I’m still generally fine with the sentiments in Julia Serano’s post.
1) I will not tolerate any backpedaling on LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever, and
2) If my representatives fail to strongly stand up against these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, then I will take my vote elsewhere next election.
Words aren’t enough. Actions. Please contact your representatives to tell them the same.
I am confused and concerned.
Confused:
But isn’t this actually all about words (e.g., how Democratic members of Congress have responded to McBride’s acquiescence to Johnson’s bathroom rule), not actions (e.g., passing laws, which Congress can’t do without bipartisan support)? That isn’t to say that the words aren’t important, but I think it’s important to recognize the limitations of what Democrats can accomplish right now.
Concerned:
Without specific and achievable asks, I’m concerned about how this messaging may do nothing except serve to reinforce the Republican talking point that Democrats don’t actually care about their values. In my experience interacting with Congress, it is better to start a conversation with specific asks and at least some understanding of what can get done and how (i.e., what is the actual role of Congress in supporting/not supporting LGBTQ+ rights?).
Since that isn’t here, I don’t see an effective way to influence Congress. So who is this for? To make potential 2026 voters feel a certain way? And what way is that? I would be cautious about reinforcing a message that already seems to be helping Republicans. Project 2025 contains some very real and potentially dire consequences for LGBTQ+ rights and health, so there are real stakes here.
My congressional Rep is a hard-core Trumpista.
My energy would be better spent hollering down a hole.
I’ll give you words also, in addition to actions. Maybe that helps with confusion. I was too polarized there.
Otherwise which values are “…their values.”? Republican values?
They love to be all or nothing with values because they only want their values respected. That goes for the average voter too. I’ll point this attitude at more than one part of society.
Why should I interact with Congress your way? I want them to feel insecure. And go looking for answers.
You can still point your negativity at your representatives so they know. They want peace and cheer. But you have your energy priority.
Sorry, I should have been more specific: it is a common Republican talking point that Democratic members of Congress do not actually support the values that those Democrats claim they support. It is a talking point that was repeated by otherwise left-leaning people before and after the 2024 election.
I’m not saying that directing negativity toward Congress is always wrong. But it is much better to direct any Congress-related activities toward tactics that will be effective and timely. The day that Congress voted to ban TikTok (which goes into effect January 19, 2025), tons of voters called their Congressional offices to express their opposition to the ban – many of those calling after the vote had already passed. That’s a clear example of a pointless expression of negativity, and those people might as well have taken Pierce R. Butler’s strategy.
But that negativity has a knock-on effect of convincing voters that Congress doesn’t care what they think. That is why I am concerned about this messaging from Julia Serano. I’m not saying it’s impossible that it could affect Congress in a positive way, but I don’t see how that is likely to happen.
What does that talking point have to do with me?
And you aren’t offering anything that determines effectiveness or timelines. I don’t see how the tic toc thing applies here.
I’m fine with the nature of the message so far.
Is it possible to get away from better than? Because this is in line with my kind of politics. Why is this worse than an unspoken alternative? A bunch of this message is attitude and posture, and negative feelings are the point. Like any other human I want my representatives to figure out their own negative feelings. Besides, it shows what kind of people they are.
Here’s what’s got me heated about this.
Earlier this year I wrote a letter to the National Institutes of Health in support of a program supporting LGBTQ health. That program has been slowly gaining in success. But now with Republican control of House and Senate and their interest in sweeping reforms of federal agencies, that program is likely going to be ended. That’s real policy that affects real people, not some Twitter post about the U.S. Capitol’s bathroom rules.
But that kind of policy doesn’t grab headlines, and bloggers won’t post about it. If Democrats had held either the Senate or the House, that program would be fine. But that doesn’t matter. The message that more voters are going to see is “Democrats don’t protect LGBTQ people,” and not “Democrats protect federal LGBTQ health programs.”
If voters who care about LGBTQ issues only see the former message and never the latter, then why would they vote for Democrats? They won’t, and then Republicans will get to destroy more federal programs that affect real people and result in more LGBTQ deaths.
That’s why I’m heated.
What do twitter posts have to do with this? That’s a layer of politics. A swarm of fellow primates does different politics at different levels.
I’m not interested in headlines since my posture here is directed society broadly. The former and later messages aren’t this message.
Since Serano’s post didn’t specify how Democrats were failing to reach a sufficient level of commentary on Sarah McBride, I was left to assume that their supposed failure was based on Twitter posts. Is there some other medium by which Democrats have been failing in their commentary on the McBride “controversy?” And should I care?
You can do you. I have my political interest as well as Serano having hers. All the mediums have bigots of various kinds. This ripples out since it’s about making sure standing up to a kind of bigotry is valued.
You can have people that do the politics you want too.
I would have liked more shaming of the part of the Rs by the Ds. The Rs have the power to do what they did but I would have liked to have seen it called out more.
Those of us who do policy work will be doing our best to protect LGBTQ people over the next 2 years by defending (or at least distracting from) existing policies that support them. But we really, really need people on the left to know that there’s very little we can do toward that end when Democrats do not have any power. So please be careful with encouraging others to “take their vote elsewhere.”
That all depends on the specifics. I’m pragmatic, and it is in the nature of political parties to get criticism. Certainly overt transphobes getting primaried could be good to me.
I don’t know what to do with abstract to me pressure on policy people.
I’m looking at negative feeling politics, two political parties, and natural variants in humans. My greatest sympathy is for the human variants. People in politics should be versed in the negative feeling kind as a thing.
The problem we are having here stems from one unfortunate fact: that despite their general propensity to lie, this particular Republican talking point happens to be true in large part. Most Democratic members of Congress support one value and one value only: dollar signs.
The only way this gets fixed is at the grassroots/townhall/caucus/primary contest level. And as Sanders demonstrated in 2016 that will be an uphill fight, against entrenched and monied interests.
Primary the transphobes. And the pro-corporate ones. And any who have appeased fascism instead of fighting it tooth and claw. Which sets probably largely overlap anyway.
@Bekenstein Bound:
I would modify that. The value that most members of Congress hold most highly is keeping their jobs. To do that, their constituents usually have to perceive them as effective at whatever they most want them to be effective at.
Often that means they want to get some kind of “win” for their state/district that they can go campaign on. But these days social media gossip can be an outsized influence on any other messaging, which is how we get people like MTG.
Modify which one? I’m manipulating the “want to keep my job” variable too.
I also happen to believe my fellow primates need to get a better handle on their gossip as a species. Learn to ritualistically transition to something else when necessary. I’m already trying to figure that part out at a group level. Ds may have to be happy there. I’m trying to get their constituents too, and the right wing is usually my target because I’m pragmatic.
If they like my gossip awareness tool they may pick it up and point it at the left and that is a winning condition for me. It gets taken seriously.
You don’t have to care about any of that but that is where I am. I’m not a D, and I likely never will be because it’s too useful figuring out manipulation from the outside. AND I get to do politics at both parties.
If I can “soften blows” somewhere metaphorically speaking I’ll consider it just for the political sense it grows, but this needs concrete situations.