Ah, the Democrats—marching heroically into election day with a set of gender policies so brilliant, so daring, they didn’t even want to explain them! Nothing says “bold political strategy” like championing a child castration policy you’d rather keep buried under a pile of “no comment” press releases. Truly inspiring.
The grand plan was apparently to embrace gender policies most voters don’t even understand—let alone support—while keeping silent about the details. And who swoops in to exploit this gap in communication? None other than Donald Trump, who, naturally, seized on the opportunity to remind everyone that Kamala Harris once backed taxpayer-funded gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. Voters, bless their hearts, did what voters do—they shifted toward Trump. The New York Times confirmed it: one ad alone swung the race nearly three points in his favor. What was Harris’s strategy? Oh, just a little something called avoidance.
But wait—there’s more! Rumor has it that some Democrats actually thought maybe, just maybe, ignoring these ads wasn’t the best idea. Bill Clinton reportedly warned everyone, practically begging the party to step up and defend themselves. Guess what he got in return? Crickets. Representative Seth Moulton then tried to step up with a little common sense, saying he didn’t want his daughters tackled on the field by athletes who “were male or formerly male.” Radical, right? But Democrats can’t just talk like that, now can they? Meanwhile, Biden’s own allies whispered that the president himself would’ve at least tried to fight back. But Kamala? Nope. She wasn’t about to stir the pot.
Here’s a fun twist: Biden’s administration has been out there pushing policies on gender identity like it’s a trendy new diet plan—but when it comes to explaining it? They’re less talk, more dodge. They even went so far as to advocate for lowering age limits on surgeries for minors without ever explaining why that might be a good idea. And who could forget Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s legendary response to defining “woman” as “I’m not a biologist”? A historic moment in political clarity.
On sports, Biden’s administration took a “who needs biological sex anyway?” approach, proposing Title IX changes to ensure that banning transgender athletes from teams aligned with their gender identity would violate the law. But when election season rolled around, they paused. Turns out “let’s rethink that” was on their mind a little late in the game.
Kamala Harris, though, bravely trotted into the campaign shackled to these positions without questioning them—or defending them. And when it came time to address why biological sex matters in sports, she offered… nothing. Absolutely riveting.
Of course, anyone who dared to question the wisdom of letting transgender athletes compete in women’s sports quickly found themselves labeled transphobic. Just ask Shermichael Singleton, who tried to raise the simple concern that “a lot of families don’t believe boys should play girls’ sports.” He was promptly lectured on live TV, because God forbid we speak the language of the average voter. Who needs respectful discussion when you can just shout “bigot”?
Some Democrats like Texas Senate candidate Colin Allred tried pushing back, supporting single-sex sports for women. What did he get for his efforts? He lost, of course, and got chewed out by the left for daring to make sense. Meanwhile, in Texas and Missouri, Republicans are keeping it classy with policies surveilling parents of kids with gender dysphoria. But Democrats? According to Harris’s LGBTQ engagement director, they should stick to their guns. Losing elections? Minor detail. Let’s focus on sticking it to Project 2025!
And all through the election, commentators were weirdly blasé about Trump’s ads on trans issues, as if multi-million dollar campaigns might somehow not make a difference. Because, let’s be real, what could go wrong with adopting policies you won’t explain and calling every skeptic a bigot? Classic winning strategy. If Democrats want to know why voters are skeptical, they might look at their message on gender—and while they’re at it, maybe immigration and the border.
As the finishing touch, Harris eventually mumbled something about following the law on inmate healthcare. On women’s sports, she went with the tried-and-true “no comment.” Now that’s leadership.
But back to basics: how did we end up here? Remember when the LGBTQ community’s fight was about securing basic rights like marriage? Good times. But once gay marriage and employment protections were in the bag, activists needed a new cause—and voilà, enter gender maximalism. With red states piling on punitive laws, they went all-in, relying on donors who were, let’s just say, more progressive than the median American voter.
Some Democrats, like James Surowiecki, had the audacity to suggest that maybe the party should avoid positions they can’t defend to the average white, non-college-educated suburbanite. But Democrats clutched their pearls at such a radical idea. Moulton’s attempt at honesty got him branded as failing the “purity test.” Texas’s Democratic chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, dared to say they might have gone a bit “too far” before backpedaling and ultimately resigning after an embarrassing election performance.
It’s almost Shakespearean: the Democrats could’ve adopted moderate positions that voters actually understand. They could’ve stopped the backlash that’s led to increasingly restrictive laws in red states. Because here’s the kicker—America isn’t nearly as intolerant as they think it is. Voters elected the first trans member of Congress, but still believe biological sex matters. Shockingly, they don’t appreciate being told otherwise without a single shred of explanation.
If Democrats shed their extreme stances, they might find support for a truly inclusive agenda. Until then? They’ll just keep lecturing America on what it’s “supposed” to believe.
Edited
Comments