SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trans rights
The Fight for Transgender Rights Is a Class Struggle Fight for Equality
Working class politics must embrace trans rights as the fight for trans rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights are not separate from the fight of the working class.
Dec 27, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump said at a conference for young conservatives in Arizona this past Sunday that the official policy of his upcoming administration would be the recognition that there are only two genders, male and female, and pledged to stop “transgender lunacy” from day one of his presidency.
Transgender issues have become a hot topic in U.S. politics, with Democrats and Republicans adopting opposing policies on matters such as healthcare provision and the types of books allowed in public schools and libraries. Republicans have been pushing against LGBTQ rights for many years now, and Republican-led state legislatures have passed legislation restricting medical care to transgender youth. As such, there is little doubt that the incoming Trump administration will seek to make good on its promise to punish transgender people and the LGBTQ community in general.
There are an estimated 1.6 million transgender people in the United States, facing severe discrimination and constant denial of their fundamental rights and, in many cases, even rejection by their own families. Their only crime is that they do not conform to societal expectations of gender identity, meaning that they do not fit the confines of male and female binaries. Yet, transgender people have existed for as long as humans have been around. There is ample documentation of transgender people from ancient Mesopotamia to the Greek and Roman empires. Indeed, the ancient Greeks did not have the same concepts of gender and sexuality that eventually became crystalized in the modern Western world, from around the start of the 16th century. In Greek mythology, Hermaphroditus, the god of hermaphrodites and effeminates, was partly male, partly female.
Transphobia kicks in to enforce the division of labor by sex and gender as roles in the workforce in capitalist societies have mainly defined and formed our gender.
Records from U.S. hospitals and clinics of trans kids seeking medical care date back to the early 20th century. Therefore, arguments denying transgender realities are simply outrageous while policies restricting the rights of transgender people (such as receiving basic healthcare, education, and legal recognition) should be treated as nothing short of conscious attempts to cause direct harm to individuals identifying themselves as transgender and assessed as nothing less than criminal.
There are many reasons why people wish to deny transgender realities and why so many states want to limit transgender rights, ranging from cultural and religious reasons to psychological ones. Transphobia however is also a product of a particular type of society, one built around class divisions where maximization of profit and the reproduction of labor power are essential features. In class divided societies, gender stereotypes and thus sexual dimorphism go hand in hand with the desire to maintain the existing status quo and the specific form of labor relations built into such systems. Indeed, under capitalism, beliefs and assumptions about biological essentialism and gender binarism are convenient ways to keep reproducing a mode of production and a social order in which people need to be divided and boxed into neat categories. Transness disrupts capitalist social relations as masculinity and femininity are built into the economy as a binary relation. In this context, transphobia kicks in to enforce the division of labor by sex and gender as roles in the workforce in capitalist societies have mainly defined and formed our gender.
Under capitalism, transgender people are affected by the same structures that oppress the working class. Aside from the treatment of transgender people by the private healthcare industry, whereby discrimination is quite prevalent, some 50% of trans people also report employment discrimination while their level of unemployment is double the natural average. Transgender workers tend to have much lower income than the general population and are twice as likely to be living in poverty.
Transgender rights are therefore a working-class issue and “the fight for trans equality must be recognized as class struggle.” Of course, this is not to deny the fact that there are very rich queer people inside the system that do what capitalists basically do, which is to exploit other people. There is even a proportion of the capitalist class that supports transness and LGBTQ people, but we should bear in mind that the relationship between capitalism and oppression has always been dynamic and contradictory rather than mechanical and linear.
That said, working class politics must embrace trans rights as the fight for trans rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights are not separate from the fight of the working class. A working-class program must address the needs and wants of trans people as most of them are indeed disproportionally poor and working-class. Unions, for instance, should follow the example of United Steelworkers who got rid of exclusions of gender-affirming healthcare. Unions should mobilize their members to fight back against anti-trans legislation at every level. And we must not forget that most of our citizens are not on the side of Trump and the Republicans when it comes to transgender people. Polling shows that two-thirds of U.S. citizens oppose transphobic bills, even though more than half of the states have introduced pieces of legislation seeking to curb the rights of transgender people.
Trumpism as a political strategy has always been about polarization, division, and bigotry. The fight against the upcoming administration requires class solidarity among all oppressed and marginalized group in U.S. society. The fight for transgender rights is a fight whose outcome will undoubtedly prove pivotal in the overall struggle to resist Trump’s extreme agenda (which includes mass deportations) in the next four years, starting January 20, 2025.
At the conservative conference in Phoenix, Arizona, Trump simple reiterated his plans to pass a federal ban on gender-affirming care for youth and to redefine gender at the federal level whereby the recognized genders are as assigned at birth. These policies would be an extension of what took place during the first four years of Trump in office, a relentless onslaught of attacks toward queer people. And Trump has already announced a host of extreme anti-trans appointees to key administration positions, which include former professional wrestling executive and anti-transgender advocate Linda McMahon as education secretary; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who opposes gender-affirming care, as secretary of health and human services; and white supremacist and anti-LGBQ Stephen Miller as White House deputy chief of staff for policy.
The challenges that lie ahead for progressive communities across the United States for the next four years are many and severe. The fight for trans rights will be a long, arduous one, but winning it will be a huge victory for equality. There should be no mistake about that, which is why it must be recognized as class struggle.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Shouldn’t Throw Trans Americans Under Trump’s Bus
The normalization of transphobia in American politics, and the signs of looming government repression, poses a major moral test for the political leaders for the nearly 77 million Americans, and counting, who voted against Trump’s MAGA movement.
Nov 25, 2024
Like most people in the community she fights for on a daily basis, Philadelphia’s Naiymah Sanchez didn’t sleep at all on the night of November 5. It wasn’t only because Donald Trump’s second election would intensify her work as trans justice coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. It was also the personal anguish that the 41-year-old transgender woman felt knowing Trump had been elected, in part, by spending millions of dollars on TV ads that dehumanized her and people like her in shocking ways American voters had never seen before.
“I took it very personally,” Sanchez—who spent years as an activist around tough issues like combating prison rape before joining the ACLU-PA in 2017, right after Trump’s first election—told me this week. “They voted against me. They wanted to harm me.” She noted how many voters seemed to respond positively to the GOP’s openly anti-trans rhetoric, before adding: “We rest, and then we fight again.”
While Trump’s narrow but decisive win over Democrat Kamala Harris is still Topic A, the early fights over the president-elect’s off-the-wall cabinet picks and TV debates over just how anti-democratically the Trump regime might govern are still an abstraction to most Americans. It’s very different in the transgender community. There, leaders like Sanchez are having gut-wrenching conversations with people wondering if they need to accelerate major life moves, like gender-affirming surgery or a legal name change, before an openly hostile government arrives on January 20.
Selling out more than 1 million transgender Americans would wreck that brand, permanently—telling voters Democrats don’t stand for anything beyond surviving the next election.
Indeed, fears of what life might be like under Trump 47 for at least 1 million transgender Americans already began to hit home this week when the community’s one bright star on Election Day—avictory for the first-ever transgender member of Congress, Delaware’s Rep.-elect Sarah McBride—quickly became a symbol of the GOP’s determination to turn ugly campaign rhetoric into harsh governing reality.
It felt all too fitting that the Christian fundamentalist House Speaker Mike Johnson chose the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance—a day intendedto both memorialize past victims of violence, including at least 30 and perhaps far more murder victims every year, and to fight this scourge—to side with South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace’s vocal and bigoted efforts to prevent transgender people from using Capitol restrooms or other single-sex facilities of their chosen identity. Johnson claimed to be solving a problem that didn’t seem to exist for Capitol visitors or staffers before McBride’s arrival. More importantly, advocates like Sanchez know how such high-profile moves give license to everyday people to more openly voice anti-trans hatred.
This normalization of transphobia in American politics, and the signs of looming government repression, poses a major moral test—the first of many to come—for how the political leaders for the nearly 77 million Americans, and counting, who voted against Trump’s MAGA movement (for Harris or third-party candidates) are planning to respond.
Arguably, this is a real challenge for all of us. Can those of us not in the transgender community fully embrace the humanity of our friends, family members, or neighbors who are? Or, in the more meaningful than ever words of Sen. Bernie Sanders, be “willing to fight for a person you don’t know as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself”? How many will instead succumb to a focus-grouped temptation of blaming the anti-trans TV ads for Trump’s win and keep silent as demagogues like Trump and his attention-crazed acolyte Mace step up their attacks?
The early indications are not hopeful. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts—one of many seeking scapegoats for Harris’ electoral defeat and his party’s losses on Capitol Hill—threw down the gauntlet by saying Democrats are too worried about offending people before declaring: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Moulton’s campaign manager did resign in protest over those remarks, but more broadly Democrats have struggled to respond—to Moulton but also to the Trump TV ads that seemed to utterly flummox Team Harris, which turned to polling and focus groups before deciding there was no good way to aggressively respond.
And the hard data suggest that, yes, unfortunately, a transphobic message does influence some swing voters—not a huge number, but not many were needed in an election that was arguably decided by fewer than 300,000 ballots in three battleground states. Republicans spent at least $65 million and probably much more on anti-transgender ads in a dozen key states, including here in Pennsylvania, where the spot with the tagline “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” aired constantly during the Phillies’ late-season push or the evening news.
One polling group, Blueprint, reported that the third most-cited reason by voters for opposing Harris—after inflation and immigration—was this: “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class.” Blueprint added that this was the No. 1 reason for last-minute deciders rejecting Harris, while other polling groups argued that opposing transgender rights was far down their lists of voter concerns.
Still, the early data suggest why transgender activists fear too many Democrats think privately what Moulton voiced publicly. Thus, how hard will party leaders fight Republicans like Mace, who has already introduced a bill that would extend the Capitol bathroom restrictions endorsed by Johnson to all federal facilities across the United States?
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Trump prepares to take office. History has shown that the transgender community is often an early target of authoritarian strongmen. In the 1930s, for example, Adolf Hitler’s Nazis revoked “transvestite permits” that had been issued by the relatively liberal Weimar Republic, and shut down a transgender-friendly nightclub and research institute almost immediately upon taking power.
Today, in another fraught moment, it seems counterintuitive but the most effective voices for the idea of broadly embracing the humanity of transgender Americans seem to be Democrats who’ve also broken through in areas considered deep-red Trump country. Most famously, Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed bills that banned gender-affirming surgery for minors and barred trans girls from cisgender sports, and—although his vetoes were overridden by GOP lawmakers—still won reelection in his heavily pro-Trump state.
“Number one: I talked about why,” Beshear told CBS’s “Face the Nation” last Sunday. “That’s my faith, where I’m taught that all children are children of God, and I wanted to stick up for children [who] were being picked on.” Voters—enough of them, anyway—respected Beshear for sticking to his values rather than doing what a consultant might have advised him to do.
Last week in the Capitol controversy, the maddeningly complicated Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who won in 2022 after campaigning extensively in Pennsylvania’s reddest rural counties, responded to the attack on McBride not with platitudes but with a gesture: Telling the incoming House member she could use the bathroom in his office any time, and adding: “There’s no job I’m afraid to lose if it requires me to degrade anyone.” (I’m going to skip the obvious diatribe about how Fetterman might want to apply that thinking to Gaza.)
It seems to me that if Democrats want to have any hope of staying relevant over the next four years, let alone regaining power in the anti-small-”d”-democratic climate of the Trump regime, they need to embrace their inner Andy Beshear, and reject the shortsightedness of the Seth Moultons out there. Again, think back to history. In 1964, just months after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, 74% of Americans said mass demonstrations were detrimental to racial equality. President Lyndon B. Johnson knew that signing civil-rights legislation would probably mean near-future political pain for the Democratic Party, and he was right.
But think bigger picture. During that era, Democrats and their liberal base did build—however imperfectly—a brand that they were the party that had fought for civil rights and equality, not only for Black Americans but for Latinos, women, the LGBTQ community, and other groups that felt marginalized by conservatives. That brand—built around a moral belief and not the polling data—is how Democrats won the popular vote in seven of the last nine presidential elections, even including the disappointment of Nov. 5. Selling out more than 1 million transgender Americans would wreck that brand, permanently—telling voters Democrats don’t stand for anything beyond surviving the next election.
I might be naive, but I think matters like addressing the needs of literally a handful of athletes or making everyone comfortable at a rest stop aren’t so complicated that America can’t work them out by starting at the simple place where Beshear starts: That we are all God’s children, with some basic human rights.
And if Democrats, as well as all of us still dreaming of a better world than Donald Trump’s dark vision for America, instead choose to say nothing because we are not transgender, people shouldn’t be surprised when their group is targeted next.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If It Wants to Understand Trump’s Win, Mainstream Media Should Look Inward
Rather than examining their own role in promoting the irrational fears that were the lifeblood of the successful Trump campaign, corporate media focused on their perennial electoral scapegoat: the left.
Nov 09, 2024
Corporate media may not have all the same goals as MAGA Republicans, but they share the same strategy: Fear works.
Appeals to fear have an advantage over other kinds of messages in that they stimulate the deeper parts of our brains, those associated with fight-or-flight responses. Fear-based messages tend to circumvent our higher reasoning faculties and demand our attention, because evolution has taught our species to react strongly and quickly to things that are dangerous.
It’s simply a fantasy (advanced repeatedly by Republicans) that Harris was running on identity politics, or as a radical progressive.
This innate human tendency has long been noted by the media industry (Psychology Today,12/27/21), resulting in the old press adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Politicians, too, are aware of this brain hack (Conversation, 1/11/19)—and no one relies on evoking fear more than once-and-future President Donald Trump (New York Times, 10/1/24).
This is why coverage of issues in this election season have dovetailed so well with the Trump campaign’s lines of attack against the Biden/Harris administration—even in outlets that are editorially opposed, at least ostensibly, to Trumpism.
Scary Issues
Take immigration, a topic that could easily be covered as a human interest story, with profiles of people struggling to reach a better life against stark challenges. Instead, corporate media tend to report on it as a “border crisis,” with a “flood” of often-faceless migrants whose very existence is treated as a threat (FAIR.org, 5/24/21).
This is the news business deciding that fear attracts and holds an audience better than empathy does. And that business model would be undermined by reporting that consistently acknowledged that the percentage of U.S. residents who are undocumented workers rose only slightly under the Biden administration, from 3.2% in 2019 to 3.3% in 2022 (the latest year available)—and is down from a peak of 4.0% in 2007 (Pew, 7/22/24; FAIR.org, 10/16/24).
With refugees treated as a scourge in centrist and right-wing media alike, is it any wonder that Trump can harvest votes by promising to do something about this menace? Eleven percent of respondents in NBC‘s exit poll said that immigration was the single issue that mattered most in casting their vote; 90% of the voters in that group voted for Trump.
Crime is another fear-based issue that Trump hammered on in his stump speech. “Have you seen what’s been happening?” he said of Washington, D.C. (Washington Post, 3/11/24). “Have you seen people being murdered? They come from South Carolina to go for a nice visit and they end up being murdered, shot, mugged, beat up.”
Trump could make such hyperbolic claims sound credible because corporate media had paved the way with alarmist coverage of crime (FAIR.org, 11/10/22). It was rare to see a report that acknowledged, as an infographic in The New York Times (7/24/24) did, that crime has dropped considerably from 2020 to 2024, when it hit a four-decade low (FAIR.org, 7/26/24).
‘Classic Fear Campaign’
Trans people, improbably enough, are another favorite subject of fear stories for media and MAGA alike. “Republicans spent nearly $215 million on network TV ads vilifying transgender people this election cycle,” Truthout (11/5/04) reported, with Trump spending “more money on anti-trans ads than on ads concerning housing, immigration, and the economy combined.”
Journalist Erin Reed (PBS “NewsHour,” 11/2/24) described this as “a classic fear campaign”:
The purpose of a fear campaign is to distract you from issues that you normally care about by making you so afraid of a group of people, of somebody like me, for instance, that you’re willing to throw everything else away because you’re scared.
Transphobia has been a major theme in right-wing media, but has been a prominent feature of centrist news coverage as well, particularly in The New York Times (FAIR.org, 5/11/23). Rather than reporting centered on trans people, which could have humanized a marginalized demographic that’s unfamiliar to many readers, the Times chose instead to present trans youth in particular as a threat—focusing on “whether trans people are receiving too many rights, and accessing too much medical care, too quickly,” as FAIR noted.
‘Alienating Voters’ With ‘Progressive Agenda’
But rather than examining their own role in promoting the irrational fears that were the lifeblood of the successful Trump campaign, corporate media focused on their perennial electoral scapegoat: the left (FAIR.org, 11/5/21). The New York Times editorial board (11/6/24) quickly diagnosed the Democrats’ problem (aside from sticking with President Joe Biden too long):
The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election... It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system—which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.
It’s a mind-boggling contortion of logic. The Times doesn’t say which aspects of Democrats’ “progressive agenda” were so alienating to people. But the media all agreed—based largely on exit polls—that Republicans won because of the economy and immigration. The “persuasive message” and “vision… to improve the lives of all Americans” that Democrats failed to offer was pretty clearly an economic one. Which is exactly what progressives in the party have been pushing for the last decade: Medicare for All, a wealth tax, a living minimum wage, etc. In other words, if the Democrats had adopted a progressive agenda, it likely would have been their best shot at offering that vision to improve people’s lives.
More likely, the paper was referring to “identity politics,” which has been a media scapegoat for years—indeed, pundits roundly blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump on identity politics (or “political correctness”) (FAIR.org, 11/20/16). Then, as now, it was an accusation without evidence.
‘Democratic Self-Sabotage’
At The Washington Post, columnist Matt Bai‘s answer (11/6/24) to “Where Did Kamala Harris’ Campaign Go Wrong?” was, in part, that “Democrats have dug themselves into a hole on cultural issues and identity politics,” naming Trump’s transphobic ads as evidence of that. (In a Postroundup of columnist opinions, Bai declared that Harris “couldn’t outrun her party’s focus on trans rights and fighting other forms of oppression.”)
At the same time, Bai acknowledged that he does “think of Trump as being equally consumed with identity—just a different kind.” Fortunately for Republicans, Bai and his fellow journalists never take their kind of identity politics as worth highlighting (FAIR.org, 9/18/24).
George Will (10/6/24), a Never Trumper at The Washington Post, chalked up Harris’s loss largely to “the Democratic Party’s self-sabotage, via identity politics (race, gender), that made Harris vice president.”
Bret Stephens (10/6/24), one of The New York Times‘ set of Never Trumpers, likewise pointed a finger at Democrats’ supposed tilt toward progressives and “identity.” Much like other pundits, Stephens argued that “the politics of today’s left is heavy on social engineering according to group identity.”
Of the Harris campaigns’ “tactical missteps,” Stephens’ first complaint was “her choice of a progressive running mate”—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. He also accused the party of a “dismissiveness toward the moral objections many Americans have to various progressive causes.” Here he mentioned trans kids’ rights, DEI seminars, and “new terminology that is supposed to be more inclusive,” none of which Harris vocally embraced.
But underlying all of these arguments is a giant fundamental problem: It’s simply a fantasy (advanced repeatedly by Republicans) that Harris was running on identity politics, or as a radical progressive. News articles (e.g., Slate, 9/5/24; Forbes, 11/5/24) regularly acknowledged that Harris, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, for instance, shied away from centering her gender or ethnic background, or appealing to identity in her campaign.
‘Wary and Alienated’
The Times‘ own reporting made Harris’s distancing from progressive politics perfectly clear not two weeks ago, in an article (10/24/24) headlined, “As Harris Courts Republicans, the Left Grows Wary and Alienated.” In a rare example of the Times centering a left perspective in a political article, reporters Nicholas Nehamas and Erica L. Green wrote:
In making her closing argument this month, Ms. Harris has campaigned four times with Liz Cheney, the Republican former congresswoman, stumping with her more than with any other ally. She has appeared more in October with the billionaire Mark Cuban than with Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers and one of the nation’s most visible labor leaders.
She has centered her economic platform on middle-class issues like small businesses and entrepreneurship rather than raising the minimum wage, a deeply held goal of many Democrats that polls well across the board. She has taken a harder-line stance on the border than has any member of her party in a generation and has talked more prominently about owning a Glock than about combating climate change. She has not broken from President Biden on the war Israel is waging in Gaza.
Kamala Harris did not run as a progressive, either in terms of economic policy or identity politics. But to a corporate media that largely complemented, rather than countered, Trump’s fear-based narratives on immigrants, trans people, and crime, blaming the left is infinitely more appealing than recognizing their own culpability.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular