People like me talk frequently about the fact that folks who are modestly right of center are obviously scared by a lot of the Democratic stands on culture war issues these days. Perhaps we should dial down the way we talk—or maybe even what we genuinely believe—about these things?
People to my left demand particulars. Just who should we throw under the bus? Trans people? Black people? Poor people? Let's name names.
Fine. Here are a variety of issues that might benefit from a rethinking. I'm not going to say anything dogmatic here. I'd just like to spur discussion. These are in no particular order.
- Defund the police. I find this one particularly annoying because lefties like to pretend that it's completely ridiculous and there's no evidence that it had any effect. Besides, we explained at length that defund the police didn't really mean defund the police anyway.
xxx
This is sophistry. Unless you're completely out of touch it should be obvious that this is something that puts off a lot of people. And as the old saying goes, when you're explaining you're losing. It's one thing to support police reform; it's quite another for activists to literally want to defund the police and for politicians to mumble into their sandwiches about it instead of having the guts to clearly say if they really support the idea.
- Critical Race Theory. I'm not quite sure what we should do about this, but what we've done so far doesn't seem to be working. There's not much question that Republicans have cynically used CRT, which is a graduate level legal theory, to tar elementary school education where it's simply not used. But that doesn't mean Republicans haven't hit a nerve.
xxx
Partly, that nerve is simple racism, and we just have to fight that even if it does lose some votes. But there are also legitimate questions about how far we should go in public schools about teaching modern progressive views of systemic racism and white supremacy. There are also legitimate questions of how much to emphasize the heinous parts of American history (primarily slavery and the genocide of indigenous Americans) and how much to emphasize the admirable parts of American history (democracy, economic dynamism, the right side of history during the Cold War, etc.). There are ways of talking about this that might not satisfy Nikole Hannah-Jones but would make sure that slavery and racism got their due in history courses but were not presented as the backbone of our country.
- Sex ed in lower grades. First off, this is nothing new. It's been a flash point for decades.
xxx
Today's flash point is different, focused mostly on gay and trans issues. It's frankly a little hard for me to accept that sex ed of any sort really needs to be taught much before middle school, but maybe I'm wrong. I haven't been in an elementary school classroom for 50 years, after all. Still, I guess I'd like to hear the argument. I wonder if this is something we should really be supporting at all.
- 1/6 commission. This one is a little different. When Republicans conduct an investigation they leak like crazy in order to keep media attention alive. But Democrats don't do that much. The 1/6 commission has leaked some stuff, but it's been seldom and low-key. Why is this? Is it because the commission hasn't come up with much new stuff? Or because they're just afraid to be as belligerent as Republicans?
xxx
- Voting laws. Yesterday I casually mentioned that Democrats had tried to pass a couple of bad voting laws and promised to explain what I meant today. Here it is: Both of the voting laws, but especially the Freedom to Vote Act, focused on loads and loads of useless ephemera. Who really cares if voting drop boxes exist? Who cares if early voting is 12 days or 15 days? Who cares if voters are required to vote in the correct precinct?
xxx
Republicans complain that these are things that were put in place because of the unique demands of the COVID pandemic and are now being made permanent. And they're right. More importantly, these kinds of provisions (a) have virtually no effect on partisan turnout, (b) are not very popular, and (c) never had the slightest chance of getting Republican support. It was political malpractice to introduce these bills. A much better bet would have been a narrower law that focused on something voters really do care about: bills that give red states the ability to overturn, or at least affect, the official vote count after it's finished. When people hear about this they don't like it. And it's even possible that banning it might draw some Republican support. This is what Democrats should have done from the start.
- Afghanistan withdrawal. Why were liberals so afraid to rally around their president on this? The evidence on the ground gives plenty of support for the idea that it was handled pretty well under the circumstances. And Biden showed some guts by sticking to his guns on a liberal priority even under withering criticism. But Democrats failed to loudly support Biden. That was a huge mistake.
xxx
- Trans issues. For the most part, liberal support for trans issues is fine even if it costs some votes—which is questionable anyway. But the trans lobby is ruthless and extreme. For example, should we really support without question allowing trans women to compete in women's sports, even given the plain evidence that this can produce unfair results? Should we shout down women who think that growing up female gives them a different perspective than someone who transitioned later in life—especially if the transition is after puberty? Is there really no legitimate concern about transitioning children who are likely too young to know for certain what their long-term gender identity is likely to be?
xxx
FWIW, I belong to several lefty listservs and I can tell you without question that there are plenty of lefties who are willing to talk about this stuff in private. They generally believe that the trans lobby has forced too many extremist positions on liberals and that this likely hurts them with voters.¹ And they really, really hate language that frames even the least divergence from extreme views as "murdering" trans people.
This is just half a dozen issues off the top of my head. There are others. But this is representative of the kinds of things that I think probably hurt liberals and that could be dialed down without really betraying liberal principles. Discuss.
In addition, it's worth noting that of course many of these things haven't been spread organically but are heavily pushed by Fox News and the Republican establishment. So what? They're pushing things they think will help them, and that's what partisans do. We have to accept the reality of how this affects voters regardless of where it comes from.
In a nutshell, both parties want to focus the media spotlight on things that are good for them and bad for the other guys. So Democrats need to do two things. First, settle on topics that are less policy oriented and have a big emotional charge. That means finding issues of our own that scare centrists about Republicans. Second, we need to stop giving Republicans such easy layups on their emotionally charged attacks. That means easing up on some of our most extreme positions.
¹However, there are also plenty of lefties on these chat groups who disagree. And no one has an awful lot of evidence about how much, if at all, this affects centrist voters. (Though it probably boosts turnout among strong conservatives.)
When people think about "transitioning" their minds immediately go to surgery, and surgery doesn't enter into it until people are adults and able to make their own choices.
"Transitioning" in elementary school means: wearing your hair like you want and wearing the clothes you want. If a child changes their mind, it means they change part of their wardrobe and change their hairstyle.
"Transitioning" in middle school may mean taking some hormone blockers to delay the onset of puberty. If a child changes their mind, they just go off the hormone blockers.
"Transitioning" in high school may mean a different collection of hormones, but it still means that if the child changes their mind, they just stop taking the pills.
So education on that front is pretty appropriate, and it is pretty reasonable to push back on things like what's happening in Texas.
Or perhaps the Left cultural warriors might prudently allow that this is an area of legitimate sensitivity for parents and that treating pre-age-of-majority children with the same ideological approach as with adults is a losing proposition (for avoidance of any doubt, personally entirely in favour of post age of majority total freedom for adult choices here, no problem).
So no, not a good proposition the look-down-the-nose "education" of the culturally inapt masses, on what the concepts mean, rather focus on more winnable propositions of age-of-majority.
As lecturing and hectoring parents on their children's sexuality is never going to be a winning proposition.
Of course the arguments will come as with Defund the Police that this is not really the case and other forms of sophistry, but the take away impression is completely the opposite.
I think you're doing exactly what plays into the right's ginning up of moral panic. You're dismissing things that have legitimate concerns attached to them. I needn't enumerate them all, but take a couple - transitioning in elementary school, for example, poses serious questions about the social and institutional role of potentially pushing gender non-conforming kids toward other, albeit later, more drastic measure; ie. it's not just about letting kids "be themselves" - this shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. To your other points, taking "pills" and then stopping if you change your mind, is not an accurate description. Minimizing, as you're doing, the impact of treatment with GnRH (look it up) and cross-sex hormones, displays a profound lack of understanding.
These topics shouldn't be out of bounds. And we on the left should be very wary of how we approach this, lest our attitude be perceived as overly cavalier.
Well said. One bit of wisdom I heard recently, not about gender transitioning, said that "people make the worst decisions of their lives when they're eighteen years old."
You have to let people make their own decisions as adults, but it's reasonable to argue that schools should teach kids to be cautious about choosing a path in life. Things that appeal to them at some point in adolescence might not seem right a few years later.
OJ was eighteen when he killed Nicole?
(Alllegedly. Don't sue me. Don't sue me.)
I don't want to get into what O.J. did when he was eighteen. I'm waiting for his book about it.
Why can't a Democrat be more like a Republican? 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY&ab_channel=BravoDivine
I don't think I'm dismissing anything, nor "looking down my nose" at anyone. I'm in the perhaps unfortunate position of thinking that making explicit what people are talking about when they talk about giving gender-dysphoric people space to make up their own minds really will make a difference in the matter, and perhaps a significant one.
"Hectoring parents about their child's sexuality will never be a winning position" --- Great! Then the Republican Hectors are making a mistake when they push around the parents of kids who are wrestling with their gender roles!
"Great! Then the Republican Hectors are making a mistake when they push around the parents of kids who are wrestling with their gender roles!"
FTW!
Is there really no surgery or other physical intervention (puberty delayers?) before legal majority at issue? Actually there seems to be controversy specifically about "medical care". You don't need a doctor to approve how you wear your hair. Trans advocates are adamantly insisting that minors must get this medical care or they will commit suicide, while anti-trans are insisting that it would be child abuse, including "genital mutilation".
It's pretty clear that puberty blockers are given before 18, pretty much by definition.
This page from Planned Parenthood states that you can get cross-sex hormones at age 16 at this location, anyway (see the patient guide link from https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-mar-monte/patient-resources/gender-affirming-care/hormone-therapy-first-visit ). They explicitly state:
"In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required."
It doesn't sound like they're doing any real psychological evaluation of candidates for this treatment, or that they defer treatment until you're an adult.
There's significant circumstantial evidence that giving children puberty blockers is dangerous.
Specifically, significant number of pre-pubescent children with gender dysphoria eventually revert to their cis identity without any medical treatment -- something in the 75%-80% range reverting to cis (from wikipedia's detransition article).
But a lot of children who do take puberty blockers eventually start medical transition, either cross-sex hormone or surgical treatments (see this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55282113 ).
The people in these two reports were not randomly assigned to take puberty blockers or not, so this isn't a gold standard comparison.
Nevertheless, there is significant evidence that puberty blockers prevent adolescents from figuring out their "natural" sexual identity. Considering the severe impact of gender reassignment surgery and cross-sex hormone treatment, it seems that giving puberty blockers is more often than not a serious error, one that eventually leads to sterility, inability to orgasm and other serious side effects of cross-sex hormone treatment and/or reassignment surgery. And it's crazy to think you're getting anything like informed consent at the age where children would have to start puberty blockers.
Also, FWIW, both the French and Finnish state health departments now recommend against puberty blockers, and a big Swedish hospital (Karokinska) also has stopped puberty blocking treatments for gender dysphoria.
I'm *not* saying that if an adult wants to transition, they should be stopped or persecuted. My concern is with hormone or blocker treatment of minor children, who often simply don't understand the road they're starting down.
This is very reasonable.
Before reaching the age of majority, great prudence is best, given both a mixture of lack of clear science and the well know fact that kids go through phases that may or may not be indicative of long term.
Making this subject one of idealogy around pre-adults, as the activists have done, running well ahead of clear medical science , is a generally bad move.
As things are continuing as a pre-sexual child into say high-school and college years does not look like a prescription for happiness. So much activity is involved with sexual pairing. Even if there were perfect tolerance the individuals would be excluded from a great deal, maybe athletics as well as social activities.
I think something that's lost much of the time in discussions like this is that, for *anyone*, with any gender, going through the wrong puberty causes harm.
Having a cisgender person take cross-hormones is definitely harmful. But so is forcing a transgender person through the puberty that their body will naturally progress.
This is especially true for transgender women; testosterone-driven puberty has a lot of effects that are not totally reversible.
It would be wonderful if we could just have everyone figure out which puberty they wanted to go through when they are 25 or so, with a much more fully formed brain. Alas, biology is not so kind.
So if you accept that one problem we as a society are trying to solve is getting people through the puberty that's right for them, then the position "transgender people shouldn't be able to have any medical interventions until they are 18/21/whatever" is not really a tenable position; the rate of regret of various interventions is somewhat contested, but the rate seems to be quite low (one large meta-study of surgical interventions placed regret rate at around 1%, which is remarkably positive for a medical procedure. Good data for earlier, non-surgical interventions is harder to come by).
It's a thorny, complicated issue. And no matter what tack you take, you're going to have some people who end up with a bad outcome. But we should be working to minimize those bad outcomes, which, from where I stand, means providing medical interventions to at least some minors.
Honestly I think the big issue here is the unthinking embrace by a lot of the trans community and trans advocates of traditional gender norms and beauty standards. You say it's harmful to trans kids to NOT take hormone blockers but why is that exactly? Because the standard of beauty they want to achieve is one their body can't accomplish without a lot of scientific intervention.
I'm not taking a stand on whether society should step in and prevent this or that medical procedure. But I do think maybe things would be better if the standard a trans woman wanted to achieve was not to be a model-perfect cis woman. Hopefully no one takes that as anti-trans because that is very far from my intent.
I think this viewpoint only works if you have internalized a notion that transgender people aren't *real* men/women and should somehow be visibly different from cisgender people.
There are no universal desired outcomes here. Some trans people want to be completely indistinguishable from cis people. Others want to look indentifiably transgender (though my impression is this is not all that common. Or, to be more precise, most people for whom this is true would categorize themselves as nonbinary instead of transgender).
I would hazard that most cisgender people would, if faced with a sudden hormone problem that took their body in masculine or feminie directions they didn't want, absolutely embrace medical interventions to maintain an outward gender identity that they are comfortable with.
Maybe in the abstract, society would be better if we all didn't care what we or other people looked like, but that's not the society we live in, and telling transgender people to just live with irreversible changes to their bodies that they don't want is, at best, misguided.
The problem is that I haven't seen anything that reliably indicates whether a 12 year old is really trans, or gay, or just unhappy with gender roles. While there's actually very little research in these areas, as I mentioned, in Europe there's been pushback from health authorities who say that using puberty blockers doesn't actually improve physical or mental health outcomes.
And if it is really true that taking puberty blockers prevents many/most kids from figuring out their sexuality, you're doing a lot of harm to a lot of people by using puberty blockers as we do today. Perhaps a significant majority, like 75-80% of children being medically transitioned, shouldn't be.
My guess: we're seeing a lot of kids who are either unhappy with society's "typical" gender roles, and/or are gay, going down the medical transition path because they've been told they can pick whether to be a boy or a girl. And they have no idea what level of lifelong medical intervention and side effects they're looking at if they go down the medical transition path.
As usual, I'm with Kevin
re: CRT. I'd forgotten but in 1974 there was a big controversy in Kanawah County, WV over books in the library. https://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/textbooks/books_and_beliefs.html
And of course the Texas school textbook committee has often been controversial.
And of course, in 1972 our candidate, one of the best people to run for President in my lifetime, was narrowly [sic] defeated because of "amnesty, abortion, and acid", IIRC.
CRT is a tricky one, I think.
On the one hand, yes, it's a grad school level theory that's not taught to kids.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the basic point of CRT is that racism is not just separate water fountains and obvious stuff like that, it's also institutional rules and norms that make life way harder for Black people. Tougher laws and prison sentences for the types of drugs that tend to catch on among poor folks is a great example.
So in a sense I think it's actually a true battlefield of ideas, though of course the right is -- as usual, very cleverly -- shaping the story of what liberals are saying to make it sound way worse than it is. And of course to suggest some nefarious attack on children, since that's their thing these days. Clearly they all think: it worked for Glenn Youngkin, it can work for all Repubs. Save the Children!
Here's the thing. The way EVERY religion (OK, "belief system" if you want to go all snippy and insist that The New Religion is not a religion) works is Motte-and-Bailey reasoning:
The problem in every case is a point I've made before, that belief systems consist of three main components - ethical claims, claims about reality, and claims about practice.
Things start reasonably enough with the ethical claims (which almost everyone agrees with); but that's not good enough for some people. It's not enough to have everyone agree that sure, Serbians are just as good as Austrians in the eyes of god.
And so we move on to dubious claims about reality (statements about pan-slavism, conspiratorial interpretations of the behavior of Austria-Hungary as purely motivated by malicious plans for Serbia),
and claims about practice (the only way to improve things for Serbia is to assassinate the leaders of Austria-Hungary, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor).
Then we get the universal bob-and-weave, an insistence that
- any reasonable person must agree with the ethics (OK), followed by
- if you refuse to then agree with the statements about the nature of reality, and about practice, then you by definition disagree with the ethics
and there we have it, what should be trivial disagreements become cosmic battles. And so we get WW1.
This is especially inevitable when the set of claims about reality and practice contain contradictions, as they pretty much always do, and when everyone who doesn't buy into the belief system doesn't see why they need to go along with this nonsense, to pretend not to see the contradictions, just to maintain someone else's belief system.
So, for example, CRT. The issue is NOT ethical claims about legal rights for different groups in the US, or their moral equality in the eyes of god.
The issue is that a very specific set of claims are made about reality and about practice, followed by a furious insistence that anyone who disagrees with either those reality claims or the practice suggestions by one iota is a literal Nazi.
And so we get, for example: to disagree about affirmative action is to be a racist, no scope there for details like "does affirmative action actually work? work for whom? is it making a better society?" To disagree with any and every claim about practice or claim about reality is (supposedly, by definition) to disagree with the ethics. And disagreeing with the ethics, by definition, makes you sub-human.
CRT is not just ethical claims about how Americans should behave today. It's a caste-based gnostic belief system that insists on a single interpretation of every aspect of history and behavior, and will brook no alternative analysis. THAT is what people are complaining about.
Here's an example of the way this is seen by people who don't buy into CRT.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/12/22/no_critical_race_theory_in_schools_heres_the_abundant_evidence_saying_otherwise_808528.html
<>
Oh, FFS, editing on Coral is an endless frustration. Let's try again.
[[
One of the most frustrating claims of CRT for its critics is the idea that there is no objective truth, only the subjective perspectives of competing identity groups, and one’s identity can confer a special, almost prophetic, authority to interpret the human experience. Once opinions become a function of one’s identity, then it naturally follows that claims of oppression and microaggressions are unimpeachable, and objections to CRT can be dismissed as the exercise of white privilege and systemic racism.
“CRT’s adversaries are perhaps most concerned with what they perceive to be critical race theorists’ nonchalance about objective truth,” according to “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.”
“For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics,” the authors state. “In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.”
The 1995 article about CRT in education put it this way: “A theme of ‘naming one’s own reality’ or ‘voice’ is entrenched in the work of critical race theorists.”
]]
No, the people that have been stirred up in Virginia and elsewhere are not concerned with the ethics of CRT - which most actually know nothing about - they are disturbed that their racial privilege is threatened. They defend the idea that they personally and whites in general are perfectly fair about racial matters and that non-whites are getting things they don't deserve and will be getting control of the country if something is not done. Their claims are not consistent - they are not rational. But they have been resisting racial equality since the Civil War. CRT actually has little relevance.
How do you know that's what they are worked up about?
I don't speak for those people, but I DO know that the people in my camp (the "paleo-liberals" or "IDW") have repeatedly been called racists, homophobes, nazis, etc for exactly the reasons I have described. At some point my "cry wolf" instinct kicks in -- if you insist on labelling EVERYONE (including the very reasonable people I know) as nazi's, then I no longer have any interest in figuring out which of the supposed nazi's you're accusing are real and which are imaginary.
" should we really support without question allowing trans men to compete in women's sports, even given the plain evidence that this produces unfair results?"
Don't you mean 'allowing trans *women* to compete in women's sports'?
It is very clear he meant "Homo sapiens of Y chromosone genetic foundation and muscular-skeletal structure" but a fine illustration of tying oneselves in knots to seek snotty misunderstandings to demonstrate own-superiority.
“… to seek snotty misunderstandings to demonstrate own-superiority.”
yeah, that’s absolutely *not* what you’re doing here.
i defy you to explain how Kevin’s misstep in referring to trans women as trans men is not telegraphing his own position.
Kevin clearly made an error, and one of his astute readers (more astute than I; I missed it) pointed it out. That's not out of bounds. I'd guess Kevin appreciates the gesture.
Jasper's understanding of what I did is much closer to intentions than is Lounsbury's. If I came off as snotty, I'm honestly sorry -- I just wanted Kevin to correct his terminology, because I know how important terminology is to much of the trans community.
He means men dressing up like women. Whatever you want to call them.
0. Medicare for All. Just stop that. Obamacare took 60 votes to pass, almost was killed with 51 votes, the Democrats lost the House over it, and there are still states that will turn down virtually free Federal money to avoid expansion of healthcare for their poorest citizens. Yet Obamacare brought healthcare to 20+ Million people who didn't have it before. But you're going to go out and campaign with the message, "Nope, not good enough. Rip up the system and start over!" I'd love to have more Universal healthcare in this country, but realize how freaking hard it was to get what you got, that legislators lost their jobs over it (and knew they were going to lose their jobs over it). Expand within the system, don't go around campaigning on a message that massive change wasn't good enough and you need even more massive change. That message is going to get Cori Bush, my congress person, elected, but it isn't going to help the moderate democrat who should be running right next door in Saint Louis County. (In fact, the Saint Louis County Republican beat the Bernie-approved challenger handily with this issue.)
1. Defund the Police -- 100% agree that if you're explaining, you're losing. There's got to be a better way that emphasizes reform, that reminds folks of "To Protect and Serve", and gets the police on your side by highlighting that you don't want them acting as petty tax collectors in marginalized neighborhoods, and you'd rather have them do the important part of their jobs, and you will pay them well for that.
2. "Critical Race Theory" is in part, I think, a way of saying "I don't understand what's being taught in schools these days, and I feel like I have no voice in what kids are being taught". I feel that way anytime I see examples of modern math teaching, and I have a PhD in Physics. (We, too, used to have "number sentences" -- we called them equations. And no, I don't want math questions that are "Explain to Johnny what he did wrong", as opposed to show what I did right. Johnny might just be stupid, and there are far, far many more ways of doing something wrong than there are ways of doing something correctly.) Again, I think part of the pushback against CRT also falls into the category of "If you are explaining, you're losing". No, kids aren't really being taught CRT, but unless you can clearly and succinctly explain what they are being taught, CRT becomes a simple rubric for "WTF?".
I agree in general with Kevin -- we're terrible about simplifying our message on the Left's most popular ideas, and we're terrible when it comes to clearly calling out the Right. We're great at "calling out" each other on the left, but that's only because there's the implicit assumption that we all understand one another.
That's pretty good -- Medicare for All.
I don't think Dems can win culture wars in general. They can limit the damage sometimes, but almost by definition Fox News sets the limits of the debate by deciding the topic is Trans Athletes or Pedophile Black Women, or whatever. Probably best to let them be crazy.
I'm a fuzzy headed lefty who would like to see the Dems be known for Taxing the Rich just at the Republicans are known for Keeping America White. But I guess the importance of money to political campaigns makes that impossible. After all, the Dems need to raise a lot of money to win campaigns too. So they need to suck up to the rich. That's the story I tell myself, anyway. Am I wrong?
... just AS* the Republicans...
It's not a question of Republicans being better at explaining or Democrats being bad at it. Many Republicans can scarcely get two rational sentences out in a row (such as Trump). Republicans just appeal directly to group instincts, which have been reinforced by tradition. This is what white supremacy is in the South, and it is combined with religion. It may only require certain code words to bring out the visceral reaction of hatred.
If Democrats can't win with Medicare for All, they will never win anything. We might as well just resign ourselves to a dystopian, Trumpian future.
The amount of money wasted by the present healthcare system is about equal to the whole defense budget including the spooks, the weapons guys in the Energy Dept, the Veterans' Administration, Defense's share of interest on the debt, and Homeland Security added together. Way more than a $Trillion/yr flushed down the toilet.
So we can give better healthcare to everyone, mostly for free, and the cost to the government is less than zero. If we can't sell that, then forget it all. We're screwed.
Then we could look at how we could buy three times the defense we have with half the money.
I see no effort at all on the part of Democrats to make the case. In SC we realized we have the prospect of a $2B budget surplus. Republicans have rushed thru bills to cut the top state income tax rate. Did Democratic voices scream about expanding Medicaid or cutting taxes from the bottom up, instead of the top down? No. Total Damn Silence.
We suck.
It's frankly a little hard for me to accept that sex ed of any sort really needs to be taught much before middle school, but maybe I'm wrong.
Kevin, you've bought into the bullshit messaging of the right here. Basically (as you often point out, you can always find exceptions in a population of 300 million), no one is talking about sex ed in elementary school. The problem is that the bills being passed prohibit discussion of sexual orientation in elementary school. No presentations or course materials that present families with two parents of the same sex. No providing guidance to kids who come to their teacher questioning who they are attracted to, or who are feeling discomfort with their assigned gender. By the strict reading, they also can't try to explain to kids who are bullying someone who is expressing those differences why they are wrong and need to stop. (The actual text of the laws being passed would also prohibit discussion of straight families and heterosexual romance, but I don't expect that to make a difference.)
It has nothing to do with teaching kids about actual sex.
I think you're missing the point. It would appear much of the voting public thinks it's about talking to five year olds about sex. If you're explaining you're losing!
So why not do introduce a federal bill denying money for schools that teach sex education to children under ten? Sure, it's bullshit, but that's exactly why it wouldn't do any harm: it would largely be meaningless—an empty gesture. This approach might let Democrats appear as the responsible, reasonable party on the issue, while the Republicans get painted as the "mean to gay people" party. (I doubt in 2022 that's good positioning for them, even in a lot of Red States).
I think that we need to separate teaching sex ed. versus being able to talk about humanity. Our current laws/norms are far different than when I was in elementary school 40 yrs ago. Same sex marriage was non-existent and multi-racial families were still the exception and we as a society were just coming to terms with the divorce surge of the 60's-70's (I still struggle with how to deal with my child having 3 grand-fathers and 3 grand-mothers - all of whom are alive - mostly because the grandparents are not amicable). I think that our public school teachers need to be free to talk with their young students about these things. Where to draw lines is a difficult thing to determine but should focus on personal relationships rather than the physical mechanics of sex.
That said, I do think we need to move up the date of when we introduce sex education. In broad terms the age of puberty has been dropping the last few decades and young women, in particular, can enter puberty under the age of 10 (this would put you in 5th grade in my community) but young men are also entering puberty at an earlier age. It does not help that in many communities there has been an effort to enhance "pre-school" education which includes putting higher age requirement for kindergarten. So we have children both maturing earlier physically while being older chronologically for their grade level.
So while Kevin and I might not have gotten formal sex ed until 7th or 8th grade, it seems like this should start in 5th or 6th grade in the current age.
These are complicated things and criminalizing these discussions seems like a poor way to deal with them.
Sounds like it's not worth the trouble, then. Best to let it go.
". . . make sure that slavery and racism got their due in history courses but were not presented as the backbone of our country."
Except that they *were* the backbone of our country. Heck, they were baked into the Constitution. To not present slavery and racism (not just against black slaves but against indigenous peoples) as the backbone of out country is to whitewash American history.
That's the kind of BS that people are tired of hearing. To say that are great country is just built on racism is ridiculous.
That's the kind of dishonest BS that honest, patriotic Americans are tired of hearing. This country was just built on racism: slavery, ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples.
Thank you Joel, you speak the truth but alas some folks cannot handle the truth, thus the CRT brouhaha conceived by GOP operatives to stir the pot among conservatives who desire that school textbooks revert back to 1960s viewpoints and no I don't mean MLK or Hubert Humphrey.
Except that this country WAS built on racism and genocide, and this is an established fact of history.
It was built on these things AND a lot of other things too--high ideals, hard work, etc. The best history of the past hundred years or so is able to keep both ideas present at the same time.
Yes. So saying this country was built on racism and genocide is not the same thing as saying this country was built *only* on racism and genocide.
Fuck off, troll. You _know_ you're being disrespectful when you take this line; and you know full well that you're being absolutely toxic when you say that the burden of proof is on others to prove you wrong, not the other way around. Getting peopke to accept your self-appointment may be your thing ... but it's just not going to happen, you scummy little POS.
That's just BS. Read a bit.
I read all of it. My post isn't BS, it's fact.
OK, can we agree then (based on the comments) that this is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of belief/interpretation?
And if so, should it be something tested in schools?
Do you want schools failing kids who refuse to answer "Who created the universe and everyone in it " with "Allah"?
So do you want schools failing kids who refuse to answer "What is the most important American principle" with "Racism"?
If a set of *opinions* are so contentious, and are not something that can be empirically validated, then perhaps they do not have a place in school (or anywhere else that is non-optional)?
“ So do you want schools failing kids who refuse to answer "What is the most important American principle" with "Racism"? “
maybe not, but the answer certainly isn’t “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
This country was irrefutably built on racism. That's not the same thing as saying it is "the most important American principle." Conflating those two is what the right-wing propagandists want.
OK, so how does your OPINION about "This country was irrefutably built on racism" translate into a school curriculum?
Are you going to ask kids this? Are you going to have them write essays about "What was this country built upon?" and fail them if the theme of their essay is "hard work" or "science and technology" rather than "racism"?
Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean that it's an appropriate concept for school.
This country was built on capitalism. This country was built on abundant land and natural resources. This country was built by the hard work of voluntary immigrants.
This country was built on land stolen from the original inhabitants. This country was built on slave labor.
See. It's not complicated. It's not about what I believe to be true. I've just stated facts. As an educator and a taxpayer, my belief is that facts are appropriate for school.
"This country was built on land stolen from the original inhabitants"
Which original inhabitants?
The best science today (DNA, building on Joseph Greenberg's earlier linguistic work [for which, let's remember, he was crucified by the leftwing establishment...]) states that there were three waves of migration into the America's.
It's unclear to me the principle by which the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut invaders are allowed to be called "First Nations" and given special privileges, whereas later waves don't get that treatment. Either the real first wave (Amerind) is special and everyone else is an interloper, or we accept that history consists of nothing but one group take over the land of another, and there are no specially evil or specially saintly ethnicities in this global history.
LOL! All the DNA evidence says that none of the original inhabitants when the Europeans arrived were European. All of the DNA evidence says that the people living in the present-day USA who were evicted violently from their land by the Europeans who established the USA were not Europeans and were there before the people who stole their land.
Please spare us the tedious and ignorant sophistry and misdirection.
The whole backbone? Or perhaps more like 3/5 of of the vertebrae?
I advocate for trans issues regularly. My daughter is a trans woman. One of my best online friends is also a trans woman. So I'm all in.
I don't see anyone demanding absolute acceptance of trans women in women's sports at all levels no matter what.
Said online friend started doing (women's) roller derby after transitioning. There was a fracas, I assume it has died down now. She can play, but she's hardly the best in the league. She wasn't really an athlete at all before transitioning.
I do not, nor do I know anyone who takes an absolutist position on sports at all levels, collegiate, Olympic, etc.
I do know women who compete in those sports who are "Sure, bring it on, there's lots of women here who are bigger and stronger than me already, but I can compete"
I'm sure people who are absolutist about this exist, but I prefer to ignore them. Are any of them running for office? Are any of them shaping political message that are seen in national advertising campaigns? I didn't think so.
Frankly, the sports/PE changing room issues in middle school and hight school are much trickier to deal with than the "can trans women participate?" questions.
And personally, I'm still working the "this is real, it's a thing, not a fake, not a sexual fetish" line with trans acceptance. You know, the whole "my daughter is not an abomination or a joke" business.
There's this thing we do these days that drives me nuts, which I characterize as "Somebody somewhere did something stupid". Did it matter? Would I have heard of this person otherwise? People do stupid things all the time, the best response is to laugh and move on.
I don't see anyone demanding absolute acceptance of trans women in women's sports at all levels no matter what."
Look around.
I feel like "the trans lobby" is doing a lot of work in Kevin's post. Who is "the trans lobby"? Angry people on Twitter? The ACLU? I'm a trans woman and I don't know who Kevin means by "the trans lobby."
Like... there's not a poll or something that gets sent out to all of us to work out what our messaging should be.
If elected Democrats are taking their cues from angry people on Twitter, that... seems like a problem? I don't know how to stop people from getting angry (especially when they feel like their rights are being taken away) I don't know how to get all the people online to agree on any sort of compromise.
I'm worried that the actual situation we're in is that social media makes nutpicking easier than it has ever been, and conservatives are taking advantage of this to hammer Democrats.
(Let's note that the actual question on trans people in sports that's before elected legislators is "should this be banned outright, or should it be left up to sports organizations like the NCAA and IOC" - imo it is an example of this messaging failure that the latter position gets characterized as "absolute acceptance")
would make sure that slavery and racism got their due in history courses but were not presented as the backbone of our country.
Another poster did this above but I am adding a second post because of all the stuff you wrote, Kevin, that stood out.
Do you honestly think America WASN'T built on slavery and racism? (I would add misogyny but that is another discussion.)
HINT: The US CON in the minds of its framers DID NOT APPLY to blacks, browns, women, or kids. Period.
Agree about the country being built on sexism as well, also baked into the Constitution. I thought about mentioning it in my post, but decided to focus on CRT. Thanks for mentioning it.
Would you have preferred not to have a country?
It's not an all or nothing thing, it's about noting that our journey to a more perfect union started out a lot less perfect than the conservatives would have you think. Also it's still a lot less perfect than it could be.
So you're saying slavery was worth it?
False dichotomy.
my god, this blog attracts the absolute worst commenters.
That question is ridiculous. The point is to acknowledge the facts of the country's founding, not try to deny them or whitewash them.
In 1788 when the constituion was ratified, France, Britain and most of the rest of the world still supported slavery and in general did not support many if any legal rights for blacks, browns, women or kids.
And your point?
I reject the idea of U.S. exceptionalism. This includes the idea of U.S. as exceptionally wonderful, but also the concept the U.S. is exceptionally awful.
LOL! Then say so, instead of resorting to whataboutisms.
Yes, so? That still doesn't make it right.
It wasn't right, but by the standards of the time it wasn't that bad. Its real significance was in the potential to improve things going forward. Like I said above, I reject the idea of America exceptionalism. That includes both regarding the U.S. as exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.
I must have missed the people who were going around praising Britain for its actions in India, or France for its invasion of Haiti, or Spain in Mexico or South America. Or Canada, Australia, South Africa etc for how well they treated aboriginal inhabitants compared to the United States.
People are talking about American education because they're Americans. I'm Canadian; we're more focused on native schools and the crappy services providde to reserves
Regarding point 2, on "critical race theory", I'm going to say there is no such thing as "simple racism" that Democrats "just have to fight", or at least I'm not sure what "simple racism" means. There are some places where you ought to confront race-based injustices, but there are other areas where you should gently counter widespread beliefs and attitudes that slow down progress. Primary school curricula might not be very effective tools for change, so let them be bland.
Teaching American history in a way that acknowledges that slavery and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people is pretty blandly factual. Nobody (except the gaseous right-wing) is advocating getting up on a soap box in primary school.
Let's hear the arguments against funding the teaching of honest American history using taxpayer money. Take all the time you need.
I am not against teaching history.
Now, what you can do in your community is tell all the parents of school kids if you think their kids are not being taught honest American history. Not all of them will give you all the time you need, but you should try.
And so should you.
In my community, we teach honest history. Of course, our public schools are majority black. It's the majority white schools that struggle with honest history and dishonestly re-brand it as CRT.
I'll keep engaging with other folks, though for now, there doesn't seem to be any wrangling over history in my town's school district. Thanks for giving your view.
Defund the police. No one is talking about this any longer except a handful of activists (oh, and Republicans who constantly try to defund public services and hamstring the IRS), and you're not going to get them to shut up because they would rather not be thrown under the bus. We should just hammer on those cases where Republicans want to defund the police. Next.
CRT. This panic is entirely the product of the right wing noise machine. No, we're not going to switch to teaching some sanitized bullshit version of history. Teaching history correctly is important and should be defended. Next.
Don't say gay. I am 100% fine with clobbering DeSantis and the rest with the least charitable interpretation of his law. Next.
1/6. Strangely, here you think we should be more aggressive rather than cowering. I agree.
Voting laws. You point out that so far they have not been very effective because they've been countered by massive resistance. It needs hardly be pointed out that the massive resistance can't be counted on indefinitely and the Republicans are just going to keep trying until they find something that does work. So no, vote suppression has to be fought against.
Afghanistan withdrawal. Yep, that was a huge success and should be defended vigorously.
Trans issues. I kind of agree here, but who among mainstream Democrats is advocating absolutist positions? It's mostly a local issue and should be regarded that way. If it has to be addressed at all, I'm fine with doing so aggressively. "Republicans want to inspect your kids' genitals" is a perfectly valid interpretation of their position.
On the whole it appears you think we should be more aggressive on some issues and cower on the others. How about just get more aggressive on all of them?
“It's frankly a little hard for me to accept that sex ed of any sort really needs to be taught much before middle school, but maybe I'm wrong.”
The average age of puberty beginning in the US is 8-13 for girls and 9-14 for boys. https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/when-puberty-too-early
Sex Ed probably needs to happen before kids are starting to see changes in their bodies, so that they aren’t ashamed of those changes… especially for girls who will need to deal with having periods (possibly even during the school day!) without being scared or humiliated. And most middle schools don’t have students younger than 11 in them, which suggests that puberty is happening to a good half of kids before they get into middle school.
" It's frankly a little hard for me to accept that sex ed of any sort really needs to be taught much before middle school, but maybe I'm wrong."
You're not.
It's appropriate for parents to say "no, I don't want schools discussing gender issue with my kids until....x" and that age can be community defined and probably shouldn't be before high school. And then communities can debate the appropriate age. If liberals think that's unreasonable and mock the very idea, that's something that can hurt Democrats.
dm00: says "Transitioning" in elementary school means: wearing your hair like you want and wearing the clothes you want. If a child changes their mind, it means they change part of their wardrobe and change their hairstyle. Transitioning" in middle school may mean taking some hormone blockers to delay the onset of puberty. If a child changes their mind, they just go off the hormone blockers. Transitioning" in high school may mean a different collection of hormones, but it still means that if the child changes their mind, they just stop taking the pills."
Actually, no. At all these ages, it also means being called what you want by teachers and staff and going to the bathroom with the gender sign of your choice, which is an issue in schools and the resolution was pretty much jammed down their throats. Parents weren't thrilled.
Probably the most importantissue: if a student comes up to a teacher and says "I'm transgender and want to be called Joe", the teacher is forbidden BY LAW in certain states to tell the parent, and NOT forbidden by law to assist the minor in getting hormone blockers. The federal government under Biden "strongly encourages" the same procedure, and schools are terrified of getting sued if they tell parents--much more than they are afraid of being sued if they don't.
So eveywhere dm00 writes "wearing the clothes you want" "may mean taking hormone blockers" modify it to to "may mean changing into clothes provided by school or taking hormone blockers the school aided the child in obtaining without parental consent".
If liberals don't think *that's* a problem, if they oppose school staff being mandated by law to notify either the parents or CPS if a child announces any kind of gender transition intent, if they think teachers and schools should be able to assist and support kids in any form of gender transition without notifying parents, then that's something that could politically hurt Democrats.
There's this pretty stupid twitter account called "Libs of TikTok" that does nothing but retweet videos from TikTok of purported teachers saying rather shocking things about what they tell kids, what they allow kids to do, and so on. I don't know how many of those accounts are actually teachers (I've checked and some of them at least are public school teachers).
Listent to those videos and ask yourself: assuming those are actually public school teachers, would everyday parents want these teachers for their kids? And if the answer is "no", then push back on these videos, investigate them, prove (as I suspect) that they aren't representative and are in fact fringe.
On the other hand, if you find these videos unobjectionable and even cool, and think parents who are shocked have the problem, then you are the problem for Dems political chances.
(I used to be a Dem, and GOP now, but I'm a teacher so I've been following this stuff.)
I guess trans, gay & pregnant teachers should just be stuffed back into the closet, rather than risk that a kid might ask a question about gender or sex without parental approval from all the kids in the room.
"I used to be a Dem, and GOP now"
Thanks for the reveal. I'll ignore your posts from now on.
>taking hormone blockers the school aided the child in obtaining without parental consent
Ummm... No? Show me any policy, at any school in the nation that says this.
Puberty blockers are expensive, require a prescription, and are not simple to administer. Heck, there are usually about 15 bajillion parental consent forms to fill out just to have a kid carry an emergency inhaler or EpiPen to school. Schools aren't going around obtaining new prescriptions for kids behind parents backs.
If this is the sort of information you are getting from tiktok, I'd encourage a lot more skepticism on your part.
You don't read very well, do you? I don't have a tiktok account, nor do I think the LibsofTikTok account is particularly good.
But I'm a teacher. In one of the states that expressly ban teachers from telling parents if their kid is trans or says their kid is trans. All a school has to do is point the kid in direction of therapists who can also say, for the kids' safety, they aren't telling their parents. That would be an extreme case, but it happens.
Certainly, there are cases in which the school is calling a kid by another name and calling them by their preferred gender without telling the parents. Districts are changing their student record systems to reflect the students' desired names, and they will only use that name on correspondence sent to the home if the record has a flag saying parents know. That's happening now.
Sure, social transitions can be (and frequently are) supported by school district policy, up to and including not informing parents. We can argue the wisdom of that; I think it's pretty good policy in the current environment, but recognize that there is room for reasonable people to disagree here. My kid's school district has a policy more or less along those lines.
I mostly wanted to call out the narrow claim that schools are actively helping kids obtain puberty blockers, which is a load of bollocks.
"narrow claim that schools are actively helping kids obtain puberty blockers"
My specific words were "the school aided the child in obtaining [blockers} without parental consent", which does not need to be active support. They could point the kid to an agency.
And it's not school district policy but state law in many states that they can't tell parents.
if they oppose school staff being mandated by law to notify either the parents or CPS if a child announces any kind of gender transition intent
Yeah, why would anyone oppose a law that might endanger a child's life?
If the child's life is endangered by parents being aware he or she is trans, then that's certainly a case for child protective services, so either way, someone should be notified.
Also sex questions come up as young as kindergarten. “Why do you suddenly have a fatter stomach, Ms Smith?” “Why does Johnny have 2 daddies picking him up from school, Mr Johnson?” Etc.
Kevin, are you really suggesting that teachers and everyone else be banned from saying anything in those situations? Cause they touch on sex, even if not graphically, and those questions are exactly what Don’t Say Gay laws are trying to prohibit.
Acknowledge the question and refer the child to his parents.
I agree with Kevin some tamping down of the harder edges of the messaging associated with Democrats would be desirable.
But I think it bears mentioning that it's not clear there's an easy method (or any method) of doing this, since much of the offending communication is being produced not by Democratic politicians but by various third parties (academics, pundits, activists, public intellectuals, journalists, bloggers, celebrities) who don't accept coordination or advice from political leaders, and who in most cases posses very different incentives from people like Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams or Beto O'Rourke. If you're trying to generate retweets or clicks or get booked on progressive radio, you want controversy.
"Defund the police" seems to be fundamentally a problem of linguistics.
There's just no comparable phrase in response that's as pungent or plugs into pre-existing prejudices so effectively.
Biden tried in the State of the Union but "The answer is Fund the Police. Fund the Police" just doesn't catch on.
No idea what would work in response. In general, Dems should claim to be the party of opportunity and honesty. We can all agree on those bromides.
The right wing is very good at latching onto fringe ideas--and paint them as mainstream. That goes for the right wing ones and the left wing ones. Why--they usually make good sound bites. Real policy is nuanced. It doesn't help that some demagogues run with those sound bites from the left.
1. Anti bullying. People will be different than you. That should be celebrated, not bullied. People need to be respected for who they are. And that has to happen at all levels of society, not just in grade schools. Or, "how to deal with racism, sexism, etc. without mentioning racism, sexism, etc."
2. Go all in on the bible--celebrate the good news. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. And guess who your neighbor is.... (go big on good Samaritan). Remember, Christ started a new covenant with the people. As for separation of Church and State--render unto Caesar...
3. Every neighborhood needs good policing--too many crimes go unsolved and that affects everyone. We need more detectives on the streets, rape kits evaluated, etc.
4. Summer jobs and internships for all high school kids. And programs available for summer child care as needed.
5. We need to celebrate our children. Quality school food programs for all, and restore the refundable tax credits to all parents. Teenagers will still eat you out of house and home--but every little bit helps.
6. For this to all work, everyone needs access to quality health care. We need to stop the tide of rural hospitals closing and nursing care for parents bankrupting families. We need to lower maternal death rate.
7. The government shouldn't be trying to force women to bear children against their will. It can help provide services to minimize unwanted pregnancies as well as help with carrying a child to term and helping families raise children.
etc.
1 and 2 pretty much conflict with each other. It's hard to go all in on the Bible and also respect people for who they are. Meanwhile, the Bible teaches one to believe misinformation and to listen to authority instead of thinking for oneself. The Bible needs to be fully out of politics and not listed in a list like this.
There is a difference between old and new testaments. As Gandhi pointed out, there's a world of difference between Christians and the teachings of Christ.
Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:26-27
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
"- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, -
1Timothy 1:9-10
Shall we look at what the New Testament says about the status of women? Or slavery? Or what will happen to people who are not Christians?
A biggie that is blowing up already and will continue: Education policy, especially being dogmatically against charter schools and gifted and talented programs.
Look, I live in a majority African American area of a major US city, and I talk with mothers in the playground all the time (cos our kids are all playing there). They, including and especially the AA mothers, LOVE LOVE LOVE their charter schools. They also often have terrible memories of their own schooling. When the Left comes in and attacks charter schools as corrupt/evil/whatever (and they DO do this, I've seen it), this is a slap in the face to these people.
Same with G+T programs. Like it or not, getting rid of these is seen, whether fairly or not, as dumbing the schools down and is seen especially by the Asian community as an attack on them. This has already blown up in San Francisco and helped get Youngkin elected in VA and Eric Adams in NYC. The explanations that really we aren't dumbing the schools down, just changing admissions tend to lack concrete discussion of exactly how that would work, versus vague handwaving about fairness.
This will continue blowing up in the Democrats faces; we are just lucky the Republicans are so racist they are unlikely to get a lot of Asian-Americans voting for them right now.
Nobody in mainstream Ed is really pushing to get rid of T&G programs. Charter Schools are colossal failure/scam - they cherrypick kids and funds from public school districts and leave the left behind kids in 50 year old school buildings with horrid HVAC, mold etc and far fewer involved in parent groups to champion the kids and schools to get the needed but scarce resources.
Folks are getting hoodwinked by GOP operatives into thinking modest tweaking of programs to make sure bright kids aren't left behind due to institutional racism is denying White and Asian kids slots in the program.
This is silly. There is no shortage of mainstream ed, as you call it, getting rid of T&G programs.
In 2013, CA's department of education recommended that no students in 8th grade take algebra, for example, and have gotten non-stop s**t or it. This year, it sounds like they're trying to back down by calling it an optional recommendation ( https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framework-to-keep-backlash-at-bay/669010)
NYC has switched to a partial lottery system for admission to its most competitive schools ( https://nypost.com/2022/03/09/parents-set-to-flee-nyc-high-schools-banks-keeps-lottery/)
So, CA definitely got rid of some programs, and NYC uses partial lotteries to choose the students for the programs.
"They, including and especially the AA mothers, LOVE LOVE LOVE their charter schools."
They only love their charter schools if a) they stay open b) their kid got in and c) their kid wasn't kicked out.
There's plenty of polling on charters. The most reputable, which is also pro-charters--show very soft support. Republicans are only barely over 50%. Whites and blacks are both in the low 40s. *Parents* are only 43%.
Charters don't have really strong support, even among Republicans.
G&T programs are a different issue, but it's worth realizing there's a tradeoff between white and Asian support on that topic.
Dems should just ignore all the cultural issue nonsense coming from the right and concentrate on what most people actually worry and care about, which is the economy, inflation, cost of healthcare, strengthening social security and Medicare, etc. They need to target the broad middle class on pocket book issues. In other words, Dems have a lot of room to talk about actual programs that a majority of people really want instead of nonsense. If they just pushed strengthening Social Security and Medicare, like Biden promised, they would have a good shot of lots of seniors who happen to also vote very reliably.
With the exception of Defund the Police, none of this is on my Tik Tok feed. Which is pretty far left. So, wtf are you talking about? Why are you letting Fox News frame the discussion?
And as for Defund the Police, we just spent another $1 billion on the police with nothing to show for it. Didn't help reduce homelessness at all. We do not need an occupying army in our midst.
No kidding. Repubs are simply fantastic (with the help of Fox News) at taking something .001% of Dems said and straw-manning the living crap out of it.
As a result, there is no defense. As someone pointed out, Biden already said fund the police in the state of the union. What more do you want? Same with CRT, which is, in the irony or ironies, something that you would think Repubs would actually agree with if they bothered to think about it for more than two seconds.
> No kidding. Repubs are simply fantastic (with the help of Fox News) at taking something .001% of Dems said and straw-manning the living crap out of it.
At least one Congressperson still uses it (Corrie Bush) Still say "defund the police", so this is more than 0.001%.
I think democrats should have excluded her from their caucus. Whatever the cost on the left that would have causd would have been easily compensated in the middle. This is the kind of moves that convince people.
Sister Souljah!
"Whatever the cost on the left that would have causd would have been easily compensated in the middle. This is the kind of moves that convince people."
You know, the way the Republicans have moned against MTG, Laura Bohbert, Matt Gaetz....
What republicans do is irrelevant. Democrats shoudl do the right thing anyway. The righ thing is to throw out anybody that talks about defunding the police (because such talk repels voters).
Do you have a citation that transwomen are better athletes than born women? If you are going to say the evidence is plain then give it because I've looked because I also think this is true but found nothing scientific.
Second, it's not trans men competing in women's sports, it's transwomen. Is this a typo or did you misgender?
I will say that the thing that does annoy me about queer stuff is that at the absolute maximum it is 15% of the population. 85% are just heteronormative. So stop making the conversation way more than 15%. For people who are queer I get it, it's the same as black people advocating and discussing black people more than other oppresses groups whether they are less oppresses (hispanics) or more oppressed (American Indians). But for the rest of us can we not talk about these things at the right level of salience to the population
If you don't recognize that men are generally faster and stronger and overall more athletic than women, then you're not living in reality.
The evidence that "men" - or let's say XY-people who have male gonads and high testosterone and had them through puberty - are superior on average or at a given age level to those who lack these attributes is abundant - no experimentation is necessary. Male world records in track and field (say) are unattainable by true females while males not near the top can exceed female record performances. But it also has to be recognized that there is considerable overlap. As a rule of thumb top female performances are within about 10% of male performances, but there is a much wider range than 10% in both sexes if we consider all levels (below world-record contenders). Does this make it "fair" for trans females to compete in female events at the high-school level? Is it OK for a trans female to compete in team sports if no records are involved?
Research is definitely needed on the effects of hormone treatment. Does reducing an adult XY-person's testosterone to female levels (or some higher level) really make things "fair"? Does "fair" mean having no chance to win competitions, or that the person doesn't automatically win everything? That would still be an arbitrary decision, but there is actually little information on which to base it.
Beyond it not being fair there is the safety issue. Girls playing against boys in most team sports would be terribly unsafe for the girls. My daughter is 13 and plays lacrosse and flag football in girls leagues. Boys her age (especially those that are athletic and more likely to play these sports) are several inches taller, 20 or more pounds heavier and can run a lot faster. I would never let her compete against boys in these types of sports.
You didn't answer the question. Regettably I have to inform you yet again that No, saiying "It just makes sense" is _not_ evidence for your lame and off-point assertions.
I'd advise against making small adjustments to the Democratic position. It won't make a difference on the right/middle unless you can lead on the issue. If there were legislators out there who would work with you if you changed your position, an adjustment might be a good thing but no one's out there like that anymore.
The only place where a shift in position would be noticed is on the left, inclining them even more strongly to see elected Democrats as DINOs and not turn out for elections.
Better to spend the time hammering Republicans for doing things that scare voters than make fuzzy likely-to-go-unnoticed changes in position.
Sorry Kevin but early voting locations and drop boxes were VERY useful voting tools here in Virginia in the last two election cycles. Used to be that you had to show up at your voting precinct IN PERSON unless you fit the short list of allowed excuses. My local polling place is in the opposite direction of my work so it took longer than it should to vote and still get to work on time.
It was so very nice to get mailed a ballot then have the time to do thoughtful research on the candidates and referendums then drop off your signed ballot at a time and place convenient to you. I could drop off the ballot at the library branch right near the supermarket I shop at anyway.
I don't think Kevin said these things aren't useful. He said that they don't really affect the outcome significantly, and are relatively hard to sell.
They aren't a hard sell around here, they were tremendously popular and the state senate beat back an attempt by the wingnut governor to roll everything back in the name of "election security".
Were sample ballots not available previously?
Missing the point entirely. Whoosh. Voting should be a right not a privilege for only those who can show up on a specific say, present ID etc.
Pretty much I agree with everything Kevin says, though I disagree that the 1/6 committee is hurting Democrats.
Defund the Police was as stupid as it gets and set up against rising crime, it is poison
CRT is not being taught before college, but it is all over the diversity and equity training that teachers have to go through, so the Reps point to misguided white educators trying to respond to George Floyd
Common Core standards (bogeyman of the Right) defines Anatomy as age appropriate in middle school and Gender and Sexuality for High School. For K-3? “How to be a friend” how to play nice in Sandbox. What subjects do they want to introduce to toddlers?
Voting rights are sabotaged by both parties, Reps are more forceful and successful.
The main issues with Trans are sports participation, which Lia Thomas made clear and allowing children to have autonomy in major medical decisions. The prefrontal cortex is practically a pea at that age. Compare decision making between a freshman and senior in high school. Radical development and change of thinking at that age. Unwilling to change science to accommodate a small minority
Rising black crime. The rest of us, not so much.
"Critical Race Thoery" is defined in Wikopedia this way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory):
"Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary intellectual and social movement of civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race, society, and law in the United States and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice."
So to call it "legal theory" is completely misisng the point.
It's a slice of American History and that's it. Taught properly the subject matter should come up, but it isn't the only thing in American History.
It's like saying a single instrument was the only important one in Mozart's Jupiter Symphony.
+1
All you have to do is laugh in the face of people making the accusations on these misguided issues. You run as a maverick. The Corrie Bush example is grade a: I don't represent that women. Matter of fact, I find her out of touch with the voters. You vote for me, my kind of Democrat, is a further step away from the Bush's of the world and a better Democratic leadership group in the future.
Ditto with the inflation boogeyman. It's the pandemic and Federal Reserve 's fault. The Republicans just offer unemployment, financial crisis and famine.
If Democrats don't calm down on the trans issue it will discredit them for decades. I'm not happy about that but it's the truth.
I don't know which Democrats, or what "calm down" means here though.
Lia Thomas thought she'd compete in NCAA swimming under a policy that had been unchanged since 2010. She's not a Democrat, she's a 22-year-old college student.
In response, Fox News ran 45 segments about her. (Media Matters: https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/doom-groom-fox-news-has-aired-170-segments-discussing-trans-people-past-three-weeks ) Very few Fox News employees are Democrats!
Then a bunch of Republican state lawmakers introduced state bills banning trans athletes. They did this because they thought it would be a tough vote for Democrats, and it was.
This looks to me like successful exploitation of a wedge issue.
What I meant was that the left has decided trans is the latest civil rights frontier, which I think is both a political mistake and a misguided position to hold.
Evidence for you stark-staring looney-tunes crazy assertion about what 'the left has decided'? I
I'm not sure why your response is so aggressive, but here: https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1221135646107955200
And how many democrats have stepped up and said the rules should be changed?
No amount of not talking about these issues is going to stop Fox and people like Trump, MTG, and Cawthorn from demagoguing about them.
This reminds me of LBJ accusing an opponent of having sex with farm animals. When it was pointed out that there was no evidence, LBJ said "I know that. I just want to see him deny it."
I’m generally a fan of Kevin, but he’s way off the mark here. I also note (and am sure I will be pilloried for pointing out) as a straight white male, Kevin seems quick to suggest “changing tune” on a lot of issues that would not really impact him directly. This also maybe explains why he seems to adopt a (watered down) version of the conservative talking points on these issues.
A lot of this has been said already in the comments but, for example, the issues isn’t the teaching of CRT or “opinions” of the foundation of the country. It’s the fact that racism existed and continues that the conservatives are upset about. The fight is about what should we teach kids about it? That’s Lincoln freed the slaves and since then, we’re all good? Or do we point out redlining, voter suppression efforts, and the bussing riots of the 70s? Do we point out people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and put to death compared to white people who engage in the same activities? Should that be the only message to our children? Obviously not, but if we don’t teach it, it will be repeated.
Similarly, the issue with ‘sex education’ is a the conservative bogyman. No one (of any note) is asking for sex education for kindergarteners. The issue is whether or not you can acknowledge gay people. Because Conservatives only see this as a function of sex, the complain about sex education. Acknowledging that a child has 2 same-sex parents is not sex education. When sex education is appropriate in the older grades, then same sex people should also be included. It’s not that hard.
For transgender folks, I see a lot of the commentary is about sports. Really? Transgenderism impacts about .03% of the population. Reduce that further by transgendered people who are interested in sports and have some level of ability. Really? That’s what we’re worried about? I get the perception of unfairness (she used to be a boy!) but, honestly, transgender people are not going to take over and dominate high school sports.
The real issue is about treating them with respect, and letting them use the right bathroom. I’ll leave decisions about medications and other issues to the patents and care providers. That would seem, to me, to be a conservative value.
If there are so few natal male trans athletes, then surely excluding them from women's sports will affect only a tiny number of people, so what's the big deal?
There's a long and ugly history of specific women being told they're not women and kicked out of sports because of bad science, and I think the IOC (for example) is right to be cautious and at least wait for specific studies to come in. (There are actually a few being done now.)
But also it's not like there's a compromise on the table, right? If there was a bill that was like "Free transition care for all! but no sports" then maybe we could ask that one kid in Utah to take one for the team? But we all know Republicans don't work that way, they're just throwing all the anti-trans bills at the wall so they can grandstand.
It's true that there isn't a compromise available. Either you allow natal male trans athletes to compete and women will lose to them, or you don't allow natal male trans athletes to compete and those natal male trans athletes will be sad. It's entirely unsurprising to me that so many organizations have chosen the former. It's only women, after all.
There is a compromise available, and one that is indeed used, IIRC, by the IOC: hormone levels. Trans women are not barred from women's events, but do have to meet hormone levels.
I have no opinion as to whether or not this is sensible or reasonable. But it is one plausible approach.
That approach doesn't mitigate the unfairness. If a person has gone through male puberty, that person has an unfair advantage in height, muscle mass, lung capacity, etc.
Shorter Kevin: Democrats should concede that Trump Republicans have many legitimate concerns over "issues" they cleverly manufactured out of thin air, in the hope it will ... sorry, I missed that bit of the argument. Is this a two part series?