Post

I've seen a lot of people criticise the handful of Dems who've triangulated on trans rights who also grudgingly say that perhaps it's necessary to win. I think this illustrates neatly why I've never found that argument persuasive. Transphobia is a luxury issue, and these are *very* lean times.

It makes me want to scream when I see mainstream outlets launder the idea that trans rights are some unique weakspot for Dems, while also reiterating the foundational myth that the "Kamala is for They/Them" ad was uniquely effective. There is no verifiable evidence for either.

So what this means is that any Dem who responds to the fusillade of transphobic attacks by saying something like "uhh I don't support men in women's sports!" is not just being immoral but engaging in bad politics. It just reiterates their opponent's attack, accepts the framing, and spreads it.

It's certainly true that when you're being barraged by these ads you should say *something*--silence and evasion starts to look bad all on its own--but you should deflect rather than validate the frame. On sports, e.g., say you support local control. Get the government out of the locker room.

When I say "transphobia is a luxury issue" I mean that campaigning to brutalise trans children and assault trans people's liberties and dignity is something you can only care about passionately if you prize bigotry above almost all else--which many of these Republicans do. They *really* hate us.

That is not where the overwhelming majority of the electorate is at; this is no one's top issue, weird as median voters often are. There's no upside for even red state Dems to triangulate on trans issues; when you look at the polls and how good they are for D's it gets even more ridiculous.

If Musk's millions cannot improve the lot of Ken "Trans Witchfinder General" Paxton by flooding the commercial airwaves of every bush league football game with transphobia, that should say something about how even the most embattled Dem should approach the topic.