How hard is it to say something like this on the trans issue?

[Self Esteem]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the General Discussion forum).

"I think there is legitimate discussion on the issue of trans women in sports but that discussion is more appropriate at the school and sports level. Instead, I feel your side is taking an issue that has no baring on the lives of 99% of this country and using it to attack, marginalize and dehumanize trans people. In fact, I question the sincerity of the right's argument supporting women sports considering their history of opposing Title IX and funding for women's sports."

Newsom let Kirk control the narrative. He ceded a lot of ground on his podcast today and that's not only insulting to trans people - it's insulting in general. This was not the same Newsom who debated DeSantis a couple years ago. I'm very disappointed in his not only platforming Kirk but also letting Kirk completely own the trans debate.

[Ms. Toad]

1. There are already two locked threads on this today -

Is a third, suggesting trans rights are up for debate - at any level - really necessary?

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20111726

[Self Esteem]

2. Is this reply necessary?

[Ms. Toad]

3. Apparently it is,

or you wouldn't have started the thread in the first place.

Suggesting trans rights are up for debate (whether at the local or sports level, or the presidential campaign) isn't permitted on DU. You can follow the link I sent in the last post and read the last post in the thread, just before EarlG locked it.

[Self Esteem]

4. Then alert my post.

You know what's also against DU rules?

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Ms. Toad]

8. I've actually had a conversation with EarlG about that.

He has indicated that, on this issue, he doesn't view my pointing out his position as interference with forum moderation.

[LAS14]

26. Wait a minute!!!! Are you actually saying that you can...

... talk about agreeing with EarlG's policy, but other people can't talk about disagreeing???? This doesn't seem quite... quite democratic?? Quite right????

[vercetti2021]

6. Na they totally are

The establishment has decreed that trans rights are up for debate. Forgetting we are voters too.

[Ms. Toad]

17. I'm just trying to help keep/make DU a place where you can take your fingers out of your ears

Without worrying where the next attack is coming from.

[kelly1mm]

9. It may get a bit awkward around here if Gov. Newsom is the Democrat nominee in 2028 then ..... nt

[SunSeeker]

10. It's Democratic nominee. Please don't use right wing insult terminology here. nt

[GenThePerservering]

12. "Democrat" Nominee

The filth is spreading.

[carpetbagger]

13. Sadly, trans rights are up for debate.

We may have consensus, but the national policy has no such consensus (and fortunately, I don't think there's a consensus in the other direction). I see the op as arguing that our party leaders need to do a better job at it. I agree with that.

If trans rights were a given, my son wouldn't have moved out of Florida, he would not have copies of documents at a safe house in Montreal, his spouse would be allowed to continue as an Army lieutenant, and I might be ambivalent about my plan to move to Canada next year.

Yet here we are, even if I don't like it.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Which is part of why they aren't up for debate on DU

The OP was suggesting that rights should by up for debate - just by a different group.

DU, by design, is supposed to be a place your son doesn't have to move from because people because he is constantly running into people arguing over whether - or who - should curtail his rights.

[hlthe2b]

14. I've tried to avoid these threads, but there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding voiced...

I'm not convinced those posting seemingly uninformed comments are all malign in their intentions.

Is the best way to deal with this really to simply cut off all discussion, rather than inform? Just asking. No insensitivity or disrespect intended...

[Ms. Toad]

15. I'm not questioning the intent of the poster to be hurtful -

But the reality is that these threads are extremely hurtful, regardless of whether the people engaging in them intend harm, or not.

Especially given the attacks on trans individuals going on right now, DU needs to be a place where they are not constantly on edge, wondering when the next rock is going to hit. And even when a discussion might contain a statement that the poster was truly unaware was hurtful, when it is pointed out (or alerted in), even if the person who made changed what they said to avoid being hurtful, there is a pile on, like happened yesterday on the first thread, debating, as EarlG said in locking the second one, how far too their trans individuals under the bus."

So, just like we wouldn't allow discussions on DU about whether there were scientific reasons to justify making blacks compete in their own separate basketball league to be fair to , the same is true for trans women.

[hlthe2b]

21. I don't know if you were here years ago during the all-out anti-feminist wars days...

That led to multiple feminist subgroups being formed (which were then infiltrated by the same posters who had been attacking women's rights and making obscenely nasty comments toward women in general and, yes, also IN General Discussion. It was a horrible period, and the hosts of those multiple forums (myself included) were told to "be patient and educate." The worst of those posters ended up demanding a men's group--which, although it did include some appropriate discussion of men's health and related men-specific topics, soon became another place for those banned from the feminist forums to copy posts they didn't like and attack us there. Few were banned for any of this behavior- even when they brought this same behavior in GD threads- until their behavior spilled into overt racism, defense of the Confederacy, homophobia, overt RW talking points, etc.- rarely for specifically anti-women-directed posts.

So, no. Those of us left who were here throughout that time and tried to defend women in general and the women of DU specifically--(as well as the LGBTQ community who were often similarly aligned with our issues) remember being scolded by admins to be "patient" and "educate" and be "tolerant of those who simply need to be 'brought along.'

We tried. We probably succeeded with some who were educable and able to break from previous patterns of thinking and peer pressure and willing to become informed. But the differences in approach now is remarkable. I can assure you that the women of DU were equally pained by much that was overtly (and sometimes hatefully) expressed by some at the time. To suggest those issues could not be civilly and respectfully discussed, however, was never something that would have been considered--either by administrators or even by those of us directly attacked and deeply affected. Is the current approach better? I don't know. I tend to believe in the power of educating- even when it is painful... Not my call, but I do wonder... I hope for the best now and in the future.

[yardwork]

24. Wow, I find your last paragraph to be offensive.

Number one, as white people, let's not drag Black people into this. It's not about segregation. Let's stop comparing gay and trans issues to Black civil rights issues. At best, it's tone deaf.

Number two, I believe that we open up more avenues for bigotry and attacks when we insist on extreme positions. As you know, I'm a lesbian. I know trans folks in real life. I don't know a single person - gay, straight, or trans - who doesn't recognize that the issue of sports competition is not cut and dried. We are not going to win trans rights by insisting on a particular stance that a huge majority of people considers to be unfair.

It's not bigotry to acknowledge that there are nuances and unsolved issues around who can compete fairly in women's sports.

When we take an extreme position, we open up floodgates of bigotry. And we lose elections.

[Prairie Gates]

33. Not to mention that the Civil Rights movement was ALL ABOUT DEBATING humanity

What were the "I am a Man" placards if not a claim to humanity that you were willing and able to defend in public discourse.

This idea of late that one will "not debate our existence or humanity" has done nothing but cede the ground completely to the fascists while seeming to (just seeming to) violate general principle of open speech in the public sphere (i.e., one can defend their position in public). I understand all the arguments about how this is exhausting, and there's privilege to not having to, and the principle of rational-critical debate favors the status quo, etc., etc. Our critical theorists and public sphere theorists have made these arguments for 20 years and we all know them now. But they are strategically wrong-headed.

If you're not engaging in public debate on issues of public concern, YOU'RE LOSING. That's manifestly the case now. The fruit of "I'm not going to debate my humanity in public" is the complete eradication of trans and blackness from the federal government. It is a manifestly failed strategy that should be abandoned.

[LAS14]

28. Since you're asking, my response is, "No. Cutting off discussion is not the way to go." nt

[ibegurpard]

7. Not hard at all

This and immigration are at least two areas where we've let the fascists totally frame the discussion.
Find a way to say what you said but shorter in a fairness frame and go with it.

[LAS14]

29. You hit the nail on the head. The fascists have framed the discussion on both isses.

Somewhere in one of these threads someone pointed out the same-sex marriage was a similar hot button. Until it wasn't. I can see that happening with trans sports. Not with immigration, I'm afraid.

[MadameButterfly]

11. I think Newsome made some points in this quote

that are often ignored. Republicans are using this issue because they think it can get votes, not to help their constituents. And pointing out that they don't really care about women's sports is a zinger.

I think you take issue with him saying their could be a legitimate discussion...That doesn't mean he is coming down on their side of it.
Just that the discussion should take place AT THE SCHOOL AND SPORTS level. Not as a political issue.

All or nothing is not always the most effective argument.

[Ms. Toad]

18. So it is ok to advocate that trans rights are up for a debate?

That argument needs to take place somewhere other than DU. Arguing that it would be OK for rights to be banned . . . As long as sometime other than a politician does the banning is still, in the words of EarlG when he locked a similar thread yesterday - debating how far trans individuals should be thrown under the bus.

[BannonsLiver]

22. Agree

I listened to the entire thing and thought he did very well. He was maybe a bit to congenial with Kirk at times but overall I think a lot of the criticism is over one issue most of which was taken out of context.

[4th gen blue]

19. Gavin will sell us out

He's going to run for President and he thinks he has to become "moderate"

[uponit7771]

27. Yep while all the evidence of going all in on a progressive econ policy is polling well

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. It's not hard to say "this directly affects only a few people so it's okay to cede it to Republicans, I'm sure they'll

stop there."

What's hard is dealing with the justified pushback such a stance gets.

[yardwork]

23. I think this is a reasonable position.

Every gay and trans person I know in real life agrees with this position.

In particular, we all need to start speaking up about how the rightwingers are using this as a way to pick on a vulnerable minority, and their hypocritical stance on women's rights.

It's scaremongering.

[LAS14]

30. Every gay and trans person I know in real life agrees with this position.

And maybe more people here would begin to agree if they read Newsom's whole interview.

As far as I know, I don't know any trans people... Well... thinking about my church, maybe I do. But anyway, letting the right frame this as THE issue isn't good for anyone with progressive values or needs.

[uponit7771]

25. ***THIS !!!*** Newsones team comes off unprepared

[BootOutTheGoons]

34. Here we fucking go again

And the usual sharks smell trans blood in the water

Thanks a lot

[BootOutTheGoons]

35. Maybe the straight cisgender people will tell us what they will sacrifice

When are we going to debate the rights of non-LGBTQs?!?!

I am beyond tired of transphobic people here telling me to go to the back of the bus or even under it!!!!!

Some people do nothing to hide how much they hate trans people and they see nothing wrong with it!!!!!