The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

[Ingenieur]

Starting a new thread in case the first fills up.

Thanks.

This is the link to the old one (apols if someone else has just posted it)

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5207074-the-democrats-need-an-honest-conversation-on-gender-identity

Thanks OP the last thread was very interesting and I suspect over the next days/ weeks/ months there will be more on this subject.

Thread 1 on this was single-handedly the most informative discussion/debate I’ve followed on the subject. Genuinely feel like I am more informed and have really unpicked my own thoughts and beliefs on the subject by following that. I’m looking forward to continuing my education here. Thank you to all the well informed PPs that have taken the time to contribute, I am sure I am not the only one to have benefited.

I, too, am keen to see where the Democratic Party is headed on this.

Than you for the thread continuation @Ingenieur

Just following up from @lesbiannana’s comment on previous thread. The fact that the 14m who did not show up this time had never shown up before the 2020 election doesn’t weaken my point, though, does it? Those people were significantly fearful of a Trump presidency in 2020 that they DID get out and vote that time - and were just jaded and disillusioned enough with the Democrats after 4 years in office that they a) didn’t want to vote them back in and b) were not as averse to a Trump/republican administration by comparison. I’d be interested to know, also, whether it actually WAS the same 14m - ie, we know there were a large number of first time voters in 2020 as the statistics show that, but do we know it was the same voters who didn’t come this time, or has another demographic shown attrition? I’ve not had time to research this (have other priorities atm) but someone else may be able to answer that for me.

That the republicans won both houses also reinforces that this was a major cock up for the Dems. In summary: whether first time voters or not, the Dems had those votes in 2020, and lost them.

To say other wise is like a restaurant owner seeing an upsurge in trade for a few months with lots of new customers who subsequently finds his trade dropping off again. The owner doesn’t just shrug and say ‘ah well they’d never been before so it’s no matter, we enjoyed the boost while it lasted’… he looks at what he did wrong not to get them to keep coming back and overhauls his business accordingly.

Hellobore wrote
I am not sure how he squares the hole if he co-sponsored inclusion of males into female sports? I shall have to look at the timing. I wonder if he has seen the evidence since. Or whether he genuinely believes that interventions with puberty blockers etc will permanently remove advantage or some other intervention is how he thinks the two are not mutually exclusive regarding sports?

And surely it would be a foolish member of congress / parliament to co-sponsor a bill that you were not fully aware of the implications of and fully supportive of when it first was tabled?

As a politician he SHOULD have done due diligence. Yes.

However, how many people who have 'come to the dark side', gone through a similar journey of just not thinking it through. I do think a lot of the negatives, particularly about child transition, have willfully been suppressed or simply been unresearched and considered even by professional so it leaves the general public and politicians who don't have the benefit of much of the relevant specialist knowledge at a disadvantage.

This is why no debate and a more general failure to do proper public consultation with all vested interest groups is so problematic. Is it fair to hold a singular politician who wont, on his own, have had the ability to get that kind of consultation done to an impossible standard.

He is now responding to, in effect, to a public consultation. That should be valued.

We have to assume that everyone comes from a place of wanting to do the right thing. As long as thats your basis, when you realise that youve made an error others should allow you to speak out and explain yourself and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

If we don't value his about face we fall into 'the purity test trap' ourselves. We need to allow people to take the political fire escape as the only other place left for them to go is to resign completely and then have no influence at all or to double down. He will need support not to just fold, like so many idiot celebrities have, and to stick to his guns.

Neither of those two options serves the ultimate interests of the most vulnerable in our society.

Thats the acid test for me - whether he sticks to this or whether he eventually issues a totally lame public apology to sell his daughters out and 'save his career'.

And I've got to be honest, I don't think its necessarily the worst move for a politician at this point. It may well be jumping ship before the ship goes down with the bigger idiots on it. It could place him well for the future. The writing is on the wall here - the insurance companies are already factoring this.

I think you might be foolish to automatically bet against it at this point.

Context: Trump (RFK) firmly has his eyes on looking at the power of Big Pharma. That may well have long term implications - not necessarily in negative terms. I think looking at things from this side of the pond we can see the US has a much bigger issue with unethical practices in health care and advertising which aren't necessarily actually healthy - this ISN'T about vaccines. See Ben Goldacre and Margaret McCartney for further reading on this. They provide really valid and necessary criticism of the industry and the creation of the 'worried well' for commerical and self sustaining reasons rather than the overall well being of the public.

I DON'T think this is necessarily exactly how Trump or RFK see things (Goldacre and McCartney are extremely nuauced and balanced), but I do think some of fair concerns raised may surface properly as they should, maybe only as an unintended consequence, because it is an area that DOES merit greater oversight. The US has ALREADY had a massive social issue resulting from over medicalisation; The Opiod Crisis which led so many from prescription drugs to full on drug abuse, crime, homelessness and death. This scandal is a background we can't fully put to one side whilst we are talking about medicalisation of kids.

Resistance to covid vaccines and vaccines generally in the US needs to be seen through this lack of trust in health care providers and subsequent social crisis - we just don't get this here because we haven't had this collaspe in trust in the UK.

I am expecting major shifts in this field and public thinking under Trump - some of it won't be good but I also think in the US there is a real case that someone looking into it, is long overdue too. How that will ultimately play out, I'm not sure; it could well be a total disaster but also theres much to say SOMETHING is needed. RFK and Trump most certainly would be some of my last choices to lead this, BUT I'm fairly confident we are going to see quite a lot come out in the wash too... We know theres been lots of research thats been actively suppressed and how this can distort research and broader reviews (Both Goldacre and McCartney talk about this in their books which were published some years ago now - its not a remotely a Trumpian or even new concept).

I disgress somewhat with this, but we now have to think about the future USA diverging from the status quo of thinking and looking at things in different ways which may or may not work, rather than just doing things the way they've always been done (This is Musk's ethos too so look out for it in multiple areas).

I don't necessarily agree with any of them nor their approach on how they do this - my overall point is that there have been many failures of due diligence by many many politicians on both sides of the house, that have come to a head and ultimately have resulted in Trump being elected.

I don't think we hang someone out to dry for coming to the conclusion that there is a real unaddressed problem that he didn't see before.

(Yep I know I'm rambling somewhat at this point so I'll park it there).

Thanks for new thread. Lots of US politics podcasts are discussing this issue, urging a shift in direction.

I am hoping that he has indeed done the depth of research and reached the understanding. And that now he has reached this position that he stays with it and starts to work to make changes for sports for female people.

We can only hope that him and Wes Streeting aren't flakes and don't sell out on gay people and daughters.

However to an extent I think we see element of it being a possible 'hill to die on' for both.

Only time will tell.

Next year will have shock waves - the Dems need to start preparing for them in more ways than one.

They CANNOT continue with a 'status quo' approach. They need to go away, reassess and come up with some new thinking in a multitude of areas.

IF they get another shot at an election, they are going to have to do a LOT LOT better than the shit show they are putting on atm.

I mean, imagine protesting against the rights of women in sport in Salem of all fucking places! Optics are hard to get more wrong.

Placemarking, thanks for new thread @Ingenieur!

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.

It's a bit like the way that the new political order seems to have firmly wedded the political left to globalism where previously tat is where you found anti-globalism. It's now, on the left, looked askance if you question the motivations of major pharmaceutical companies! I remember people being quite het up because of someone questioning whether companies were likely to release any research that suggested safety or efficacy concerns (which happens all the time!) or whether allowing them to avoid legal responsibility for damage caused by the vaccines was a good idea. Suddenly, it was like these companies were well known to be transparent and altruistic.

I know at least one person who I believe has completely changed her politics over this. My university roommate, who is American, grew up in a very crunchy household, her parents were hippies and they lived on a remote farm and grew most of their own food. She tended to be very into natural medicines and also joined the Democrat party when she moved back to the US after her degree.

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.

I also think that sometimes people in the UK don't realize that their own national response was relatively moderate. There are other places, including some in the US, that were pretty extreme about trying to impose things like vaccination requirements. Not always directly by the state, but by allowing or even encouraging private workplaces to require it.

So some of what we are seeing in the US now is very much a reaction to these kinds of things.

Thanks for starting a new thread. I have also enjoyed following this discussion and reading the linked articles. It will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds over the coming weeks and months.

Imagine protesting the rights of women in sport in Salem as a neighbourhood group who has appointed themselves as arbiters of righteousness….

The oxycontin scandal was appalling with, Iirc, no real accountability in terms of people in jail. It was a fine (probably not that much relative to the profits made from deliberately addicting vast numbers of people).

It was so outrageously morally wrong, and yet they essentially got away with the human devastation and deaths caused.

They lied that oxycontin wasn't addictive very much as they've lied about the "evidence base" (there isn't one) for "gender affirming" medical procedures on children.

People getting rich off the backs of vulnerable people. That's what it is, it's not surprising people were sceptical about COVID vaccines and from my observation in the US COVID became about purity politics in a way it just didn't in the UK, probably in large part due to the NHS.

There were extremely extremely rare but in some cases deadly side effects of the astrazeneca vaccine. I don't know, given this fact, why anyone even slightly covid vaccine sceptical is denounced as an idiot!

He is now responding to, in effect, to a public consultation. That should be valued.

Yepp. We have to allow people to learn and change

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.