotbed of intolerance brewing among "the left" towards anyone that isn't ideologically pure on every issue. And, to a limited extent, that may be true! But she also notes that "real-world" interactions aren't like those on the internet. She simultaneously acknowledges that interactions on the internet do not necessarily reflect real peoples' views on things, and real peoples' ability to cooperate with each other - while also bemoaning the state of online discourse as somehow shaping the opinion of the left-wing side of politics. I'm not certain you can have it both ways.
My thoughts on politics and social justice movements were shaped by Heifetz' book Leadership without easy answers which I was assigned to read in a class nearly 30 years ago.
The book compares president Johnson to Rev Dr Martin Luther King to make a broader case that leadership from within elected positions necessarily looks different than leadership from outsiders and that both kinds of leaders are needed to effect change.
I don't know how well that thesis has stood up to time and research but it changed the way I think.
Politics, like poker and war, can require deception and ambush tactics to achieve goals.
To change the angle of what I am saying slightly, elected politicians have to be crowd whisperers.
Thanks for listening to my Ted talk. I don't know whether McBride is correct in her choices as a politician.
Obama employed strategic ambiguity on same-sex marriage: in his first term, he was against it but supported same-sex unions. In his second term, he came out fully in support of gay marriage. There is evidence that he always supported gay marriage at a personal level, but he understood that he had to play the greater game.
I don't envy the work of politics. It's important, necessary work, but the nature of a healthy democracy demands severe compromise. If you do your work right, you earn few friends: your enemies will never stop hating you, and your allies will inevitably feel betrayed.
Carter did something similar with regard to political rights for black people. Then in office he appointed many minorities and women. He also aggressively enforced civil rights laws.
No one said we are asking for anything unreasonable. This is a strategic conversation about means because we agree on the ends. We want change today, but I don't have a magic wand to do that. What we have is a country where the majority of people support adult bodily autonomy (cited in the podcast/article) and divided on many other points. Let's have the political power to take what's on the table. Let's have a coalition that has power to defend those laws through changing political winds.
The "Civil Rights Era" generally refers to 10-15 years in the middle of the 20th century. But the foundation of work that lead to a successful civil rights movement happened before and during that critical decade.
I think you've illustrated the point by citing the groups who are attacking her and calling her a traitor. We see the same thing with Bernie-bros who hopped the trump bandwagon: "if we can't have it all we gotta burn it down." In this conversation we hear the thought process and strategic politics of the person most well positioned to effect change on this issue. If they prefer more fiery rhetoric and punches thrown, cool, I like that too. But we can also let her cook and recognize what an awesome asset she is for the movement.
Okay, I'll rephrase: in what way did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for the right to play in sports leagues that align with their gender? How did people "overplay their hand" in asking for their pronouns to be respected?
Again, I understand that Sarah McBride and I will almost certainly align on just about everything we'd discuss, were that to actually happen. The optics here aren't great, and while I hate to play the "it matters not just what you said, but how you say it" card, I'm having to play it here - partly because being the most visible trans legislator in the nation puts a big spotlight on your actions, but also because I'm being told I'm being "antagonistic" in how I respond.
I also rankle at the very libertarian notion that things like bodily autonomy, trans kids' access to life- and gender-affirming care, and the like are "state issues". When your rights disappear if you travel across an imaginary line (a state border), you don't really have those rights, do you? If my marriage exists in Delaware but not in West Virginia, then does it truly exist in The United States?
It triggered a public backlash to democratic candidates in general. Many of those issues poll very poorly, especially the sports issues. A minority of democrats polled support it, let alone the general public.
It makes democrats and democratic candidates sound like out of touch ivory tower residents.
Trigger backlash against democrats -> democrats lose political power -> republicans have free reign to implement more draconian policies.
I don't think trans rights triggered a backlash towards Democratic candidates in general, considering there's been an international movement away from liberal democracy in recent years.
One could argue that the Democratic Party's refusal to back their trans constituents, and their allies, could just as easily have led to the results we saw.
Still, I personally do not consider "asking for basic rights" to be "overplaying their hand". I don't think that argument would have held water in the 1950s; in fact I seem to recall several civil rights leaders criticizing exactly that sentiment.
Trump’s trans related ads were extremely effective. From Harris’s own superpac
The results proved the opposite. NY swung from +20D to +5D. Overwhelming liberal centers swung right last election.
That’s seems to be conflating two different things. It’s fine if your personal ethics are such that you consider that line an uncrossable one - that’s an entirely different matter than the political question of whether or not supporting a statement backfires politically.
I don't see how the framing of that ad contradicts what I said, but c'est la vie. Harris did not support her trans constituents in response to that ad, did she?
Regarding the political question, I think the general response towards Sarah McBride (online, I know) would indicate that her statements on the matter may be backfiring. Time will tell, both in terms of Sarah McBride and in terms of trans rights support being a political poison pill.
I get that politics involves contorting one's views and opinions to fit their constituents and to fit the political climate, but I don't think that the correct response to widespread revocation of rights is to say "let's stop asking for them so loudly".
What is the endgame of that? If continuing to maximalist ends with repeated republican control? If it means that Democrats realize they must make a coalition without this segment? Ultimately, you need to be in power in a democracy to make a difference.
There’s no point in being right, without being in control.
I think it’s poignant that Obama is remembered these days as the President who presided over legalized gay marriage in the US. But when asked on the campaign trail on it, this is what he had to say
The order of operations in democracy is always to change the minds of the public first, then to push for legislation.
I don’t think the point is for trans advocates to stop advocating. They should keep doing that, with the goal of changing minds. The call from McBride and Klein and others is that
a) political figures like Harris need to meet voters where they are. As a senatorial candidate, or presidential candidate, or DNC chair, your job first and foremost is to win elections. Nothing else happens without won elections.
b) advocacy groups should be more than welcome to, well, advocate, especially during the primaries. But once elections matchups are determined, they need to not eat their own. Rally around the coalition leader, and rally against the very obvious boogie man.
I would argue that you don't change the minds of the public without leading the conversation yourself, which Sarah McBride doesn't seem to be doing in that interview/article. Saying that you "need to meet people where they are at" and "you need to take the lead, but not too far" seems to be placing the emphasis for political opinion-changing on the public, rather than on the politicians who are in best position to shape that public opinion.
And yes, she does say to "lead, but not too far" ... to which I would ask, how far was too far for what trans people were asking for? How do you only get "a little rights"? When Roe v. Wade was decided, it wasn't to grant the right to an abortion only sometimes - it was the right, period. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, it wasn't just to grant the right to interracial marriage for some people - it was for all of us.
I agree that a politicians' first job is to win elections, and without going into the Harris campaign too far I believe there's a fairly simple reason as to why she lost. I don't think her support (or, really, lack thereof) for trans people ranked as high a disqualifier in the eyes of the general population as did the fact that she is a Black and Indian woman. But this thread isn't about Kamala Harris, so I'll stop there.
There’s a difference in the end between elected officials and unelected advocates. The former fundamentally needs to, and is expected to, express the views and interests of their electorate.
Saying that you "need to meet people where they are at" and "you need to take the lead, but not too far" seems to be placing the emphasis for political opinion-changing on the public
Yes, it is. Elected politicians are in a uniquely bad spot to do this.
Very easily? “Rights” aren’t a monolith to begin with. Sports aren’t all that high on maslow’s heirarchy.
Then you would agree with McBride if you did think that some of these maximalist policies are a political albatross?
I disagree; politicians are in the unique position to talk directly to millions of people. The fact that political opinion has been pushed so hard against trans people having equal rights came down through demonization of them from politicians working in tandem with political organizations. People didn't just spontaneously hate trans people more; they were taught that it's okay to do so, from political groups and politicians working together to engineer that hatred. Democrats should try it sometime!
I wasn't just talking about sports and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, although trans inclusion in youth sports is a canary in the coalmine for wider rights. But I don't think we're going to agree on what a "right" is, are we? The right to be a trans person means having the right to be yourself - if you are a woman, you should be allowed to choose what that looks like. Trans representation in sports is being used as a cudgel to remove the rights of trans people generally.
I don't know that I agree that "maximalist policies" are a political albatross, because I honestly don't know what these "maximalist policies" are. I don't believe trans people have been asking for anything other than equal rights, which should not be controversial - but here we are, apparently.
I don't think it's actually anything specific to trans people at all. In my opinion, everything McBride is saying fits into a wider issue: that there seems to be a section of the left that wants to do purity testing and norm policing even of people who largely agree with them instead of focusing on outcomes.
I don't mean to be rude but you're kind of doing it right now. Why focus on the title at all? You're jumping through all sorts of hoops to try and demonstrate how the title change is problematic but to what end? It's just creating antagonism in what otherwise is an interesting discussion.
I'm not jumping through hoops here; I'm addressing the content of the article itself.
The article, title included, is about trans rights. Sure, it can be extrapolated to many subjects - but the article, by framing and by content, is about trans rights.
I understand if you want to frame my position and posting here as "antagonistic", but I would ask that you wrestle with the question you've quoted from me. Please, don't redirect the focus of the question away from its subject - which was what I was arguing about in the first place, vis-a-vis the title of the article.
There are countless articles submitted to tildes where the submitter changes the title to make things (in their own opinion) clearer or less attention grabbing.
The submitted title is accurate and more descriptive than what is honestly an engagement bait title from the NYT. I don’t see why we need to attempt to make the OP feel bad about this decision which is quite antagonistic.
Conversely, I've seen multiple instances on Tildes (and elsewhere) where editorializing the title has been reversed, simply because one's personal opinions of said article should not be allowed to color the perception of it.
I'm still failing to see how I've been antagonistic throughout this whole exchange, other than the fact that my first footstep into it was glib.
Can you not see how this is deeply paternalizing at best?
In my experience this kind of statement is used as a stand in for "go fuck yourself" while appearing to maintain decorum.
Then I'll refrain from making such statements in the future.
This was my morning commute podcast the previous two days. I agree that the title "[...]on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights" doesn't really represent the conversation. It's vague because it could be "Why the Left Lost [the election because of our position] on Trans Rights" versus "Why the Left Lost [the fight on] Trans Rights." The latter reading doesn't really make sense because the fight isn't lost; society is undergoing a backslide on all issues of rights trans rights included. But the former reading doesn't fit either because this is not a 2024 Post Mortem.
Rather this conversation is about nuance in discourse and how the left has become less liberal in rhetoric and played into the conservative "winner take all" strategy. She isn't saying that there isn't a place for harsher, absolutist rhetoric from rights activists and leaders. But change isn't going to happen overnight. Progress happens step-by-step and we need majorities in the legislative branches to pass those changes when they come to vote. We need presidents who will sign those bills and who will nominate judges who will defend our rights. Securing political structure will necessitate accepting people into our movement who agree with us 70% of the time and playing ball with people who agree with us 55% of the time.
She didn't really say anything new, this seems quite similar to her interview on whichever Pod Save podcast it was she was on, even the gulag line is word for word. I disagree with her portrayal of the current status quo and where the blame lies, even as I'm pretty much an educator myself and would prefer someone asking genuine questions to someone who pretends to be the perfect ally while saying shitty things. I agree with those points, but also it's absolutely nothing new or insightful. (I disagree firmly about cisgender being a bridge too far, "straight" and "heterosexual" had the exact same pushback - I'm not X I'm normal)
It's great she's able to pass bills, especially as a new legislator, and I think it's clearly more important to her than to make a stand. And positionally that's the call she's making. It's probably the best one politically for her.
Quite simply she's neither the leader nor the leftist that many trans folks would like her to be, and that's fine in the sense that she gets to make that choice. I think it's mildly ironic given her point that things aren't fair and that it's incumbent upon minorities to educate - where's the similar obligation on our rare examples of representation to lead on behalf of those same minorities; it seems contradictory. There seems comparable to me with the dichotomy between people who want to pass/assimilate vs the people who want to represent. The former can still be representation, but they're probably not going to be perceived as a leader for justice and equality, rather an exception to the rule.
For folks that are perhaps confused why there's a reaction to McBride like there is from many trans folks it's because her statements can be actively contrasted with things like this article from two days ago.
I could spend another fifteen minutes disproving all of this, from how the assassin in MN was anti-queer and delivered sermons to this point, to how trans folks are statistically more likely to be victims of crimes, all nicely sourced and linked. But this is all just lying and turning trans people into a scapegoat yet again. And it continues to be amplified in right wing spaces by both large and small voices. (This isn't limited to trans folks, every Facebook pride post is drowning in comments about mental illness and delusions and the like to an extent I've not seen possibly ever but certainly in the past decade.)
I would have to spend my entire day debunking horrific lies being shared in the press, and still be told that my introducing myself with pronouns, using cisgender, or thinking trans girls and women should get to play sports is a bridge too far. That the left is being too uncivil.
And I just don't think, in this world we're in, that this accurately reflects the current circumstances. Yes, change is often incremental, but I don't think I can be convinced that "we" reached too far, too fast when the backlash - from trans healthcare to sports to the ads during the election - is based on fictions rather than facts. So after we calmly discuss through it, and I compromise on what I've asked for, do we actually think they'll stop calling trans people violent, mentally ill terrorists? I don't.
It's why I said I agree with her in a generality, but it isn't a good "take" IMO and is not different from her same takes before (why this interview now NYT?) nor does it grapple with the reality of the rhetoric we see today.
Many trans folks want(ed) her to be an advocate and a leader for them not just a run of the mill Congresswoman, and their feelings of abandonment are valid. Because it feels like you don't even have the person who should get it in your corner, while being called the most dangerous violent domestic terror threat in the world, for advocating for your rights or just existing. At the same time she gets to choose this path and maybe it is indeed the best one long term.
But if you keep getting run over by a car, someone who says that eventually we can convince all the cars to stop if we're patient enough and keep calm enough is not likely to be anywhere as reassuring or immediately helpful as someone that leads a group of people to run over and pull you out.
/My frustrated 3 non-binary cents