The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

It seems that some Democrat Party members (ex-Biden Administration staff) are not open to changing their minds with new facts and I think Benjamin Ryan sums this up well:

https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1858376843415404708

‘Jen Psaki accurately asserts that there are few trans kids playing in sports. But she falsely claims there’s no evidence that such kids pose a threat to fairness. There are studies finding that natal males, even on estrogen, have a competitive advantage’

There’s a video clip of Psaki saying these things in the tweet I quoted above.

A teacher friend in the UK was somewhat alarmed at a group of boys in her class last week chanting Trump Trump Trump.

After 9/11 we had a bunch of little twerps (mostly in Y9) hero-worshipping Osama bin Laden and wanting to join al-Qaeda. This was in a good school in a prosperous, historic Midlands market town. We had an assembly telling them not to do it.
Teenage boys can be very strange.

It's not about womens rights really. It's that trans issues bring a focal point to all that's wrong in Democrat thinking.

And this is what helped to sink Kamala Harris because when this got exposed she was unable to put forward any counter to the Kamala is for they/them attack ads because these were her choices:
a) "I've changed my position" leading to Democratic activists losing their minds and going after her;
b) "Those are my views" which would have meant undecided voters fleeing from her; or
c) say something that's actually nothing at all because it's the choice with the least risk/damage.

Which brings us back to the subject of the thread. Democrats at the moment cannot have a honest conversation on gender identity because they cannot disown mad views that they've not only held for years, but have aggressively and ruthlessly enforced.

Yes re the observation. Lots of people havev said it on here and it's crap that it's true.

I don't think I'm meant to reluctantly accept it though 🙃

However, and this is where I'm going to duck for cover..... I have reluctantly accepted that in order for enough decision makers (who are mostly men in most organisations) to hear what is being said, it takes men's voices repeating it. Acknowledging this shitty reality

I don't think that's a duck and cover.

That's an observation of the last 8 years. Women can say it over and over again until they are blue in the face, but no one pays attention until a bloke comments. Women are just there to be abused.

As I said on thread 1, my primary focus for being on this board hasn't been women's rights, it's been the direct and indirect risk to my autistic daughter when she started to wonder if she was really a girl.

Fast forward to now and I've learned loads about women's rights (and politics in general) from the brilliant posters on this board. Doing everything I can to mitigate the indirect risk to my daughter meant I needed to learn as much as I could about all of it.

pressure from women has always made a big difference and has this time too.

I agree. However, and this is where I'm going to duck for cover..... I have reluctantly accepted that in order for enough decision makers (who are mostly men in most organisations) to hear what is being said, it takes men's voices repeating it. Acknowledging this shitty reality, I would much prefer that these men are like Andrew Neil, when he gave a big push after Chloe Cole spoke up and then conceded that many women had been warning about this for many years. His apology was a breath of fresh air. However, I'm also glad that men I find revolting, self-centred, sexist etc are finally starting to say things. The "Nigel Farage told me so I get it now" style coming from Campbell is as hard to stomach as the "grab 'em by the pussy" style from Trump but if it results in gender identity belief being ripped out of schools, hospitals, sports and laws so be it. Yes, I'm crap at feminism... I realised this ages ago 😬 I'm glad lots of others aren't though and I'm incredibly grateful to all the amazing women who have done so much to expose this and get it out in the open.

It's about underlying principles and material reality rather than womens rights when it comes down to it.

Yes, agreed a good summary. I think most feminists have been aware of this likely trajectory from the beginning of this debate, but pressure from women has always made a big difference and has this time too.

I think that's a good assessment.

It's not about womens rights really. It's that trans issues bring a focal point to all that's wrong in Democrat thinking.

And then by consequence there can't be anything other than a push back on these points of principle rather than there being a push to reinstate women's rights.

Thank you!😁

Thank you. This is a really interesting insight.

I think this bit is particularly pertinent (my bold):

I suspect this is the way the broader conversation will go too - initial critiques of identity politics and Democrats not listening to what voters want will become sharper and more focussed on sex/gender. It won’t happen because many care about women’s rights, but some do care about science and rational thought and all of them can see that it represents the pinnacle of the Democratic Party’s detachment from reality.

From my casual observation this side of the pond, it feels like it's an issue of fairness in sport (and a recognition that it's unfair if sex categories aren't maintained), fairness in accessing sports funding (which is also unfair if sex categories aren't maintained) and the harm of "gender affirming care" to children that seems to be peaking people. Also perhaps the use of tax payers' money to fund "sex change" operations. Women's rights become a bi-product in that focus.

However, once the sunlight is on the detachment from reality, everything that is propped up by gender identity belief will logically crumble.

@BabaYagasHouse yes, that was the one I was mostly thinking of.

@BonfireLady Bit of both really. Although I am more left wing than most of the hosts of these shows, I’ve been listening to a lot of never Trump Republicans over the last few years. They’ve tended to focus on why MAGA arose, its danger to the US and the world and effective strategies to defeat it. Their emphasis has been on saving democracy rather than party political anrguemnt and they’ve offered a lot of interesting insights on issues like the direction of the Latino vote.

Politicology and the Lincoln Project are interesting because their various hosts seem to be somewhat at odds on the sex/gender issue so they often tip-toed around it. But that seems to have shifted since the election and though at present it’s mainly framed as a critique of identity politics, this seems to be solidifying into something more concrete.

I suspect this is the way the broader conversation will go too - initial critiques of identity politics and Democrats not listening to what voters want will become sharper and more focussed on sex/gender. It won’t happen because many care about women’s rights, but some do care about science and rational thought and all of them can see that it represents the pinnacle of the Democratic Party’s detachment from reality.

Covid and the lockdown is what did it for my American friend. She sounds a bit like the woman you describe; someone who has always looked to a healthy diet and to self reliance when it comes to her health. She hadn't seen a doctor for twenty years until just recently when she had an ear infection that wasn't responding to her own treatments.

A lot of people I know grew up and became politically conscious in that sort of culture ( I did myself); and they always tended towards Left/Socialist type thinking......but increasingly I find they have now moved away from what passes as 'Leftism' these days. They didn't like the authoritarianism of lockdown and covid vaccinations, and the lionising of pharmaceuticals as the panacea for everything.

I think arguments coming from what many would describe as the Right are where the radical/anti establishment positions are these days.

Yes, very much this. You could see the difference between a state like California, where masking was like religion, and Florida, where it wasn't encouraged in the same way. Which is to say, they both had ups and downs regardless of the rules.

Everyone knows that Trump is crooked. We know he's a sexist pig. You can't pin anything on him for it.

It's like the final rap battle in 8 Mile. If you admit everything there is no power in the accusations.

Trump doesn't need to do that of course because he sort of flaunts his crookedness and no-one can criticise him because it makes them hypocrites.

I think this sums up a lot of my frustration.

Everyone knows that Trump is crooked. We know he's a sexist pig. You can't pin anything on him for it.

The Dems have seen this coming a mile off, and haven't been able to respond. And they are totally reactionary.

There is nothing proactive about them. They don't offer anything different. They don't see their own flaws. They don't see their problems when others can see them.

Then they play the self righteous tone and the whole thing just alienates.

The thing with a good conspiracy theory is that everyone is built off the back of a grain of the truth that's a problem.

The fact that so much was resonating with the public first time around should have been a real worry. There's no good in just writing it off as fake news.

You have to be proactive in offering an alternative.

The over arching theme is the desire for change and not doing the same thing over and over again making the same mistake or neglecting the same thing.

There are numerous issues that have been washed over that the Democrats have been blind to. We've picked up on a few - not simply relating to trans issues - but across the board.

The thing about the trans issue is it seems to somehow bring a lot of these simmering issues into one narrow sub issue though and that makes it almost act as a lightning rod for the bigger picture. It also embodies everything wrong in one near little Bud Lite advert.

Indeed the Bud Lite advert should have been a warning sign with the effect it had on sales. It was easy to right off as being 'just rednecks' but Bud Lite had a pretty wide appeal and it totally screwed it and then was amplified by parody and scorn. The Dems election run up and campaign should have had this backlash firmly on their radar - it was run by advertising executives - they should have been fully aware of the Bud Backlash.

The fact they seem totally taken by surprise over what's happened really says so much for me.

I'm angry that the Dems just sat on their laurels and thought that they were better than Trump and didn't need to offer change.

Just a side thought, it's curious how Eastern Europe which was occupied by Communist government is much more wary of left wing authoritarian and seems to be more vulnerable to right wing authoritarianism now. The opposite being true of Western Europe which was occupied by a Nazi government.

By the same token if we have a generation of kids who felt they were indoctrinated and forced into accepting Gender Identity by schools and a Democrat leaning government and that they were all Winston, then the generation just coming out of school might be more open to Trump. This seems to be something that may be reflected in the voting figures.

A teacher friend in the UK was somewhat alarmed at a group of boys in her class last week chanting Trump Trump Trump. Again this all fits with the rise of Andrew Tate and incelism to an extent too.

I think Labour have inherited something of a poison chalice and it does make me worry. Western Europe as a whole seems to be turning it's head away from the status quoism of centre liberalism because of this feeling of stagnation and of institutionalised corruption.

This should be on the radar of every good politician who believes in out there, who falls into this bracket. The LD in theory should be the ones leading the charge but I'm really not seeing much going on apart from a bunch of navel gazing and infighting.

The two, recent 'The Good Fight' ones are excellent, I thought. Especially the one with Francis Fukuyama:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4cWTTbj2pK3fnoa1eG3BUs?si=EoRtFXbcRCmlNqFKBHXWPQ

Forgive my ignorance on both US podcasts and which way they politically lean.
Are the ones in this list the "usual suspects" for an analysis like this or is there a notable shift in the every day public discourse?
Once we've gone past a threshold on this in open conversation, it's presumably going to snowball. There will always be people who see it as a niche issue but that's almost irrelevant in itself (and eats its own logic) if it becomes big enough for lots of people to talk about it. The more it gets talked about, the more obvious it becomes that something just isn't right about men identifying in to women's sports and unevidenced medical interventions, to name but two things.

@Appalonia The Bulwark, Politicology, The Good Fight, The Home Front, Blocked and Reported and the Lincoln Project Podcast have all discussed this, some more than others. There has definitely been more on this since the election and I expect more to come.

Loving the rambling. This is great stuff.

Also thank you @Ingenieur for starting a new thread. I fully agree with @QuietlyStorming that the first had some fantastic posts on it. I'm glad I finally read the whole thing.

Are there any you can recommend? I'd love to hear the discussion on this.

One of the things that has really struck me, Red, in the last few years, is the way Democrats, which is where American voters who tended to be anti-corporatist, and anti Big pharma were found, seem to have become firmly on the side of these things.
@TempestTost This is where, though the UK has its own issues, I am really really glad we have limits on the amount of money that can be spent on election campaigns etc. Political parties in the UK still need to raise money (and have done some dodgy deals in the past for sure) but it isn't anything like the scale of what looks like more of an arms race in America - I can't see how you could raise enough money to compete with a rival campaign that ran into billions of dollars without soliciting massive donations from banks/big business/pharma etc. And all of those interests would expect to see a return. Its an old problem that affects both parties and people know it - when Trump first ran to be on the Republican presidential ticket he pointed out in debates that he had donated money to all his rivals and they had been in his pocket as a result. Which made them look foolish and him in an ironic way like he was getting one over on them on behalf of the little guy. But I don't know how the political mainstream (left and right) proves it isn't in the pockets of big business and wins voters back under the current system. Trump doesn't need to do that of course because he sort of flaunts his crookedness and no-one can criticise him because it makes them hypocrites.

Last time I saw her in person, toward the end of COVID, she told me that she was now a Republican - I don't think she was even torn about it. A very significant element of that was just how the Democrats in the US had gone completely nuts over COVID, and become (or wanted to become) completely authoritarian about health matters.

The fact that it's the United States had a big impact. The states had considerable control over how they reacted to the pandemic, and it was relatively straightforward to compare some states having hyper-strict lockdowns that ravaged local businesses, and others where there were more relaxed measures, less of an economic impact, and, from the perspective of those with a skeptical frame of mind, not a big difference in terms of health outcomes.

We have the countries of the United Kingdom here but in comparison these were marching in lockstep.

I’m taken aback by the RFK appointment too, but I think that it does signal that people are now increasingly untrusting of medical bodies and the vast industry that underpins the provision of medical care in the US. The management of covid, the authoritarian imposition of vaccines (I’m a happily compliant vaccine recipient, for transparency), and the fact that despite the size of Big Pharma, the ‘cure’ was created outside the US seem to have made people question it in the US. Add to that already emerging ‘distrust the experts’ narrative we then saw the abuse/neglect of young children within the affirmative care model which seems to demonstrate that the medical machine in the US does not centre patient needs, but is totally about layers of clients and the level of profit that can be made.

I am slightly repelled by RFK, but I do wonder whether we need more sceptical (or do I mean neutral?) heads of departments where they have to be properly persuaded by robust scientific research before making policy decisions? Ideological capture (incl being pro-/anti-vaxxers, deeply religious, or a subscriber to GI) makes rational policy decision-making impossible. I wonder whether having people in place who are not so intrenched in a certain world-view and who are less enamoured with the ‘can we’ question and seek a balance with the ‘should we’ isn’t called for? Especially when billions of dollars of profit are concerned.

Sorry, that’s a bit garbled and I’m not sure I’ve explained my thoughts properly.