In a hostile interview on Fox News, Kamala Harris was pressed to answer anti-trans ads. Rather than cede ground, she contrasted her priorities with Trump's spending on ads designed to "create fear."
Strong, shutting it down, and in support of trans people. Glad to see it!
Following the ad, Baier asked, “Are you still in support of using taxpayer dollars to transition to another gender?” Harris responded, “I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed… these surgeries are available to, on a medical necessity basis, people in the federal prison system.”
Idk. It’s a political answer and not one that I fault her for giving, especially in the context of a Fox News interview. But “following the law that says support trans people” falls short of “support for trans people” to me.
On a followup asking if she would continue to support such a law in general, she also essentially says that Trump is trying to stoke baseless fear about trans people
She certainly words it carefully as to avoid any soundbites, but she’s not giving into transphobic framing nor giving them an inch on trans rights
From the democratic party, yeah this is all we can expect. You’re right that she didn’t give an inch, but she also didn’t push an inch. To say she supports trans people … would require saying she supports trans people. Not that her hands would be tied with supporting trans laws.
Again, I don’t fault her for a diplomatic answer this close to the election. I just want to highlight that we can and should be pushing for more than just not being demonized.
It’s a good strategy for her here, because what can be said to criticize her on it? “Ah, but you shouldn’t follow the law”?
…
Wait shit it’s fox, they actually think the president doesn’t have to follow the law. Okay maybe it wasn’t the best answer. The best answer would have been for her to pull out a baseball bat and go all daffy duck on the set.
It’s not a good strategy because the right doesn’t care. They will say “you should change the law” if she says she’ll follow it and “you should follow it” if she says she’ll change it.
For a fox news crowd, that dilutes the punch a bit. Now you have to ask follow up questions and have a back and forth that can’t be as neatly clipped into a short sound bite for the transphobes
They did essentially ask her that in follow up where she reiterates that Trump is stoking baseless fear, that he’s focusing on that fear heavily instead of [literally any other issue]
She shuts down the conversation fairly quickly to be clear. She just never let them get the 5 second soundbite they wanted. She doesn’t treat it as “let’s debate on trans rights”, she treats it as the baseless fear that it is
Won’t fix everything, but it can be a small piece to move the needle a tiny bit. Not all the people listening to fox are the ones deep into the rabbit hole. It’s often turned on in random buildings, gyms, etc. Those infrequent watchers are potentially gettable
You don’t even have to cause any large shifts in their mind for it to matter here. In an election, tiny 1% shifts in turnout matter. If you convince a tiny percentage that maybe Harris is not as [insert scary term] as they thought, they might not feel quite as pressured to turnout to vote against her
Or if you convince some percentage that maybe focusing all this energy on demonizing trans people is kind of silly, you can start shifting future conversations towards something else. Republicans do move on from their manufactured issues once they notice it’s no longer having the effect on the base/leaners they were hoping for
Strong, shutting it down, and in support of trans people. Glad to see it!
Idk. It’s a political answer and not one that I fault her for giving, especially in the context of a Fox News interview. But “following the law that says support trans people” falls short of “support for trans people” to me.
On a followup asking if she would continue to support such a law in general, she also essentially says that Trump is trying to stoke baseless fear about trans people
She certainly words it carefully as to avoid any soundbites, but she’s not giving into transphobic framing nor giving them an inch on trans rights
From the democratic party, yeah this is all we can expect. You’re right that she didn’t give an inch, but she also didn’t push an inch. To say she supports trans people … would require saying she supports trans people. Not that her hands would be tied with supporting trans laws.
Again, I don’t fault her for a diplomatic answer this close to the election. I just want to highlight that we can and should be pushing for more than just not being demonized.
It’s a good strategy for her here, because what can be said to criticize her on it? “Ah, but you shouldn’t follow the law”?
…
Wait shit it’s fox, they actually think the president doesn’t have to follow the law. Okay maybe it wasn’t the best answer. The best answer would have been for her to pull out a baseball bat and go all daffy duck on the set.
It’s not a good strategy because the right doesn’t care. They will say “you should change the law” if she says she’ll follow it and “you should follow it” if she says she’ll change it.
For a fox news crowd, that dilutes the punch a bit. Now you have to ask follow up questions and have a back and forth that can’t be as neatly clipped into a short sound bite for the transphobes
They did essentially ask her that in follow up where she reiterates that Trump is stoking baseless fear, that he’s focusing on that fear heavily instead of [literally any other issue]
When has debating them rationally been effective? No one remains to be convinced
She shuts down the conversation fairly quickly to be clear. She just never let them get the 5 second soundbite they wanted. She doesn’t treat it as “let’s debate on trans rights”, she treats it as the baseless fear that it is
Fair enough. I just think you don’t fix conservatives by coming into their church and preaching
Won’t fix everything, but it can be a small piece to move the needle a tiny bit. Not all the people listening to fox are the ones deep into the rabbit hole. It’s often turned on in random buildings, gyms, etc. Those infrequent watchers are potentially gettable
You don’t even have to cause any large shifts in their mind for it to matter here. In an election, tiny 1% shifts in turnout matter. If you convince a tiny percentage that maybe Harris is not as [insert scary term] as they thought, they might not feel quite as pressured to turnout to vote against her
Or if you convince some percentage that maybe focusing all this energy on demonizing trans people is kind of silly, you can start shifting future conversations towards something else. Republicans do move on from their manufactured issues once they notice it’s no longer having the effect on the base/leaners they were hoping for