LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back

Attacking trans people is bad politics and bad morality.

Julia Serano, the pioneering trans writer and theorist, has called for an action today to demand that Democrats support trans people against the coming MAGA fascist assault. She’s asked people who support trans rights to publish articles with the title “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.” She’s also urged writers and readers

to contact their Congressperson and Senators (and perhaps even local politicians) and tell them that 1) you will not tolerate any backpedaling on LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever, and 2) if they fail to strongly stand up against these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, then you will take your vote elsewhere next election.

I’d urge you to read Serano’s post. (Edit: And her round up of resources and links.) Once you’re done, hop back here and I am going to try to talk briefly about why attacking trans people is bad politics, as well as being an ethical disaster.

Bad politics

As Serano discusses, the election loss has led some Democratic pundits and a small number of Democratic representatives (like bigoted butthead Seth Moulton) have started signaling that they may want to capitulate to the GOP on national legislation targeting trans people—first by banning trans women from sports, and then who knows? As Erin Reed has argued, trans sports bans have consistently been used as a way to dehumanize trans people in preparation for further bigoted legislation. The goal is not to “protect women”; the goal is to force trans people out of public life.

I don’t doubt that Moulton is sincerely transphobic, but he (and Democrats like him) are also turning on trans people because they think it will be their advantage electorally. Trump spent $29 million on anti-trans television ads attacking Harris for supporting surgeries for trans prisoners and trans undocumented people in detention (ie, for providing life-saving health care for people in federal custody, as is required by the law and by basic human decency.) In comparison, Trump spent only about $5 million in ads on the economy.

Trump gambled big that the (cis) public hates trans people, and that hatred would deliver him the election. And then he won the election. Ergo, the public must really loathe trans people, and to win elections, Democrats should start scapegoating trans people a at least a little too. Bigotry; it’s successful. Everyone should do it!

But was grotesque bigotry really the winning formula for the 2024 election? The evidence suggests it really was not.

Election analyst Dave Wasserman has pointed out that the swing towards Republican from 2020 to 2024 across most states was 6.7 points. But the swing towards Trump in swing states, where both campaigns concentrated their ad buys and messaging, was only 3.1 points.

In other words, Harris outperformed by 3.6 points in the places where voters heard campaign messages most clearly. Trump’s massive 29 million anti trans ad buy lost him three and a half points. The more people heard the GOP’s bigoted attack on trans people, the more likely they were to vote for Democrats.

As I argued here, this was a terrible year for incumbent parties globally. Every incumbent party in a leading economy lost vote share this year, the first time that has ever happened going back to 1950, when data is available.

The exact reason for this anti-incumbent swing is unclear. But it’s most likely because of voter backlash against Covid dislocations, including inflation, supply chain disruptions, and the lasting sense of trauma from shutdowns, fear, and mass death and disability.

With the huge anti-incumbent sentiment, and the closely balanced American electorate, 2024 was the GOP’s election to lose. Or as Wasserman argues that “the Harris campaign swam impressively against some very strong underlying currents.”

Harris clearly ran a strong campaign. But you can also argue that Trump’s campaign was a shambolic mess which did its best to lose the election by concentrating on issues like trans hate.

Unfortunately, when Democrats lose—even when they lose by a very narrow margin, even when they clearly outperform fundamentals—they tend to freak the fuck out. As political scientist Seth Masket writes:

when Democrats lose a big election, they’re convinced they’ve been doing everything wrong and want to radically remake their party, their nomination systems, and even their approach to politics. When Republicans lose (and acknowledge that loss), they generally regard it as an aberration; with a bit more money allocated a bit better, they could probably have won, and so there’s no need to rethink everything.

In this case, the Democrats are contemplating jettisoning their longstanding, often compromised, but nonetheless important identity as the big tent party of multiracial democracy and civil rights. Instead, the Moultons and Yglesiases argue the Democrats should embrace just a little fascism in order to torment trans kids and get those sparkling transphobic votes.

But, again, there are no transphobic votes to get. Trump went big on transphobia, and almost lost an election that should have been an easy blowout. More transphobia will not help Democrats. If it does anything, it will harm them, by driving away queer people—a group who, as Serano points out, “represented 8% of all U.S. voters and voted for Harris at 86% according to 2024 exit polls.”

Elections matter, but moral atrocities are also bad

The GOP’s trans attacks didn’t work; if they had any effect, they harmed the GOP. That’s a good reason for Democrats not to target trans people for hate and discrimination.

Another reason not to target trans people for hate and discrimination is that hate and discrimination are cruel and evil. It is immoral to signal out a tiny, marginalized, stigmatized minority for state censure and state violence.

And yes, banning trans people from sports is censure and violence. Telling an eight-year-old that they cannot play soccer because the government thinks they are dangerous is cruel, traumatizing bullying. Segregation and discrimination were wrong when they were directed against Black people, and they’re wrong when they’re directed against trans people (not least when they are directed against Black trans people).

It’s also worth considering what these kinds of bans mean in practice. When you decide the state needs to take a hand in policing gender, you are saying the state has the power and the right to police everyone’s gender.

How do you determine whether someone is trans instead of cis? We know that Black girls are often perceived as more masculine than white peers. We know that cis queer girls are often perceived as gender nonconforming. Do little league coaches now have the right and the responsibility to demand that girls —especially Black girls and queer girls—show them their genitals to prove that they are on the right team? If a parent is upset that their team lost, are they now empowered to order inspections/sexual harassment of their victorious opponents?

And how far does this go? My 21-year-old daughter is not very interested in sports, but she’s a prize-winning playwright and an actor who is engaged with feminist and lesbian issues and community. Does Seth Moulton think she should be barred from participating in women’s playwriting festivals? Should she be prevented from competing for playwriting prizes for women? Should women’s theater companies refuse to cast her? Should this be enforced via Moulton-improved federal inspectors?

The election showed clearly that bullying and hate are not popular. But bullying and hate are also evil. Democrats have over the last 20 years come to a consensus that bullying and discriminating against queer people is wrong. They should not abandon that consensus because Trump ran a bunch of hateful ineffective ads. Democrats need to be the party of resistance, not of instant capitulation. If you see Seth Moulton, tell him to grow a fucking spine. And write your reps and tell them you expect them to stand for you and those you love.