Good topic cause I think it speaks to one of the many issues dems have to figure out of simultaneously supporting transgendered/gay rights while not making it feel front and center. And I guess in general I think this goes into the river of broader topic of identity politics. Like I totally get the purpose/idea of identity politics, empowering minorities who have been shuttered and closed out of power (and often still are) and celebrating that accomplishment. And obviously resistance to that can often and correctly take the form of adject racism/homophobia/etc, but I think it's important to really examine the damage it's doing to driving people away. Note, I am not really sure of any answers, and what I am about to say is anecdotes from what I have observed, but I think it's important in dissecting the general resistance from the other side to stuff like this.
In short I agree with the Jesse Kelly take tbh. Working out in the field next to a lot of guys who'd support trump if they could (from Canada) or would get riled up about it you get to see their side of it, or why they feel the way they do about stuff like this, and frankly this is what dems gotta do in order to win the working class back.
I think what is lost in the conversation (and you see articles/discussions dancing around this), is when someone doesn't like transgendered or gay or whatever, they are automatically anti-gay, or anti-trangendered, or whatever, when they simply maybe uncomfortable with it no differently than someone maybe uncomfortable with talking about politics at work. It doesn't make them anti-politics, they just aren't going to something in a place that is not really for that. It's rather benign angst. But once you label it against them, then you draw a hard line in the sand, and well, it's hard to come back from that, and they embrace being against something they already were not a fan of. Hence their feelings about it being talked about in school. You're forcing their hand to have to accept, to have to do this, when it's often shades of acceptance.
Most I think are generally ok with someone being transgendered, live and let live, but to them they see this as why do I have to declare it, why do I have to even think about, I maybe see one never or barely ever, why is this something I now have to consider. It's just extra noise in an already chaotic life to them, and realistically for most people. They have food they need to put on the table, they got bills to pay, why is this even something we got to talk about on a national scale (to them).
Like anecdotally from election night I remember when the Delaware race for the house was called and they specifically called it out amongst all the other 435 house races they could talk about how important it was to celebrate a transgendered person being elected to congress. If a trumper was there you could easily hear a slur, but in general I think the collective groan that person would have would manifest as more as "omg who cares!" And if they were able to articulate it more "omg who cares, all I want to know is what this person believes in or is going to do for me, I literally don't want to know or think anymore about this." And that is how they feel. so to Jesse's point, it's like an unnecessary poking of a bear.
It's taking a very personal journey of growth and acceptance and making it feel or act like policy when it simply doesn't matter to them and there are 1834582 problems that need to be solved rather than wondering of this person should play against boys or girls.
Do I want people to care and be more compassionate? Absolutely. Should people feel accepted, 100%. Should it guide policy, these elections seem to say no. How do we still make people feel accepted on a national scale? IDK, probably just talk more about actually being inclusive while not making it defining. Supportive but not discussed much. Still perosnally workshopping that.
