Independently of how i feel about it, It IS new to care about the feelings of minority groups that much.. we moved up the "maslow" scale of problems to adress as a society.
> It IS new to care about the feelings of minority groups that much..
I think you're making the mistake of conflating the motivations behind people who are fighting for trans rights and the motivations behind people who are fighting against trans rights. But the motivations between those two groups are not going to be identical.
I buy that Maslow's hierarchy of needs might maybe offer some explanation why we're finally getting around to addressing problems affecting the trans community, but is not sufficient to explain why it would be a brand new priority for Republicans to regress trans rights.
Tribalism/reactionism however does go a long way towards explaining why the GOP would not just oppose new legislation helping trans communities, but actually go so far as to pass new laws restricting their rights, as if trans people were never using bathrooms before 2018 or if there's some kind of brand new problem that requires blocking medical care for them. It makes a lot more sense to look at the opposition through the lenses of reactionary politics and polarization -- that the GOP is lashing out against trans people in anger over the progress they have made and because their rights have become a polarizing issue.
>> but is not sufficient to explain why it would be a brand new priority for Republicans to regress trans rights.
Because 1/ adressing some issues means not adressing other.. the public debate cannot handle so many things at once and 2/ from the point of view of a french person america is particularly confrontational when defending pretty much... anything.
In practical terms, republicans feel for 1/ that if you defend trans rights, you are going to forget more important fights such as the obesity crisis, the opioid crisis, the absurdity of your healthcare system, the economy. And for 2/, that they are going to be shamed if they disagree with the actual issues such as letting men compete in women categories.. so yeah i have 0 problems with trans people but understand the republicans motivation.
Im rather left but i feel the left has too much moved to defend minorities issues, wich is a shame because historically left wing movements were workers rights which were more about the mass vs the few "elite". Thats why, in france at least, a lot of the working class now vote extreme right, and in usa, trump.
> if you defend trans rights, you are going to forget more important fights such as the obesity crisis, the opioid crisis, the absurdity of your healthcare system
I don't understand this argument at all.
Lots of people disagree with the Left's proposed policies on these issues, but they do have policy proposals. It's just flat-out inaccurate to argue that trans acceptance has reduced Left focus or fervor about other subjects. If anything it's the opposite, the people who are most likely to be arguing the loudest for trans rights are also most likely to be proposing large changes to our health care system, mass decriminalization of drugs, mass reform of how we police opioids and how we rehabilitate addicts, and public health laws and restructures of our food system. I can count on one hand the number trans activists I know online who aren't fiercely pro-union and fiercely in favor of raising minimum wages at a federal level.
The common argument from USA Republicans is not that the Left is too weak on these issues, it's that the Left is too radical on these issues. I don't know what experience would lead someone to believe that trans activists are less likely to be politically involved in other areas or less likely to support at the very least populist-adjacent ideas. It just does not match up with reality in the US at all.
People can criticize the far-Left activist-sphere for a lot of things, but they're definitely not rejecting populist ideas or cozying up to the elites. It's just a wild argument to make. Ask McConnell if he thinks that people like AOC aren't interested in worker rights or unions. I mean, my goodness, the position of the mainstream GOP leadership in the US right now is that the far-Left is composed of dangerous radicals who want to execute Bezos and give all of his money to his factory workers.
If what you say is the common French perspective about what attitudes are in America, then France is not getting good enough reporting about American issues or how people over here are actually arguing about them.
Similarly:
> adressing some issues means not adressing other.. the public debate cannot handle so many things at once
I don't know how this is being reported elsewhere, but to be clear, it is Republicans who are proposing these bills. More anti-trans legislation has gotten proposed in the last year alone than we had in probably the last decade. Republicans did that, not Democrats. So the idea that this is an attempt to avoid distracting from other issues just doesn't make sense, because if that's what Republicans actually believed then they wouldn't be constantly bringing the issue to the forefront of debates and passing a ton of legislation fighting against trivial issues like what bathroom someone walks into.
What would make the response make sense is if Republicans viewed petty victories like policing genitalia inside of a public restroom as victories in a broader "culture war" in which trans people symbolize a cultural enemy.
Which, look, it's fine. We can acknowledge that some things are a culture war. You bring this up yourself when you talk about the fear that allowing trans rights to progress too far will lead to people who dissent being ostracized. For Americans that is inherently a tribal fear. It is a fight over a change in cultural values and standards: a worry that a certain cultural tribe (often white, Conservative, and/or Evangelical) is losing power compared to other subgroups.
Ok fine for point 1/ but you didnt answer to point 2/ which is kinda the most important ;).
P.s. Most people in france do not think that much about america, its just my take from watching debates on HN and the trump election. We have A LOT less identity politics daily, so trans right has just never really been on the radar / something people are going to care opposing.
> You bring this up yourself when you talk about the fear that allowing trans rights to progress too far will lead to people who dissent being ostracized. For Americans that is inherently a tribal fear. It is a fight over a change in cultural values and standards: a worry that a certain cultural tribe (often white, Conservative, and/or Evangelical) is losing power compared to other subgroups.
I don't disagree with you that people have this as a fear, but it is a tribal fear, it's a fear of turning into the outgroup. In America, anti-trans legislation seeks to mitigate certain demographics' fear by othering the groups that "threaten" them. The anti-trans laws that get passed because of that fear are passed with the intention of slowing down and hurting what Republicans have designated as the enemy tribe (in this case, the trans community).
It's hard for me to think of anything more tribalistic than viewing an entire demographic as a threat, and then actively taking away their rights in an attempt to reverse cultural change.
Of course its tribalistic, but you seem to think only one side is. Both side are tribalistic in that case, its the point of the "cancel culture".. when you can lose your job for voicing conservative opinions, no wonder you turn to voting trump.
Im not sure conservatives are the one who started it. Trump merely surfed on (tho amplified) an existing tribalistic divide.
From a french person pov, the polarity and violence between is literally insane considering you guys mostly agreee on important (to me) issues.
I think you're making the mistake of conflating the motivations behind people who are fighting for trans rights and the motivations behind people who are fighting against trans rights. But the motivations between those two groups are not going to be identical.
I buy that Maslow's hierarchy of needs might maybe offer some explanation why we're finally getting around to addressing problems affecting the trans community, but is not sufficient to explain why it would be a brand new priority for Republicans to regress trans rights.
Tribalism/reactionism however does go a long way towards explaining why the GOP would not just oppose new legislation helping trans communities, but actually go so far as to pass new laws restricting their rights, as if trans people were never using bathrooms before 2018 or if there's some kind of brand new problem that requires blocking medical care for them. It makes a lot more sense to look at the opposition through the lenses of reactionary politics and polarization -- that the GOP is lashing out against trans people in anger over the progress they have made and because their rights have become a polarizing issue.