Looking at some 'greatest hits' from No Kings last weekend and it's clear if we want separation of gendertheory & state, Democrats need to lose the midterms. The 2024 national lesson went unlearned and there's no chance they find common sense en masse by next year. Witnessing various Dems attempt to defend their ridiculous positions on the campaign trail may be more effective than attempting rational talk. Call it cringe-therapy.
Rational talk has completely failed. Today, EVERY Democrat in Congress is a co-sponsor of the 2025 Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide.
I don't see this changing before the end of the second Vance term in 2036.
Renaming it does nothing. There needs to be a true awakening by Democrats. At this point I think they need to lose by a big margin with voters making it clear that we will continue to vote against them until they represent us: the majority.
And as well, list the propagandistic tropes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and AOC when it comes to the fake category of "trans kids." These "heroes" must be debunked. The pro-trans vibe in many upstate towns like mine is utter delusion. A new phenomenon I can't get over in my town is a "Drag/BDSM" bar in a residential neighborhood near my home. They have "Leather Night" and "Drag Night" and pretend to be a normal, non-illegal drug location on the other nights of the week. I find their posters so lurid that I take them as souvenirs. The most disgusting aspect is their demand to be a no-go zone for police, so the illegal drug trade is harder to monitor. It's all of a piece. Teens are taking wrong sex hormones as party drugs, and in the "dress up" days at this bar, plenty of under age-ers get in. See this movement for what it is, I suggest.
It has. And it's humiliating wasting energy explaining the birds & bees over again often to professional dupes who've made it their job not to understand. And fair to cast doubt on their other positions.
Vance is totally set to mop up whatever scrub the Dems cough up in a couple years. Credit to him that he's at least mentioned autogynephilia before.
Seeing all the excuses coming out of the very progressive left, they’d likely just blame it on Trump’s redistricting. And somehow the only solution will be to move FURTHER left
Every individual has a fundamental right to believe anything they want about themselves; it is insane that a local or federal government would believe it’s just to compel others to affirm that belief.
What would be the objective of those two or so hours? Would a certain level of knowledge on the subject be presumed, or would it be mainly Information? Community-building for those wandering alone in the wilderness? Or political strategy session for the fully initiated? I think narrowing down aims will help focus the mind and clear the path to planning it.
I would expect a conference or workshop to last at least a day, especially if you want participation from across the country. (Remote participation could be offered, but it's no substitute for being in the room where it happens!) It could cover all of these aims, given that everyone has a different level of knowledge and involvement.
I very much appreciate the way you are seizing the initiative here. It is inspirational, to say the least. I am meeting with one sex-realist friend in a few days, and I’m sure we’ll want to brainstorm a bit on this.
In the meantime, I did think Sheela Clary’s questions were good ones and would welcome any thoughts you, Evie, and any others who attended the Hudson meet-up might have along those lines. A very preliminary thought I have is that a strong focus should be action-oriented, developing strategy and tactics for changing liberal/Democratic hearts and minds on the ground that is geared toward putting pressure on our benighted Democratic electeds and better supporting Democratic and Independent electeds and candidates for office (like Jonah Wheeler) who have seen the light.
I have developed one small piece of a framework for that kind of work, based on a framework developed by Congressional staffers post-2016. I have more I could contribute along those lines, if it seems useful. It occurs to me that, if it’s at all possible to chat with the women at Sex Matters, that could be very helpful in designing such a conference too. A person who I think would also have good, concrete ideas on this is Justin Delacour, who is on Substack.
I will DM you with some thoughts, though this may wait until after I’ve met up with my friend, as she is very, very smart and can likely put paid to my worst ideas. Also, if there is any chance for a small group meet-up in NYC to brainstorm further, I am totally game for that.
The bottom line for me is that the Democrats/aligned independents absolutely HAVE to win in 2026, and in every single state and local election possible before then—but at the moment it is really, really hard to work up enthusiasm for this if it is going to be accompanied by a revival of junk like the Equality Act as it is currently drafted.
I'm with you and Evie. It's time, and someone had to get the ball rolling. Thank you for being the one to stick your head up over the parapet. We've got your back.
Focus on safeguarding kids. Focus on law and policy that are based on material reality. Stress that it took you time to come to this perspective. Ask if they know what "gender affirmation" really entails. Ask if they know about detransitioners. Ask if they really believe some children are in the wrong body. Ask where these kids were 20 years ago. Most people on the left have not even begun to deconstruct the logical incoherence of this movement.
Part of that is showing them how it is not “just like” the gay rights movement. Homosexual relationships = based on an assertion of objective innate biological reality: same sex attraction. It occurs between two consenting people. It is illiberal to punish or block the relationship.
Transgender = based on a rejection of objective innate biological reality. The demand for “rights” forces the consent and active participation of everyone around that person, whether they are believers or not. This is illiberal.
Language framing helps. Good liberals who are proponents of same-sex marriage should point out that progressives (increasingly the same as Democrat) are against same-sex spaces with regards to 'trans'.
Saying 'transexual children' instead of 'trans kids' (in air quotes of course) elucidates how wrong the concept is to the average half-attention payer (even typing it makes me feel icky).
The prefix 'trans' should be clarified at each stage. Trans what? Fatty-acids? World-Airlines? Make the believer unpack their beliefs.
100%. Gender dysphoria is also a junk Dx because there is no 'gender'.
This is partially a language game, and a stolen base is accrued when one starts on the pseudoscientist's terms. Make them say 'trans-what' or fill in their blanks with what prompts them to think.
It's obviously crazy sketchy that Jane from accounting's six-year-old nephew is a transvestite. As opposed to (quiet fearful whispers around the office) 'Jane has a trans niece'
Great... how do you convince a true believer it is not an innate characteristic? Because that is what is being pushed.. look at the rhetoric. If it was as simple as getting people to believe in innate biological reality we would not be where we are.
Kelly, I agree it's difficult. Often impossible. I have seen this with my circle of friends and acquaintances. Even when presented with rock-solid evidence, they just dig in their heels. I've lost friendships over this. Other people just roll their eyes and say it's no big deal. Even people who are highly educated, sophisticated, experienced, well-read, well-traveled, supposedly compassionate, etc. won't budge.
I have succeeded in persuading a few, but only a few. And it doesn't break down along sex lines either -- I've met with equal resistance from men and women, gay and straight.
I've come to the conclusion that some people need to touch the proverbial hot stove and get burned before they learn. So be it. No sympathy. And I have little hope that the Democratic Party will wake up in time for the 2026 election.
I, for one, will be writing in the names of Kara Dansky, Mariah Burton Nelson, Abigail Shrier, Lisa Selin Davis, Kat Highsmith, Mia Hughes, Stella O'Malley, Karen Davis, etc. -- all strong women who have been fighting this battle for years. I refuse to vote for the Dem candidates I've voted for in the past (and yes, I've told them all, but they don't give a shit).
Completely agree. I owe the Dems nothing. First Presidential election I voted in was Dukakis in '88. Until 2024, I voted blue in every single election, mid-terms, local elections, everything. I did GOTV work for Clinton and for Obama. They held Roe over our heads for years to keep women voting Democrat, look where that got us. I won't vote for them ever again, this is too big a betrayal. They won't learn until they have 100 years of losses.
It may not take 100 years. I think that by the end of the second Vance term in 2036, we'll start to see enough softening on this issue to allow a gender-crtical Democrat to win a primary for a seat in Congress.
Even if they dig their heels in about concrete reality vs metaphysical belief, you need to show them that it’s illiberal to force others into a belief system and to compel their speech about the belief system just like a Soviet State. They need to see that their ideas about sex & gender are unworkable in every day life in society.
The true believers do not see it as a belief system ... they see it as innate, as a concrete reality, they think that those of us that do not see it that way are bigots. I am in complete agreement with you ....
Thanks for writing this, Evie. If we care about these issues and also care about the fate of our country, the ball is in our court. We really do have no choice but to find ways to bring folks on the left around, and the place we have to start is to recognize that it is possible. I have done it on several occasions—and I know you have, too. It is difficult work; it takes patience and perseverance. Naysaying is much easier, but accomplishes nothing other than sapping energy that could be used more constructively to bring about the change we all want.
I agree that we need to bring folks on the left around. I am not trying to be a naysayer at all ... I am trying to find a way to talk about it and bring about the change we not only want but the change we need. I still consider myself a leftie ... and want to see most progressive policies put in place. The only way I have been able to bring my very leftie friends around to even looking at this differently is by highlighting my daughters significant mental health issues before and during her 'trans' identification. They see that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. They can see that medicalization is not the answer for mental distress. However... they probably still do believe that we all have a gender identity and that there can be a mismatch for some people...that some people benefit from medicalizing. While agreeing about the regressive nature of the belief system they are people who believe the 'truths' from people they trust and if the AMA, AAP (among other groups) and our Democratic leaders tell them one thing they have a tendency to believe it.
I sincerely wish it was otherwise, I sincerely wish I could find a way to let people see that it is indeed a belief system and that some of our most trusted institutions are caught up in a falsehood.
Understood, and thanks for clarifying. One thing a conference like that Lisa and Evie are looking toward could include is, eg, workshopping that very thing. For example, breaking into small groups, perhaps using hypothetical and/or actual scenarios, and trying out and assessing approaches to what’s known in political circles as persuasion canvassing.
I see some discussion here on the Equality Act specifically, so wanted to offer some thoughts on that:
The Equality Act definitely needs specific attention. (Just for accuracy, two House Democrats did NOT sign on as co-sponsors to the legislation—Don Davis (NC) and Henry Cuellar (TX).) A clear presentation on why, as drafted, it is so problematic could be useful for helping us all to discuss this with unknowledgeable Democratic voters—a lot of people, for one, don’t understand how definitions work in the law, and it actually isn’t easy to explain without people’s eyes quickly glazing over. I think Elspeth Cypher, the former judge who is on the Board of WoLF, could be very good on this, and of course Kara Dansky.
I don’t at all agree that it is impossible to engage in “rational talk” about this, particularly in one-on-one conversations at the grass roots level. I know it might be surprising to some, but I continue to encounter a lot of Democrats who truly are not aware of what is embedded in proposed legislation like this. So I think there is fruitful work we can do on issues like this, and the Equality Act specifically. And Lisa, your point about the name of the act is well taken. As currently drafted, this bill, like so much else in this area, is a Trojan Horse.
My own thought, when trying to pursue this on the Democratic side, is to propose revisions to solve the problem, rather than to try and get Democrats either to drop it altogether or to adopt a wholly new bill. People who have thought about this deeply have different views on this, so I think this could make for a good panel discussion. (Callie Burt is one who has taken the approach of proposing revisions—I don’t think her particular proposal works as it needs to, but I did want to note that effort. I also believe, though not sure on this, that Elspeth Cypher has noted that some provisions in the Equality Act are good and should be preserved.)
The Never-Wrongness of the elite liberal feminist man.
From Scott Galloway and Richard V. Reeves and Ezra Klein, to Substackers like Jeremy Mohler and John Pavlovitz, to the Pundits at the Young Turks, and Pod Save, to the NYT and Jonathan Capehart to The Politicians in the Democratic Party, to the celebrities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Pedro Pascal in Hollywood, to the legions in Social Work, Medicine and Education: They are Never Wrong.
For them to be wrong means throwing trans kids under the bus.
Obviously they would throw a bus full of trans kids into a volcano to avoid admitting they were wrong. That is the real reason they can’t lose this fight.
It would mean admitting they were wrong. And in their minds, society will collapse if they are wrong. It simply cannot be.
You might want to provide help for parents who have teens/young adults or even middle childhood offspring who suddenly spout this ideation. Simon Amaya Price, with whom I've started collaborating on how to extract youth from this cult, likes my idea of removing all extra mirrors from the household and having all phones and internet connected devices charged in common rooms instead of bedrooms to foster adequate sleep routines. Here are the 5 key questions on how to come back to realistic life expectations:
I suggest trying to get at least one (and if possible more) Democrat state legislators who have actually voted for gender critical policies in their states to attend. There are no more than a couple dozen of these (out of more than 3000 total). The discussion would be about how to survive in office as a gender-critical Democrat. The office holders could use the moral support, and we could use the understanding of how they navigate what is a very difficult political situation.
This is a great idea, but Isn't it something that should be done by, or in conjunction with, DIAG? This would show that we aren't just a disorganized group of disaffected individuals. Or is there some interpersonal/inter-group conflict that I am unaware of?
As a former lifelong progressive Democrat, my disaffection started before gender ideology came into my world. By 2020, I knew from firsthand experience that much of the BLM rhetoric was false socialist propaganda and that critical race theory (aka critical pedagogy or critical social justice) was in fact being taught in public schools. Seeing the blatant lies coming from legacy media opened my eyes for good. There are more fractures than just gender ideology among disaffected Dems. Not to discourage you, but be prepared. The recent Filia women's conference in the UK, disrupted by trans activists on the outside and differences over Israel from within, is an example of the challenges left-leaning organizers face these days. Maybe brush up on the French revolution(s) too. Marchons!
Supposition: the people most likely to have indulged their children in this ideology are also in the subset of Democratic leadership. That means we're dealing with advocates and their seconds. Are they open to persuasion? Is there a workaround?
Looking at some 'greatest hits' from No Kings last weekend and it's clear if we want separation of gendertheory & state, Democrats need to lose the midterms. The 2024 national lesson went unlearned and there's no chance they find common sense en masse by next year. Witnessing various Dems attempt to defend their ridiculous positions on the campaign trail may be more effective than attempting rational talk. Call it cringe-therapy.
Rational talk has completely failed. Today, EVERY Democrat in Congress is a co-sponsor of the 2025 Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide.
I don't see this changing before the end of the second Vance term in 2036.
Good point. We need to focus on that legislation. And rename it.
Renaming it does nothing. There needs to be a true awakening by Democrats. At this point I think they need to lose by a big margin with voters making it clear that we will continue to vote against them until they represent us: the majority.
And as well, list the propagandistic tropes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and AOC when it comes to the fake category of "trans kids." These "heroes" must be debunked. The pro-trans vibe in many upstate towns like mine is utter delusion. A new phenomenon I can't get over in my town is a "Drag/BDSM" bar in a residential neighborhood near my home. They have "Leather Night" and "Drag Night" and pretend to be a normal, non-illegal drug location on the other nights of the week. I find their posters so lurid that I take them as souvenirs. The most disgusting aspect is their demand to be a no-go zone for police, so the illegal drug trade is harder to monitor. It's all of a piece. Teens are taking wrong sex hormones as party drugs, and in the "dress up" days at this bar, plenty of under age-ers get in. See this movement for what it is, I suggest.
It has. And it's humiliating wasting energy explaining the birds & bees over again often to professional dupes who've made it their job not to understand. And fair to cast doubt on their other positions.
Vance is totally set to mop up whatever scrub the Dems cough up in a couple years. Credit to him that he's at least mentioned autogynephilia before.
Seeing all the excuses coming out of the very progressive left, they’d likely just blame it on Trump’s redistricting. And somehow the only solution will be to move FURTHER left
Sad and true.
Every individual has a fundamental right to believe anything they want about themselves; it is insane that a local or federal government would believe it’s just to compel others to affirm that belief.
Amen (secularly)
What would be the objective of those two or so hours? Would a certain level of knowledge on the subject be presumed, or would it be mainly Information? Community-building for those wandering alone in the wilderness? Or political strategy session for the fully initiated? I think narrowing down aims will help focus the mind and clear the path to planning it.
yes to this.
I would expect a conference or workshop to last at least a day, especially if you want participation from across the country. (Remote participation could be offered, but it's no substitute for being in the room where it happens!) It could cover all of these aims, given that everyone has a different level of knowledge and involvement.
Great idea. Happy to help if you'd like.
I very much appreciate the way you are seizing the initiative here. It is inspirational, to say the least. I am meeting with one sex-realist friend in a few days, and I’m sure we’ll want to brainstorm a bit on this.
In the meantime, I did think Sheela Clary’s questions were good ones and would welcome any thoughts you, Evie, and any others who attended the Hudson meet-up might have along those lines. A very preliminary thought I have is that a strong focus should be action-oriented, developing strategy and tactics for changing liberal/Democratic hearts and minds on the ground that is geared toward putting pressure on our benighted Democratic electeds and better supporting Democratic and Independent electeds and candidates for office (like Jonah Wheeler) who have seen the light.
I have developed one small piece of a framework for that kind of work, based on a framework developed by Congressional staffers post-2016. I have more I could contribute along those lines, if it seems useful. It occurs to me that, if it’s at all possible to chat with the women at Sex Matters, that could be very helpful in designing such a conference too. A person who I think would also have good, concrete ideas on this is Justin Delacour, who is on Substack.
I will DM you with some thoughts, though this may wait until after I’ve met up with my friend, as she is very, very smart and can likely put paid to my worst ideas. Also, if there is any chance for a small group meet-up in NYC to brainstorm further, I am totally game for that.
The bottom line for me is that the Democrats/aligned independents absolutely HAVE to win in 2026, and in every single state and local election possible before then—but at the moment it is really, really hard to work up enthusiasm for this if it is going to be accompanied by a revival of junk like the Equality Act as it is currently drafted.
I'm in! I have already been making my beliefs known willy-nilly on Facebook. I have been surprised at the lack of pushback.
More people than you expect share your views. They’ve just been bullied into submission by the intolerant illiberal gender ideologues. Stay brave.
I'm with you and Evie. It's time, and someone had to get the ball rolling. Thank you for being the one to stick your head up over the parapet. We've got your back.
💯💯💯
How do we pivot them away from seeing this as the next civil rights issue to seeing it for what it truly is....I have no idea
Focus on safeguarding kids. Focus on law and policy that are based on material reality. Stress that it took you time to come to this perspective. Ask if they know what "gender affirmation" really entails. Ask if they know about detransitioners. Ask if they really believe some children are in the wrong body. Ask where these kids were 20 years ago. Most people on the left have not even begun to deconstruct the logical incoherence of this movement.
Part of that is showing them how it is not “just like” the gay rights movement. Homosexual relationships = based on an assertion of objective innate biological reality: same sex attraction. It occurs between two consenting people. It is illiberal to punish or block the relationship.
Transgender = based on a rejection of objective innate biological reality. The demand for “rights” forces the consent and active participation of everyone around that person, whether they are believers or not. This is illiberal.
Language framing helps. Good liberals who are proponents of same-sex marriage should point out that progressives (increasingly the same as Democrat) are against same-sex spaces with regards to 'trans'.
Saying 'transexual children' instead of 'trans kids' (in air quotes of course) elucidates how wrong the concept is to the average half-attention payer (even typing it makes me feel icky).
The prefix 'trans' should be clarified at each stage. Trans what? Fatty-acids? World-Airlines? Make the believer unpack their beliefs.
There are no "trans kids"! There are no "transexual children"!
What does exist is children with gender dysphoria, a condition of misperception of one's body, just like anorexia.
100%. Gender dysphoria is also a junk Dx because there is no 'gender'.
This is partially a language game, and a stolen base is accrued when one starts on the pseudoscientist's terms. Make them say 'trans-what' or fill in their blanks with what prompts them to think.
It's obviously crazy sketchy that Jane from accounting's six-year-old nephew is a transvestite. As opposed to (quiet fearful whispers around the office) 'Jane has a trans niece'
Great... how do you convince a true believer it is not an innate characteristic? Because that is what is being pushed.. look at the rhetoric. If it was as simple as getting people to believe in innate biological reality we would not be where we are.
Kelly, I agree it's difficult. Often impossible. I have seen this with my circle of friends and acquaintances. Even when presented with rock-solid evidence, they just dig in their heels. I've lost friendships over this. Other people just roll their eyes and say it's no big deal. Even people who are highly educated, sophisticated, experienced, well-read, well-traveled, supposedly compassionate, etc. won't budge.
I have succeeded in persuading a few, but only a few. And it doesn't break down along sex lines either -- I've met with equal resistance from men and women, gay and straight.
I've come to the conclusion that some people need to touch the proverbial hot stove and get burned before they learn. So be it. No sympathy. And I have little hope that the Democratic Party will wake up in time for the 2026 election.
I, for one, will be writing in the names of Kara Dansky, Mariah Burton Nelson, Abigail Shrier, Lisa Selin Davis, Kat Highsmith, Mia Hughes, Stella O'Malley, Karen Davis, etc. -- all strong women who have been fighting this battle for years. I refuse to vote for the Dem candidates I've voted for in the past (and yes, I've told them all, but they don't give a shit).
Completely agree. I owe the Dems nothing. First Presidential election I voted in was Dukakis in '88. Until 2024, I voted blue in every single election, mid-terms, local elections, everything. I did GOTV work for Clinton and for Obama. They held Roe over our heads for years to keep women voting Democrat, look where that got us. I won't vote for them ever again, this is too big a betrayal. They won't learn until they have 100 years of losses.
It may not take 100 years. I think that by the end of the second Vance term in 2036, we'll start to see enough softening on this issue to allow a gender-crtical Democrat to win a primary for a seat in Congress.
Even if they dig their heels in about concrete reality vs metaphysical belief, you need to show them that it’s illiberal to force others into a belief system and to compel their speech about the belief system just like a Soviet State. They need to see that their ideas about sex & gender are unworkable in every day life in society.
The true believers do not see it as a belief system ... they see it as innate, as a concrete reality, they think that those of us that do not see it that way are bigots. I am in complete agreement with you ....
Thanks for writing this, Evie. If we care about these issues and also care about the fate of our country, the ball is in our court. We really do have no choice but to find ways to bring folks on the left around, and the place we have to start is to recognize that it is possible. I have done it on several occasions—and I know you have, too. It is difficult work; it takes patience and perseverance. Naysaying is much easier, but accomplishes nothing other than sapping energy that could be used more constructively to bring about the change we all want.
I agree that we need to bring folks on the left around. I am not trying to be a naysayer at all ... I am trying to find a way to talk about it and bring about the change we not only want but the change we need. I still consider myself a leftie ... and want to see most progressive policies put in place. The only way I have been able to bring my very leftie friends around to even looking at this differently is by highlighting my daughters significant mental health issues before and during her 'trans' identification. They see that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. They can see that medicalization is not the answer for mental distress. However... they probably still do believe that we all have a gender identity and that there can be a mismatch for some people...that some people benefit from medicalizing. While agreeing about the regressive nature of the belief system they are people who believe the 'truths' from people they trust and if the AMA, AAP (among other groups) and our Democratic leaders tell them one thing they have a tendency to believe it.
I sincerely wish it was otherwise, I sincerely wish I could find a way to let people see that it is indeed a belief system and that some of our most trusted institutions are caught up in a falsehood.
Understood, and thanks for clarifying. One thing a conference like that Lisa and Evie are looking toward could include is, eg, workshopping that very thing. For example, breaking into small groups, perhaps using hypothetical and/or actual scenarios, and trying out and assessing approaches to what’s known in political circles as persuasion canvassing.
I see some discussion here on the Equality Act specifically, so wanted to offer some thoughts on that:
The Equality Act definitely needs specific attention. (Just for accuracy, two House Democrats did NOT sign on as co-sponsors to the legislation—Don Davis (NC) and Henry Cuellar (TX).) A clear presentation on why, as drafted, it is so problematic could be useful for helping us all to discuss this with unknowledgeable Democratic voters—a lot of people, for one, don’t understand how definitions work in the law, and it actually isn’t easy to explain without people’s eyes quickly glazing over. I think Elspeth Cypher, the former judge who is on the Board of WoLF, could be very good on this, and of course Kara Dansky.
I don’t at all agree that it is impossible to engage in “rational talk” about this, particularly in one-on-one conversations at the grass roots level. I know it might be surprising to some, but I continue to encounter a lot of Democrats who truly are not aware of what is embedded in proposed legislation like this. So I think there is fruitful work we can do on issues like this, and the Equality Act specifically. And Lisa, your point about the name of the act is well taken. As currently drafted, this bill, like so much else in this area, is a Trojan Horse.
My own thought, when trying to pursue this on the Democratic side, is to propose revisions to solve the problem, rather than to try and get Democrats either to drop it altogether or to adopt a wholly new bill. People who have thought about this deeply have different views on this, so I think this could make for a good panel discussion. (Callie Burt is one who has taken the approach of proposing revisions—I don’t think her particular proposal works as it needs to, but I did want to note that effort. I also believe, though not sure on this, that Elspeth Cypher has noted that some provisions in the Equality Act are good and should be preserved.)
The real battle Terfs face is this:
The Never-Wrongness of the elite liberal feminist man.
From Scott Galloway and Richard V. Reeves and Ezra Klein, to Substackers like Jeremy Mohler and John Pavlovitz, to the Pundits at the Young Turks, and Pod Save, to the NYT and Jonathan Capehart to The Politicians in the Democratic Party, to the celebrities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Pedro Pascal in Hollywood, to the legions in Social Work, Medicine and Education: They are Never Wrong.
For them to be wrong means throwing trans kids under the bus.
Obviously they would throw a bus full of trans kids into a volcano to avoid admitting they were wrong. That is the real reason they can’t lose this fight.
It would mean admitting they were wrong. And in their minds, society will collapse if they are wrong. It simply cannot be.
You might want to provide help for parents who have teens/young adults or even middle childhood offspring who suddenly spout this ideation. Simon Amaya Price, with whom I've started collaborating on how to extract youth from this cult, likes my idea of removing all extra mirrors from the household and having all phones and internet connected devices charged in common rooms instead of bedrooms to foster adequate sleep routines. Here are the 5 key questions on how to come back to realistic life expectations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUbe2gkWM8&t=654s
I suggest trying to get at least one (and if possible more) Democrat state legislators who have actually voted for gender critical policies in their states to attend. There are no more than a couple dozen of these (out of more than 3000 total). The discussion would be about how to survive in office as a gender-critical Democrat. The office holders could use the moral support, and we could use the understanding of how they navigate what is a very difficult political situation.
Have you worked with DIAG? I gave a talk for them on a Twitter Space after our AACAP letter to the editor came out, they were good.
This is a great idea, but Isn't it something that should be done by, or in conjunction with, DIAG? This would show that we aren't just a disorganized group of disaffected individuals. Or is there some interpersonal/inter-group conflict that I am unaware of?
As a former lifelong progressive Democrat, my disaffection started before gender ideology came into my world. By 2020, I knew from firsthand experience that much of the BLM rhetoric was false socialist propaganda and that critical race theory (aka critical pedagogy or critical social justice) was in fact being taught in public schools. Seeing the blatant lies coming from legacy media opened my eyes for good. There are more fractures than just gender ideology among disaffected Dems. Not to discourage you, but be prepared. The recent Filia women's conference in the UK, disrupted by trans activists on the outside and differences over Israel from within, is an example of the challenges left-leaning organizers face these days. Maybe brush up on the French revolution(s) too. Marchons!
Supposition: the people most likely to have indulged their children in this ideology are also in the subset of Democratic leadership. That means we're dealing with advocates and their seconds. Are they open to persuasion? Is there a workaround?
You go, girl!