There Is No 'Neutralizing' the Left's Rabid Trans Activism

After the election, the Democratic Party didn't spend one moment reflecting on why Kamala Harris lost. The reasons are myriad: she was an unpopular candidate in 2020, when she failed to secure a single delegate and dropped out before Iowa. She was an unpopular Vice President who, despite the administration's best efforts, never stood out even as they dubbed it the Biden-Harris administration. She was better known for her rambling word salad speeches and out-of-touch rhetoric than solid policy.

But one of the biggest issues that damaged Kamala Harris' campaign was her support for trans rights. This included using taxpayer funds to cover 'gender-affirming care' for illegal immigrants and prisoners, letting boys who 'identify' as girls compete against actual girls, and rewriting Title IX to punish girls who speak out against it.

After the campaign, the Democrats continued to go to the mattresses for trans rights. Senator Cory Booker told the LGBTQIA+ alphabet soup community that he stood with them against those who would 'dismantle the very heart of this country.' Trans author and Democratic activist Charles ('Charlotte') Clymer claimed, 'science is on [his] side,' and John Oliver spent 42 minutes of his 48-minute program fighting to let men compete against women back in April.

It's a losing issue for the Democrats, and even Politico admits as much.

And they offer a solution that I'm going to take apart.

Can Democrats remain supportive of a small and vulnerable segment of the population without seeming out of touch with much of America? Is there a middle ground they can occupy on issues relating to transgender people and still find their way out of the political wilderness? I believe the answer to these questions is yes.

It is not yes. The segment of trans individuals is small, but it is not vulnerable. The trans community is the only one that can demand access to women's spaces, including in prisons, and force people to call them different pronouns under the threat of losing their jobs and -- in some places -- hate speech laws.

In Maine, Republican representative Laurel Libby was banned by the Maine Speaker of the House from talking on the floor and voting for refusing to recant her position on 'trans girls' (read: boys) in girls' sports. The Supreme Court later ruled 7-2 to restore Libby's rights as a state legislator.

Let's continue with Cowan's arguments.

First, Democrats should express their frustration and disgust with the ways extremists on both sides have weaponized the issue. Doing so will immediately signal to swing voters that they are trying to resolve, not exploit, the culture wars.

There are only 'extremists' on one side of the issue: the Left.

It is the Left who believes men can become women (and vice versa) simply by feeling that way.

It is the Left who pushes to give children -- CHILDREN -- puberty blockers and hormones and surgery that leaves them sterile, sexually dysfunctional, and prone to infections and lifelong complications (resulting in ongoing, expensive medical care).

It is the Left who demands women's spaces, including prisons and shelters, be open to men because they say they're women. Even if those men are convicted sex offenders with penises, like Richard Kenneth Cox who was busted for exposing himself in a girls' locker room in Arlington County, Virginia.

Democrats in Colorado and Minnesota passed legislation that would let the state remove children from homes where their parents don't 'affirm' their gender identity.

Second, for Democrats to regain the support of centrist voters who deliver electoral victories, they must meet Americans where they are today, not where advocates might wish them to be, or where society may be headed in the future. Culture is always upstream of politics, and views may shift in the coming decades. But the current political reality is stark: The GOP was able to raise serious doubts among swing voters using this issue because Democrats allowed themselves to be seen as out of sync with the values and views of the American majority.

Democrats didn't 'allow themselves to be seen as out of sync.'

They were seen as out of sync because they are. For all the reasons I pointed out above.

Cowan asserts we all know someone who is trans. Trans individuals, who Cowan himself said are a small segment of society, comprise approximately 0.6% of the population. We don't all know a trans person.

As to polling, which Cowan also cites, the biggest poll was in November, when the supposed 'anti-trans' candidate won. Handily.

Third, Democrats must be clear about their convictions and positions — and those must align with that compassionate but concerned majority. As a baseline, most voters believe there are two biological sexes: male and female, and that a person’s gender matches the sex he or she was assigned at birth. At the same time, many also recognize that there are people who feel deep down that the sex they were assigned at birth is not who they are. Instead of arguing over X and Y chromosomes or getting into complicated scientific topics, Democratic politicians should keep it simple: Share your view that there are two sexes and that there are many ways people can identify by gender, a social construct not a biological one.

You do not need me to tell you this is an oxymoron.

Most voters don't 'believe' there are two biological sexes, because biological sex is not like Santa Claus. We know there are two biological sexes because that has been the social and scientific consensus for millennia.

Only now, when a bunch of privileged and overly-educated Harvard grads have decided there's more than two genders, does it become an issue.

As to the 'gender is a social construct' argument, let's assume that's true (it's not, but I promise I have a point here). If the behaviors that indicate gender are social constructs, why does the Left clamor to transition a boy who prefers traditionally feminine activities, or a girl who would have once upon a time simply been called a 'tomboy'?

A few short years ago, the Left pushed to ban conversion therapy because it was harmful to gay and lesbian youth. Now the Left embraces a radical form of conversion therapy that leaves physical and psychological scars on kids who might not conform to socially constructed gender norms.

As I often say: make it make sense.

When it comes to kids under 18, Republicans are stoking fears that minors could access medical care for a gender transition without parental consent. That’s why Democrats must be firm: Without explicit parental consent, no one should ever receive gender-affirming care, whether that’s medication or any other medical intervention beyond mental health support. (This has the benefit of being both the medical standard of care and a legal requirement in every state; Republicans are trying to criminalize gender-affirming care even when parents support it.)

Republicans are not 'stoking fears' -- that minor children are accessing medical care to transition without parental consent is a verifiable fact. In just the last two days, I have told you how Planned Parenthood is circumventing bans on puberty blockers and hormones by calling them 'contraceptives' and how an employee with the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services told undercover reporter James O'Keefe how they use a loophole to transition kids without parental knowledge and get Medicare to pay for it.

The issue is not whether or not parents support or oppose 'gender-affirming care.' The problem is that 'gender-affirming care' is wrong, especially for minors. Science has shown our brains do not fully develop until we reach our 20s, and we're letting teens and pre-teens cut off healthy breasts and penises and take powerful, harmful drugs.

It would not matter whether or not I consented to letting my 12-year-old get a tattoo. No legitimate tattoo parlor would entertain the idea, and they'd probably (justifiably) call CPS on me for even attempting it.

But if I took my son to a doctor and said he thinks he's a girl, I'd be able to stop his puberty, harm his body, and be praised for it?

That makes no sense.

Lastly, Democrats must cancel the gender language police. If someone’s heart is in the right place, that’s what counts, not using what advocates may deem the politically correct words on a subject for which the language is in flux.

This will never happen, and may be the most laughable part of his proposal. Does Cowan know any Democrats at all? Has he paid attention to the last year and a half of national politics? Because if he did, he'd understand that, if nothing else, Democrats see the power of language and the power of policing language. Tim Walz -- who ran to be a heartbeat away from the presidency -- said 'hate speech' and 'disinformation' were not protected by the First Amendment.

They are, because no clause in the Constitution makes exceptions for them.

Tim Walz also championed a 'hate speech registry' in Minnesota, where expressing support for author J.K. Rowling would land one on a government list.

Cowan, for his part, recognizes that the trans issue is a liability for Democrats. It's true.

However, none of the solutions Cowan offers will 'neutralize' the issue, because it cannot be a neutral issue. It is either an issue where you support the wholesale mutilation and sterilization of children, or you don't.

And the majority of the country doesn't.

It's up to Democrats to change their tune and join the rest of us.

But don't count on that happening any time soon.