Sarah McBride: (Transgender Congresswoman) "Why The Left Lost On Trans Rights)

[Sympthsical]

66. Explain this "talent" to me

In 2016, when trans people were fighting the North Carolina bathroom bill, Strangio objected to the ad campaign because it appealed too closely to the normies' sensibilities. He put his ideology before practical politics. He put his ideology before the people he claims to champion. He then went and wrote an op-ed full of concepts and verbiage 99% of the American population would reject out of hand if it were on a ballot.

Ideology before political progress.

After the Bostock decision, he gave an interview where he basically bragged that they'd tricked Gorsuch in some way. He openly admitted he wanted to use the narrow ruling to push much, much farther than Gorsuch had in mind. He sat there taunting a Supreme Court Justice - one who he would need in a future case. Does anyone anywhere think Gorsuch didn't see that? Gorsuch didn't say a word during oral arguments in Skrmetti. Strangio had alienated him.

Ego and ideology before legal strategy and political progress.

In Skrmetti, when Alito tried to pin Strangio down on whether transgender is a suspect class, Strangio had a choice. He could have argued that gender dysphoria is an immutable characteristic. But in order to do so, it would involve eschewing and admitting that parts of his gender ideology are not salient or even relevant to the legal matters at hand. He would have to cede ground on the idea that someone is trans just because they decide to be, or fluid where they change genders at whim, or undefined, non-binary, or the whole host of genders and identities that are more an ideological and social construct than an immutable characteristic like orientation.

He could argue for the dysphoric or he could make an ideological argument to a conservative Supreme Court Justice.

He chose his ideology over the more legally sound argument, that the dysphoric are a separate consideration from those who pursue gender variation based on social and political sensibilities. Strangio could not cede the ground, could not sacrifice his radical notions for the sake of a case advocating for transgender children.

Again and again, Strangio tries to advance his ideology at the expense of the movement he claims to champion. Why? Because he's on a mission. If it helps LGBT people, so be it. If LGBT people have to be screwed over to maintain ideological purity, so be that, too.

His attitudes have been very clear. He is a detriment. If he wants to help legally, great. Go do that. Quietly. Because that mouth does not speak for me or even most people. It has, rather, cost us. And we are just only now seeing those costs. And do you think Strangio will bear those costs? A successful ACLU attorney who's a celebrity in the activist movement? Of course not.

Everyone else will get to pay for the sake of Strangio's purity.

Enough already. Enough with people like this.