The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity

[Ingenieur]

An interesting article in The Atlantic today, and a sign the tide might be turning in the USA.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/

Most voters think that biological sex is real, and that it matters in law and policy. Instructing them to believe otherwise, and not to ask any questions, is a doomed strategy. By shedding their most extreme positions, the Democrats will be better placed to defend transgender Americans who want to live their lives in peace.

Baby steps

Questions for you (and I’ve answered yours)

• do you believe that men can be women?
• how many people do you know believe that?
• what do you think about them believing men can be women?
• do you think men who believe they are women should be allowed compete in women’s sports

Only took them 7 years after this started to surface as a rising issue.

No, it wasn't the same one. It was actually someone I hadn't interacted with that much in the group. The one I'd been talking to outside the group chat, I'm fairly sure, can see that the issue is nowhere near as simple as they all make out. But I think she's someone who cares enormously about her own popularity.

Christ, what a douche bag he is.

There is a legitimate reason why everyone in politics shouldnt just read The Guardian or The Times but should regularly pick up a copy of the Daily Mail.

Also noting here that The Daily Mail has the highest female readership of any newspaper.

Newspapers can only sell if they publish things that are of interest to and concern their readers.

Only reading 'high brow' stuff means you make yourself out of touch.

As the old adage is - if you understand the opposition you can fight it better.

These idiots didn't even think that learning would help them make better arguments. As it goes they have no arguments at all. Not of substance beyond 'be kind'.

Totally agree RedToothBrush and it's also a good idea to have a read of the Sun now and again. It's unexpectedly well-written and harbours a huge range of views.

The DM is also excellent at science coverage, a LOT better than most papers.

I'm a leftie but I've always hated the narrow-mindedness of some on the left and the attitude that you "can't" read something they disapprove of.

I'd argue you can learn just as much about the world from reading The Sun as you can reading The Guardian.

You learn about massive differences in priorities and interests. This matters just as much as learning about events or issues.

This helps you communicate with a different group of people and on different levels. A good communicator can hold a decent conversation with ANY stranger in any setting. (The perfect British cultural example here being in the pub). There's certain topics which are particularly useful; football is one example I'd use; another is TV - the latest hit show, soap, reality show.

There are a lot of people who can only hold a conversation with people in their own little bubble because they don't understand the value in this.

At one end of the scale you have the genuinely uneducated. At the other you have the insufferable snobs. Most people are firmly in the middle.

As I’ve said previously, imho the seeds were planted when the Democrats failed to properly plan for succession after Obama’s second win in 2012, and the Republicans were taken over by the Tea Party. Looking back, it seems amazing that Romney is now regarded as The Voice of Sanity by many moderate conservatives - anyone else remember the “47% don’t pay tax” thing?

I was speaking to some American colleagues today. It seems that the Democrats need an honest conversation on more topics than just gender identity. That might be the silver lining for a Trump Presidency but if he does do anything, he’d be right for the wrong reasons. There’s still too many deeply religious / conservative Americans who regard homosexuality as an abomination. The TQ+ have entwined themselves so tightly with the LGB that they’re all condemned as degenerates and perverts by that section of the population. So I’m concerned about the collateral damage to LGB rights from any TQ+ bills. Like the GRA in reverse, plenty of opportunity for unintended consequences of well intended but badly drafted legislation.

Plus, I don’t hate TQ+, they're human beings who should have the same rights to dignity and freedom from discrimination as anyone, but that does not mean extra rights and disregarding biological sex where it matters.

In response to Helen Lewis' article analysing the Democrat party losses, Leor Sapir (an American journalist who has written about the dangers of gender identity ideology for a number of years) wrote an interesting short tweet thread:

https://x.com/LeorSapir/status/1855785605176639800

'The Atlantic's helenlewis argues that Democrats need to adopt positions on trans issues that they can explain and defend to a skeptical public. A good and important piece, but I have two comments...
^https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/^

First, it is demonstrably untrue that progressive NGOs took "maximalist" positions on gender in response to red-state bans. Those positions were articulated and percolating through the courts and administrative agencies well before Republicans caught wind of them. Title IX is a good example. The Obama administration got the ball rolling on replacing sex with gender identity in 2011 using Dear Colleague Letters and T-IX consent decrees. The issue didn't become a Republican talking point until 2015/6.

Also, the "maximalist" positions were clearly articulated in academic writings, including law review articles, since the 2000s. The ideological paradigm and policy agenda were not plucked out of thin air. Progressive activists did exactly what they said they would do, and Republicans responded--unfortunately after much delay.

It defies logic and evidence to say that Republicans just randomly took up the trans issue, when they had virtually ignored it for decades before self-ID and gender Rx became social and legal realities. As is often the case, political causes are responses to changing social realities.

Second, it's a profound mischaracterization to say that there is a "backlash against gender nonconformity" among Republicans and non-progressive voters. Just the opposite is true. The "backlash" is in favor of gender non-conformity, over and against the rigid stereotyping of "gender identity" theory. Boys who like to play with dolls and dance ballet are not "trans girls." They're effeminatei.e., gender nonconformingboys.

This point has been made ad nauseum in the gender culture wars, and I've yet to read a persuasive rebuttal to it. There is no definition of gender identity that isn't either circular or reliant on stereotypes. Typically, it is both. There is no secular ideology more hostile to gender non-conformity in our day than gender identity theory. None.

This is a key point and any effort to understand where Democrats went wrong and what they need to do to fix it must begin from a correct understanding of what critics of gender identity theory actually think and say.'

Shades of Hermione insisting on reading the Quibbler to find out what was happening with the resistance against Voldemort. After the Ministry was captured she didn’t trust the mainstream news

This is a key point and any effort to understand where Democrats went wrong and what they need to do to fix it must begin from a correct understanding of what critics of gender identity theory actually think and say.

It's so true. Not only have MSM and governments swallowed genderists' claims about sex and gender, they've also uncritically accepted their lies about those who disagree with them. I remember a BBC news piece on radio 4 a couple of years ago - sadly can't remember the details but it was a rare bit of coverage of a GC-transactivist debate, possibly around the time of Kathleen Stock being in the news a lot. Supposedly explaining both sides' views, the newsreader said that unlike the gender activists who supported people being free to choose their gender, gender critical feminists believed that sex at birth should "determine social roles". WTAF? Who the hell told them that how did they not stop for a second to think "really? is that a feminist take? should really look into that!"

It's so totally backwards and confused to think that transactivism is about progressive gender non-conformity. If they thought gender non-conformity was OK, they wouldn't have to change anything.

Title IX was to be amended so that biological males could compete against biological females in female sport. That is one huge issue in the US because sporting scholarships are won on the playing field/swimming pool etc. Biological males have greater lung and heart capacity, they have longer muscles and bones, their adrenaline rush is faster. The loss of scholarships by girls to boys (in frocks) is a specific loss of rights.

This quote from the BBC article way up thread caught my eye

“Democrats spend way too much “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face,” Moulton told the New York Times. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

Progressive Democrats, meanwhile, reject that characterisation, and argue that standing up for the rights of minorities has always been a core value of the party. Congressman John Moran wrote on X in response: "You should find another job if you want to use an election loss as an opportunity to pick on our most vulnerable.”

Same planet, different worlds. I'm putting to one side any disagreement as to who exactly is vulnerable. The fact is you make yourself unelectable then you're in no position to help anyone.

Also, Alastair Campbell can fuck right off. Relabelling 'more light, less heat' doesn’t make it any less of an empty cliche or, indeed, a soundbite.

Although the Atlantic is an American publication, it's the British writer Helen Lewis (former deputy editor of the New Statesman) explaining what the Democrats got wrong. But hopefully, Americans too are taking this on board.

This is something I often wonder about - there seem to be people who have very strange ideas about conservatives/right wing people.

There are plenty of "gender non-conforming" people in the right. It's really not that unusual. Even little boys in ballet.

I do think people on the right are often less caught up in appearing or pushing gnc clothing or activities, they don't care if a lot of boys want to do boyish things or girls girly things. Whereas I have met progressive people who seem very caught up in that for their kids. I, like some others here, left a parenting group that became obsessed with trans ideology - they were also constantly talking about not giving their girls girly stuff, and encouraging their boys to wear sparkles and such.

Conservatives are little less likely to think kids need to always wear the clothes they want, so in certain situations are comfortable saying, you should wear what is conventionally appropriate.

But that's not really the same as saying they are afraid of people being gender non-conforming personalities.

I think when your country has just voted in a fascist wannabe autocrat with plans for mass deportations, you've probably got more important priorities than trying to find new ways to crush the hopes & dreams of the 0.5% of the population who are transgender and just trying to live their lives.

Crikey. I don't think Starmer is that bad

So what's the deal Izimbra? On other threads you've admitted that sex is immutable. You've even gone so far as to ask posters what our interests are, then failed to return when the answers didn't suit your agenda. So what is it? Don't you think, when it clear that the 3rd most important reason Trump won was the democrats anti woman stance wrt to transgender issues, that we should talk about this?

Swing voters weren't voting for Trump, they were voting against gender ideology which demonstrably harms women and girls.

But crushing the hopes and dreams of women and girls whose sporting place/medal was taken by a male with different inner feelings? That would be ok wouldn't it?

Are you ever going to answer the 'should biological men be allowed in women's sports, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, prisons etc etc' question? You've been asked quite a few times now.

@izimbra should male bodied people be permitted to compete in all female categories? (Mixed sex) And why?

the 0.5% of the population who are transgender and just trying to live their lives.

If they would all just try to live their lives that would be great. It's expecting me to agree with their unevidenced beliefs and be punished if I don't that's the problem. It's having their unevidenced beliefs enshrined in laws that affect me and harm women and children and gay people that's also the problem.

Much like a religion, I have no issue at all if you want to believe stuff that is not provable, and I don't think you should be persecuted for it, but it should not affect other people or the state or laws or institutions that the public depends on. No one should be persecuted or ostracised or threatened, lose their job or their kids for understanding reality.

So if trans people would just try to live their lives and leave everyone else to theirs, brilliant. But that's not the situation at all, is it?

So if trans people would just try to live their lives and leave everyone else to theirs, brilliant. But that's not the situation at all, is it?

If someone wants to identify as whatever that is a choice; just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you. Delusional is what "choosing" to be a woman is if you are a man and vis versa.

That sounds like a personal problem and one needs to keep it that way. Just because you are confused doesn't mean you need to confuse the rest of the population and expect special treatment or rights different that non-delusional people.

Do you believe that men can be women? No.

How many people do you know believe that? None that I’m aware of.

What do you think about them believing men can be women? If I knew of any, I
would help them out, ie. educate them on biology.

Do you think men who believe they are women should be allowed compete in women’s sports? I do not.

I’d agree with this. This issue, unfortunately, a simply a trigger-point used to get Trump into office. As I said in another post, this and other sensitive culture war spots were poked again and again to make them fester and enrage voters. It worked, right?

People unsurprisingly don't want damaged children by ideology or men in women's sport.