Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.
Vote for lesser evil + organize, get loud and make being trans normal in red states. The American system is so screwed up with no ability to dissolve your legislatures before the 4 year cycle. If you live in a state of those races, it would be better to be ignored than your rights taken away. If you need anything go seek the support of a Democrat that is pro-trans from out of your state, with control of Congress they would be able to help you more if your state’s legislators are useless but of the same caucus rather than of a caucus that is actively blocking efforts. Sorry if I sound flippant about it, but I would tell moderate voters the same about a progressive candidate.
If you’re worried about the ratchet affect, the solution I don’t think is to turn the screws further in the direction of the ratchet. The UK example is weird, the Labour Party’s somewhat to blame but I don’t fully lay it at their feet, because their justice system is biased in very old ways, negatively affecting people’s rights to gender expresssion.
The USA has already tried in 2016 the “haha, let Republicans vote for Donald Trump, they’ll see how bad it is when they vote for racism rather than a milquetoast candidate and they will disavow it forever after” method, that didn’t work, only made things a lot worse, he got elected again. Even if you have the long game in mind, not voting appears to send, even if a Republican wins 49% to 47%, a signal that the people mandate that trans people should be hurt, rather than a more neutral signal. States that had been trending red turning blue signals nationally a change in the direction of trans acceptance, regardless of the willingness of the candidate to associate during the campaign with pro-trans advocates or not.
Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils, is still voting for evil.
And more importantly, exactly how we got here.
I beg to differ, it is my opinion that not doing so is what got the USA Trump (if that’s what you mean by ‘us here’) twice.
Fifty years of voting for the lesser is what got us to Trump. It’s all anyone has been doing since before I’ve been alive.
You vote for evil, you get evil. It’s well past time to start demanding not-evil.
You do realize that Talarico is running for US Senate, right? Whether or not he gets elected has almost nothing to do with how Texas treats its trans residents. He has no say in TX politics as he is leaving the TX legislature in attempt to make it to the Senate.
And OP is saying that he will face consequences for choosing to change his position on the trans question after the primaries. Maybe he’ll lose, and that will tell the DNC and other candidates not to use trans people as a scapegoat (which is a fascist tactic). But whether he wins or loses has no bearing on how Texas treats trans people.
I’ll be frank: I don’t think Paxton winning over Talarico will tell the DNC a single thing with respect to trans rights.
Whereas if Talarico wins, what is preventing him from changing his views in any way, at any point within the next 6 years? A Dem President in 2028, with the support of Congress including Talarico, can codify better protections for all humans, in all states despite any state like Texas’ objections. Paxton would be an active obstacle to that type of effort.
Yeah. We know how the Senate works. The problem is that the party is choosing strategies to win elections and those strategies include things like supporting genocide, scapegoating vulnerable people, condemning communism, expanding the military and the police, honoring ICE agents, destroying RCV campaigns, and punching left. For every win they get with these strategies, they will use the victories to claim that this is the way the party must go. For every loss using these strategies, they will attack the voters and say it’s the voters’ fault for not voting properly. They will then pay social media influencers to claim that the party never actually cared about people who didn’t vote for them, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last several decades on “get out the vote campaigns”.
What expect is that if Paxton is willing to sacrifice his principles on the campaign trail, then he’s likely to sacrifice his principles once in the Senate and will vote with his Republican colleagues, because that’s the evidence he’s providing us. We don’t want another Manchin.
If you think a dem losing to a republican is going to send them a message about trans rights… you are totally wrong.
Republicans are going out of their way to hurt Trans people, do not let them win by voting 3rd party in close races!
We have the modern Republican party because people refused to support the not-insane and politicians changed their tune to avoid that. One of the arguments for el-Sayed in his primary victory was that Stevens would risk a replay of the Undecided issue. The idea that politicians (and other voters) just don’t look at demographic voting trends at all and pretend anyone who didn’t vote last election is a non-entity is silly.
So what you’re telling me is that my votes don’t matter and won’t send anyone a message and that Talarico showing he’s willing to lie in the primaries about his position on trans people and then change his position after we vote for him is the best chance I have simply because his party is blue? So we’ll get another Joe Manchin?
Uhhhh yes? Have you not paid any attention to how the two party system works?
I’m not saying it’s good, but I’m saying if you want to have a chance at making it better we need massive amounts of dems so the ones who are progressive can pass changes to make it better.
Voting for a more progressive person who has zero chance of winning is throwing your vote away. That’s how the system works. For years those voting green party for more liberal ideas have lost and split the vote so more republicans win who push platforms farther and farther right.
So yes, vote for the lesser of two evils until you have the opportunity to vote progressive and make your votes actually matter.
Primaries are the time to get the more progressive person for the election, don’t vote on the election day “to send a message”. That’s how we get Trump and MAGA
Yeah, so you’re not talking about reality. The Democrats have been sliding to the right themselves. That’s not the fault of the voters.
Yes it is. When they lose over and over to right wing opponents which way do you think they’ll slide? For those that refuse to vote unless they have a perfect candidate or one who does show up to vote who they then try to cater to?
You are the one missing reality when you think not voting or voting 3rd party for under 5% total vote matters at all. Because that’s what people have been doing and it clearly doesn’t work
You’re contradicting yourself. You’re saying people have been voting for third party but they never get even 3% of the vote, let alone 5%, so clearly that’s not the problem. And they’re not not voting because voter participation in 2020 was the highest since 1908 and 2024 was tied for second highest with 1960.
So again, you’re not dealing with reality. People aren’t choosing to not vote nor to vote third party. The Ds are continually sliding right because of something other than the voters.
There are way more people now and voting numbers are atrocious. Almost 1/3 decides to stay home and not vote. Over 10% of those registered don’t show up either.
Not voting because you don’t have an ideal candidate is definitely part of the problem. Keep voting dems and pull them left via primaries and giving them a chance. Stop voting republicans in whole only go farther right.
Its not a hard concept
I’ve been hearing that kind of thing for decades - I remember single issuer voters voting Libertarian or Republican or whatever because the Democrats were “just as bad” on things like marijuana legalization, prison reform, etc.
There is effectively no message sent and nothing received when people sit out, throw their vote away on an absurd third party, or vote Republican.
Why are you running defence for them? Their job is to manage your expectations into extinction, they are your rulers not your friends.
I mean no offense but you are sounding ignorant on these topics and assuming it’s a choice of nothing happening or things getting worse, when the reality is it is both sides making things worse in these few instances.
These Democrats are not simply ignoring us, they are taking away our rights. They are working with Republicans to pass laws to limit our freedoms, they are copying their talking points to demonize us, for all intents and purposes they are no different on trans issues as Republicans.
Likewise the UK justice previously had greater support for trans people but was changed under Labor to redefine what it meant so that it could exclude trans people. This was not some archaic law, but a political choice by Labor to actively harm trans people.
You’re still not going to get more rights by voting red or abstaining. You have allies. Let us help instead of forcing us to dig everyone out of a hole made by right wing funie Christians
Guess what happens in an election with FPTP where a candidate from one of two parties will win, and people vote their conscience or don’t vote at all.
The worse of the two candidates wins.
If we’re talking about US senators or representatives, there’s a lot of value in having a majority in either or both houses, and the margins are pretty slim. Yes, you’ll risk getting another Fetterman, but the House majority party gets to pick the Speaker, which allows for a huge amount of control over what comes to the floor at all.
Ok, then that seems like a simple game theory case where the lesser worse should change to mollify those voters of conscience since the alternative is them always losing.
Can I have a source on the claim that the Equality Act was changed to redefine what it meant so that it could exclude trans people?
context
Not arguing that it was changed, but in the court decision, the judges relied on the 1976 Sex Discrimintation Act for and even the ruling judge said himself, that trans people “had been led to believe… for the last 15 years that they had rights, which they didn’t have”. It was a judicial interpretation of the law that evaluated the 2004 gender equivalency provisions against the 1976 law moreso than the 2010 law to narrow the protected class from the 2010 law.
If a Musky PAC were to run ads saying how terrible Brown or another candidate would be for trans rights, in the same way Jewish and Arab voters were shown contradictory messages in 2024, would that influence how or whether you vote?
To be clear, I think that trans people should compete in sports according to their gender and be conferred the same rights as anyone else. But people that want to limit trans people’s participation in sports for flawed, scientifically refuted reasons while treating them as humans, I don’t think is the same, as wanting to ban them from bathrooms changing driver’s licenses and treating them as subhuman demon freaks. We should not equate the two.
To give a similar example, the fight for gay sex and marriage in Canada was fought over decades, and the stigma remains in small pockets. A progressive Prime Minister decriminalized it in the 1969 while not his entire Liberal Party was openly for it, and it was still in the decades after that a ban on workplace discrimination and in the 2000s when marriage was recognized. So we have to pull in the same direction, allow trans people the same basic rights as anyone else, then talk about competitive and recreational activites like sports later rather than just labelling it all as anti-trans sub-humanization talking points.
No issue is a strict binary - there are many degrees of transphobia, just as there are many degrees of any bigotry, as well as many degrees of non-human-rights issues, like support for public schools or privatization of health care. I would imagine that in almost every case where there is an anti-trans democrat running against an anti-trans republican, there is a significant difference both in terms of how rabidly transphobic the candidate is and which specific anti-trans policies they will support. There is also likely to be a big difference whether or not there is any potential for them to see the error of their ways. While most anti-trans democrats are likely on the wrong side of trans participation in sports, they are not likely to support criminalizing trans existence or encouraging violence against trans people, while many republicans are. They also will face pressure from pro-trans members of their own party, and from significant pro-trans constituencies, which republicans will not.
In FPTP voting systems, we rarely have the luxury of voting for candidates who have our full-throated support in the general election. Even if one issue is massively more important to you than the rest (and when that issue is a matter of survival, that is 100% valid), there is almost always a greater and lesser evil on that issue alone. Voting shouldn’t be viewed as a matter of identity or even as an endorsement, but rather as a practicality. It is a method of weighing in as to which of the limited options available is more tolerable (or less intolerable). Does that suck? Absolutely. Does it make sense to vote any other way within such a system? Not at all - because if the more tolerable side loses, the only lesson they are likely to take from that loss is to become more like the winning, intolerable side.