347
Activist says trans people can’t trust Democrats to protect them anymore
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
347 points (93.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2003 readers
1229 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democrats were pretty cool about protecting trans people. But thanks to non-voters and $hill Stein voters (along with tens of millions of “low information” Trumpledorks), Trump has all three branches of government at his disposal.
Considering Democrats are now complaining that their protection of trans people cost them the election, I wouldn't say they were all that cool to begin with. They use trans people as a political tool and then toss them aside the second it becomes inconvenient for them to support trans rights. Just look at how the Democrats have "defended" their newest trans colleague.
Specific people in the Democratic Party have made those complaints. The party has not. Your comment is no different than stereotyping a group for the actions of individuals.
Has the party as a whole done anything to say otherwise? Silence is a different kind of choice.
You’re claiming the Democratic Party hasn’t supported the trans community?
When the leading candidate avoids the issue, gives less representation to trans people than the preceding candidates, and says "states rights" in response to growing repression of trans people when pushed to say something in an interview, I think its fair to say the Dem leadership has abandoned us. Individual dems are better, but the leadership clearly doesn't care.
I'm saying they're willing to throw them under the bus as soon as it gets difficult. Being silent while a few members do so explicitly isn't being an ally.
They really haven't. They tend to take a neutral stance at best, rather than positively affirming trans rights. This was one of the things that killed them in the election. Despite being a decade in to the recent Republican war on trans people, Democrats have never bothered to develop a set of coherent talking points that they can defend trans rights around. When was the last time you heard a centrist Democrat say, "trans women are women, trans men are men. Their healthcare is medically necessary and life-saving. Trans women belong in women's restrooms and trans men in men's. Republicans are currently guilty of attempting a genocide."
That's the kind of talking points they should be using, a full-throated defense of trans rights that can directly stand up against Republican hate mongering. Instead, if they respond at all, they respond in a pathetic mincing way that tries to "both sides" the issue. Instead of vocally coming down firmly on the side of trans rights, they'll say things like, "these are complex issues...." or "these issues are a distraction..." You would never see a Democrat say that antisemitism is "a distraction" or that defending abortion rights "are a complex issue."
With some notable exceptions, Democrats have completely failed to actually have strong support for trans rights. Republicans are anti-trans and pro-trans genocide. Democrats are neutral. And this really hurt them in the election. Republicans supported full trans elimination. And Democrats could only respond with non-committal mealy-mouthed mumbling about the complexity of the issue. Voters saw that they really didn't stand for anything. Kamala didn't really believe in anything when it comes to trans rights, and the voters punished her for it. Voters want people who actually believe in something, not an empty suit that is just following polls and focus groups.
I guarantee you she does not want her colleagues white knighting for her or otherwise drawing attention to it. The entire way she has handled this has been “I’m not letting this be a distraction, I’m here to represent Delaware.“ That’s her decision and I’m glad her colleagues respect that instead of making it about them and how great they are for defending her.
It's crazy to see a party with a 3:1 fundraising advantage lose in a landslide and then blame the distant fourth place vote getter for the defeat.
Nobody seems to want to talk about how Democrats endorsed a genocide and how that may have shifted their popularity.
What did they get in return?
It's politics, they got something, what was it?
It doesn't say? Huh. I wonder why.
They got to fund the military.
then double fuck them, how about the military passes an audit before they get more tax money to hand over to billionaires.
The problem with democrats is that they always hold progressive action overhead like a carrot. "Vote for us, we'll establish trans rights/universal healthcare/codify roe v wade!".
Then they don't do it because they want to use it as a fundraising and election platform next go around. If they just did things when they had power people would be more willing to vote for them.
And yes, I know that there are Republicans and independents blocking progressive action. But that doesn't excuse the DNC from doing what I described above as well as constantly shitting on popular progressive candidates.
Not really, like their supposed protection of black people their protection of trans people is contingent on how the minority behaves.
That's not support, that's blackmail.