2020 Democratic presidential candidates’ positions on sex-based rights

[GrinitchSpinach]

As the 2020 election circus gets underway (God help us) I wanted to make a thread to collect information on the declared or potential candidates’ positions on sex-based rights.

I am very concerned that uncritical support for the erasure of sex-based rights may have become the new Democratic orthodoxy while no one was paying much attention, and that this will be wielded as an effective wedge by the GOP to divide the left and center just when our entire democracy needs urgently to focus on expelling Trump and his enablers.

I hope it’s ok to put this here. There are other more US-heavy forums, but Mumsnet feels like my spiritual home, and I know there are at least a few other Americans here.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (declared):

In her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren said regarding the request for state-funded gender surgery on a male imprisoned for wife-murder, “I have to say, I don’t think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars.”

That’s despite the fact that she has otherwise had an immaculate record on LGBTQ issues. The Human Rights Campaign has given Warren 100-percent scores for all of her years in the Senate, and in 2016 she joined a group of other senators calling on the Veterans Administration to eliminate its blanket ban on medically necessary transition-related surgeries for transgender veterans. Over the past year, she’s been a vocal opponent of attempts by President Trump to ban transgender people from serving in the military and erase transgender people from being recognized under federal law.
Now, Warren has addressed the 2012 comment as well.
In response to a ThinkProgress inquiry, a spokesperson for Warren’s presidential exploratory committee said in a statement: “Senator Warren supports access to medically necessary services, including transition-related surgeries. This includes procedures taking place at the VA, in the military, or at correctional facilities.”
thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-warren-transgender-prisoners-lgbtq-record-352c3b445bba/

Her exploratory committee site has not much outlining the issues yet. I expect more to follow when she shifts out of “exploratory” mode.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (declared):

Like, everything President Trump has done from attacking transgender troops to transgender kids, to the Muslim ban, to attacking DACA kids, to separating parents and children at the border, all of this, I mean, I’ve never seen the number of protests, even in Washington.
nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/kirsten-gillibrand-on-kavanaugh-fallout-and-her-2020-plans.html

"Attacking transgender kids" seems to mean the administration's reversion to interpreting the word "sex" in Title IX as "sex" rather than "gender identity."

Her campaign website also light on issues at the moment. Watch this space, but it don't look encouraging.

Julian Castro former HUD Secretary (declared):

Mayor Castro was an early advocate of LGBT+ rights, signing a city ordinance in 2013 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/01/14/julian-castro-lgbt-rights-president/

The gender identity/public accommodations part is the issue for women here. No "discrimination" against male people in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.

Oh wow. As HUD Secretary implemented this:

Under this new rule, shelters that segregate housing or programs by gender cannot force people into accommodations that are inconsistent with their gender identity.
lgbt-cicilline.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-lgbt-caucus-commends-hud-for-groundbreaking-trans-protections

Not a friend to battered, abused, vulnerable women, then.

juliancastro.com is not registered?? Impressive out of the gate!

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (declared):

“In my past, I said and believed things that were wrong, and worse, they were very hurtful to people in the LGBTQ community and to their loved ones,” Gabbard, 37, said in a video posted to YouTube today. She said her views had changed, and she had apologized for her statements previously, but was now “sincerely” repeating her apology.

“My record in Congress over the past six years reflects what is in my heart, a strong and ongoing commitment to fighting for LGBTQ rights,” she said. She had a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard for her most recent term in the U.S. House
www.advocate.com/politics/2019/1/17/tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-past-views-lgbtq-issues-were-wrong

Seems to be toeing the line now. (Though am certainly glad to see her reject her former homophobia).

Thank you for this. I don't have time to read all right now but placemarking for later.

Senator Kamala Harris of California (declared):

As California Attorney General, Harris (well, her office) argued against state funding surgery for trans prison inmates.

Asked by the Blade in a follow-up question to clarify whether transgender inmates across the country should have access to gender reassignment surgery, Harris called for a “better understanding” of the medical needs of transgender people.

“I believe that we are at a point where we have got to stop vilifying people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and we’ve got to understand that when we are talking about a particular transgender community, for too long they have been the subject of bias, and frankly, a lack of understanding about their circumstance and their physical needs in addition to any other needs they have, and it’s about time that we have a better understanding of that,” Harris said.

The response arguably falls short of a recent statement from the presidential campaign of Elizabeth Warren asserting the candidate “supports access to medically necessary services,” including “at the VA, in the military or at correctional facilities.” The statement reversed Warren’s previously articulated opposition in 2012 to gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates.

Jillian Weiss, a transgender lawyer with a practice in LGBT employment discrimination, said Harris’ response is “a mass of contradictions.”

www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/21/harris-takes-full-responsibility-for-briefs-against-surgery-for-trans-inmates/

hmmm...

However, Harris has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Equality Act, which if passed will enshrine "gender identity" as a protected class for civil rights and thereby erase the sex-based rights of women and girls. (For context, Warren, Gillibrand, and all major Democrats have also signed on).

American women, we need to organize against "gender identity" in that bill, and quick.

It’s a good idea, for all its ills, the USA and its legal rulings are still frequently cited in media around the world as examples, usually to follow so this does impact everyone.

No Democratic candidate is going to break ranks on this. It's not a salient issue for most Americans, so it's not worth the headache for the candidate.

Democrats can safely assume that female voters will regard abortion rights as more important and the Republicsns too odious to vote for. They have every reason to assume Democratic women will vote for them no matter how they betray women with an Equality Act that functionally erases female protections.

The plain truth is, the Democrats have so taken women's votes for granted, while presiding over continual rollbacks of women's rights and never suffering for it, that perversely feminists now actually have more tactical maneuvering room with the Republicans.

This is the reality of power and politics under a two-party system in which the range of idea, due to corporate money on both sides, is very narrow.

I'm not talking about principle. I'm talking about leverage and power.

Seems like the only gender critical choice here is Donald Trump. Feel sorry for the feminists of America who might have to join the MAGA gang to protect their sex-based rights but it's the only way.

Seems like the only gender critical choice here is Donald Trump. Feel sorry for the feminists of America who might have to join the MAGA gang to protect their sex-based rights but it's the only way.

Never, ever, not in a million years would I vote for Trump and his merry band of democracy arsonists. Trump is by no means gender-critical; he loves gender! It's what keeps women grabbable-by-the-pussy without consequences for men; keeps our bodies for sale; keeps our participation in public life limited.

If it comes to it and the Democratic nominee defends enthusiastically the erasure of female rights, I suppose I might write in Kara Dansky's name...

but I'm not as convinced as Anne that it will come to that. I think most Democrats have signed on to this legislation because HRC and GLAAD and everyone else back it, and those are very powerful groups with lots of cash to donate and direct for Democratic candidates.

I don't think Democrats in Congress have really looked at the legislation critically.

When the eventual presidential nominee realizes how alienating the elimination of sex-based protections would be to huge numbers of voters, particularly the suburban women Democrats need to peel off from the GOP, I just can't see him/her doubling down on the T at the expense of women & girls. Think it's much more likely he/she would punt in some way, support "further study and discussion" or something like that.

Thanks for this! Looking forward to seeing the thread grow as more candidates declare.

I know, I know... third party candidates get demonized because they often "spoil" the election, BUT Schultz seems like a reasonable moderate? He's pretty middle of the road, and I question whether or not he's had much of the gender Kool-Aid... yet.

Everyone else in the Democratic line-up seems to be pretty punch drunk.

Good post, BTW. We have GOT to get more discussion and organizing going in the States. Our UK sisters have been so successful!

I share Elizabeth Warren's sentiments about Schultz (and Bloomberg).

Thanks Grinitch. Placemarking.

I'd also be interested in @RedToothBrush*'s thoughts on this.

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey (declared):

Supports the Equality Act (as do all the other candidates).

"This administration has put forth an all-out assault on the LGBTQ community," Sen. Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, said of the Trump administration's approach to policies impacting LGBTQ Americans.

In an exclusive video sent to NBC Out, Booker took aim at President Donald Trump for his attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military and his administration's position on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Supreme Court case.

"My family has stories about the difficulties of driving across country and finding a place that would let black people use bathrooms, or eat," Booker said. The senator compared his own family's struggles against racism in the South to the issue at the heart of the Masterpiece Bakeshop case -- whether or not a business should be legally allowed to turn customers away because of faith-based discrimination.

"No one should be able to discriminate against folks," Booker said. "At restaurants or businesses, I don't want to see that treatment being done to anyone in this country."
www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/cory-booker-slams-trump-s-all-out-assault-lgbtq-americans-n828481

Oh man I hadn't seen this letter before. Gillibrand and Harris are also signatories:

Dear Secretary Azar:

We write to express our strong concern about reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is engaged in an effort to redefine "sex" to exclude transgender and gender nonconforming people from federal civil rights. This action would have grave consequences for millions of individuals and families--depriving transgender and gender nonconforming people of critical protections under federal law.
votesmart.org/public-statement/1297261/letter-to-alexander-azar-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-senate-democrats-to-secretary-azar-end-efforts-to-redefine-sex-to-exclude-transgender-persons#.XFRGAC2ZM1g

What about the critical protections for girls and women, Senators?? Were feminists in 1972 fighting to include male people in the sex class "female" for civil rights purposes? Gimme a break.

Placemarking - good resources here

I follow American politics somewhat, and I believe that any Dem running against Trump will toe the line here. They all court Millennials, and among left-leaning Millennials self-ID appears to be pretty much a tenet of faith.

(On economic policies I find Warren and Sanders -if he runs- great, and I very much embrace Gabbard's anti-war and noDAPLA stance. But yeah, I doubt them, or any other Dem candidate will question self-ID).

The one possible line of attack on Dems here is via suburban Republican women. Democrats have been courting them for years — they really really want suburban Republican women voters to switch over to them. But I can well imagine, if they know about it, these same voters being appalled at the the extent to which the Equality Act eliminates ALL single-sex services, spaces, activities, and set-asides.

deepwater yes, They all court Millennials, but millennials don't vote in the numbers that older generations do. I really think they have just swallowed the latest advice about what's "the right of history" from Human Rights Campaign and others, without examining more closely. So my sisters and I in America need to make a lot of noise this year to get them to take a closer look...

Yes, Anne--not just suburban Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are a huge battleground, and I can't see Democrats winning unaffiliated women's votes on a platform of: "sex is a social construct! pay no attention to the penis in your changing room/sports team/pap smear provider"

AOC is becoming a real liability for defeating the Equality Act. She tweeted an apology for saying cisgendered, instead of cisgender. How can we educate her and the others?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on twitter. 470 replies, 2 GC

@AOC
4h4 hours ago
More
💜🏳️‍🌈 if we want a country where all people are accepted and loved, we have to name and rectify where we historically haven’t so we can act to do so now.
(Also - sorry I said “cisgendered” instead of the correct “cisgender.” I’ve learned and am growing too✨)

JFC. If only women would devote more time to "learning" about how privileged we are vis a vis male people and how sensitive we need to be to male people who who would throw a fucking tantrum over "cisgender" versus "cisgendered."

Wow.

Grinitch I forgot to thank you for starting this thread.

I'm trying to compose a letter (in my head) to the abovementioned women and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I have no idea how to keep it concise and include relevant points. It's so complex what we are up against.

Re:AOC's first "privilege" reference in that podcast: I thought about it and began to wonder if she was playing for brownie points (votes, endorsements, $), while not exactly throwing women under the bus. But now with the "correction" I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt. This is a latina, working class woman. Also, I remember when the term "underprivileged" was used for poor people, so maybe there is a weird dis-connect with semantics?

I hope they keep tantruming away

I don't have a good feeling about the next 10 years.

I predict Trump will not win again, and one of these leading dem candidates will get in.

I think Pelosi's equality act is going to be passed, and will be in force for at least 4 years, if not 8.

Cortez said people should get over the bathroom issue and she would feel safer sharing with a transexual than one of those misogynistic and depraved powerful Hollywood producers (like Weinstein I’m assuming). Nobody seemed to pick up on or question that there are zero people campaigning for or advocating powerful male executives should be allowed access to the ladies. Proper pointless virtue signalling statement bereft of any sense of honesty but she’s woke and people look love her. Only people who call her out are right wing Republicans so they’re instantly dismissed. That’s politics but despair at the lack of nuance and critical and thinking across all stripes

Fortunately she is not yet old enough to run for President! (35 year old minimum age by Constitutional requirements)