No. Soft-pedaling their excruciatingly small minority is not throwing them under the bus. But you're illustrating the point perfectly. You're talking about alienating millions of undecided voters for 0.0019% of college athletes. Politically, that's dumb. Dems have to WIN first.
No. Soft-pedaling their excruciatingly small minority is not throwing them under the bus. But you're illustrating the point perfectly. You're talking about alienating millions of undecided voters for 0.0019% of college athletes. Politically, that's dumb. Dems have to WIN first.
Define "soft-pedaling"?
Being a small minority doesn't make trans people less vulnerable, it makes them more vulnerable and therefore more in need of legal protection.
Democrats and other Progressives may do well to tread lightly on the trans women in sports issue. It directly affects an excruciatingly small number of trans athletes, and I don't think it's a ditch worth dying in before the elections. Dems have to WIN first, and "identity politics," as the Right calls it, has a pretty sizeable opportunity cost. It just does.
The Republicans are hitting back hard on this one. Last night I saw a Republican ad in opposition to the Democratic nominee in my home district, and I saw a similar ad against Ossoff in the Georga Senate race.
Yet, it is estimated less than 1% of trans women end up in female sports.
You can call that making a mountain out of a mole hill, I guess.
My opinion is that Trans Policy should be well down the Progressive platform in 2026 & 2028.
Trans rights really aren't on the mainstream Democratic agenda anywhere. A very few Democratic elected officials are responding strongly to the attacks on trans people which Republicans started, but most are cowardly dodging trans questions if they're asked, or outright agreeing with Republicans that trans people's rights should be restricted.
This is a very good illustration of a phenomenon in the American media: Democratic Party officials are held to account for the opinions of the wildest leftists on social media (a la Hasan Piker), most of whom aren't even Democrats; but Republican candidates can accept literal millions of dollars from an exciting variety of white/Christian supremacists and still be called a "pro-business" or "small government" party rather than a pro-apartheid party.
On a personal note I'm disgusted to see that kind of transphobic language being used here and I find the stance associated with it equally repulsive. If people join fascists in throwing those they demonise and scapegoat under a bus and refusing to defend them, then congratulations to those politicians and voters on joining a fascist movement themselves. And it tells me as someone who belongs to another of their scapegoated groups that I wont be defended either and they'll sell me out too just as soon as they think that is convenient.
If you let the Democrats move the goalposts on defending the rights of vulnerable minorities once (and this applies to any vulnerable minority), it will just never stop. We have plenty of evidence of that here in the UK. Labour didn't change their tactics once they got elected; they got worse.
Comments
Define "soft-pedaling"?
Being a small minority doesn't make trans people less vulnerable, it makes them more vulnerable and therefore more in need of legal protection.
I'm speaking specifically about the issue of trans women (hidden text - transphobic language - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host)
The Republicans are hitting back hard on this one. Last night I saw a Republican ad in opposition to the Democratic nominee in my home district, and I saw a similar ad against Ossoff in the Georga Senate race.
Yet, it is estimated less than 1% of trans women end up in female sports.
You can call that making a mountain out of a mole hill, I guess.
@The_Riv I have hidden a term in your post which is offensive to trans people. Please refrain from using this term.
Hostly beret off, la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Trans rights really aren't on the mainstream Democratic agenda anywhere. A very few Democratic elected officials are responding strongly to the attacks on trans people which Republicans started, but most are cowardly dodging trans questions if they're asked, or outright agreeing with Republicans that trans people's rights should be restricted.
This is a very good illustration of a phenomenon in the American media: Democratic Party officials are held to account for the opinions of the wildest leftists on social media (a la Hasan Piker), most of whom aren't even Democrats; but Republican candidates can accept literal millions of dollars from an exciting variety of white/Christian supremacists and still be called a "pro-business" or "small government" party rather than a pro-apartheid party.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/6226/trump-officially-fucks-trans-kids-over#latest
On a personal note I'm disgusted to see that kind of transphobic language being used here and I find the stance associated with it equally repulsive. If people join fascists in throwing those they demonise and scapegoat under a bus and refusing to defend them, then congratulations to those politicians and voters on joining a fascist movement themselves. And it tells me as someone who belongs to another of their scapegoated groups that I wont be defended either and they'll sell me out too just as soon as they think that is convenient.
Apologies to all.