Thank you for sharing this, I have been curious about Genspects wider reach & growth beyond my much needed bubble. It truly highlights the peculiar phenomenon we are living through & your commitment sans $$ is humbling & applauded.
The Liberal Patriot (TLP) Substack stands out among general purveyors of political punditry because of its gender-critical stance towards the trans phenomenon.
It is not anti-democratic nor is it opposed to the Democratic Party. TLP just wants to see Dems abandon the fringe politics that cost them so dearly in 2024, including their uncritical embrace of the trans movement.
To that end, The Liberal Patriot has devoted several pieces to examining the Democratic Party's trans problem. The most recent one, dated March 11 of this year, was titled "Why Democrats Are Struggling on Trans Issues: Part two in a series examining at how the party got derailed on key issues."
The essay is important because it contains a list of the reasons Democrats are all in on trans rights. What the piece did not do was offer ways to counter each point. It will be difficult to make much progress until that happens. However, it might make it easier to understand why people take positions that seem hard to comprehend.
Many conservatives—and even some moderates and liberals—seem mystified by the Democrats’ staunch support for pro-trans policies. A recent exchange with a TLP reader who was curious about this prompted me to think through the best, good-faith argument for the party’s heretofore positions on these issues. As someone with a very socially liberal peer group and whose own values err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, I think the reasons are pretty straightforward.
Most Democrats see transgender people as a vulnerable minority population in need of protection.
After watching the debates over gay marriage play out across the past several decades, many Democrats have become convinced that conservatives—at least a lot of them—always seem to be in need of a group to pick on. For decades, Democrats will argue, it was black people, then it was gay people, then Muslims, and so on. So, they see no reason to think that resistance toward, or even questions about, transgender and gender-nonconforming people are any different, because these actions are also clearly being taken with nefarious intent.
Relatedly, some see intraparty discussions about the need for moderation on these issues as tantamount to throwing a vulnerable group under the bus. Given the party’s historical commitment to protecting these groups, there can be very little appetite for anything even remotely resembling this.
The number of transgender athletes competing at least at the college level is very small, which reinforces the idea for many Democrats that the right is just looking for someone to bully. Why else would they care about such a small number of people?
Many Democrats prioritize the value of “inclusivity” above most others. They have moral qualms about making anyone feel excluded on the basis of an identity trait that makes them a minority, a sentiment rooted in the historical exclusion of women, black people, gays, and others from public life. This means, in their view, that whether a trans woman (someone born male) participating in women’s sports is “fair” is beside the point because it opens the door to excluding a minority group, which is wrong.
Democrats also believe that the political right has gone overboard on these issues. (Statements supporting the “eradication of transgenderism” surely contribute to this perception, even if those who uttered such statements argue they’re talking about an ideology, not a group of people.) It’s human nature to form solidarity in the face of attacks against a person or group with whom one sympathizes—many Trump supporters likely understand this in the face of years of criticism against him. So, as Democrats perceive attacks against transgender people, their reaction has understandably been to double down on their support for them.
In general, Democrats see the fight for trans rights as an extension of other past civil rights struggles, where they believe they were on the “right side of history” and conservatives were on the wrong side. Most recently, they won the fight over gay rights, and eventually, even many Republicans came around. So, the thinking goes, why would this time be any different?
Aside from positive-oriented moral calculations, there are also negative incentives keeping many Democrats in line on these issues as well. This includes pressure from activist groups who have dangled the threat of primary a challenge over members who deviate from the party line. And it may help explain why Democrats are reticent to even have internal debates about trans issues the way the have with “defund the police” or immigration.
Overall, Democrats sincerely believe their views on these issues are morally good and that their opponents are bad-faith actors. This is undoubtedly a major reason why they have stuck to their guns: a belief that history will ultimately prove them right. But their uncompromising approach on questions of gender identity has caused not just political peril but other problems too.
An interesting post and one that I agree with. I'm baffled by left and centre-left politicians, journalists, etc insisting that they're on the right side of history when it's fairly obvious that most of the public (at least the ones who are aware of what gender identity theory stands for) disagree with them because they understand the consequences of the theory when it's put into action. The Dems lost badly last November and yet their stance isn't changing. It's 'the hill they'll die on'. Well, who the hell wants to die on a hill?
What an incredible mission and impact! Kudos to you for doing this and running it on a shoestring. There are many who need this help and don't know where to turn.
Wanted to thank you for all the work you have done and the path you have laid down for others. I was one of those panicked parents in the early part of 2021, lots of sleepless nights and dreary days. My support group was essential to start my recovery and never feeling alone. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You were a lifeline in time of desperate need. Lov you all
Thank you, Stella and to Jo--I got the weekend automatic reply;-) Great idea! Dealing with the people that will "keep this bloody movement going" as Helen Joyce said, has become one of the most frustrating elements moving forward. It's challenging for detransitioners to get the help they need (or safeguarding kids in general) if grownups and those in positions of decision making for organizations, believe in queer theory. The battle is evolving for sure. Happy to support Genspect.
I am absolutely thrilled about your open group in the model of Az Hakim’s work. Just yesterday, I referred a very staunchly trans identified natal female patient. However, I’m concerned that to get to the information about the group, such a patient will see more about detransition and the harms of gender ideology. Don’t get me wrong, of course I think this is the ultimate important focus, but could there possibly be a link for a patient like her that is separate from the information that those on the other side of transition and even trans identification will accept more readily? I’ve worked really hard with her for over a year to build trust and just yesterday had a breakthrough session in which she expressed willingness to be in such a mixed group. While I think she realizes that my goal is to help her with true self acceptance, ie not medicalizing, I tried to present the idea of the group as helping her make a fully informed decision if and when she does transition as opposed to actually trying to talk her out of it. So, if she sees more about supporting detransition and the focus on the harms of transition when she follows the link to the mixed group, I’m afraid she will recoil.
Thanks for all you do. It is appreciated.
Thanks xx
Thank you for sharing this, I have been curious about Genspects wider reach & growth beyond my much needed bubble. It truly highlights the peculiar phenomenon we are living through & your commitment sans $$ is humbling & applauded.
Thanks for this, it's certaily been a strange time!
I agree, so just sent $. I know you’ll keep up the good work no matter what.
Wow thank you! Much appreciated!
You have your work cut out for you.
The Liberal Patriot (TLP) Substack stands out among general purveyors of political punditry because of its gender-critical stance towards the trans phenomenon.
It is not anti-democratic nor is it opposed to the Democratic Party. TLP just wants to see Dems abandon the fringe politics that cost them so dearly in 2024, including their uncritical embrace of the trans movement.
To that end, The Liberal Patriot has devoted several pieces to examining the Democratic Party's trans problem. The most recent one, dated March 11 of this year, was titled "Why Democrats Are Struggling on Trans Issues: Part two in a series examining at how the party got derailed on key issues."
The essay is important because it contains a list of the reasons Democrats are all in on trans rights. What the piece did not do was offer ways to counter each point. It will be difficult to make much progress until that happens. However, it might make it easier to understand why people take positions that seem hard to comprehend.
Here is the relevant part of the publication. The entire piece is behind a paywall at: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/why-democrats-are-struggling-on-trans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many conservatives—and even some moderates and liberals—seem mystified by the Democrats’ staunch support for pro-trans policies. A recent exchange with a TLP reader who was curious about this prompted me to think through the best, good-faith argument for the party’s heretofore positions on these issues. As someone with a very socially liberal peer group and whose own values err on the side of protecting the vulnerable, I think the reasons are pretty straightforward.
Most Democrats see transgender people as a vulnerable minority population in need of protection.
After watching the debates over gay marriage play out across the past several decades, many Democrats have become convinced that conservatives—at least a lot of them—always seem to be in need of a group to pick on. For decades, Democrats will argue, it was black people, then it was gay people, then Muslims, and so on. So, they see no reason to think that resistance toward, or even questions about, transgender and gender-nonconforming people are any different, because these actions are also clearly being taken with nefarious intent.
Relatedly, some see intraparty discussions about the need for moderation on these issues as tantamount to throwing a vulnerable group under the bus. Given the party’s historical commitment to protecting these groups, there can be very little appetite for anything even remotely resembling this.
The number of transgender athletes competing at least at the college level is very small, which reinforces the idea for many Democrats that the right is just looking for someone to bully. Why else would they care about such a small number of people?
Many Democrats prioritize the value of “inclusivity” above most others. They have moral qualms about making anyone feel excluded on the basis of an identity trait that makes them a minority, a sentiment rooted in the historical exclusion of women, black people, gays, and others from public life. This means, in their view, that whether a trans woman (someone born male) participating in women’s sports is “fair” is beside the point because it opens the door to excluding a minority group, which is wrong.
Democrats also believe that the political right has gone overboard on these issues. (Statements supporting the “eradication of transgenderism” surely contribute to this perception, even if those who uttered such statements argue they’re talking about an ideology, not a group of people.) It’s human nature to form solidarity in the face of attacks against a person or group with whom one sympathizes—many Trump supporters likely understand this in the face of years of criticism against him. So, as Democrats perceive attacks against transgender people, their reaction has understandably been to double down on their support for them.
In general, Democrats see the fight for trans rights as an extension of other past civil rights struggles, where they believe they were on the “right side of history” and conservatives were on the wrong side. Most recently, they won the fight over gay rights, and eventually, even many Republicans came around. So, the thinking goes, why would this time be any different?
Aside from positive-oriented moral calculations, there are also negative incentives keeping many Democrats in line on these issues as well. This includes pressure from activist groups who have dangled the threat of primary a challenge over members who deviate from the party line. And it may help explain why Democrats are reticent to even have internal debates about trans issues the way the have with “defund the police” or immigration.
Overall, Democrats sincerely believe their views on these issues are morally good and that their opponents are bad-faith actors. This is undoubtedly a major reason why they have stuck to their guns: a belief that history will ultimately prove them right. But their uncompromising approach on questions of gender identity has caused not just political peril but other problems too.
An interesting post and one that I agree with. I'm baffled by left and centre-left politicians, journalists, etc insisting that they're on the right side of history when it's fairly obvious that most of the public (at least the ones who are aware of what gender identity theory stands for) disagree with them because they understand the consequences of the theory when it's put into action. The Dems lost badly last November and yet their stance isn't changing. It's 'the hill they'll die on'. Well, who the hell wants to die on a hill?
I'd love to support all of your hard work. Is there a way to donate via US dollars? Don't think my credit card will pay in pounds.
Thanks! The Genspect Go Fund Me at the bottom of the article accepts dollars. Please email info@genspect.org if you need further help
What an incredible mission and impact! Kudos to you for doing this and running it on a shoestring. There are many who need this help and don't know where to turn.
Grateful for your passionate and diligent work… you did a great help and make a huge difference to families affected by the ideology cult…
I hope i did and i hope we continue to help xx
Wanted to thank you for all the work you have done and the path you have laid down for others. I was one of those panicked parents in the early part of 2021, lots of sleepless nights and dreary days. My support group was essential to start my recovery and never feeling alone. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You were a lifeline in time of desperate need. Lov you all
That's lovely to read, I remember those times well, it was so very difficult on the parents
Incredible work and dedication. Re: the need for volunteers, you have one here if needed.
Thank you! I've messaged you xx
Thank you, Stella and to Jo--I got the weekend automatic reply;-) Great idea! Dealing with the people that will "keep this bloody movement going" as Helen Joyce said, has become one of the most frustrating elements moving forward. It's challenging for detransitioners to get the help they need (or safeguarding kids in general) if grownups and those in positions of decision making for organizations, believe in queer theory. The battle is evolving for sure. Happy to support Genspect.
Thanks for the support xxx
I am absolutely thrilled about your open group in the model of Az Hakim’s work. Just yesterday, I referred a very staunchly trans identified natal female patient. However, I’m concerned that to get to the information about the group, such a patient will see more about detransition and the harms of gender ideology. Don’t get me wrong, of course I think this is the ultimate important focus, but could there possibly be a link for a patient like her that is separate from the information that those on the other side of transition and even trans identification will accept more readily? I’ve worked really hard with her for over a year to build trust and just yesterday had a breakthrough session in which she expressed willingness to be in such a mixed group. While I think she realizes that my goal is to help her with true self acceptance, ie not medicalizing, I tried to present the idea of the group as helping her make a fully informed decision if and when she does transition as opposed to actually trying to talk her out of it. So, if she sees more about supporting detransition and the focus on the harms of transition when she follows the link to the mixed group, I’m afraid she will recoil.