18
Sarah McBride says fight for trans rights got 'too far ahead' of public opinion
(www.thepinknews.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)
transgender
54 readers
78 users here now
Made to use piefed's features.
Overview:
The Piefed place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.
Rules
-
Keep discussions civil.
-
Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.
-
No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.
founded 5 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That headline/title is misleading though.
The overall point of what she says is a lot more complex.
it is a fairly complex topic, I think McBride sides with the moderate and centrist Democrats and aligns with political pragmatism that tends to be business friendly and puts ideology aside in favor of deal-making.
On the one hand pragmatism makes sense because politics is about outcomes, and without deal making and compromises nothing happens.
On the other hand, being fundamentally pragmatic means being willing to compromise on anything and a dynamic can arise that allows for a race to the bottom such that the outcomes that are achieved are too far away from what is acceptable, and what is sacrificed is too much.
Furthermore, McBride has an extra burden as a trans woman to signal her loyalty to the pragmatic, more conservative Democratic leadership so she isn't left out on the assumption her identity aligns with the Progressive Democrats who are more ideological in their commitments (and who are more vocally pro-trans than the rest of the party) and are thus more demanding and less interested in compromising (which can be used as a political strategy itself to influence the Overton window, etc. - but which can be politically risky if by not compromising you don't get any of the outcomes you needed).
That's my take on what she said as well.
Not that I necessarily think pragmatism is the only option, but it is the option most likely to make immediate progress that can be built on, if revolution isn't in the cards.
I've seen a lot of slow, but significant progress in my life. Most of the real change didn't come from laws down, it came from people having just enough room to be out and gain familiarity with the ignorant masses. Happened with black and white people getting married eventually leading to less division and more unity there. Happened with gay men in specific, but lesbians as well being out and living life changing family member's minds about the real world face of the abstract idea; eventually leading up marriage rights being recognized.
Each time, regressive wings and bigots have struggled against that kind of change in people's hearts, and failed because most people are going to keep loving their kids and grandkids. Trying to tell granny that her grandbabies are bad tends to alienate granny rather than send her off against people she loves.
It isn't always like that, you run into people that don't care about family enough to overcome hate and ignorance. But it is a pattern. Humanizing people to each other is a powerful tool of change.
That's pragmatic to me, just as much as making political compromises. Accepting that only part of the war can be won in legislatures, that the generation in the fight now isn't likely to see the full benefits of the fight, and working away, chipping at the wall of bigotry anyway.
Without pragmatists like Ms McBride, the rest don't have that bare minimum of protection to change people's hearts out in regular life. Yeah, we all want full equality under the law now. But it isn't a failure to move the needle a little in small ways until it happens.
I don't think McBride would roll over at all. I think she's fought hard to be in a place to fight a different kind of battle.