The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

Sorry for those who don't use X it's the normal presidential recognition of the Trans Day of Remembrance.

Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, we mourn the transgender Americans whose lives were taken this year in horrific acts of violence. Every American deserves to be treated with dignity, and live free from discrimination. Today, we recommit to building a country where everyone is afforded that promise.

Did anyone see this yesterday. Seems like POTUS hasn't read the room.

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1859388244015677874

I think there may be a shift, but it will be painfully slow. Identity politics is so embedded and thousands of people within the Party have a real stake in it. Then there’s the question of donors … There are parallels with the SNP which clung on until things just fell apart for them.

They're tied to this stated belief like a millstone, and they'll still be repeating it as the ship goes down with them on it.

and this is why they simply cannot complain that people deserted them in droves.

Beardy bloke in a dress. Hmmmm you really cannot tell they have a trans identity.

Bonkers.

Sorry meant to quote you, annoying formatting! @BonfireLady

@BonfireLady

Unfortunately the part that is still unaddressed is the mandatory training which positions the importance of gender identity as if it's factual.

I want to say after our conversation yesterday that I do understand why you personally take a softer approach, but to me that's why I think the more people saying publicly what a load of absurd nonsense this ideology is, the better. Even if there is pushback at first. It's a conversation society badly needs to have. That's just how I feel about it.

Like you, I do value a range of approaches, and I make a point of not getting drawn into the frequent infighting over the best approach in the GC movement if I can avoid it. I tend towards the blunt approach but I'm grateful for the negotiators too, and I know they sometimes have to do a deal with the devil on pronouns etc just to be heard or get a seat at the table.

But I'm extremely glad that there are some brave people who tell it just like it is.

Instead of "for sure men should be allowed to go in women's toilets if they say they have a trans identity"

They have to do this, because their ideology demands that they can't make a distinction.

What this says to me is that it was never about women's rights/safety.

They are all just 'in' issues through which their signal their 'progressive' credentials.

I find it incredibly that political parties which have been so behind 'me too' are also totally blind to the outcomes and needs of women who have been harmed by gendered violence.

I'm trying to think of the conversations the Dems actually should have. So for example they need to point out the utter batshittery of highlighting things like "yes, we think that trans prisoners should be able to have taxpayer funded reassignment surgery while in prison" instead of saying something like "prisoners should be housed in the prison appropriate to their sex, and we will look into giving over a separate wing to those with a transgender identity"

etc etc. Instead of going for the absolutely nuclear "bring it to EVERYONE'S attention" things they were talking about.

Instead of "for sure men should be allowed to go in women's toilets if they say they have a trans identity" into "toilets will be segregated by sex and we will encourage adding additional unisex facilities wherever possible" etc etc

Hear hear 👏👏

Come on Keir and Ed, you can do this too... all you need to do is remember that you know sex is a binary. The rest will naturally follow. People can believe whatever they like about an inner sense of gender, a gender identity, but that doesn't mean we need to support their belief as if it was real. Wake up. You'll get lots of us coming back to you instead of spoiling our ballots - or in my case voting for my local Tory MP after wrestling with what to do for about a year, when faced with the fact that the leaders of my natural political home have lost the plot by forcing everyone in to a belief that they don't hold and are doubling down on how we're allowed to talk about it all.

@DrBlackbird thank you. Yes, lots of difficult conversations already behind me. Several more currently ongoing. But so far so good, if a little bumpy.

Edited for clarity.

I'm here for this new centre. Let's reclaim sense and reason.

This is “no debate” come back to bite.

Democrats couldn’t push back against Republican advertisements because it would have exposed their deeply entrenched position, avowed policies and the paucity of their arguments, based as they are on un evidenced belief.

I still find it deeply troubling that the political parties I would naturally support have gone down this rabbit hole of ridiculousness, and continue to push back against common sense, scientific fact and women’s concerns.

This has been an interesting debate, which of course the ‘left’ will now see and use as confirmation that anyone who does not abide by the TWAW mantra must be Trump supporting far right religious fanatics (eg Nuala on WH). Because a Republican got single sex toilets to stay single sex on Capital Hill.

My prediction is that there will be no ‘honest conversation’ for the Democrats but instead a doubling down of #bekind. Certainly at grassroots. The more politically astute senior leadership democrats might have that conversation.

Here in the UK I’m expecting a hard pushback from TRAs. Men don’t like being told ‘no’. Especially by women.

@BonfireLady you were thoughtful in your response to pink chestnut. I’m sure you navigated many difficult conversations with adults involved with your DDs care. For me, these adults have profoundly failed gender questioning children and teens. And shouldn’t have.

Republicans clearly see a political opportunity. The Trump campaign spent more than $37 million on television ads that invoked transgender issues, nearly 20 percent of its overall ad budget

I wonder if this is the point that the Democratic Party realise the unworkability of their position. If they had spent as much on advertising around transgender issues as the Republicans, I wonder what the response in the public opinion would have been? I suspect it would not have been a commensurate swing of support and I suspect that their media strategists would have realised that.

Nancy Mace is taking zero prisoners, too, it's great to watch her in action on Twitter.

This is fantastic to hear. As per my comments above, I was curious as to which way it would go.

I've written about it on previous threads (although not for a while) but when I did my whistleblowing at work it was the "toilet issue" that drew the only pushback in the conversation.

By this point in the process I had already secured a change in the company policy so that the correct protected characteristics were used within it (previously it had stated that gender identity was a protected characteristic). Unfortunately the part that is still unaddressed is the mandatory training which positions the importance of gender identity as if it's factual. I've let it go for now as my primary focus is my daughter's school, but I've certainly not ruled out coming back to it.

I had had a positive conversation with senior people in the company during this process. We had a good discussion about different beliefs... which definitely resonated. For example, we talked about how it was possible for people to hold different beliefs without needing to impose them on others - as we're a global company, one example we discussed was that we can be understanding of the importance of Friday prayers for our Muslim colleagues without everyone having to do Friday prayers too.

However, there was an audible gasp from the two women on the call when I said that "although I have empathy with anyone who feels like they are 'trapped in the wrong body', I don't share their belief that everyone has a gender identity so I don't expect to see TW in the women's toilets. That's an example of someone's belief being imposed on me".

Given how reasonable they found the conversation up until this point (and in the previous conversation with an even more senior person who supported what I was doing, despite being somewhat confused about it all and what to say), I hope their visceral reaction to my comments about the company toilets stayed with them as a thought 🤞

Thankfully there are lots of different people having lots of different conversations about this is lots of different places. Hats off to Nancy Mace for the reach that she's getting and for sticking to her guns. Also for her bravery - the mainstream media has now been forced to recognise that it can actually see the unhinged death threats.

When I had a look at her posts, this one stood out too, as it helps to articulate why a) anyone who assumes that the objection is homophobic and/or just a "standard right wing" trope doesn't understand it and b) it's important to separate LGB from T:

https://x.com/NancyMace/status/1859336229457694810?t=xJ8ydaGdqZteejt75Xe4Qg&s=19

Nancy Mace framing her points in terms of women's rights issues rather than trans rights issues is so refreshing and effective to hear.

The NYT still doesn’t get it, does it?

They typically focus on an issue that affects a small minority of Americans

I gather:
'I'm as feminist as they come but'
and:
'I'm as left as they come but'

will all start identifying as:

'I'm as centrist as they come but'...

Well, it is certainly one more thing to keep watch for, as the Democratic party completely collapse and a new 'centrist' approach emerges.

New York Times weighs in long article.

Harris Loss Has Democrats Fighting Over How to Talk About Transgender Rights
Kamala Harris left Donald J. Trump’s anti-transgender attack ads largely unanswered. Some Democrats call it political malpractice.

Republicans clearly see a political opportunity. The Trump campaign spent more than $37 million on television ads that invoked transgender issues, nearly 20 percent of its overall ad budget, according to data provided by AdImpact, an organization that tracks political ad placement and spending.
Get the best of The Times in your inbox
Republicans also deployed advertisements on transgender issues in Senate races. In Ohio, Republicans attacked Senator Sherrod Brown by saying he supported “allowing trans biological men in girls’ locker rooms.” Mr. Brown, unlike Ms. Harris, responded with his own ad, calling that claim “a complete lie.” (He lost his seat.)

https://archive.is/0cFie

This is only going become a bigger issue in the run up to 2026 midterms and it looks like the Republicans are going to focus hard on it. I think a Congressional investigation into the Big Gender industry is certain. If that happens expect huge changes we know it is as corrupt as tobacco and the Pharma companies who created the opioid epidemic. Will Big Gender be ready to say under oath their procedures are safe and well tested when there are serious legal implications?

In April 1994, seven top tobacco CEOs testified to Congress that they didn't believe nicotine was addictive. Two years later, they were all under federal investigation for potentially lying under oath and no longer leading their embattled cigarette companies.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-06-01-fi-10679-story.html

Brilliant!

Nancy Mace is taking zero prisoners, too, it's great to watch her in action on Twitter.

I bet he wouldn’t have backed down a year or two ago.

It wouldn't be a great look to be a newly elected representative and the first thing you do is ignore the democratic process when you have a whole 3 choices of bathroom.

In a further update I see that McBride has 'graciously' agreed to abide by the ruling and will stay out the ladies.

(I guess someone has twigged that it wouldn't look great to do otherwise, if other bathrooms are freely available. And that its not exactly difficult to abide by this decision either).