Dem
51
GOP
49
The House Republican Conference cannot agree on whether or not to crash the world economy (see below). But they can agree that trans female high school athletes are the greatest threat to the American way of life since... communism? The destruction of the ozone layer? Changes to the appearance of the purple M&M? So yesterday, they voted unanimously to forbid transgender women and girls from participating in female athletic programs.
This is just a show bill, of course. It's not going to come up in the Senate, much less pass that body. And if it somehow did, Joe Biden has already promised a veto. This is actually the fourth Congress in a row where the legislation was submitted for consideration. However, this is the first time it's come up for a vote and, obviously, the first time it's passed the House. That is probably instructive when it comes to the state of the Republican Party, and its ability to deliver substantive legislation.
We have been exceedingly dismissive of these sorts of bills. There is, of course, the shameful willingness to target a vulnerable group for political purposes. But that's not even what we're talking about right now. What we mean is that even if you believe that transgenderism doesn't exist, and even if you believe that trans girls/women are pulling some sort of fast one when it comes to joining the swim team or the softball team, there have to be at least 10,000 other issues more important this one. It is painfully clear that this is a wedge issue that exists for the sake of being a wedge issue, not because there's a pressing problem that really needs to be addressed.
This week, The New York Times had a piece that confirmed that very obvious inference. In short, about a decade ago, the anti-gay stuff stopped working for conservative political activists. In part, that is because gay became (largely) OK. In part, it is because the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, leaving the anti-gay-marriage movement nowhere to go. After all, if you can't get your right-wing policy through SCOTUS, you're sure as heck not getting it through Congress.
So, these activists began casting about for another issue they could use to galvanize voters behind Republican candidates. There is nothing wrong with that, per se, but note that it's definitely putting the cart before the horse. In other words, it's not a case of "What serious problem needs to be fixed?" It's a case of "What problem can we claim to be concerned about, so we can get votes to 'fix' it?" These activist groups literally focus-group tested various possible wedge issues, and they decided that trans issues were the winner.
We once wrote an item where we assumed anti-trans stuff would quickly go the way of the dodo, since anti-gay stuff had already done so. We wish we had thought more carefully about that, because there are three pretty clear "boxes" that anti-trans stuff checks. First, many religions, particularly many variants of Christianity, and particularly the American variant of right-wing evangelical Protestantism, are rooted in an understanding that there are two very distinct genders with very distinct social roles. It should be noted that "rigid walls between genders" is not the only interpretation supported by the Bible—Jesus hung out with gender benders like eunuchs, for example—but it's the interpretation that right-wing evangelical Protestantism has settled upon. And from that has derived a significant amount of conservative policy activism, from anti-divorce and anti-polygamy activism over a century ago to anti-trans activism today.
Second, anti-trans carping also has the potential to win over older voters, even those who do not usually vote Republican. No matter how old you are at this particular moment, you at least heard of gay people while you were growing up, since they weren't all in the closet, and since there were numerous notable historical gay and lesbian figures whose sexuality was no secret (Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Michelangelo, Alice B. Toklas, etc.). On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that one could have made it to the first, or even the second, decade of the 21st century without having heard of trans people. In other words, trans is much newer and there's been less time to acclimate than is the case with gay/lesbian/bi. Change is hard, and the older someone is, the harder it's likely to be. There's a reason for that aphorism about old dogs and new tricks.
And finally, there's the "think of the children" angle. Understandably, people get extremely protective when it comes to their kids. And the three big policies that anti-trans politicians tend to focus on—bathroom bills, high school sports, and banning gender-affirming treatments—can be and are framed as attempts to protect children.
In short, what we have here is an issue that connects with the Republicans' traditional, evangelical base, but that also has the potential to win over older voters and parents who might not otherwise cast their ballots for Republicans. There aren't too many issues left like that, no matter how much spinning you do.
This, of course, is how the game is played. And if you're a political organization, particularly one that is in the minority and is dependent on the support of groups whose size, relative to the overall populace, is shrinking, then you have to find ways to rally voters to your banner. But it's clear this has very little to do with good governance or with addressing the problems that face 21st century American society, and has a great deal to do with finding and exploiting wedge issues for the sake of maintaining political power. That is how House Republicans can be unanimous on bills about girls' high school sports, but can't get anything else passed. (Z)