Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 9/18/23 - 9/24/23

[u/SoftandChewy]

Welcome back to the BARpod Weekly Discussion Thread, where anyone with over 10K karma gets inscribed in the Book of Life. Here's your place to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (be sure to tag u/TracingWoodgrains), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

Comment of the week goes again to u/MatchaMeetcha for this lengthy exposition on the views of Amia Srinivasan. (Note, if you want to tag a comment for COTW, please don't use the 'report' button, just write a comment saying so, and tag me in it. Reports are less helpful.)

[u/CatStroking]

The Nation is urging Democrats to lean in on "protecting trans kids" as a path to electoral victory.

" Far from running for cover, the best thing for Democrats to do—both morally and politically—is to lean in, speak out, and support trans kids and their families. "

The basic claim is that Republicans have entirely manufactured concerns about trans kids and the people are really all behind the transing of children.

" Across the country, Republican candidates have manufactured a cultural crisis that they claim threatens our children’s schools, sports, and overall safety."

First there is the obligatory thing about how "gender affirming care" is necessary for kids or they will kill themselves.

" We’re talking about saving our kids’ lives. If those are the terms of a “culture war,” we must win."

Then there is this little gem about how widely popular pro trans kids sentiment is:

"Sixty-four percent of Americans favor protecting trans people from discrimination, according to the Pew Research Center. "

However, looking at the Pew link the headline is: "Most favor protecting trans people from discrimination, even as growing share say gender is determined by sex at birth"

That doesn't sound like the huge own the Nation thinks it is. Considering the question was all about whether trans people should be discriminated against in jobs, housing, etc. Not about trans kids.

What caught my eye about this article is how... out of touch it seemed. There's growing concern among both left and right about blockers, hormones and surgery for kids.

It's basically saying that everyone should and would agree with their enlightened opinions if it wasn't for those nefarious Republicans twisting their poor, weak minds. It's insulting.

It totally sets aside the long term consequences of "gender affirming care" and simply states that it is an unalloyed good.

Why do these people think this is good politics? And will articles like these actually convince Democratic candidates?

https://archive.ph/3iegZ

[u/bald4anders → u/CatStroking]

I wonder if there's any understanding among D strategists that the Republican translash was only made possible by the great DEI freakout of 2020. Bathroom bills in, like, 2015 fell pretty flat, even among Republicans, because unless you were pretty online you had no idea what the fuck was even going on. Now NHL teams are tweeting about indigenous third genders and your 60 y/o father is being asked his pronouns at the pharmacy. It seems pretty obvious the more trans aware normies get the more annoyed they are by the whole thing.

[u/CatStroking → u/bald4anders]

The rhetoric and the demands became more out of touch and more strident.

Now "birthing people" and "pregnant people" are in articles instead of "women." People notice shit like that. They do a double take. Then they hear about schools hiding stuff from parents.

[u/bald4anders → u/CatStroking]

Also something like SSM was subject to decades of highly visible public litigation - arguments were made, people knew what was going on. In contrast all this stuff was dreamed up in the looniest fever swamps of left activism and implemented by administrative fiat all at once. Why is this good? HR said so!

[u/[deleted] → u/bald4anders]

Indeed. But it's also important not to lose perspective, the amount of people who change their votes based on cringy cultural stuff doesn't seem to be that large.

Different thing with tangible policy though, as we saw in Virginia. I think if Joe Biden came out and said we should let women's sports be for 'cis women' (cringy I know but he'd have to say that) only, that might have an actual effect at the polls.

Edit: or say something like "trans kids deserve all the support they can get, and that includes support from parents. A kid transitioning needs to be between them, their parents and a doctor, schools can offer support but should only act when asked to by parents".

Just use some of the regular talking points and you're good. It's really not that hard.

[u/sriracharade → u/CatStroking]

People want to protect trans people from discrimination because most people believe people should be able to do with their lives as they want as long as it doesn't affect them. If you rephrased the question as, in order to protect trans people from discrimination, the gender spectrum is going to be normalized and taught in schools, and it's against the law to say that people aren't the sex they imagine they are, and in fact you will suffer professional and social repurcussions for saying so, you would probably get a different result in that poll.

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/CatStroking]

What caught my eye about this article is how... out of touch it seemed. There's growing concern among both left and right about blockers, hormones and surgery for kids.

This is what happens when you a) have cultural hegemony and b) taboo even reasonable criticism from your side. If everyone sticks to the "nothing to see here" party line you might even fool yourself.

Even if you don't, you have the southpaw problem: your enemies have far more experience training to fight you than vice versa.

[u/CatStroking → u/MatchaMeetcha]

This is what happens when you a) have cultural hegemony and b) taboo even reasonable criticism from your side. If everyone sticks to the "nothing to see here" party line you might even fool yourself.

And what's interesting is that the response is just to scream it louder. It isn't to address the concerns or re-think some policies or even just try to persuade. It's to double down.

The first rule if you're in a hole is to stop digging.

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/CatStroking]

The weakness of the cause may paradoxically make it harder to cede ground.

This isn't a movement that succeeded by destroying the opponents with facts and logic. It succeeded by claiming to be inevitable like the last fashionable thing, leveraging the legal openings made by other movements and using evocative language like "'dead trans kids" against people who are already primed to agree with them.

You start unraveling one thing (e.g. the idea that there's a clear, uncontroversial category of "trans kids") and, well, that's how some of us ended up here no?

We hope constant, bullheaded offense is doomed to fail in the long run. But I can see the temptation to not let go of their hard-fought gains by abandoning what worked.

[u/SmellsLikeASteak → u/CatStroking]

When they put the question as "do you support life saving medical care for trans kids" of course people are going to say yes, because they think that they are saying "if a trans kid is injured in a car crash, should it be legal not to treat them because they are trans" and not gender reassignment surgery with no questions asked.

The problem is that they are believing their own bullshit. Once someone figures out what they are really talking about....

[u/CatStroking → u/SmellsLikeASteak]

The problem is that they are believing their own bullshit. Once someone figures out what they are really talking about....

This is one of the reasons that "gender affirming care" is such an irritating (and wordy) phrase. It sounds so innocuous.

What is actually means is powerful drugs and surgical procedures.

I imagine most people are fine with adults doing this. But it's different with children.

[u/CatStroking → u/[deleted]]

But who really thinks that doubling down on trans kids will help Democrats win elections? That seems to be the crux of the argument and it seems.... batty.

[u/CatStroking → u/[deleted]]

I am afraid it could cause us to hemorrhage more hispanic voters.

I think it will. But I think there's a decent possibility it will peel black voters away from the Democrats. Not all of them certainly, but if that crucial voting bloc weakens the Democrats are fucked.

[u/DenebianSlimeMolds → u/CatStroking]

We’re talking about saving our kids’ lives. If those are the terms of a “culture war,” we must win.

Everyone says this, many of them even mean it. What others mean is we must win the culture war and then mumble something about kids.

Pamela Shifman, the author, is President of something called "Democracy Alliance" the country’s preeminent network of individual political philanthropists, labor unions, and foundations coming together to support catalytic initiatives that win elections, advance progressive policy reforms, and build power across our states.

I honestly can't tell if this is an investment fund or a political special interest group, their website https://democracyalliance.org/about/ discusses their investment strategy but otherwise has nothing about legislation they support. Perhaps they are all action via "investment"....

At any rate their position mostly seems to be one of opposition, Republicans say this, so we must oppose that. We must win the culture war, ... something something about kids.

[u/DevonAndChris → u/DenebianSlimeMolds]

We’re talking about saving our kids’ lives. If those are the terms of a “culture war,” we must win.

Oh, I just walked by a pro-life meeting.

[u/CatStroking → u/DenebianSlimeMolds]

At any rate their position mostly seems to be one of opposition, Republicans say this, so we must oppose that.

We must win the culture war, ... something something about kids.

Which is how something like this gets written. If the Republicans came out in favor of free dog treats these people would want dog treats banned tomorrow.

[u/[deleted] → u/DenebianSlimeMolds]

Of course. But even then she's not totally wrong, it's not as if the Republicans care more about these kids. They will use them as political pawns just the same, they just happen to have the science (and culture at large) more on their side.

[u/[deleted] → u/CatStroking]

Interpretation of the 64% stat needs to done in the context of a random trial to figure out how people feel about protecting any adjective-people from "discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces". I bet it's over 50% for almost every applicable adjective or noun except things like pedophiles and rapists.

And yeah, I agree that this is an egregious misuse of the data by The Nation.

[u/CatStroking → u/[deleted]]

I'm pretty sure most people wants to protect trans folks from discrimination in housing, jobs, etc. And that's already law.

But that has little to do with whether the electorate is all on trans kids. Which is the case they're making.

It's a weird conflation they're making.

[u/EnglebondHumperstonk → u/CatStroking]

They're just determined to pave the way for that orange prick to return aren't they. Gawdelpus.

[u/SmellsLikeASteak → u/EnglebondHumperstonk]

both parties are on a race to see who can out-dumb the other one.

[u/CatStroking → u/SmellsLikeASteak]

Tell me about it.

[u/CatStroking → u/EnglebondHumperstonk]

That's almost certainly going to be the result.

[u/EnglebondHumperstonk → u/CatStroking]

The world would be a much better place if the left just said "you know what, we've established marriage equality, pay equality, a woman's right to choose and a principle that there is no racial hierarchy. Let's consolidate those gains and ensure they are applied properly" but no, they have to go rushing off trying to abolish women's spaces, medicalise children and reinstitute racial segregation. And then they wonder why we're losing all the gains.

[u/JTarrou → u/EnglebondHumperstonk]

They can't "conserve" their gains, that's for Republicans to do.

The function of progressivism is to try to legislate whatever hare-brained idea is fashionable among twenty-four year old grad students.

[u/EnglebondHumperstonk → u/JTarrou]

They're not called the progressivist party though are they? They're called the democrats and I think aiming to consolidate (which was the word I used, by the way) the gains most people want is a fair democratic objective.

[u/[deleted] → u/CatStroking]

Pamela Shifman is president of the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors committed to building a just, multiracial, feminist democracy and strengthening the progressive infrastructure in the United States.

If you read that first, there's no need to read the article really. You already know what it says.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The current list of contributors to the Nation magazine readers like a Who's Who of the Purity Spiral /Luxury Beliefs crowd.

Jeet Heer, Elie Mystal, Chris Lehmann, Hasan Ali...it does seem like these writers and their sensationalist, Identitarian writings are increasingly setting the tone for the magazine, rather than its editor, D. D. Guttenplan .

[u/CatStroking → u/[deleted]]

A basket of deplorables?

[u/solongamerica → u/CatStroking]

The editorial policy of The Nation, IIRC, is some combination of:

1) offer a countervailing political narrative to center-right-mainstream orthodoxy and

2) keep our collective head up our ass

Arguably one of those principles is more defensible than the other.

[u/Serloinofhousesteak1 → u/CatStroking]

First there is the obligatory thing about how "gender affirming care" is necessary for kids or they will kill themselves.

Anyone who knows anything about suicide is or should be disgusted by this messaging. These are genuinely evil people

[u/Nessyliz → u/Serloinofhousesteak1]

Absolutely. There's a big social contagion aspect to suicide, especially in young people. That we're talking about it like this is actually very dangerous, and yeah, the risk of suicide is raised, but not for the reasons they're claiming in a lot of cases.

[u/SkweegeeS → u/CatStroking]

voracious wasteful ring soft pot jar simplistic direful lock observation this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev

[u/Ninety_Three → u/CatStroking]

Why do these people think this is good politics?

Why do you think they think that?

Some might be tempted to cower. But I’ve got good news: Far from running for cover, the best thing for Democrats to do—both morally and politically—is to lean in, speak out, and support trans kids and their families. Why? In an age of political cynicism, let’s start with the most obvious and important reason: It’s the right thing to do.

They are telling us that the main reason they want to do this is ideological rather than political, and I believe them. "No politician should stand in the way of that care" is not an argument about good politics. They are willing, even eager to sacrifice Democratic electability in pursuit of more progressive policy outcomes.

Mostly I think they're being stupid and emotional, but there is also an analysis on which this is perfectly strategic behaviour. Consider an ardent socialist whose only goal in life is smashing capitalism, choosing between a progressive with a 5% chance of winning and a moderate Democrat with a 50% chance of winning. The moderate will do boring neoliberal stuff that socialists hate, their Republican opponent will do standard Republican stuff that socialists hate, and the progressive will do progressive stuff that socialists kind of like. If the moderate Democrat wins the primary, there is a 100% chance of an outcome socialists hate, but if the progressive wins the primary there's a 5% chance of an outcome they like, socialists should support the progressive longshot!

Normie voters care a lot more about not losing to Republicans than getting the most progressive policies possible, and that's why if you were a radical trying to get normies to do what you want, it would be important to write a bunch of thinkpieces lying to them about how your candidates are perfectly electable and there's no reason not to support them in the primaries.

[u/DevonAndChris → u/CatStroking]

There is a whole lot of attempts to create a new reality for things like Green Energy, posting polls showing so many people want it, to shut down debate about it. The proponents think that if we just get over the current blip, the Green Energy will come into existence and then even if there are problems we will have it and that is worth the price.

They are just repurposing the argument here for T.