Democrats want to seem authentic; they also want to land on the right side of public opinion; when they mishandle the dilemma they fail on both counts.
There is literally no scenario where a President will be on the hook to make a determination about ‘men in women’s sports’. Why accept a challenge to argue this stuff?
Being willing to be drawn on your opponents fake issue *is the loss*. The issue is secondary. In fact it doesn’t really exist.
Change the subject to the best, latest hit your oppo research has come with about your opponent.
The only people who care about the trans kids sports question are people who are never going to vote for you in the first place.
Striking first by refusing to be drawn into the question is the only winning move. (And replacing it with a jibe suggesting your opponent is a pervert helps.)
In this comment, I attempt to display my Solomonic wisdom in resolving the thorny issue of transgender women participating in women's sports. Let the brickbats fly!
1. The issue the GOP has manufactured here is 99% bullshit. Can they name a single person who, as a man, couldn't cut the mustard in men's sports, and so decided to undergo gender-changing therapy to increase their odds in high-level sports? Of course not. Most young men in such a position would simply give up their dreams of high-level sports glory and find something else to do with their lives.
2. Cis-gendered girls who have trained for years to attain a high level of competence in high-level women's sports do nonetheless have a point when they complain about transgendered women who haven't trained as heavily as they have, competing against them, relying in part on innate biological differences. This is the other 1% referred to in #1 above. This is rare but it is real.
3. There are many things that men transitioning to women can't do. They can't, obviously, give birth. I guess I don't have a huge problem in adding high-level sports participation to that list. It might best be thought of as part of the deal.
4. Nothing I've said above applies to free-play of sports between boys and girls, cis- or trans-. That should be allowed in all circumstances. It applies only to high-level college, olympic, and professional athletics.
This whole matter strikes me as a lawyerly way of trying to win an argument on a playing field defined by the enemy. As they have proven you don’t need to do that. “They’re eating the pets” was not a lawyerly defense of his intellectual position. It was a) declaring that you don’t respect the rules of the game (authentic, powerful), b) declaring that you’re inevitable (how would you dare say such a thing otherwise) and c) declaring that the views of your supporters which ‘the system’ says are illegitimate are in fact legitimate and you can count on me to fight for them. Guess what; *he won*. The girlboss triangulating former prosecutor plunged earthward in flames.
Winners create their own reality, they don’t play a game designed by the enemy.
You drown out their bullshit by flooding the zone with your own better bullshit.
On the subject of authenticity, a representative has a few things to consider on any issue.
* What do I truly believe?
* What do I believe my constituents believe?
* If elected, which set of beliefs will guide my decision making?
I think it is rare that one's true authentic beliefs will be in perfect alignment with the constituents. During election season, can I make a convincing argument that I will represent my constituents even when my own views differ. After being elected, do I really believe I can follow through on that commitment?
The further apart the views, the harder these questions become. If I believe X and my constituents believe Y - but X is a close variation of Y - then the dilemmas will be minor. If X and Y are widely separated, there will be trouble.
Likewise, more dogmatic views will also be problematic. I like what you said about someone who will let the wind carry them. A representative willing to let the winds from their constituents blow them in a new direction is a better than one who is so firmly anchored that they are unable to respond.
“When they echo Republican talking points without qualification, they seem out of place; like they know they’re stepping on vulnerable people demonstratively, as a branding exercise.”
You left out the part where, for the last 10 years, anyone who was in Democratic or progressive circles who merely pointed out that the Trans liturgy was untrue in certain respects (sports, suicidality, watchful waiting was akin to “genocide”, etc) was *immediately* accused of “stepping on vulnerable people” and summarily kicked out.
The opportunity to not lie has been there the whole time, it’s the people you admire who refused, and put us in this pickle.
Obama could have run on forcing every American into a gay marriage, at gunpoint, in ceremonies officiated by Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and maybe, MAYBE, he loses Indiana.
This is a well thought out piece and I agree that Dems have got to figure out how to respond to the GOPs disingenuous (often stupid) talking points, but, I don’t see a way that Democrats can engage here in good faith and not have whatever they say twisted or more likely, turned into fake soundbites that manage to piss off everyone.
Whether it’s trans rights, immigration, or something to do with the military their responses, authentic or not, get bastardized because that’s what republicans and their propaganda arm do.
All that said, empathy should be front and center though again, empathy is considered disqualifying on the right so…
If Democrats could figure out how to not fight, or “play the game”, on republican terms that would solve a lot of their problems.
"And this gives rise to a question at the heart of Democratic disarray, but that nobody can quite articulate in our soundbite-dominated politics: If the public today gravitates to authentic politicians, but a prominent Democrat authentically holds an unpopular view, what’s the right thing to do? Should they stick to their guns?"
One thing they might do is recognize that, GOP bad faith notwithstanding, there is a group of Dems who do not believe in trans ideology. At the very least, we should let people into our tent who have doubts and aren't afraid to express them. This issue has been irrevocably tainted by politics. It deserves to be examined without the moral overlay that we are so anxious to bring to the table because it soothes our need to be righteous, our least appealing quality.
Here are a couple sample sound-bites to defuse the issue.
“It’s real but rare so let the sports governing bodies who are tasked with issues of ethics and fairness come up with their own criteria to deal with these real concerns.”
“It’s a real but rare issue. At the same time it’s not the biggest issue in trans rights or fairness in sports. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.”
There are two dimensions at play in this well-done piece: one is the complex issue of what it means to say a person is trans - the other is how to acknowledge in public that an issue is complex and difficult without sounding like a weasel. I have no illusions about my political skills - I'd be a terrible politician. But isn't there a sort-of soundbite way to say some of what you said?
Isn't there a way to say, in ten seconds or less, "Listen, questioner - I know you'd like me to plant my flag on your issue, but here's the thing: there are so many gigantic issues that have to be dealt with these days! Your issue is certainly important, but on my to-do list, it comes below things like authoritarianism vs democracy, saving the country, having good healthcare, the ability to go to school without declaring bankruptcy, having decent jobs for everyone, addressing AI, and on and on and on..... What you actually want to do is to pin me to a position and then either you can beat me up about it or someone else can beat me up about it, and that's not a game I want to play..... I'll tell you what - after we've fixed the first few things on MY to-do list, you come back and we'll talk about what's on YOUR to-do list....." Isn't there a way to say that?
I think you could have left out Obama altogether and just addressed your well-thought essay as the deeply felt conflict this is within our society today. Thank you for your perspective.
Maybe. Obama was a successful politician, though, and I think the way he spoke on the SSM debate pre-2012, though pretty clearly inauthentic, bears a lot of resemblance to how today’s Dems could talk about the much narrower issue of trans sports—minus the inauthenticity.
“Take it from Obama!” is a persuasion tactic. I’m just some writer!
There is literally no scenario where a President will be on the hook to make a determination about ‘men in women’s sports’. Why accept a challenge to argue this stuff?
Being willing to be drawn on your opponents fake issue *is the loss*. The issue is secondary. In fact it doesn’t really exist.
Change the subject to the best, latest hit your oppo research has come with about your opponent.
Because we use all sorts of metrics to evaluate candidates beyond just what they have the power to control.
Not answering the question is one of the ways that politicians seem insincere.
The entire point of the question is to expose your weakness at being willing to take it seriously. They don’t, their supporters don’t either.
Who exactly would your awkward high-wire triangulation act be intended to satisfy?
The only people who care about the trans kids sports question are people who are never going to vote for you in the first place.
Striking first by refusing to be drawn into the question is the only winning move. (And replacing it with a jibe suggesting your opponent is a pervert helps.)
In this comment, I attempt to display my Solomonic wisdom in resolving the thorny issue of transgender women participating in women's sports. Let the brickbats fly!
1. The issue the GOP has manufactured here is 99% bullshit. Can they name a single person who, as a man, couldn't cut the mustard in men's sports, and so decided to undergo gender-changing therapy to increase their odds in high-level sports? Of course not. Most young men in such a position would simply give up their dreams of high-level sports glory and find something else to do with their lives.
2. Cis-gendered girls who have trained for years to attain a high level of competence in high-level women's sports do nonetheless have a point when they complain about transgendered women who haven't trained as heavily as they have, competing against them, relying in part on innate biological differences. This is the other 1% referred to in #1 above. This is rare but it is real.
3. There are many things that men transitioning to women can't do. They can't, obviously, give birth. I guess I don't have a huge problem in adding high-level sports participation to that list. It might best be thought of as part of the deal.
4. Nothing I've said above applies to free-play of sports between boys and girls, cis- or trans-. That should be allowed in all circumstances. It applies only to high-level college, olympic, and professional athletics.
To engage with their argument at all is to lose. That issue was cooked up in a lab because it can’t be won.
When Captain Kirk faced the no-win Kobayashi Maru scenario he reprogrammed the computer so it could be won.
This whole matter strikes me as a lawyerly way of trying to win an argument on a playing field defined by the enemy. As they have proven you don’t need to do that. “They’re eating the pets” was not a lawyerly defense of his intellectual position. It was a) declaring that you don’t respect the rules of the game (authentic, powerful), b) declaring that you’re inevitable (how would you dare say such a thing otherwise) and c) declaring that the views of your supporters which ‘the system’ says are illegitimate are in fact legitimate and you can count on me to fight for them. Guess what; *he won*. The girlboss triangulating former prosecutor plunged earthward in flames.
Winners create their own reality, they don’t play a game designed by the enemy.
You drown out their bullshit by flooding the zone with your own better bullshit.
On the subject of authenticity, a representative has a few things to consider on any issue.
* What do I truly believe?
* What do I believe my constituents believe?
* If elected, which set of beliefs will guide my decision making?
I think it is rare that one's true authentic beliefs will be in perfect alignment with the constituents. During election season, can I make a convincing argument that I will represent my constituents even when my own views differ. After being elected, do I really believe I can follow through on that commitment?
The further apart the views, the harder these questions become. If I believe X and my constituents believe Y - but X is a close variation of Y - then the dilemmas will be minor. If X and Y are widely separated, there will be trouble.
Likewise, more dogmatic views will also be problematic. I like what you said about someone who will let the wind carry them. A representative willing to let the winds from their constituents blow them in a new direction is a better than one who is so firmly anchored that they are unable to respond.
“When they echo Republican talking points without qualification, they seem out of place; like they know they’re stepping on vulnerable people demonstratively, as a branding exercise.”
You left out the part where, for the last 10 years, anyone who was in Democratic or progressive circles who merely pointed out that the Trans liturgy was untrue in certain respects (sports, suicidality, watchful waiting was akin to “genocide”, etc) was *immediately* accused of “stepping on vulnerable people” and summarily kicked out.
The opportunity to not lie has been there the whole time, it’s the people you admire who refused, and put us in this pickle.
Obama could have run on forcing every American into a gay marriage, at gunpoint, in ceremonies officiated by Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and maybe, MAYBE, he loses Indiana.
“My opponent wants to inspect children’s genitals.” There, fixed the issue for you.
This is a well thought out piece and I agree that Dems have got to figure out how to respond to the GOPs disingenuous (often stupid) talking points, but, I don’t see a way that Democrats can engage here in good faith and not have whatever they say twisted or more likely, turned into fake soundbites that manage to piss off everyone.
Whether it’s trans rights, immigration, or something to do with the military their responses, authentic or not, get bastardized because that’s what republicans and their propaganda arm do.
All that said, empathy should be front and center though again, empathy is considered disqualifying on the right so…
If Democrats could figure out how to not fight, or “play the game”, on republican terms that would solve a lot of their problems.
"And this gives rise to a question at the heart of Democratic disarray, but that nobody can quite articulate in our soundbite-dominated politics: If the public today gravitates to authentic politicians, but a prominent Democrat authentically holds an unpopular view, what’s the right thing to do? Should they stick to their guns?"
One thing they might do is recognize that, GOP bad faith notwithstanding, there is a group of Dems who do not believe in trans ideology. At the very least, we should let people into our tent who have doubts and aren't afraid to express them. This issue has been irrevocably tainted by politics. It deserves to be examined without the moral overlay that we are so anxious to bring to the table because it soothes our need to be righteous, our least appealing quality.
Here are a couple sample sound-bites to defuse the issue.
“It’s real but rare so let the sports governing bodies who are tasked with issues of ethics and fairness come up with their own criteria to deal with these real concerns.”
“It’s a real but rare issue. At the same time it’s not the biggest issue in trans rights or fairness in sports. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.”
There are two dimensions at play in this well-done piece: one is the complex issue of what it means to say a person is trans - the other is how to acknowledge in public that an issue is complex and difficult without sounding like a weasel. I have no illusions about my political skills - I'd be a terrible politician. But isn't there a sort-of soundbite way to say some of what you said?
Isn't there a way to say, in ten seconds or less, "Listen, questioner - I know you'd like me to plant my flag on your issue, but here's the thing: there are so many gigantic issues that have to be dealt with these days! Your issue is certainly important, but on my to-do list, it comes below things like authoritarianism vs democracy, saving the country, having good healthcare, the ability to go to school without declaring bankruptcy, having decent jobs for everyone, addressing AI, and on and on and on..... What you actually want to do is to pin me to a position and then either you can beat me up about it or someone else can beat me up about it, and that's not a game I want to play..... I'll tell you what - after we've fixed the first few things on MY to-do list, you come back and we'll talk about what's on YOUR to-do list....." Isn't there a way to say that?
I think you could have left out Obama altogether and just addressed your well-thought essay as the deeply felt conflict this is within our society today. Thank you for your perspective.
Maybe. Obama was a successful politician, though, and I think the way he spoke on the SSM debate pre-2012, though pretty clearly inauthentic, bears a lot of resemblance to how today’s Dems could talk about the much narrower issue of trans sports—minus the inauthenticity.
“Take it from Obama!” is a persuasion tactic. I’m just some writer!
But either way, thank you for the kind words.
Obama was, in the end, only effective for Obama. My pithy description of what’s happened to Democrats over the past 10 years is “Reverend Wright won”