The Wall Street Journal writes today about Joe Biden's difficulties among union workers, but it's pretty much the same story as it's been since Reagan Democrats started defecting 40 years ago. Lots of working class voters are more concerned about immigration, trade deals, and culture war issues than they are about support for unions. For example:
Ford employee James Benson Jr., a UAW member, bought a house in Canton, Mich.,—roughly 20 miles west of Detroit—in 2017 because he planned to send his daughter to its highly-rated public schools.
In late 2020, however, the Plymouth-Canton school board, which is nonpartisan, overhauled its policies to protect transgender students from discrimination. Among other changes, the new policy prohibits school staff from disclosing that a student is transgender—including to the parents or legal guardian—unless required by law or authorized by the student.
“So obviously our kid goes to a private school now just to avoid that,” Benson said. He said the decision, which he made because of his Christian faith, is a hit to his family’s finances on top of sharply higher prices. “It’s like, what planet are you from?”
Put aside for a moment the wisdom of schools concealing transgender inclinations from parents. It's easy to argue either side of that. What I wonder is what Benson is afraid of. Is it:
Fear that his own kid will become transgender and he won't be told?
Fear that the school is encouraging students to become transgender, and he doesn't want his kid exposed to that kind of environment (bathrooms etc.)?
No real fear, just objection at an abstract level—and he's willing to pay $10,000 a year to register his protest?
Regardless of my own beliefs, it's not hard to understand that lots of working class folks have a traditional view that boys are boys and girls are girls. But what precisely bothers them the most? Merely being around trans kids? Sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, and so forth? $10,000 is a lot of money over a new school board policy.
I had this explained to me once. I was told explicitly that it used to be that being gay or transgender was regarded as something shameful, while being racist (and in particular acting on that prejudice) was something normal. So what happened? My explainer said that he couldn't figure it out, but now being gay was considered part of being normal, and that being racist was now somehow shameful. The whole "take back our country/schools" centers around restoring that sense of shame and normalcy.
I will say this: back in the "good ol' days" bathrooms at school were *precisely* the battle ground of gender identity. I'm actually heterosexual, but I was someone who liked music and reading, so I was beaten for being a "faggot." And the bathrooms were ground zero for horrors. In the men's room it was extremely physical. In the women's room (I heard) it was mostly psychological but could blossom into violence quickly. My last two years in high scchool I NEVER entered the bathrooms between classes. When I related this to my explainer, his response was simple. "Of course," he said. The violence was the enforcement point. I was merely collateral damage--if he could trust I was being honest about being straight. He wasn't sure of that last. The battle over bathrooms is in fact the battle over enforcement.
Last point: This extends to teachers. It turns out that in junior high I had teachers and administrators who were *somewhat* aware of my plight. But they felt they could not respond. To break up the fight, to come to my defense, was to raise the question Why. Could it be that this teacher, this administrator, is not who they purport to be??? In the 60s and early 70s that was the loss of a job. So--dangerous places, no adult support, constant threats of sudden violence, peer enforced norms encouraged by their parents. The battle is to get all of this back. All of this is the when and how of America used to be "great."
Very true.
Being gay is rare enough most who were abused for it probably weren't even gay. The same is true for trans - we're rarer still.
Bigots don't care who they abuse to enforce their norms on others.
In my youth (the 70s and 80s) we had the occasional fight break out in the hallway, but the bathrooms were never a dangerous place. The worst you risked was being teased and made fun of if you had to sit in one of the (doorless) stalls due to some intestinal emergency. No one came out in school as kids do now, but there were those kids who were gossiped about. I was one of those kids. Never faced any violence just some mean-tongued scuttlebutt, and once my name being scrawled in a sidewalk in connection with a certain sexual activity (which I was not doing in my teens).
I got threatened; my stuff vandalized, stolen; so I never got over my fear of public showers.
A lot of what people believe and prefer is not due to their own decisions on either rational or irrational grounds, it comes from what is acceptable in the group. In general, being accepted in one's group is more important than holding independent opinions. Group solidarity and racism are instinctive, and reinforced by religion. Going to religious assemblies is not a means of communication with "spirits", it is a means of reinforcing clan or group solidarity. The LGBTQ obsession is a signal of adherence to "Christian" beliefs.
Both left and right have their group beliefs, and extremists strive to enforce conformity. The difference between them in the US is that the Republican party has chosen to exploit racial and religious group instincts to get power for their own purposes, which are mainly enrichment of themselves and their big-money backers. They deliberately try to divide people on race and religion. Democratic politicians at least would like to appeal to all, if possible. Leftists and some Democratic politicians would like to foment class solidarity, but this apparently is weaker than that based on race and religion. Money isn't everything.
This deliberate division has gradually resulted in detachment from reality among MAGAs. Reality and one's own material interests are less important than belonging to the group.
We talk a lot on this blog about how it doesn't matter what some crazy leftist says on Twitter because what matters is what people with power (eg Republican Congresspeople) say.
In light of which I'd have you note the OFFICIAL Biden/Harris image for July 4:
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1808867891204235585
If you are going to froth at the mouth about the supposedly unmoored fantasies of "random possible Trump supporter" I think you need to spend a little time on the unmoored fantasies of the Official President of the US.
And if you can't tell that these claims of the Handmaid's Tale coming to life are in fact insane fantasies, then I posit that your opinion on anything isn't actually worth anyone's time.
I posit that _your_ opinion on anything isn't actually worth anyone's time.
Weirdly you seem to both be saying that Project 2025 isn't real - despite being pushed by the largest conservative group in the country, and written by the members of Trump's administration who still support him - and that it's delusional to depict its contents.
Unmoored seems to be what you see in the mirror.
The Trump cult gets upset and indignant when you repeat their own messaging and label it as their message.
Kinda stupid, but cults depend on that in their members.
lol.
lmfao even.
This falls into into an explanatory category that has become steadily larger over the last 10 years, "Most People Are Complete Idiots".
These comments surprise me to the point that they seem disingenuous. Also, none of the ones I've read reference any personal experience. I haven't read them all so perhaps there are better ones. I know an astonishing number of parents with daughters who have transitioned (but no sons). For many of these parents these gender transitions are difficult experiences and if the child desists there is intense relief. If a parent could move their child to an environment where this trajectory is less officially supported that might well be in the child's interest. The idea that the schools can conceal this from the parents veers on the insane -- most of these children have additional mental health struggles.
There is a fourth option (that I'm not arguing for but merely pointing out):
- He doesn't believe any information about his child should be kept from him.
If one believes that the parents have absolute right of information, and that the child has no autonomy or privacy, then this policy would be alarming. The protestors often refer to parents' rights and I don't think it's necessarily disingenuous or covering for bigotry. It's a different viewpoint on family and privacy.
Of course, any one person's objections are probably a mix of all four of these options.
Again, not arguing for it here, but we should name the actual objections they have.