[diffxx]

This does not feel like at all a good faith reading of the situation. Hardcore anti trans-activists on the right would like to make life so miserable for transpeople as to essentially eliminate them from public life entirely. That is the context in which these supposedly hysterical responses emerge. I say supposedly hysterical because transgender people of all ages do commit suicide at a higher rate than other groups. This should be considered a public health emergency but it largely isn't because transgender people are the most useful scapegoat of the day (even better than immigrants). Of course that doesn't mean that every child who questions their self identity should be given immediate medical intervention, but neither does it mean we should deny care for all.

[inglor_cz]

"Hardcore anti trans-activists on the right would like to make life so miserable for transpeople as to essentially eliminate them from public life entirely."

You may be right, but the anti-trans backlash in the context of the anti-woke backlash is much wider than just a few hardcore anti-trans activists on the far right. And it mostly revolves around two issues:

a. Very young kids being treated in invasive or hard-to-revert ways on flimsy evidence.

b. People with male musculature competing in women's sports leagues.

If these two things go away, the popular reaction will significantly moderate itself, maybe into gay-marriage-like acceptance levels.

But these two things won't be broadly acceptable anywhere soon, if ever.

[spokaneplumb]

Those two things already barely exist. I’m skeptical it’s possible, in a nation of hundreds of millions, to get them much closer to not existing than they already are.

So if those are the parts really bothering people… it sure seems like a case of looking for something to be upset about, in which case attempting to address their grievances won’t help. Or, a case of being told by people who are exaggerating the situation that these are actually really big deals, then not bothering to check whether that’s true. And in that second scenario, I don’t think making reality even closer to what they prefer than it already is will convince them of anything, so again, why bother to try to address their concerns?

Their perception is out of phase with what’s actually going on, that needs to be fixed before any useful discussion about some nugget of a point they may hypothetically have or helpful nuance their perspective might provide can meaningfully be engaged with.

[inglor_cz]

It is more like "outrageous things dominate the news cycle". It is not even a new thing; on a similar note, already in the 1990s, people started believing widely that child abduction from the street was a real danger in their own communities.

That said, the politicians meet the demand, sometimes to their own detriment. The Trump campaign could only deploy the "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them" slogan because Kamala herself, in 2020, felt the need to conform to then-prevailing winds and declare that she would fund gender-change surgeries for prisoners from taxpayers money.

Is that a thing? No, as far as we know, 0 prisoners asked for a taxpayer-funded gender change surgery before or after, and there was probably no risk for Kamala in 2020 if she brushed that question aside as marginal and irrelevant.

But she wanted to prove her progressive credentials on a thing that barely existed, and the thing that barely existed turned viciously against her four years later.

Maybe it would be better if politicians just didn't chase barely existing things in EITHER DIRECTION.

[spokaneplumb]

> The Trump campaign could only deploy the "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them" slogan because Kamala herself, in 2020, felt the need to conform to then-prevailing winds and declare that she would fund gender-change surgeries for prisoners from taxpayers money.

She was asked a question about it once by Fox, because Trump had brought it up, and answered that yes, she would follow the law and not deny medically necessary gender affirming care, and noted that the Trump administration had also followed the law in the same way. It was a response to an unfounded fact-free attack, prompted by a question from an unfriendly network. She didn’t bring it up again.

You have not found an example of a leftist politician chasing barely-existing things in this example—the opposite, in fact, she was playing defense to right wingers trying to make something out of nothing at all.

Do prominent democrats do this, on some topics? Probably! But they don’t have a media machine and strategy structured around that as a core activity.

[edit] I mean, they do this because it works, of course. Look at the thread on PG’s piece, and this one. It’s clearly working to get people riled up and shift the zeitgeist, reality be damned. “Welfare queens”, that was a fun one, and so successful that I bet 35+% of Americans who’ve heard the term still think it was an actual problem. Some fizzle (“they’re eating the pets!”) but they’re not punished for those instances, so why not endlessly throw out BS and see what sticks? Some of it does, and then we’re all talking about a bunch of basically-fake grievances instead of anything that matters, and they may even use the BS to advance positions that do affect things that matter. It’s so very tedious to deal with.

[jonfromsf]

The ACLU had her fill out a form where she agreed to that position in 2020. That’s why it was a topic that Fox could ask about. This is absolutely a case of a tiny minority making a point of making the candidate take a fringe position, or be bullied by the activist class.

[HDThoreaun]

This is not how politics works. Politics is about spectacle, not facts. In order to turn people pro-trans the movement needs to come out emphatically against those two things. Make a spectacle out of it. “We’re just like you” consistently works

[yread]

I don't get why is there so much energy wasted on these non issues:

> a. Very young kids being treated in invasive or hard-to-revert ways on flimsy evidence.

Leave it to the doctors/counsellors/psychologists and parents. They know best. If my kids wanted to change their gender I would sure appreciate if the state wasn't making it any more difficult.

> b. People with male musculature competing in women's sports leagues.

So a man won a boxing match with women. Who cares? Sports are entertainment. They have never been fair. Women boxers have a federation they can decide themselves who gets to play with who. No need for state to get involved.

[djur]

> So a man won a boxing match with women

This should be stated hypothetically, because it hasn't happened (at least, not in any official, regulated match).

[tordrt]

Has happened multiple times. Lastly in the Olympics. The evidence strongly suggests Imane Khelif is of male sex. Maybe most notable (though not boxing), 800m finals for women in 2016, gold, silver and bronze went to athletes of male sex.

[nradov]

Sports are more than just entertainment. There is no way for the state to avoid getting involved when the sports are run through publicly funded schools. And this impacts more than just boxing. At some point the state has to decide whether inclusion or fair play is more important. At least for sports that involve strength and speed we can't have it both ways. There are no easy answers here, and we can't just pretend the issue doesn't matter.

https://www.shewon.org/

[HDThoreaun]

Just anecdata but my sister was encouraged to change her gender by multiple different therapists. She later “outgrew” that for lack of a better term and has emphatically told me that listening to them was a mistake. Sometimes parents know best idk.

[numpad0]

There are clearly broken experts addicted to the fact that SRS sterilize recipients. As much as I would support people with GID, there's something very broken about the field.

[dunnlo]

It's not considered a public health emergency because the suicide claim is bullshit and is only trotted out by activists to try to manipulate others into accepting their demands.

Anyway it's better to listen to gender critical feminists on the left, rather than anti-trans reactionaries on the right, because the former have a principled and humane opposition to the ideology of trans, that is based on women's rights and safeguarding of children.

[giraffe_lady]

> Anyway it's better to listen to gender critical feminists on the left, rather than anti-trans reactionaries on the right, because the former have a principled and humane opposition to the ideology of trans, that is based on women's rights and safeguarding of children.

They don't and it isn't. On this issue terfs share policy goals with the far right almost exactly, to the point where self-identified white nationalists keep showing up to support them at their actions. They used to experience or feign discomfort about this but since 2022 or so they are openly allied in some regions, especially the UK.

[itsoktocry]

>Hardcore anti trans-activists on the right would like to make life so miserable for transpeople as to essentially eliminate them from public life entirely

Who are these hard core anti-trans activists? Are they mainstream? (Please dont say JK Rowling)

[djur]

Stephen Miller just gave a speech last night saying that trans people don't exist, and the new President he advises is issuing an executive order to that effect.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-sex-gender-transgender-dei-...

[hooverd]

Hmm, the governor of Florida to start with. Criminal penalties for changing your gender marker on your driver's license.

[antifa]

Some states recently enacted laws requiring teachers to snitch on students who request unauthorized pronouns to the nanny state.