Of course they do, the alternative would be to admit that they’ve failed to build the sort of ecosystem that espouses Democrat values in the same way that Republicans have through podcasts, talk radio, Fox News, and Russian dis/misinfo.
So "many democrats can go fuck themselves while they continue to fail to address the real problems for their loss, the complete absence of a coherent platform, a platform that should include human rights for all! So Mr. Schumer, was that really so hard?
I would like to rhetorically ask these elected representatives: if what comes next is a rewrite of the Pledge of Allegiance to say:
…. with liberty and justice for all. “Except trans people.”
It’s really painful for me to realize that more than a few of them would think it’s a really good idea. It’s shameful what our representative government is doing.
This is not consent of the governed. It is a broken promise of government by the people, of the people, and for the people. A broken promise of equality of opportunity, and protection under the law.
It is a targeted assault against a marginalized minority population, causing them immense pain and denying them their basic human rights.
And people need to realize it doesn’t stop with trans people. History shows that when one group is targeted, others soon follow.
The most common stated objection (as opposed to the underlying ones) to trans athletes playing in sports is a fear that a physically larger opponent will cause injury. But this is specious, because many non-trans athletes are genetically large and powerful, and generally there isn’t an uprising of animosity against them because it’s somehow seen as “fairer”. The solution, of course, is to have rules against players competing against each other when the size differential is too large - whether cis or trans. That would solve the problem immediately. But of course that would be useless for stoking the culture wars that anti-trans opponents seek.
Regardless of that, trans people are in danger of losing the athletics debate completely if they don’t start coming up with better and more vocal arguments. The Michigan outcome highlighted in Erin’s article is proof of that. There should always be sustained and strong support for trans athletes, without the tendency to “give in on this one issue”. The reason is that fascism is always take-all, it doesn’t compromise or offer grandfather clauses, and so yielding on this one issue will cause all trans civil rights to eventually collapse like a weakened house of cards. We’ve already seen that happen, and it’s sad and dreadful.
IMO, a carve-out would allow us to hold the line: There is no empirical basis for any claim that a trans girl/woman who has not undergone male puberty has any athletic advantage over a cisgender girl/woman. Therefore, there should be no prohibitions of these people participating. That is the minimum position.
Beyond that (e.g. for trans girls/women having undergone male puberty), I think we should insist that this is not an appropriate matter for government. It should be left up to the athletic associations.
I think both of these positions could be vigorously defended. At the very least, if we can defend the first one, it would mean that we could not be categorized as an exception for equal treatment under the law.
I tend to agree. I've thought a lot about the puberty distinction as sports debate has raged over the last year and I like how you position it as the floor and by doing so prevent us from being an equal protection exception.
Oh yes, of course. Trans kids (who are all basically Dolph Lundgren with a wig) go through the super duper easy process of transitioning all so that they can beat up on girls in sports. I mean, I've thought very very deeply about this and I can't see any other reason they could possibly have for transitioning? Its just common sense. Now excuse my while I go bury my head in the densest of sands...
I don't want them to 'protect' me. Go after those who present a clear danger to children. This is a non problem that republicans use to inflame their base and take control away from women.
One thing I object to is putting the words MEN against girls. There's not only a transphobia element to it, but a sexist (poor, helpless girls) language. This whole fight against basic human rights is infuriating.
Of course. Think of how many times one social panic after another has been based around one or both of two themes: "OMG! Save the children!" and/or "Protect our [sic] women!" Which is also why the screeching is always about trans girls, never trans boys - because, well, that's just not an issue because y'know, OF COURSE everybody KNOWS that no GIRL could compete in sports against a REAL BOY, amirite?
I don't know how these people can say with a straight face that trans women were born as MEN. I mean, I pity our poor moms, pushing out hairy, tattooed, linebacker-sized MEN. How do they even carry us inside them for 40 weeks?!
Primary every anti-Trans Democrat. I'd rather have an anti-Trans Republican in a seat than an anti-Trans Dem, at least you know the Repug is an enemy and will never stab you in the back, ALWAYS the face.
One of the clever ways the GOP framed this issue was to introduce bills with false information, giving it a more legit feel to their arguments. It is a brilliant strategy because they have controlled the narrative for years through this process. Why aren't the Dems doing the same thing? They should be introducing bills that are fact/science based. It's time for them to control the narrative with the truth!
An important issue is helping people to understand about intersex babies,; something the GOP has completely ignored through their butchering of science. We need to educate people on it, even introducing bills pertaining to it as a way to educate people that there are NOT only 2 genders as has been so dangerously espoused. From reading the book, "Becoming Nicole," they talked about how there are male and female brains. My understanding is that there are intersex babies with obvious and not so obvious characteristics from both genders in the child. Having a trans granddaughter, it seems like my sweet girl was born with a female brain but with the anatomy of a male. It seems to me that this could be a continuum of that intersex scale? I am not a scientist, as you can tell. However I do know that we need to use the same tactics for truth, rather than lies.
There is quite a bit of data at this point that points to there not being a "male" or "female" brain. Biological sex in humans is highly complex and our brains are part of that complexity.
I look forward to digesting this paper. I've saved it to my hard drive.
Just my cursory examination of it doesn't quite support their conclusion or yours. They are saying that for a difference in a character to be sexually dimorphic, there must be no overlap (i.e. no continuum). I strongly disagree with this premise. For instance, height is sexually dimorphic, and yet there is broad overlap in the distribution of height between the sexes. There is a very big difference between using a character to predict or describe sex (e.g. the presence of a penis), vs. determining whether there are population differences that might be meaningful.
The authors argue that although differences between male and female brains do exist, they are small and difficult to measure reliably. However, my inclination is to say, "BUT THEY ARE THERE. WHAT DO THEY MEAN OR SUGGEST?" I think when you can show that some brain characteristic follows a dimorphic pattern, falling along a bimodal distribution, and when a trans brain more resembles the brain of the identified gender than the birth sex, then you have something interesting. I don't accept that it's meaningless.
But as I say, I look forward to digesting the entire (very long) paper. Thanks for posting it.
It's kinda depressing that I can remember debates back in the dreaded '60s falling along the lines of "men and women are rigidly different (except for oddball exceptions)" versus "men and women are identical (except for the obvious physical differences)." Are those still the battle lines? There is either no continuum or no differences? Bummer.
I hope it's clear that I am not criticizing you, I'm agreeing with you in critiquing the idea that it has to be all or nothing.
I hope you'll get back to us - actually, I'm being selfish because I mean me - when you are done digesting.
Well, I think both arguments tend to get politically loaded. But as a scientist and as a trans woman, I'm very much fixated on the simple, non-political question of "WHY?" Over the past several decades, I have paid a lot of attention to people's stories, have entertained various theories, have seen those theories supported - or not - by findings from the scientific community, and even have some unpublished findings of my own (unpublished because back in the day, nobody would take a trans scientist seriously). I think a variety of trajectories bring us to where we are, with certain common elements to our stories that I think we all know. But deep down, I am convinced that most of what makes MOST of us trans is disruptions to our hormonal environment during gestation.
That said, I'm not current with the literature, so this paper will be a bit of a refresher. I'm also in exile, so I don't have my library. I'm just here in a tiny apartment with my computer. Anyway, I'll post here (in response to you) as I do examine this paper. I don't know when I'll get to it, as I seem to be extraordinarily busy these days as a refugee. Who'd a' thunk? ;-)
I think this is all a nefarious plan to get the support of Kid Rock. The Kid Rock endorsement is extremely coveted in the state of Michigan. By passing this bill the democrats can lure him in with Natty Ice and legal marijuana. A musician would be a huge loss for Republicans, that will leave them reeling with only Jason Aldean and he only appeals to one genre. Kid Rock applies to multiple. Bawitdaba alone covers rock, rap , country and gospel. So yes some trans kids are going to suffer but they will be able to openly listen to Kid Rock now so it’s a pretty good tradeoff. Think of the inroads in the south. Kid Rock alone could put Alabama back in play for the Dems. “It's all good, and it's all in fun
Now get in the pit and try to love someone!" Our messiah has arrived.
There are like 10 trans athletes in the entire US. This is about hate. If they really cared strongly about children and girls then they would be going after child predators and trafficking- oh woops that would put almost all of the Repugnants in jail 🤷♂️
Just wrote to the 8 legislators listed in the article demanding they do better and support trans people moving forward, and highlighting the oppressive nature of HR 40.
Those 8 need to be primaried. Perhaps trans women could run against them. Voters seem to like a story in which an oppressed person takes the seat of the oppressor. Danica Roem was one such story.
Trans women or trans men running against them would be awesome. And we just saw what a difference it can make with what Rep. Zephyr and Rep. Howell did in Montana!
Increasingly, I've been thinking that institutional, MAGA, NAR & DOGE Republicans are pro-rape. It started when I realized how little has ever been done to minimize the likelihood of rape or rape by a family member (aka, incest), particularly compared to drinking and driving. A person in the U.S. can reasonably expect to not get hit by a drunk driver: federally funded national campaigns have directly sought to address it, there are laws not just about drunk driving but adjacent people like store owners or bartenders who sell liquor, everyone knows that there are behavioral and chemical ways to check if a driver's drinking has been impaired (e.g., touch your nose, say alphabet backwards, walk this line, breathalyzer, etc.). In my lifetime, I've never seen a campaign to reduce rape or rape by a family member. I have seen significant efforts to not teach children about consent. Or to diminish, demean, and blame victims of rape as being their fault. Now we have this administration with a multitude of adjudicated or credibly accused rapists, rape-aiders, or rape-apologists. I'm not the only one whose noticed, too: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/guys-win-andrew-tate-rape-politics-and-the-authoritarian-right/ Meanwhile, there's this massive campaign to distract everyone from their pro-rape policies by suggesting transgender persons are a threat. This false campaign instead gives cover to the coaches and athletic doctors who are sexually assaulting people, or to the police officers who sexually assault people (Washington Post has covered this extensively), or religious leaders, and on, and on.
It goes back further than the current MAGAt movement- at least as far as Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing- but you're absolutely right. Being credibly, publicly accused of rape, and especially being able to get away with it in full view of society at large, has become something to be proud of, if you're a wealthy and politically connected conservative man. Far from being the shameful, career-ending scandal such an offense ought to be, it's something which a truly sickening (and increasing) number of right-wing figures have 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 their careers on... or at the very least, in spite of.
It actually goes back centuries in western culture. Consider patriarchy (men in power) and paternalism (men know best and are here to take care of you, would never hurt you, but are in control). It's profoundly embedded through society.
so great to have the ability to vote people in and then witness them betray you when it serves their best interests😐
Many Democrats place a good portion of the blame for the election loss on the trans community. We are the poster children of their ignorance.
Of course they do, the alternative would be to admit that they’ve failed to build the sort of ecosystem that espouses Democrat values in the same way that Republicans have through podcasts, talk radio, Fox News, and Russian dis/misinfo.
So "many democrats can go fuck themselves while they continue to fail to address the real problems for their loss, the complete absence of a coherent platform, a platform that should include human rights for all! So Mr. Schumer, was that really so hard?
I would like to rhetorically ask these elected representatives: if what comes next is a rewrite of the Pledge of Allegiance to say:
…. with liberty and justice for all. “Except trans people.”
It’s really painful for me to realize that more than a few of them would think it’s a really good idea. It’s shameful what our representative government is doing.
This is not consent of the governed. It is a broken promise of government by the people, of the people, and for the people. A broken promise of equality of opportunity, and protection under the law.
It is a targeted assault against a marginalized minority population, causing them immense pain and denying them their basic human rights.
And people need to realize it doesn’t stop with trans people. History shows that when one group is targeted, others soon follow.
The most common stated objection (as opposed to the underlying ones) to trans athletes playing in sports is a fear that a physically larger opponent will cause injury. But this is specious, because many non-trans athletes are genetically large and powerful, and generally there isn’t an uprising of animosity against them because it’s somehow seen as “fairer”. The solution, of course, is to have rules against players competing against each other when the size differential is too large - whether cis or trans. That would solve the problem immediately. But of course that would be useless for stoking the culture wars that anti-trans opponents seek.
Regardless of that, trans people are in danger of losing the athletics debate completely if they don’t start coming up with better and more vocal arguments. The Michigan outcome highlighted in Erin’s article is proof of that. There should always be sustained and strong support for trans athletes, without the tendency to “give in on this one issue”. The reason is that fascism is always take-all, it doesn’t compromise or offer grandfather clauses, and so yielding on this one issue will cause all trans civil rights to eventually collapse like a weakened house of cards. We’ve already seen that happen, and it’s sad and dreadful.
IMO, a carve-out would allow us to hold the line: There is no empirical basis for any claim that a trans girl/woman who has not undergone male puberty has any athletic advantage over a cisgender girl/woman. Therefore, there should be no prohibitions of these people participating. That is the minimum position.
Beyond that (e.g. for trans girls/women having undergone male puberty), I think we should insist that this is not an appropriate matter for government. It should be left up to the athletic associations.
I think both of these positions could be vigorously defended. At the very least, if we can defend the first one, it would mean that we could not be categorized as an exception for equal treatment under the law.
I tend to agree. I've thought a lot about the puberty distinction as sports debate has raged over the last year and I like how you position it as the floor and by doing so prevent us from being an equal protection exception.
Oh yes, of course. Trans kids (who are all basically Dolph Lundgren with a wig) go through the super duper easy process of transitioning all so that they can beat up on girls in sports. I mean, I've thought very very deeply about this and I can't see any other reason they could possibly have for transitioning? Its just common sense. Now excuse my while I go bury my head in the densest of sands...
I don't want them to 'protect' me. Go after those who present a clear danger to children. This is a non problem that republicans use to inflame their base and take control away from women.
One thing I object to is putting the words MEN against girls. There's not only a transphobia element to it, but a sexist (poor, helpless girls) language. This whole fight against basic human rights is infuriating.
Of course. Think of how many times one social panic after another has been based around one or both of two themes: "OMG! Save the children!" and/or "Protect our [sic] women!" Which is also why the screeching is always about trans girls, never trans boys - because, well, that's just not an issue because y'know, OF COURSE everybody KNOWS that no GIRL could compete in sports against a REAL BOY, amirite?
I don't know how these people can say with a straight face that trans women were born as MEN. I mean, I pity our poor moms, pushing out hairy, tattooed, linebacker-sized MEN. How do they even carry us inside them for 40 weeks?!
with allies like democrats, who needs enemies.
SOME Democrats. Our garden is badly in need of weeding.
Primary every anti-Trans Democrat. I'd rather have an anti-Trans Republican in a seat than an anti-Trans Dem, at least you know the Repug is an enemy and will never stab you in the back, ALWAYS the face.
One of the clever ways the GOP framed this issue was to introduce bills with false information, giving it a more legit feel to their arguments. It is a brilliant strategy because they have controlled the narrative for years through this process. Why aren't the Dems doing the same thing? They should be introducing bills that are fact/science based. It's time for them to control the narrative with the truth!
An important issue is helping people to understand about intersex babies,; something the GOP has completely ignored through their butchering of science. We need to educate people on it, even introducing bills pertaining to it as a way to educate people that there are NOT only 2 genders as has been so dangerously espoused. From reading the book, "Becoming Nicole," they talked about how there are male and female brains. My understanding is that there are intersex babies with obvious and not so obvious characteristics from both genders in the child. Having a trans granddaughter, it seems like my sweet girl was born with a female brain but with the anatomy of a male. It seems to me that this could be a continuum of that intersex scale? I am not a scientist, as you can tell. However I do know that we need to use the same tactics for truth, rather than lies.
There is quite a bit of data at this point that points to there not being a "male" or "female" brain. Biological sex in humans is highly complex and our brains are part of that complexity.
Meta-synthesis of 3 decades of human brain sex difference findings that falsifies the male brain/female brain theory: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804
I look forward to digesting this paper. I've saved it to my hard drive.
Just my cursory examination of it doesn't quite support their conclusion or yours. They are saying that for a difference in a character to be sexually dimorphic, there must be no overlap (i.e. no continuum). I strongly disagree with this premise. For instance, height is sexually dimorphic, and yet there is broad overlap in the distribution of height between the sexes. There is a very big difference between using a character to predict or describe sex (e.g. the presence of a penis), vs. determining whether there are population differences that might be meaningful.
The authors argue that although differences between male and female brains do exist, they are small and difficult to measure reliably. However, my inclination is to say, "BUT THEY ARE THERE. WHAT DO THEY MEAN OR SUGGEST?" I think when you can show that some brain characteristic follows a dimorphic pattern, falling along a bimodal distribution, and when a trans brain more resembles the brain of the identified gender than the birth sex, then you have something interesting. I don't accept that it's meaningless.
But as I say, I look forward to digesting the entire (very long) paper. Thanks for posting it.
It's kinda depressing that I can remember debates back in the dreaded '60s falling along the lines of "men and women are rigidly different (except for oddball exceptions)" versus "men and women are identical (except for the obvious physical differences)." Are those still the battle lines? There is either no continuum or no differences? Bummer.
I hope it's clear that I am not criticizing you, I'm agreeing with you in critiquing the idea that it has to be all or nothing.
I hope you'll get back to us - actually, I'm being selfish because I mean me - when you are done digesting.
Well, I think both arguments tend to get politically loaded. But as a scientist and as a trans woman, I'm very much fixated on the simple, non-political question of "WHY?" Over the past several decades, I have paid a lot of attention to people's stories, have entertained various theories, have seen those theories supported - or not - by findings from the scientific community, and even have some unpublished findings of my own (unpublished because back in the day, nobody would take a trans scientist seriously). I think a variety of trajectories bring us to where we are, with certain common elements to our stories that I think we all know. But deep down, I am convinced that most of what makes MOST of us trans is disruptions to our hormonal environment during gestation.
That said, I'm not current with the literature, so this paper will be a bit of a refresher. I'm also in exile, so I don't have my library. I'm just here in a tiny apartment with my computer. Anyway, I'll post here (in response to you) as I do examine this paper. I don't know when I'll get to it, as I seem to be extraordinarily busy these days as a refugee. Who'd a' thunk? ;-)
I think this is all a nefarious plan to get the support of Kid Rock. The Kid Rock endorsement is extremely coveted in the state of Michigan. By passing this bill the democrats can lure him in with Natty Ice and legal marijuana. A musician would be a huge loss for Republicans, that will leave them reeling with only Jason Aldean and he only appeals to one genre. Kid Rock applies to multiple. Bawitdaba alone covers rock, rap , country and gospel. So yes some trans kids are going to suffer but they will be able to openly listen to Kid Rock now so it’s a pretty good tradeoff. Think of the inroads in the south. Kid Rock alone could put Alabama back in play for the Dems. “It's all good, and it's all in fun
Now get in the pit and try to love someone!" Our messiah has arrived.
There are like 10 trans athletes in the entire US. This is about hate. If they really cared strongly about children and girls then they would be going after child predators and trafficking- oh woops that would put almost all of the Repugnants in jail 🤷♂️
Just wrote to the 8 legislators listed in the article demanding they do better and support trans people moving forward, and highlighting the oppressive nature of HR 40.
Cowards
Those 8 need to be primaried. Perhaps trans women could run against them. Voters seem to like a story in which an oppressed person takes the seat of the oppressor. Danica Roem was one such story.
Trans women or trans men running against them would be awesome. And we just saw what a difference it can make with what Rep. Zephyr and Rep. Howell did in Montana!
Increasingly, I've been thinking that institutional, MAGA, NAR & DOGE Republicans are pro-rape. It started when I realized how little has ever been done to minimize the likelihood of rape or rape by a family member (aka, incest), particularly compared to drinking and driving. A person in the U.S. can reasonably expect to not get hit by a drunk driver: federally funded national campaigns have directly sought to address it, there are laws not just about drunk driving but adjacent people like store owners or bartenders who sell liquor, everyone knows that there are behavioral and chemical ways to check if a driver's drinking has been impaired (e.g., touch your nose, say alphabet backwards, walk this line, breathalyzer, etc.). In my lifetime, I've never seen a campaign to reduce rape or rape by a family member. I have seen significant efforts to not teach children about consent. Or to diminish, demean, and blame victims of rape as being their fault. Now we have this administration with a multitude of adjudicated or credibly accused rapists, rape-aiders, or rape-apologists. I'm not the only one whose noticed, too: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/guys-win-andrew-tate-rape-politics-and-the-authoritarian-right/ Meanwhile, there's this massive campaign to distract everyone from their pro-rape policies by suggesting transgender persons are a threat. This false campaign instead gives cover to the coaches and athletic doctors who are sexually assaulting people, or to the police officers who sexually assault people (Washington Post has covered this extensively), or religious leaders, and on, and on.
It goes back further than the current MAGAt movement- at least as far as Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing- but you're absolutely right. Being credibly, publicly accused of rape, and especially being able to get away with it in full view of society at large, has become something to be proud of, if you're a wealthy and politically connected conservative man. Far from being the shameful, career-ending scandal such an offense ought to be, it's something which a truly sickening (and increasing) number of right-wing figures have 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 their careers on... or at the very least, in spite of.
It actually goes back centuries in western culture. Consider patriarchy (men in power) and paternalism (men know best and are here to take care of you, would never hurt you, but are in control). It's profoundly embedded through society.