He also voted against the "H.R. 28 - The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act" and explained it but saying(in part):
"The problem with this Republican bill, however, is that it is too extreme; it simply goes too far. Because it fails to distinguish between children and adults and different levels of athletics, school-aged kids who simply want to play recreational sports and build camaraderie like everybody else could be targeted by the federal government. My kids play co-ed sports today just as I did when I was their age, and I don’t want any kids their age subjected to the invasive violations of personal privacy this bill allows."
I’ll echo the Moulton takes. You can’t characterize moderation in the frame of legislation with the Laken Riley Act, then point to rhetoric as a form of moderation. You need to separate these two things out.
As others have said, Moulton was voicing legitimate fears parents have. And the fact that parents get shut down by progressive scolds is what makes thoughtful moderation difficult because there’s no room for debate.
Finally, others have pointed out his actual legislative record but more recently look at his campaign. He’s doing events with former service members booted from the military for being trans. Isn’t “we need to respect the safety of girls in sport but trans people are encouraged to serve the country in uniform” something close to thoughtful moderation on this issue?
I read Jain's piece. My recollection was that the main point wasn't actually what the public's opinion on trans issues was, currently, but how rapidly it had shifted over a short period of time.
What this implies is that the public doesn't really know what it thinks on this issue. It's whipsawed by competing propaganda from partisan groups and/or salient anecdotes.
So I thought the article was speaking to trans rights advocates, saying, basically, "change your game plan." You were doing something that worked, and then the other team changed their strategy/tactics to make that not work. So you need to update.
What Molloy and crowed feel, I think, is that making this point isn't so much throwing trans people under the bus, but trans advocates. It's saying they "screwed up" by "letting" public opinion slip away. But that's not accurate or fair. As they say in sports, the other team has coaches, too.
To me the core flaw in the progressive mindset is not their choice of tactics. I think their hectoring tactics were limited and vulnerable but I have to acknowledge, they worked well for a while.
It's their refusal to accept that all politics is competitive. Believing you have justice on your side doesn't give a reason to expect that you'll be successful, because _all the people who disagree with you also think justice is on their side_. So the only question before trans rights advocates should be: how do we win back, and even win more, people to our side. I'm not sure how you can do that if you don't know what people think.
This is so right. Voters aren't dumb or unnecessarily cruel--they often hold nuanced views on contentious issues. Being thoughtlessly harsh on trans rights or immigration doesn't win elections. It just produces bad policy that future leaders have to clean up.
Sports are perhaps the only case where people acknowledge sex-based performance differences and realistically prefer keeping it “natural.”
Now please take your definition of fascism and make it centered around forcing an elite class of flexible gendered athletes to steal all the women’s medals. Theoretically possible.
So what does thoughtful moderation on trans issues look like? I think we can all get behind supporting anti-discrimination laws but that doesn’t really come close to answering a lot of the questions de jure.
2. However, I think you are excessively charitable to Molloy and the rest of the transmaximalists.
3. Does “against misplaced moderation” also apply closer to home…say, against a squeaky, fat, bald guy from DC who consistently inveighed against discussing the administration’s treatment of Abrego Garcia and loudly indignantly squeaked about “gotcha questions” when asked?
4. Does it also apply to the bedwetters who, when Democrats gain control, will say moronic shit like:
"Now is the time for unity, not division"
"American politics needs bipartisan consensus, even as a Democrat I want a strong Republican party"
"I'll gladly welcome any Republican in my administration so all Americans can feel represented"
"Leave the divisive rhetoric behind with Trump, the Department of Justice will now look forward, not backwards"
5. Does it also apply to squashing pundits and candidates who attempt to impede the necessary effort to kneecap the maga movement (eg: removing car dealer exclusivity, going after supplements, rigorously enforcing the IRS rules against politics from the pulpit - enforced by either crippling fines or public renunciation of faith, eliminating all farm subsidies and telling the farmers to get bent if they complain or embark on a suicide campaign as they do in India, cutting as much money as possible from red states, redrawing states such as by kicking the Appalachian sections of VA/MD/parts of PA to WV ) and ensuring greater power for Dems (eg: nuking the filibuster, DC/PR/USVI statehood and telling those who whine to move to Russia, court packing after having a polite chat with Roberts about the error of his ways, aggressive house building in blue states by surgical debarking of NIMBYs, massive immigration reform to create a constituency for more like the immigrant population in the Toronto suburbs that squash Trumpist candidates and all the goodies needed to reward the base - such as universal healthcare and infrastructure)?
There are several good points here, but the hit on Seth Moulton is nonsense. His daughters aren't going to be six years old forever.
He also voted against the "H.R. 28 - The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act" and explained it but saying(in part):
"The problem with this Republican bill, however, is that it is too extreme; it simply goes too far. Because it fails to distinguish between children and adults and different levels of athletics, school-aged kids who simply want to play recreational sports and build camaraderie like everybody else could be targeted by the federal government. My kids play co-ed sports today just as I did when I was their age, and I don’t want any kids their age subjected to the invasive violations of personal privacy this bill allows."
https://moulton.house.gov/news/press-releases/vote-explainer-hr-28-protection-women-and-girls-sports-act
He also seems to be the only named politician in the piece.
"Several Democrats have even admitted to regretting their votes." This links to CT Rep. Hayes and Rep. April McClain Delaney.
"Last July, Iowa’s governor... " "...Iowa lawmakers... "
I’ll echo the Moulton takes. You can’t characterize moderation in the frame of legislation with the Laken Riley Act, then point to rhetoric as a form of moderation. You need to separate these two things out.
As others have said, Moulton was voicing legitimate fears parents have. And the fact that parents get shut down by progressive scolds is what makes thoughtful moderation difficult because there’s no room for debate.
Finally, others have pointed out his actual legislative record but more recently look at his campaign. He’s doing events with former service members booted from the military for being trans. Isn’t “we need to respect the safety of girls in sport but trans people are encouraged to serve the country in uniform” something close to thoughtful moderation on this issue?
I read Jain's piece. My recollection was that the main point wasn't actually what the public's opinion on trans issues was, currently, but how rapidly it had shifted over a short period of time.
What this implies is that the public doesn't really know what it thinks on this issue. It's whipsawed by competing propaganda from partisan groups and/or salient anecdotes.
So I thought the article was speaking to trans rights advocates, saying, basically, "change your game plan." You were doing something that worked, and then the other team changed their strategy/tactics to make that not work. So you need to update.
What Molloy and crowed feel, I think, is that making this point isn't so much throwing trans people under the bus, but trans advocates. It's saying they "screwed up" by "letting" public opinion slip away. But that's not accurate or fair. As they say in sports, the other team has coaches, too.
To me the core flaw in the progressive mindset is not their choice of tactics. I think their hectoring tactics were limited and vulnerable but I have to acknowledge, they worked well for a while.
It's their refusal to accept that all politics is competitive. Believing you have justice on your side doesn't give a reason to expect that you'll be successful, because _all the people who disagree with you also think justice is on their side_. So the only question before trans rights advocates should be: how do we win back, and even win more, people to our side. I'm not sure how you can do that if you don't know what people think.
1. you might be attributing “thoughtless moderation” to people a bit too strongly
2. thought moulton wasn’t necessarily “thoughtless”. he wanted to help trans people by addressing the elephant in the room
This is so right. Voters aren't dumb or unnecessarily cruel--they often hold nuanced views on contentious issues. Being thoughtlessly harsh on trans rights or immigration doesn't win elections. It just produces bad policy that future leaders have to clean up.
Why is the Argument's style to place footnotes before sentence punctuation? Seems bad!
Sports are perhaps the only case where people acknowledge sex-based performance differences and realistically prefer keeping it “natural.”
Now please take your definition of fascism and make it centered around forcing an elite class of flexible gendered athletes to steal all the women’s medals. Theoretically possible.
So what does thoughtful moderation on trans issues look like? I think we can all get behind supporting anti-discrimination laws but that doesn’t really come close to answering a lot of the questions de jure.
1. Overall, good piece.
2. However, I think you are excessively charitable to Molloy and the rest of the transmaximalists.
3. Does “against misplaced moderation” also apply closer to home…say, against a squeaky, fat, bald guy from DC who consistently inveighed against discussing the administration’s treatment of Abrego Garcia and loudly indignantly squeaked about “gotcha questions” when asked?
4. Does it also apply to the bedwetters who, when Democrats gain control, will say moronic shit like:
"Now is the time for unity, not division"
"American politics needs bipartisan consensus, even as a Democrat I want a strong Republican party"
"I'll gladly welcome any Republican in my administration so all Americans can feel represented"
"Leave the divisive rhetoric behind with Trump, the Department of Justice will now look forward, not backwards"
5. Does it also apply to squashing pundits and candidates who attempt to impede the necessary effort to kneecap the maga movement (eg: removing car dealer exclusivity, going after supplements, rigorously enforcing the IRS rules against politics from the pulpit - enforced by either crippling fines or public renunciation of faith, eliminating all farm subsidies and telling the farmers to get bent if they complain or embark on a suicide campaign as they do in India, cutting as much money as possible from red states, redrawing states such as by kicking the Appalachian sections of VA/MD/parts of PA to WV ) and ensuring greater power for Dems (eg: nuking the filibuster, DC/PR/USVI statehood and telling those who whine to move to Russia, court packing after having a polite chat with Roberts about the error of his ways, aggressive house building in blue states by surgical debarking of NIMBYs, massive immigration reform to create a constituency for more like the immigrant population in the Toronto suburbs that squash Trumpist candidates and all the goodies needed to reward the base - such as universal healthcare and infrastructure)?