I have kept hearing from Dems that this issue did not take them down but I don’t think they really understand what happened. Because their position on this issue is so looney tune, so irrational and so against one of their core beliefs of being pro women it undermined everything else that they said. How could anyone believe we had to get to zero carbon in a few years or disaster would ensue when they couldn’t define what a woman was. How could anyone believe them that democracy was on the line. How could anyone believe them about anything. That is why Trumps ad of “Harris is for they/them and Trump was for you” was so effective
To give them their due, a lot of Dems who truly support the trans rights agenda think they are protecting vulnerable people. They routinely cite some stats that claim folks with gender dysphoria who are denied transition care are more likely to commit suicide. Plus, they often assert that those opposed can only be motivated by transphobia. Those two claims often shut down debate on the left. That has lead to "in the bubble" thinking on this topic in leftist circles.
Hopefully recent developments will lead to more open discussion. A key going forward will be to watch those Dems who have questioned the blind allegiance to trans rights agenda, such as Seth Moulton.
I think empathy for people with gender disphoria is something the majority of people could sympathize with but where it falls apart is 1)transitioning of minors and I particularly medical transitioning 2) invasion of women’s spaces by biological males. And 3) a hostility to talk about the issue and in particular any data that might point to concerns with the actions taking place. It really plays to the stereotype of Democrats of all heart/emotion and no head/analytical thinking
Yeah, I think they are trying to do what’s best for kids, and honestly they’re just following the medical guidelines of various organizations. But I think there is a lack of evidence that those treatments are effective, and simply saying, “we need to put the brakes on” is totally commonsensical and in line with public opinion.
Unfortunately Republicans continue to demagogue this and the trans community gets caught up in the petty culture war, but Republicans have a point on the merits. Dems need to try to skillfully and sensitively toe that line within their coalition. Hoping for the best.
I agree. People were reasoning that "The borders are out of control yet Dems care about allowing trans women play in women's sports.............are they really that clueless?"
On January 23, Ruy Texeira, predicted right here that the Democrats would die on this hill. And so they are. It is really time for people like you and others here to reconsider your allegiance to a party that refuses to recognize your interests. When faced with a similar problem, Republicans revolted-first with the Tea Party and when that was suppressed with MAGA which amounted to a hostile takeover. While that struggle goes on, MAGA appears to be winning.
So what are Democrats like you supposed to do. The hostile takeover advocated here does not seem to be working. There is no Democratic Trump to lead and galvanize people. (Actually the Democratic Trump was Trump himself until the crazies drove him out.) Some new figure must be discovered. Such a takeover will be harder for Democrats. Trump was able to exploit the divide between the donor class and the base. In the case of the Democrats, the big pieces of the base are the problem. The teachers unions, the faculty lounge and their affiliated students, and liberal suburban white women consumed with guilt come to mind. While the donor class seems to be backing down somewhat, there are enough of them left to fund the leftist elements of the base. I don't see how Democrats can win without those pieces of the base.
Assuming the above problem can't be solved, what remains is some form of exit. The Republicans might be too big a leap though part of the coalition, especially men, has already taken that route. If Democrats keep dying on those hills that Ruy identified and MAGA doesn't succumb to a counterrevolution, expect that to continue. There is also the third party option. That guarantees electoral disaster in the short run but if you are right about where normal Democrats are long-term success is in the future. In the meantime, some sort of populist fusion is a possibility. Either the mainstream or the Left has enough in common with MAGA ( though not the GOPe) to find issue by issue common cause. Don't be the faction left behind.
***Trump was able to exploit the divide between the donor class and the base.***
That isn't true at all. He exploited what the woke left exploits, which is cultural grievance. He just did it on behalf of different demographic groups.
However, he has always been an instrument of the donor class since he entered politics. The donors are different from the Democratic ones, but they're playing the same game. Bernie Sanders is the closest you get to an explicit rejection of that class in Congressional or Presidential politics. But he has his own set of problems that makes him a tough sell to centrist voters. (though I think analysts would be surprised at how many working class Trump-Sanders voters there are)
As a female, I am very grateful to every Democrat who crossed over on this vote. I have not felt protected by them at all. When the newspapers were saying this would be a male vs female election, all I kept thinking was that they obviously didn't understand the issue many females felt was most important. Physical safety from people who are biologically stronger than me? Yes, please.
I see zero credible evidence that elected Democrats will modify their extreme transgender ideology. The woke Left is the dominant faction in Democratic primaries in most states, and they won't budge an inch on transgender extremism. To advance in Democratic politics almost everywhere, you have to oppose all restrictions on abortion and support the entire transgender agenda. If Democrats return to power after the 2028 elections, the Biden transgender extremism will return.
3. Anti corporate consolidation and pro-working class and small business advocacy
4. Jobs and economic opportunity
5. Equality
6. Traditional family advocacy
7. Women's rights
8. Protecting free speech
9. Wealth distribution
Democrats just gifted these standard Democrat issues to Trump. The reason is that the party has been infiltrated by radicals pushing their radical woke ideology and rank and file Democrats jumped on board to adopt it all in their fits of media gaslighted TDS. It is brilliant from Trump. He knows that the Democrats are filled with people lacking emotional control and he just keeps tweaking them and their media feeds keep stoking the TDS fires and make Democrats oppose everything that Trump is doing... even though what Trump is doing are largely standard Democrat platform issues.
It is really crazy that educated radical feminists in charge of the Democrat party have gifted the women's rights platform to Trump as a result of their mental health challenges causing them to believe in radical woke gender and sex ideology.
Trump is the deus ex machina that the centrist sex realist/gender critical movement has been hoping for.
Thanks to his executive order on sex and gender, achievements that seemed unattainable a year ago now appear to be within reach. Until Trump was elected, progress on curbing the excesses of trans activism depended largely on the political leanings of elected officials at the state and local level, with Republican-controlled governments leading the way.
In blue-state America, gender critical activists faced the daunting challenge of winning the hearts and minds of persuadable voters from the periphery of the political order. Moderates who were engaged in the fight to liberate biology from gender ideology cringed every time a Chris Rufo or a James Lindsay would take an extreme position that made all critics, even feminists and gay people, look like transphobes to liberals.
The problem with Trump from the standpoint of the gender critical political center is not just that he's an unpredictable and potentially dangerous ally who leaves his stink on those who approach him too closely. It's that Trump's track record on executing his goals is, to borrow a favorite adjective of his, horrible. To make matters worse, his executive-order blitzkrieg must surely be placing a considerable strain his administration's resources. Are the deliverables in the executive order on sex and gender on anyone's to-do list in the White House or the executive agencies?
That brings us to the central paradox of the first weeks of the second Trump administration. Simply put, the successful rollout and administration of many of Trump's executive orders depends on the administrative state Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Russ Vought are doing their best to demolish right this very moment. One is tempted to ask: "What's the plan?" There is no shortage of big shots taking big swings at government right now. Will Trump's cabinet see to it that true believers are brought into the many departments that have important roles under the executive order?
The order's prospects will be clearer one way or the other in about four months. That is because Section 7 on agency implementation and reporting requires agencies to report on the status of all executive actions pertaining to the order within 120 days of the order. Gender critical activists are going to circle that date on their calendar and wait for it with bated breath.
In the meantime, the trans-inclusive Cassandras in the Democratic Party, energized by Bishop Budde's plea for mercy for imaginary "trans kids," are demonstrating uncharacteristic message discipline by declaring that the executive order aims to end trans people. The objectives of the executive order may have garnered the support of a high percentage of the population, but it has earned the fury of 100 percent of progressives and other good trans allies.
The elfin Robert Reich, Obama's good plutocrat, mounted his moral high horse and offered the following advice to progressive trans allies with a savior complex: [1]
"Protect LGBTQ+ members of your community. Trump may make life far more difficult for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other people through executive orders, changes in laws, alterations in civil rights laws, or changes in how such laws are enforced."
"His election and his rhetoric might also unleash hatefulness by bigoted people in your community."
"I urge you to work with others in being vigilant against prejudice and bigotry, wherever it might break out. When you see or hear it, call it out. Join with others to stop it. If you trust your local city officials, get them involved. If you trust your local police, alert them as well. "
The idea that Reich, a square boomer and world-class DC policy wonk, would have the slightest idea what he means by "queer" is good for a few chuckles. Otherwise, Reich's position epitomizes the belief system of the zealous cishet trans ally.
Now, his alma maters, Dartmouth and Yale, boast about the searching intellectual curiosity of their graduates. That stands in stark contrast to the many blind spots that are evident in Reich's thinking. Does he not know that lesbians and gay men, elders especially, are increasingly realizing they have no common ground with the trans and the queer? Is he aware that the headlong rush to affirm so-called trans kids and transition them is harming youth who would otherwise emerge as gay during adolescence?
Closer to home, does Reich have the knowledge and open-mindedness to tell the difference between "hatefulness" and "prejudice and bigotry" and fact- and science-based criticism of the trans movement's methods and impact on society? It is entirely possible Reich is clueless because, like most Democrats, his own prejudice and bigotry have prevented him from hearing what sex realists are saying, much less synthesizing it and permitting it to change his point of view.
What this means is that gender critical activists must continue their efforts to inform the public about the many harmful aspects of gender ideology and about better ways to help people who are estranged from their sex.
Finally, should SCOTUS strike down Tennessee’s ban on pediatric gender medicine in United States v. Skrmetti and find that trans kids are a constitutionally protected class, the impact on the executive order on sex and gender could be monumental.
"Do Democratic Party leaders have the courage and strategic sense to change course going forward and acknowledge that the party is on the wrong side of this issue—and public opinion on the matter?"
That's a rhetorical question, right? Until Democrats manage to liberate themselves from the progressive oligarchy which funds the activists and sets the agenda, there will be no change. When you start seeing a significant number of Democrat congress critters actually voting against this insanity, then there will be some hope. The author lays out a pretty good case for a Democrat recalibration on this issue, even though they did not mention the recent events in Great Britain and some Scandinavian countries pulling back on "gender-affirming care" for children, e.g. the Cass report.
You'd think from reading all the stuff on Liberal Patriot that Trump got 70% pf the vote, the GOP House now has an 80 seat majority and the GOP won all the competitive Senate seats. Frankly, I'm not thrilled with the whole transsexual thing either and would be pleased to sacrifice whatever votes that is getting Dems if someone can tell us what hills they think we should fight for.
It is rational policy, but it seems Trump, in the past few days alone, is intent on burying it beneath a tidal wave of irrational policy. He could have made good use of it and a few other broadly popular directives he's made to give his approval rating a boost, with an eye towards the midterms--instead, it is now a footnote, and his approval rating is already declining. If that becomes a general trend, it doesn't augur well for the midterms. Not smart politics; but then, truth be told, he's always been a pretty myopic fellow.
I have kept hearing from Dems that this issue did not take them down but I don’t think they really understand what happened. Because their position on this issue is so looney tune, so irrational and so against one of their core beliefs of being pro women it undermined everything else that they said. How could anyone believe we had to get to zero carbon in a few years or disaster would ensue when they couldn’t define what a woman was. How could anyone believe them that democracy was on the line. How could anyone believe them about anything. That is why Trumps ad of “Harris is for they/them and Trump was for you” was so effective
To give them their due, a lot of Dems who truly support the trans rights agenda think they are protecting vulnerable people. They routinely cite some stats that claim folks with gender dysphoria who are denied transition care are more likely to commit suicide. Plus, they often assert that those opposed can only be motivated by transphobia. Those two claims often shut down debate on the left. That has lead to "in the bubble" thinking on this topic in leftist circles.
Hopefully recent developments will lead to more open discussion. A key going forward will be to watch those Dems who have questioned the blind allegiance to trans rights agenda, such as Seth Moulton.
I think empathy for people with gender disphoria is something the majority of people could sympathize with but where it falls apart is 1)transitioning of minors and I particularly medical transitioning 2) invasion of women’s spaces by biological males. And 3) a hostility to talk about the issue and in particular any data that might point to concerns with the actions taking place. It really plays to the stereotype of Democrats of all heart/emotion and no head/analytical thinking
Yeah, I think they are trying to do what’s best for kids, and honestly they’re just following the medical guidelines of various organizations. But I think there is a lack of evidence that those treatments are effective, and simply saying, “we need to put the brakes on” is totally commonsensical and in line with public opinion.
Unfortunately Republicans continue to demagogue this and the trans community gets caught up in the petty culture war, but Republicans have a point on the merits. Dems need to try to skillfully and sensitively toe that line within their coalition. Hoping for the best.
I agree. People were reasoning that "The borders are out of control yet Dems care about allowing trans women play in women's sports.............are they really that clueless?"
On January 23, Ruy Texeira, predicted right here that the Democrats would die on this hill. And so they are. It is really time for people like you and others here to reconsider your allegiance to a party that refuses to recognize your interests. When faced with a similar problem, Republicans revolted-first with the Tea Party and when that was suppressed with MAGA which amounted to a hostile takeover. While that struggle goes on, MAGA appears to be winning.
So what are Democrats like you supposed to do. The hostile takeover advocated here does not seem to be working. There is no Democratic Trump to lead and galvanize people. (Actually the Democratic Trump was Trump himself until the crazies drove him out.) Some new figure must be discovered. Such a takeover will be harder for Democrats. Trump was able to exploit the divide between the donor class and the base. In the case of the Democrats, the big pieces of the base are the problem. The teachers unions, the faculty lounge and their affiliated students, and liberal suburban white women consumed with guilt come to mind. While the donor class seems to be backing down somewhat, there are enough of them left to fund the leftist elements of the base. I don't see how Democrats can win without those pieces of the base.
Assuming the above problem can't be solved, what remains is some form of exit. The Republicans might be too big a leap though part of the coalition, especially men, has already taken that route. If Democrats keep dying on those hills that Ruy identified and MAGA doesn't succumb to a counterrevolution, expect that to continue. There is also the third party option. That guarantees electoral disaster in the short run but if you are right about where normal Democrats are long-term success is in the future. In the meantime, some sort of populist fusion is a possibility. Either the mainstream or the Left has enough in common with MAGA ( though not the GOPe) to find issue by issue common cause. Don't be the faction left behind.
***Trump was able to exploit the divide between the donor class and the base.***
That isn't true at all. He exploited what the woke left exploits, which is cultural grievance. He just did it on behalf of different demographic groups.
However, he has always been an instrument of the donor class since he entered politics. The donors are different from the Democratic ones, but they're playing the same game. Bernie Sanders is the closest you get to an explicit rejection of that class in Congressional or Presidential politics. But he has his own set of problems that makes him a tough sell to centrist voters. (though I think analysts would be surprised at how many working class Trump-Sanders voters there are)
As a female, I am very grateful to every Democrat who crossed over on this vote. I have not felt protected by them at all. When the newspapers were saying this would be a male vs female election, all I kept thinking was that they obviously didn't understand the issue many females felt was most important. Physical safety from people who are biologically stronger than me? Yes, please.
I see zero credible evidence that elected Democrats will modify their extreme transgender ideology. The woke Left is the dominant faction in Democratic primaries in most states, and they won't budge an inch on transgender extremism. To advance in Democratic politics almost everywhere, you have to oppose all restrictions on abortion and support the entire transgender agenda. If Democrats return to power after the 2028 elections, the Biden transgender extremism will return.
Trump's platform that used to be Democrat
1. Law and order
2. Middle class support
3. Anti corporate consolidation and pro-working class and small business advocacy
4. Jobs and economic opportunity
5. Equality
6. Traditional family advocacy
7. Women's rights
8. Protecting free speech
9. Wealth distribution
Democrats just gifted these standard Democrat issues to Trump. The reason is that the party has been infiltrated by radicals pushing their radical woke ideology and rank and file Democrats jumped on board to adopt it all in their fits of media gaslighted TDS. It is brilliant from Trump. He knows that the Democrats are filled with people lacking emotional control and he just keeps tweaking them and their media feeds keep stoking the TDS fires and make Democrats oppose everything that Trump is doing... even though what Trump is doing are largely standard Democrat platform issues.
It is really crazy that educated radical feminists in charge of the Democrat party have gifted the women's rights platform to Trump as a result of their mental health challenges causing them to believe in radical woke gender and sex ideology.
Trump is the deus ex machina that the centrist sex realist/gender critical movement has been hoping for.
Thanks to his executive order on sex and gender, achievements that seemed unattainable a year ago now appear to be within reach. Until Trump was elected, progress on curbing the excesses of trans activism depended largely on the political leanings of elected officials at the state and local level, with Republican-controlled governments leading the way.
In blue-state America, gender critical activists faced the daunting challenge of winning the hearts and minds of persuadable voters from the periphery of the political order. Moderates who were engaged in the fight to liberate biology from gender ideology cringed every time a Chris Rufo or a James Lindsay would take an extreme position that made all critics, even feminists and gay people, look like transphobes to liberals.
The problem with Trump from the standpoint of the gender critical political center is not just that he's an unpredictable and potentially dangerous ally who leaves his stink on those who approach him too closely. It's that Trump's track record on executing his goals is, to borrow a favorite adjective of his, horrible. To make matters worse, his executive-order blitzkrieg must surely be placing a considerable strain his administration's resources. Are the deliverables in the executive order on sex and gender on anyone's to-do list in the White House or the executive agencies?
That brings us to the central paradox of the first weeks of the second Trump administration. Simply put, the successful rollout and administration of many of Trump's executive orders depends on the administrative state Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Russ Vought are doing their best to demolish right this very moment. One is tempted to ask: "What's the plan?" There is no shortage of big shots taking big swings at government right now. Will Trump's cabinet see to it that true believers are brought into the many departments that have important roles under the executive order?
The order's prospects will be clearer one way or the other in about four months. That is because Section 7 on agency implementation and reporting requires agencies to report on the status of all executive actions pertaining to the order within 120 days of the order. Gender critical activists are going to circle that date on their calendar and wait for it with bated breath.
In the meantime, the trans-inclusive Cassandras in the Democratic Party, energized by Bishop Budde's plea for mercy for imaginary "trans kids," are demonstrating uncharacteristic message discipline by declaring that the executive order aims to end trans people. The objectives of the executive order may have garnered the support of a high percentage of the population, but it has earned the fury of 100 percent of progressives and other good trans allies.
The elfin Robert Reich, Obama's good plutocrat, mounted his moral high horse and offered the following advice to progressive trans allies with a savior complex: [1]
"Protect LGBTQ+ members of your community. Trump may make life far more difficult for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other people through executive orders, changes in laws, alterations in civil rights laws, or changes in how such laws are enforced."
"His election and his rhetoric might also unleash hatefulness by bigoted people in your community."
"I urge you to work with others in being vigilant against prejudice and bigotry, wherever it might break out. When you see or hear it, call it out. Join with others to stop it. If you trust your local city officials, get them involved. If you trust your local police, alert them as well. "
The idea that Reich, a square boomer and world-class DC policy wonk, would have the slightest idea what he means by "queer" is good for a few chuckles. Otherwise, Reich's position epitomizes the belief system of the zealous cishet trans ally.
Now, his alma maters, Dartmouth and Yale, boast about the searching intellectual curiosity of their graduates. That stands in stark contrast to the many blind spots that are evident in Reich's thinking. Does he not know that lesbians and gay men, elders especially, are increasingly realizing they have no common ground with the trans and the queer? Is he aware that the headlong rush to affirm so-called trans kids and transition them is harming youth who would otherwise emerge as gay during adolescence?
Closer to home, does Reich have the knowledge and open-mindedness to tell the difference between "hatefulness" and "prejudice and bigotry" and fact- and science-based criticism of the trans movement's methods and impact on society? It is entirely possible Reich is clueless because, like most Democrats, his own prejudice and bigotry have prevented him from hearing what sex realists are saying, much less synthesizing it and permitting it to change his point of view.
What this means is that gender critical activists must continue their efforts to inform the public about the many harmful aspects of gender ideology and about better ways to help people who are estranged from their sex.
Finally, should SCOTUS strike down Tennessee’s ban on pediatric gender medicine in United States v. Skrmetti and find that trans kids are a constitutionally protected class, the impact on the executive order on sex and gender could be monumental.
[1] Reich, Robert. "What You Can Do: Ten Ways to Resist Trump II." Robert Reich. 23 January 2025. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-you-can-do?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"Do Democratic Party leaders have the courage and strategic sense to change course going forward and acknowledge that the party is on the wrong side of this issue—and public opinion on the matter?"
That's a rhetorical question, right? Until Democrats manage to liberate themselves from the progressive oligarchy which funds the activists and sets the agenda, there will be no change. When you start seeing a significant number of Democrat congress critters actually voting against this insanity, then there will be some hope. The author lays out a pretty good case for a Democrat recalibration on this issue, even though they did not mention the recent events in Great Britain and some Scandinavian countries pulling back on "gender-affirming care" for children, e.g. the Cass report.
You'd think from reading all the stuff on Liberal Patriot that Trump got 70% pf the vote, the GOP House now has an 80 seat majority and the GOP won all the competitive Senate seats. Frankly, I'm not thrilled with the whole transsexual thing either and would be pleased to sacrifice whatever votes that is getting Dems if someone can tell us what hills they think we should fight for.
It is rational policy, but it seems Trump, in the past few days alone, is intent on burying it beneath a tidal wave of irrational policy. He could have made good use of it and a few other broadly popular directives he's made to give his approval rating a boost, with an eye towards the midterms--instead, it is now a footnote, and his approval rating is already declining. If that becomes a general trend, it doesn't augur well for the midterms. Not smart politics; but then, truth be told, he's always been a pretty myopic fellow.