Content Warning: Brief mention of suicide statistics.
In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s electoral victory over Kamala Harris, political pundits across the ideological spectrum are circulating numerous explanations to see which one will stick.
One gaining momentum among some Democrats is that their party became too “woke,” a term stolen (surprise, surprise) from the African-American lexicon. What began in the 20th century as a call to remain diligent while fighting for Civil Rights became, in the early 2010s, shorthand for an array of progressive causes. It then went through the rhetorical ringer and came out the other end (Fox News) as meaning “weird.”
When “woke” isn’t used, it is often replaced by the more high-brow phrase “identity politics.” This phrase describes the human interests of people with varying gender, sexual, racial, and ethnic identities. It is rarely, however, used to describe the interests of those with dominant cultural identities.
For example, it is common to refer to those advocating for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as practicing identity politics, but rarely does anyone use the phrase to describe those who oppose the same efforts. In other words, there is always an implied “Black,” “Female,” “Gay,” or “Disabled” in front of “identity politics.” Never “White” or “Male.”
(Similar things can be said about “virtue signaling.” Somehow, displaying a “Black Lives Matter” slogan is considered “virtue signaling,” but wearing a MAGA hat isn’t.)
The so-called “identity” issue getting the most post-election attention is the effort to make life more just and inclusive for LGBTQ+ Americans, particularly transgender individuals. Some analysts have suggested that Trump’s campaign ad ending with “Democrats are for they/them, Donald Trump is for you,” resonated with large segments of the electorate that had grown tired of “identity politics.”
Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, the architect of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns, concurs and has pushed his party to abandon what he calls “the exotic positions” of a few.
In a recent interview, Carville was pressed on this. The interviewer reminded him that Harris’ campaign spoke very little about those issues, and Harris herself even declined to lean into her historic candidacy as a Black, South Asian woman. Carville replied, “[Harris] does not bring this up, but this stuff is like smoke on your clothes out of a fireplace. You can’t wash it off … and it’s gonna take another four years before we wash the stench of this off of our clothes.”
He added, “Unfortunately, although she did renounce these positions, Vice President Harris, and then-candidate for president Harris, was kind of enamored with some of these ‘exotic’ positions.”
Carville wasn’t alone. In the aftermath of the election, Massachusetts congressman Seth Moulton chimed in on the issue. Moulton, who was a co-sponsor of the Transgender Bill of Rights, nevertheless believed that Democrats need to reconsider the issue of trans athletes.
In an interview with the New York Times, Moulton said, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Additionally, some online observers have noted that prominent “Squad” member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has recently removed references to her pronouns on her social media accounts. (It is unclear whether this was done before or after the election.) It appears the writing is on the wall, and some Democrats plan to distance themselves from an array of controversial social issues.
Not all of this is unfounded or unwise.
Outside the issue of trans rights, the use of the term “Latinx” by many progressives has come under scrutiny. The word is intended to remove gendered references to people whose lineage is connected to Latin America. No one knows the origin of “Latinx,” but in the 2010s, it gained traction in mostly academic, mostly white spaces.
The word ignores the reality that Spanish is a gendered language.
More importantly, however, it ignores the fact that most Latinos are unaware of the word “Latinx.” Among those who are aware of it, there is almost overwhelming opposition to its use.
It is becoming apparent in many progressive circles that what was presented as a novel way to “honor” a particular culture, was, at best, patronizing. At worst, it was white supremacy at work. Moving away from using the term “Latinx” is an important act of falling in line behind, not standing in front of, the people we are seeking to provide a more inclusive world for.
However, unlike LGBTQ+ issues, this conversation mostly takes place on the margins of academia and has little policy effect on the lives of real people.
Moving away from the issues of LGBTQ+ rights, particularly those concerning trans individuals, might be a winning move politically. But for those who follow Jesus, who preached and demonstrated that victory is found in defeat, whether an act will help win an election is irrelevant.
There are legitimate conversations and concerns that need to be worked through regarding trans women’s participation in sports. Struggles for inclusion and justice always consist of renegotiating longstanding practices. Sometimes, this renegotiation results in revolution, and other times, it reaffirms longstanding practices.
But let’s look at numbers. We know that around .5% of Americans identify as transgender, and less than half of them are trans women. We also know that slightly less than 40% of all Americans have participated in competitive sports in high school, and around 2% in college.
I’ll let you do the math.
When you do, you’ll find the ratio of the incoming Republican administration’s cabinet nominations who have been credibly accused of sexual assault is hundreds of percentage points higher than the number of trans women competing in sports.
That is to say that while there is a conversation to be had, it is not one most of us need to participate in. What we do need to do, however, is pay attention to the language we use around all people because words used carelessly can lead to violence against innocent people.
Regardless of Seth Moulton’s positive record on trans rights, when he uses the words “male or formerly male” athlete, he contributes to the denigration of trans individuals. Trans women are not “male” or “formerly male.” They are women.
On this Trans Day of Remembrance, we know that trans individuals experience violence and attempt suicide at disproportionately higher rates than the general population. If any other group in our country experienced similar results, we would call it a public health crisis and figure out how to end it. We would ask trans individuals, “What can we do?”
Thankfully, they have told us.
In a recent Trevor Project survey, transgender and nonbinary individuals were asked what actions we can take to best support them. An overwhelming 92% said, “trusting that I know who I am,” and 82% said, “respecting my pronouns.”
In many ways, the push for trans rights is simply another way our culture is catching up to other cultures around the world. Many Indigenous cultures recognize multiple genders. In some languages, there are no gendered pronouns.
The more people we meet, the more we understand that gender is simply one of many human attributes that exist on and hover above a spectrum.
Sharing your preferred pronouns is nothing more than a simple act of hospitality for those pushed to the margins by strictly drawn lines and demands for conformity. It is an invitation for them to express something of their full selves, because you have expressed something of your full self.
Is it an “exotic position?”
Only if you make it one.
Will it help your side win an election?
Probably not – not now, anyway.
But it might be a good first step in setting the table for a safer, more welcoming place for everyone, so I’ll keep doing it.
- About the Author
- Latest Posts
Senior Editor at Good Faith Media.
