Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (17 children)

I like how its always a minorities job to vote against their own self interest "for the greater good" and not the job of a Democratic politician to not throw them under the bus. Especially with how seemingly extremely important this one demographic is if a significant portion of said demographic not voting will cause the candidate to lose.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (12 children)

    Not for the greater good - for their own good. Even if you only care about one issue (and justifiably so), and both candidates are on the wrong side of that issue, it is likely that one of them is far worse on that issue than the other. It doesn’t have to feel good to vote for the someone who stands in opposition to your interests, but it is better than letting the person who stands in opposition to your existence win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    My issue isn't whether voting for a democratic candidate or not is better overall as a trans person, I think basically every trans person in the US knows that policy wise a democrat will, at worst, be the same as the republican they're running against on trans rights specifically, and at least a bit better on some others. (There is a consistent belief on every one of these posts that somehow trans people don't understand that as well, which is a different issue lol)

    The point is that if a politician doesn't lose support/votes for taking an anti-trans position, then there's nothing punishing them for taking that position. That's the argument being made about how voting for an anti-trans democrat is voting against your own good, not because of their policy specifically, but because by voting for them in spite of it you send a signal that their position on trans issues can be the same as a republicans as long as they're marginally better than one in other ways.

    For what its worth, I'm trans and am planning on voting for all Democrats in the midterms, even though I'm disappointed in a few of them. However, there are a couple candidates mentioned in this article specifically (namely cuellar + kaptur and a few others) where I think not voting for them has a very strong argument I'd consider if I lived in those states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (4 children)

    If a an anti-trans Democrat loses to a more anti-trans Republican, the lesson they learn is they should have been more anti-trans to win.

    Not voting assists the rightward ratchet. Nobody can hear your silence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    If a an anti-trans Democrat loses to a more anti-trans Republican, the lesson they learn is they should have been more anti-trans to win.

    That's an insane statement. A Democrat takes a fringe position not generally supported by the party and loses. Therefore, that must mean they should become even more fringe.

    That dog don't hunt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago*

    The ones making bad statements about trans people in sports are running in states/districts with relatively conservative voter bases. These sentiments are not fringe for these areas; in fact, they are tamer than those of the average local voter. If Democrats continue to lose to Republicans there, it’s not “insane” for them to conclude that their constituents prefer the Republicans’ policy positions.

    You’re just fucking yourself by letting the greater evil (the one that actually wants you dead) win.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    If an anti trans Dem loses to a more anti trans Rep, the lesson they will learn from this is that they should be more anti trans to sway even just a single republican voter. Democrats don't care about you or your interests they just want money from their overlords, and those overlords love it when the proletariat is mauling itself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    If someone said "I want to kill you humanely" and their opponent just said "I want to kill you", I think the rest of us wouldn't be chastising you for refusing to vote for either. This is an issue easy for cis people to counsel a cost-benefit analysis on, but it's deeply personal for the victims.

    If these politicians think throwing them under the bus will net them votes that's on the politician to prove, not for their victims to support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    I’m cis myself, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a very personal stake in this fight. I have yet to hear of a Democrat politician that thinks trans people should die - I wish I could say the same about republican politicians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    They have though. Once you support one policy against trans people based on nothing more than unscientific fear and bigotry, there's no logical reason you can't support all of them. Trans women have no advantage in sports; it's based on nothing but stereotypes. And every place that's started with sports restrictions have moved on to far more restrictions.

    Here's what I would like to see these transphobe dems suggest. Put your money where your mouth is. Propose compromise legislation that actually does what you say your policies are. Are sports really what you care about? Fine. Pass a national law that says:

    1. Sports are based on assigned gender at birth.
    2. No state or federal law can restrict access to trans medical care, for trans people of any age.
    3. All states and the federal government must protect access to correct IDs.
    4. Enshrine trans anti-discrimination into federal law.

    Is this really about sports? Fine. Fucking act like it. If this really were about sports, I think most trans people would happily trade a ban on sports participation in turn for all of our other rights being firmly protected and enshrined in federal law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I don’t believe that most politicians of either party actually give a fuck about women’s sports in general - they certainly never have before this issue came up. For cowardly democrats on the anti-trans side of the sports issue, they simply see this as a way to avoid appearing too “woke” to independents and conservative democrats, while only directly affecting the handful of mtf athletes among their constituents.

    I fully agree that most trans folk and their loved ones would gladly cede the sports issue in exchange for some real protections - I certainly would.

    I’m not saying that these anti-trans democrats are trustworthy; I’m saying they are motivated by poll numbers, not personal animosity. Losing won’t motivate them to do better unless they lose to someone with better values - that’s why we can teach them lessons in the primaries but not in the general election. If they lose in the general, the lesson they will take is that they weren’t conservative enough, so withholding your vote at that point is counter-productive.

    The republicans want to pass bills that will make life overtly harder for trans folk, beyond sports and even bathroom use. The priority right now is to take away their majorities in the House and Senate, so that those bills can’t even be brought to the floor for a vote. Beyond that we have to hold them accountable during their term, and we can primary them next time around. There is no situation in which withholding votes from Democrats in the general results in better outcomes for trans people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Another cis person telling trans people they know better. Mansplaining at its finest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Because it’s of course totally impossible for me to have a personal stake in the well being of trans people without being one myself, right. There’s no way there could be other people in my life already feeling the damage done by this administration…

    I’m also a lifelong atheist, and very much opposed to religion playing any part in government affairs. If I refused to vote for any politician that invoked god on the campaign trail, I’d have never voted in 25+ years of adulthood. Regardless of what the issue is, refusing to vote for the better/less harmful candidate means prioritizing your own emotional self-satisfaction over the well being of those most directly affected (whether that includes you or not). It might feel good and righteous to take such a stand, but it’s a trap.

    It would be mansplaining for me to try to tell you how to feel about these candidates, or about the experience of being betrayed by the “better” party - I’m not here to do that, nor would I have any right to. I’m saying that however you feel, you shouldn’t let your feelings determine your vote. That shitty candidate that cares more about getting elected than about your rights will never know why you didn’t vote for them (in fact they are likely to guess the opposite), and you’ll be stuck with the one who revels in causing you pain. Please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the bad if the only other option is the downright monstrous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Exactly. I'm frankly sick and fucking tired of cis people telling trans people how they know our needs so much better than we do. The hubris is astounding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Yeah the constant through line on every one of these kinds of posts from people that minorities of any type are too stupid to understand that Republicans are bad for them or something is kinda gross. Like basically every left-leaning minority person discussing Democrat politicians falling short gets that republican policies are typically worse, the issue is not having a good alternative that's not still bad, and choosing not to vote for them is based on that, not some notion that they'll be better off under a republican. The whole point of voting is supposed to be that your vote gives you leverage to influence politicians to take your stance (or more accurately to convince you of that to keep people from doing actions that actually meaningfully affect change).

    Saying "vote blue no matter who" or whatever equivalent of you should vote for a democrat no matter what just allows democrats to ignore that supposed leverage and hold voters hostage by using MAGA as a point of leverage to try and force people to vote for them. There's a reason that Trump never got arrested under Biden, or barred from office, and Democrats kept preaching unity rather than consequences. They directly benefit from MAGA existing.

    Trump isn't even the problem at the end of the day, he's a symptom of a much deeper problem that won't be fixed by just electing a Democrat majority for 8 years straight, much less for one election. The entire US was founded on racism, sexism, and classism, and those were written into the foundation of the electoral college, the senate, the house, and everythting else. The democrats have no incentive to fix that though as long as they keep winning roughly 50% of the time and can get their money and help their corporate backers.

    Anyway sorry for the rant lol, I'm just also frustrated by the number of cis people in this post saying dismissive or kinda transphobic things and being upvoted for it lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    Yeah. It's pure arrogance. What they refuse to admit is that sometimes the only power minorities have, the only way we can actually influence anything, is to be willing to act as a spoiler if we're betrayed by our leaders.

    Of course, the cis mansplainers in this thread don't want minorities actually exercising independent power. They want our votes, but not our voices.

  • source
  • parent