So we've locked the comments after getting some emailed complaints — Ken in MIA and David Abbott specifically, take it down a notch. Not going to do any bans today but we won't be able to have comment threads on LGBTQ issues in the future if people aren't able to participate respectfully. I understand that people feel passionately about this, but please keep things civil.
"It is not obvious to me that there is a strong philosophical or conceptual basis for gender-segregated sports leagues."
Matt, did you ever play sports? If we had co-ed for all sports, then there would be no women in competitive sports. That's the philosophical basis for gender-segregated sports leagues.
One thing I think hurts Matt's point, is that gay marriage was itself attacked as a failure to play to win. Lots and lots of people (myself included) argued that gay rights movements should just accept civil unions, which really were marriage by another name, and so avoid offending religious people's sensibilities. But gay marriage proponents really were right that only by opening up marriage to same-sex couples would defeat the stigma that had been attached to those relationships. I think trans rights campaigners rightly see the situation in the same lens - it might sign like no big deal to stop trans women competing in sports or accessing women's refuges, but that is a clear statement that society still does not consider them women.
Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room. There is no commonality between same-sex attraction and "gender identity." You might as well put "gender affirming care" in the same category as gun control for all the sense it makes.
Politicians who aspire for higher public office have an incentive to only run in liberal places, because they know that having opposed transgender sports in Florida they will never be able to win a tough primary in 5 years. After all its only the pols in tough areas that need to be cautious about this.
Broadly agree, but this piece underestimates the dangers posed by the FL bill because it ignores the enforcement mechanism. The bill isn't to be enforced by administrators or through high profile lawsuits. It allows any parent to report any "violation" to the school administration and ultimately have a cause of action if they're unsatisfied with the response. Parents don't bear any costs if any lawsuit fails. It's designed to formalize a chilling effect; the GOP wants teachers to feel terrified of students' parents. If they were really worried about grooming, there wouldn't be a private, parental cause of action; there would be a public process to root out "predators" and publicize their identity to protect children. But really, the ultimate goal is to keep any whiff of homosexuality or trans identity away from kids so that they grow up believing those things are shameful and "abnormal."
I came out in 1998 at age 14 and have in many ways grown up along with the trajectory of LGBT wins that Matt describes. The Civil Rights Movement was presented throughout my childhood as THE heroic story of the arc of history bending towards justice, and it felt like a natural parallel for the gay rights movement to broadly go through the same pattern. I came of age after AIDS, and after the hardest work of initial awareness and acceptance had been done in most places, so it was a pretty rapid move from Lawrence to the CA and MA marriages to Obama’s professed opposition (which no one believed) up to Obergefell right about the time I was ready to think about getting married myself. As many have noted, interpersonal and cultural awareness from friends coming out to Ellen and Will & Grace were an inextricable part of how all this moved so quickly.
I’ve always been interested in politics, but I wasn’t sophisticated enough to really understand things like the Iraq War or even the 2008 crash as they were happening. Instead, my window in was identity, which is an easier, less nuanced, and more exciting motivation to be for one party and (crucially) against the other. The Democrats have been pushing that angle, not insincerely, throughout my life, and gay marriage in particular became a motivating factor for my demographic/generation of young liberals to vote, volunteer, etc. The particular sequence of anti-W, pro-Obama, anti-Trump fit that quite well, and “Republicans are bigots” became the dominant theory of politics for many - reinforced by social media going into hyperdrive over the same years. There was certainly some truth to this, but it also left a lot of things out, not the least of which is its finite capacity as a motivator, which we are currently seeing play out along the lines described in this post.
Let me see if I understand this. Kids are gay because they hear about it from their teachers in school? Hum…I never thought about sucking c__k but then my teacher mentioned his husband and I said, “I should really try that.” Um…I don’t think that’s how it works.
I think Matt is way overrating the extent to which this is about sports. The real reason Republicans see an opportunity to attack transgender people is because of nonbinarism, which people on the left insist is a subset of being transgender. It’s clear to me from private conversations that even a sizeable chunk of people at my New England liberal arts college thought that nonbinarism was fatuous, but in public Democrats act as if we’ve reached a consensus that there are many genders and you’re anti-trans if you don’t agree. That enables actually anti-trans Republicans to swoop in say they’re protecting children from extreme gender ideology (motte) when really they’re terrorizing trans kids (bailey).
Matt, you do these "politicians shouldn't pick fights that are too unpopular" posts every once in a while, but I never quite know what you're prescribing. I mean, should they vote against bad bills? They should vote against them, right? Should they talk a lot about their unpopular votes against bad bills? Probably not, but politicians often don't get a lot of choice what they talk about. People ask them questions and they have to take positions, and they have to explain their positions.
I feel this could benefit from more of a case study analysis where you break down, "Here is where X politician specifically made a mistake that was possible to avoid." Otherwise I don't know what you think a "tactical retreat" looks like.
The trans issue seems unique amongst progressive issues in the demands that it puts on other people to change the way they speak. If Mark wants to present like a woman and change his name to Mary, I’m happy to call him Mary. If I’m talking to Mark/Mary, I will use the name, I won’t be using pronouns anyway.
But when I talk about Mark/Mary to somebody else, now I must call him “her” or else I am a bad person. But this is no longer about showing respect to Mark/Mary (who likely isn’t present), this is about conforming to a new world view in which sex or gender is not grounded in objective facts about biology but rather grounded in our subjective “identities”. Well, what if I don’t believe that? Am I hateful for not believing that? Must I pretend to believe it to be a good person?
I believe in showing respect to all people, but the thing with the pronouns, “pregnant people” “they”, this is too much for me. I am old. Maybe the younger generations will agree with this.
I personally wouldn't say that makes you hateful(I feel like hate requires intent and the word gets thrown around too much), but have you considered that if you use "he" to refer to Mary to someone else, you may later cause hurt to Mary when that person (who doesn't know Mary!) uses "he" in her presence.
Gender-based sports segregation makes sense and encourages women to be able to compete. Drawing that line on observed biological distinctions, rather than real, but subjective feelings of biological or social difference seems fair and appropriate, even to the majority of people who wish to affirm and respect a person’s feeling of otherness.
Nor is gender the only separation we make. Youth sports and senior sports divisions make distinctions based on when someone was born, with a clear dividing line, because in general older kids have an advantage over younger ones and younger adults have advantages over older ones. People who care about fairness are rightfully upset if athletes or their parents misrepresent their age, regardless of that athlete feels young at heart or is an old soul.
Unless we are to have a single open division for everything, clear and largely immutable distinctions are needed. Birth gender and birth date seem like good ones, as they clearly have correlation to performance. This is not complicated and has nothing to do with denying the rights of people to live their lives as they choose.
I think Democrats would be best off focusing on the consequences for the law that sounds most absurd or puritanical to "normal" people, rather than those they have the strongest philosophical arguments against.
Do things like pass out 'books conservatives don't want you to read' at rallies, namely "I Need a New Butt".
Does Senator Cornyn's questions relating to gay marriage to Judge Jackson change your view about Republicans having beat a strategic retreat from the gay marriage issue?
Also Mike Braun giving an interview yesterday where he said it violated states' rights for the SC to make gay marriage and interracial marriage legal nationally.
Great article! Just thought I'd share the Transgender Law Messaging guide here for other readers looking for more context. Some really interesting stuff in here, including the messaging that "loses" the least, as well as another example of how adding a race element to the narrative helps shore up base support, while losing what they call "persuadables" and decreasing support among all racial groups!
So we've locked the comments after getting some emailed complaints — Ken in MIA and David Abbott specifically, take it down a notch. Not going to do any bans today but we won't be able to have comment threads on LGBTQ issues in the future if people aren't able to participate respectfully. I understand that people feel passionately about this, but please keep things civil.
"It is not obvious to me that there is a strong philosophical or conceptual basis for gender-segregated sports leagues."
Matt, did you ever play sports? If we had co-ed for all sports, then there would be no women in competitive sports. That's the philosophical basis for gender-segregated sports leagues.
One thing I think hurts Matt's point, is that gay marriage was itself attacked as a failure to play to win. Lots and lots of people (myself included) argued that gay rights movements should just accept civil unions, which really were marriage by another name, and so avoid offending religious people's sensibilities. But gay marriage proponents really were right that only by opening up marriage to same-sex couples would defeat the stigma that had been attached to those relationships. I think trans rights campaigners rightly see the situation in the same lens - it might sign like no big deal to stop trans women competing in sports or accessing women's refuges, but that is a clear statement that society still does not consider them women.
And tbf quite a few comments in this thread underline why trans rights activists can't/won't compromise on these issues.
Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room. There is no commonality between same-sex attraction and "gender identity." You might as well put "gender affirming care" in the same category as gun control for all the sense it makes.
Politicians who aspire for higher public office have an incentive to only run in liberal places, because they know that having opposed transgender sports in Florida they will never be able to win a tough primary in 5 years. After all its only the pols in tough areas that need to be cautious about this.
It will be pretty ironic when Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law is primarily used to shut down parochial schools teaching that homosexuality is wrong.
Broadly agree, but this piece underestimates the dangers posed by the FL bill because it ignores the enforcement mechanism. The bill isn't to be enforced by administrators or through high profile lawsuits. It allows any parent to report any "violation" to the school administration and ultimately have a cause of action if they're unsatisfied with the response. Parents don't bear any costs if any lawsuit fails. It's designed to formalize a chilling effect; the GOP wants teachers to feel terrified of students' parents. If they were really worried about grooming, there wouldn't be a private, parental cause of action; there would be a public process to root out "predators" and publicize their identity to protect children. But really, the ultimate goal is to keep any whiff of homosexuality or trans identity away from kids so that they grow up believing those things are shameful and "abnormal."
I came out in 1998 at age 14 and have in many ways grown up along with the trajectory of LGBT wins that Matt describes. The Civil Rights Movement was presented throughout my childhood as THE heroic story of the arc of history bending towards justice, and it felt like a natural parallel for the gay rights movement to broadly go through the same pattern. I came of age after AIDS, and after the hardest work of initial awareness and acceptance had been done in most places, so it was a pretty rapid move from Lawrence to the CA and MA marriages to Obama’s professed opposition (which no one believed) up to Obergefell right about the time I was ready to think about getting married myself. As many have noted, interpersonal and cultural awareness from friends coming out to Ellen and Will & Grace were an inextricable part of how all this moved so quickly.
I’ve always been interested in politics, but I wasn’t sophisticated enough to really understand things like the Iraq War or even the 2008 crash as they were happening. Instead, my window in was identity, which is an easier, less nuanced, and more exciting motivation to be for one party and (crucially) against the other. The Democrats have been pushing that angle, not insincerely, throughout my life, and gay marriage in particular became a motivating factor for my demographic/generation of young liberals to vote, volunteer, etc. The particular sequence of anti-W, pro-Obama, anti-Trump fit that quite well, and “Republicans are bigots” became the dominant theory of politics for many - reinforced by social media going into hyperdrive over the same years. There was certainly some truth to this, but it also left a lot of things out, not the least of which is its finite capacity as a motivator, which we are currently seeing play out along the lines described in this post.
Let me see if I understand this. Kids are gay because they hear about it from their teachers in school? Hum…I never thought about sucking c__k but then my teacher mentioned his husband and I said, “I should really try that.” Um…I don’t think that’s how it works.
I think Matt is way overrating the extent to which this is about sports. The real reason Republicans see an opportunity to attack transgender people is because of nonbinarism, which people on the left insist is a subset of being transgender. It’s clear to me from private conversations that even a sizeable chunk of people at my New England liberal arts college thought that nonbinarism was fatuous, but in public Democrats act as if we’ve reached a consensus that there are many genders and you’re anti-trans if you don’t agree. That enables actually anti-trans Republicans to swoop in say they’re protecting children from extreme gender ideology (motte) when really they’re terrorizing trans kids (bailey).
Matt, you do these "politicians shouldn't pick fights that are too unpopular" posts every once in a while, but I never quite know what you're prescribing. I mean, should they vote against bad bills? They should vote against them, right? Should they talk a lot about their unpopular votes against bad bills? Probably not, but politicians often don't get a lot of choice what they talk about. People ask them questions and they have to take positions, and they have to explain their positions.
I feel this could benefit from more of a case study analysis where you break down, "Here is where X politician specifically made a mistake that was possible to avoid." Otherwise I don't know what you think a "tactical retreat" looks like.
The trans issue seems unique amongst progressive issues in the demands that it puts on other people to change the way they speak. If Mark wants to present like a woman and change his name to Mary, I’m happy to call him Mary. If I’m talking to Mark/Mary, I will use the name, I won’t be using pronouns anyway.
But when I talk about Mark/Mary to somebody else, now I must call him “her” or else I am a bad person. But this is no longer about showing respect to Mark/Mary (who likely isn’t present), this is about conforming to a new world view in which sex or gender is not grounded in objective facts about biology but rather grounded in our subjective “identities”. Well, what if I don’t believe that? Am I hateful for not believing that? Must I pretend to believe it to be a good person?
I believe in showing respect to all people, but the thing with the pronouns, “pregnant people” “they”, this is too much for me. I am old. Maybe the younger generations will agree with this.
I personally wouldn't say that makes you hateful(I feel like hate requires intent and the word gets thrown around too much), but have you considered that if you use "he" to refer to Mary to someone else, you may later cause hurt to Mary when that person (who doesn't know Mary!) uses "he" in her presence.
The younger generations won't agree with it, either. But they will comply because the cost of noncompliance is too high.
When the king banishes anyone who says he has no clothes, all of his subjects will insist he is wearing a suit.
Gender-based sports segregation makes sense and encourages women to be able to compete. Drawing that line on observed biological distinctions, rather than real, but subjective feelings of biological or social difference seems fair and appropriate, even to the majority of people who wish to affirm and respect a person’s feeling of otherness.
Nor is gender the only separation we make. Youth sports and senior sports divisions make distinctions based on when someone was born, with a clear dividing line, because in general older kids have an advantage over younger ones and younger adults have advantages over older ones. People who care about fairness are rightfully upset if athletes or their parents misrepresent their age, regardless of that athlete feels young at heart or is an old soul.
Unless we are to have a single open division for everything, clear and largely immutable distinctions are needed. Birth gender and birth date seem like good ones, as they clearly have correlation to performance. This is not complicated and has nothing to do with denying the rights of people to live their lives as they choose.
Sex-segregated, not gender.
I think Democrats would be best off focusing on the consequences for the law that sounds most absurd or puritanical to "normal" people, rather than those they have the strongest philosophical arguments against.
Do things like pass out 'books conservatives don't want you to read' at rallies, namely "I Need a New Butt".
Does Senator Cornyn's questions relating to gay marriage to Judge Jackson change your view about Republicans having beat a strategic retreat from the gay marriage issue?
Also Mike Braun giving an interview yesterday where he said it violated states' rights for the SC to make gay marriage and interracial marriage legal nationally.
Great article! Just thought I'd share the Transgender Law Messaging guide here for other readers looking for more context. Some really interesting stuff in here, including the messaging that "loses" the least, as well as another example of how adding a race element to the narrative helps shore up base support, while losing what they call "persuadables" and decreasing support among all racial groups!
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd0f29d0d626c5fb471be74/t/61b13d00236e2f7f2dbb9a36/1639005441624/Transgender+Youth+and+the+Freedom+to+Be+Ourselves.pdf