Quotation from the above:
Sam Harris, a popular author and self-described liberal who detests Trump, offered an even more biting assessment of Democrats’ failure on the transgender front. In a 40-minute episode titled “The Reckoning,” recorded on November 11 for his podcast Waking Up, Harris equated gender ideology to a “new religion” and its followers to a “cult”.
Daring to say the unsayable out loud.
It goes on and makes the observation:
It is precisely why Democrats will struggle to walk back their support for radical transgender policies. Democrats spent years lecturing the public that boys’ participation in girls’ sports and mastectomies for teen girls who identify as boys are non-negotiable “civil rights.” If they change course now, they will either have to admit they were wrong before or become rights-violators by their own definition.
As for what has fuelled polarisation. Again we see the point about it happening way before the advent of social media:
The Democratic Party’s bind is partly due to structural changes within the American political system that have occurred over the past 60 years. Party and campaign-finance reforms of the 1960s and 1970s weakened parties as institutions, leaving elected representatives ever more dependent on the open primary process, which tends to favor more ideologically extreme voters. Additionally, the erosion of the parties’ strength left a vacuum that the media stepped in to fill, replacing the parties as the entity responsible for organizing and disseminating election-relevant information about candidates. Parties remain accountable to the people through elections, but to whom, exactly, does MSNBC answer to?
Another challenge Democrats face is the rise of interest-group liberalism—specifically, the “public interest” nonprofits that now make up the backbone of the Democratic coalition. These groups have no incentive to moderate their stances on controversial issues; they report to foundation and deep-pocket donors, and they increasingly recruit staff based on ideological commitments. There is a reason, after all, why Chase Strangio—who uses “they/them” pronouns, has called for the banning of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage, and told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, “I am a civil rights and constitutional lawyer who fundamentally doesn’t believe in the Constitution and the legal system”—is one of the most influential ACLU attorneys.
Again the role of lobbyists and donors is a crucial one that can't be forgotten.
And I find the following REALLY interesting:
Pamela Paul made an important observation in her Times piece. The “contact hypothesis,” which predicts that the public becomes more sympathetic to a group and its expressed needs as contact with members of that group become more routine, has not held in the case of people who identify as transgender. Quite the opposite, in fact: as the American public became more familiar with such people, it became less accepting of the transgender movement’s belief system and policy preferences.
How often have we seen the fallacy thrown at us that no one here 'has ever met someone trans'. When actually some of the most vocal and passionate on the subject here have closed family members who identify as trans and they have the biggest concerns and reservations.
The whole idea of 'sunlight' is also another which is very much against the principle of contact hypothesis.
If contact hypothesis is going wrong, that asked some big questions - that suggests that there is a negative response to behaviours which are felt to be anti-social in some manner.
This is the one that I find particularly interesting. And it's hard to counter even if you try and play devil's advocate when you consider pretty much every famous transwoman 'doesn't have the best PR team'. I mean you have Eddie Izzard who previously during Brexit before switching pronouns, whipped up such a frenzy that there were newspapers editorials saying Izzard made Remainers vote leave. You have Jordan Grey of C4 fame. Your sports representative Kellie Maloney self confessed wife strangler. And you have the lovely India Willoughby.
And the US has Dylan. The face of Bud Light. Cracking Advert that.
It's hard to think of a prominent name that doesn't walk hand in hand with controversy often self promoted but also less so and which would be career death for pretty much anyone else on account of their behaviour.
Again something that is said in whispers and not allowed to be spoken about, as 'anti-trans', rather than people being concerned about a behavioural pattern that has caused actual identified issues.