They aren't mandating that a non-binary person be selected, they're just providing a way for them to stand at all, in a structure built on exclusive male and female lists.
It's the good-intentioned, inclusive thing to do - if you're unwilling to ask, do we (still) need gendered candidate lists at all?
How about this: don't have lists by gender. Then anyone can run without having to fit into a category. Putting everyone into identity categories and treating them differently because of that categorization has been disastrous for the left. Everyone except activists hates it because it's anti-egalitarian and un-American.
That is way too reasonable and democratic for the modern Democratic Party to embrace. Identity politics is the core belief of the current Democratic Party, so much so that they should just change their name to the Grievance Party or the Identity Party.
Some people would say that this is politics, full stop - the push and pull between advocacy for different identities. If you're willing to define "identity" broadly, it can be hard to find any policy that isn't for or against one or more "identity" groups.
The obvious problem is that this wouldn’t be guaranteed to yield the optimal identity array, and they’d spend time on nothing but pacifying butthurt whiners.
I don't strictly agree with the latter two sentences; recognizing identities can be (and is usually conceived as) pro-egalitarian. But I do think that the gendered candidate lists have outlived whatever purpose they may have once served. That's why I suggested they should be questioning the structure, not just this particular operation of it.
The issue is that it created a spectacle of performative righteousness and made an otherwise easy process comically convoluted. If they didn’t feel they could defend using biological sex as category boundaries, there were still less stupid approaches they could have taken. They weren’t, because pandering to the social justice set was more important than having a streamlined contest. And everyone saw that plainly. This wasn’t about inclusion. It was about creating a piece of moral theater.
Affirmative inclusion in public or quasi-public institutions, or advocacy thereto, is always "moral theater."
I agree that this particular process was needlessly convoluted. I'm not a Democrat, but I would have advocated abolishing the gendered lists years ago, and running these elections with a single-round "score voting" ballot of all candidates.
If a person identifies as non-binary in a pool of binary and non-binary, aren't they still part of a binary? If gender is a spectrum, why do transgender people take drugs and/or have surgery to conform to a M/F binary? This issue has done more to fracture the left than any other and I'm still unsure what has even been accomplished other than a second Trump presidency.
As far as I can tell, nobody's gender or sexual self-identification is undertaken for political reasons. There would be no political angle to it at all if *other people* did not choose to make it so.
I’m not sure this is true. I don’t think diagnosable gender dysphoria is political, but the benefits to identifying as different from the norm are tangible. Access, clout, status are all conferred by identifying into an oppressed group. So for a gender non-conforming person, coming out as non-binary does carry political weight, whether or not it factors into the decision to come out.
It’s almost as if all this gender-parity fuckery was less about implementing socially desirable outcomes (let’s leave aside whether the purpose of a committee composition is social engineering at all), and more about creating a morally unassailable bureaucracy that can manipulated to achieve outcomes that are desirable by the establishment
Describe some concrete policies to me and I'll tell you whether I support them or not. Asking if I "support trans kids" is an attempt to move the conversation out of the realm of concrete policy (and politics) and into an emotional realm of slogans and thought terminating cliches.
They fired him not for being the idiot that he is but because of his sex. Proving, of course, the idiots that they are and why they will never win young men back to their party.
First, great read! Well-written and insightful. I'm subscribing.
I find it sad and funny that for as crazy as the GOP and Trumpers can sometimes be, the RNC primary system is the only one that serves a "democratic" purpose. Sure, it's still pay to play, but just the mere idea of someone like Trump breaking through when the establishment DID NOT want him, then turning from joke into President is a remarkable bit of democracy.
The DNC is vicious in attacking authentic, less-corporate candidates. They've screwed over Bernie twice but will no doubt co-opt his current crowds and message (and he'll let them), then do the opposite. Kind of like how Kamala Harris was for Medicare for All for a week and a half in 2020. They chew through authenticity in the search for compliance, all chasing an easily defeatable, but wholly authentic character in Trump.
Fair point on Obama, but that speaks more to his “outsider” persona (so similar to Trump). His campaign was quickly absorbed into the mainstream, at least when he added Biden to the ticket.
My point on the GOP is if a left version of a Trump-esque candidate emerged, he or she would be crushed by the DNC.
David, thanks for the link, that was a great article. Remember the Democratic Party is whiskey owned by Team Obama who inherited it from Team Clinton. The puppet masters were never never never going to have a Communist at the top of the ticket, that was a bridge way to far. Just now the Clinton people are fading into the twilight, however the Obama people are still around and will be in 2028 just like they were in 2024 when they took up residence in Wilmington to prop up Joe one last time. So David don’t expect anything to change. Again great article I have book marked it for future reference.
It was way more than that. The DNC was allegedly "broke" at the time and guess which campaign loaned them a lifeline of money? No wonder they picked Hillary over Bernie. I also think this was the acceleration of today's "fundraise" over everything approach.
It’s so weird, because the counterpunch came so quickly. I had just found out about Hogg’s Maher appearance and I was like, ‘oh cool, a rare glimmer of hope.’ And then bam
Well it’s not like Hogg can’t move forward with his project; he’s already got the money, I believe, which means he’s also got the connections to raise more. The Democrats are in dire need of their own version of the GOP Tea Party revolt. While it may have been destructive in the short term, I think that in the long run it was valuable in making space for actual change in the institutional party and bringing the Congressional party into closer alignment with their voters.
I feel like I've seen these sorts of shenanigans before, but in a different context, and I think you have too. Using arcane procedural rules to neutralize candidates that advocate uncomfortable change? It would be nice if the Democrats would Move Forward from such tactics.
In further defense of David Hogg, the guy is literally like 24 year olds and a lot of his cringiest opinions literally dates back to like when he's 17, 18, 19, whatever.
Whomst among us didn't hold silly opinions at that age that we've since revised?
Also, I think the whole affair provides conclusive evidence that for better or worse, the GOP is a lot reformable (for better, for worse, or honestly both simultaneously as has been in the Trump era) than the Ds.
The demon in common is ever widening wealth inequality. Democrats are much better positioned to fix the issue, but Republicans have unlimited money to thwart.
Don’t love Hogg, and I’m actually completely fine with them firing him, but ONLY if they fire him for the actual reason they want to fire him. Cooking up this BS about the rules and the process is so pathetic. Dem leadership culture is so darn passive. Like take a stand, and stand behind your choice!!
Card carrying Democrats say Hogg must be purged because he broke rules or something. Keep infighting and then complain when no one votes or votes incorrectly like the last major election
The DNC rules mandate gender balanced candidate slates, and must include non-binary? Fuck. We are so fucked. We have learned nothing. Fuck!
They aren't mandating that a non-binary person be selected, they're just providing a way for them to stand at all, in a structure built on exclusive male and female lists.
It's the good-intentioned, inclusive thing to do - if you're unwilling to ask, do we (still) need gendered candidate lists at all?
How about this: don't have lists by gender. Then anyone can run without having to fit into a category. Putting everyone into identity categories and treating them differently because of that categorization has been disastrous for the left. Everyone except activists hates it because it's anti-egalitarian and un-American.
That is way too reasonable and democratic for the modern Democratic Party to embrace. Identity politics is the core belief of the current Democratic Party, so much so that they should just change their name to the Grievance Party or the Identity Party.
Identity politics is at the core of the current Republican Party, too; they just protect far fewer identities.
Yes, and I think it’s being put into overdrive by the forces of backlash.
Some people would say that this is politics, full stop - the push and pull between advocacy for different identities. If you're willing to define "identity" broadly, it can be hard to find any policy that isn't for or against one or more "identity" groups.
The obvious problem is that this wouldn’t be guaranteed to yield the optimal identity array, and they’d spend time on nothing but pacifying butthurt whiners.
I don't strictly agree with the latter two sentences; recognizing identities can be (and is usually conceived as) pro-egalitarian. But I do think that the gendered candidate lists have outlived whatever purpose they may have once served. That's why I suggested they should be questioning the structure, not just this particular operation of it.
The issue is that it created a spectacle of performative righteousness and made an otherwise easy process comically convoluted. If they didn’t feel they could defend using biological sex as category boundaries, there were still less stupid approaches they could have taken. They weren’t, because pandering to the social justice set was more important than having a streamlined contest. And everyone saw that plainly. This wasn’t about inclusion. It was about creating a piece of moral theater.
And this is why I left the party.
Affirmative inclusion in public or quasi-public institutions, or advocacy thereto, is always "moral theater."
I agree that this particular process was needlessly convoluted. I'm not a Democrat, but I would have advocated abolishing the gendered lists years ago, and running these elections with a single-round "score voting" ballot of all candidates.
If a person identifies as non-binary in a pool of binary and non-binary, aren't they still part of a binary? If gender is a spectrum, why do transgender people take drugs and/or have surgery to conform to a M/F binary? This issue has done more to fracture the left than any other and I'm still unsure what has even been accomplished other than a second Trump presidency.
https://dennisonwrites.substack.com/p/john-olivers-sad-hackery/comment/117888047
As far as I can tell, nobody's gender or sexual self-identification is undertaken for political reasons. There would be no political angle to it at all if *other people* did not choose to make it so.
I’m not sure this is true. I don’t think diagnosable gender dysphoria is political, but the benefits to identifying as different from the norm are tangible. Access, clout, status are all conferred by identifying into an oppressed group. So for a gender non-conforming person, coming out as non-binary does carry political weight, whether or not it factors into the decision to come out.
It’s almost as if all this gender-parity fuckery was less about implementing socially desirable outcomes (let’s leave aside whether the purpose of a committee composition is social engineering at all), and more about creating a morally unassailable bureaucracy that can manipulated to achieve outcomes that are desirable by the establishment
This reads like satire of the pro-trans position. Good work undermining your own message.
I see no evidence that you’re even a real person, “Alex.”
Can you prove you’re even a real person, “Alex”?
Why do you care if I'm a real person? Your argument is dogshit whether I'm real or not.
Do you support trans kids, Alex?
Describe some concrete policies to me and I'll tell you whether I support them or not. Asking if I "support trans kids" is an attempt to move the conversation out of the realm of concrete policy (and politics) and into an emotional realm of slogans and thought terminating cliches.
I’m not interested in interacting with a bot
prove you’re a good-faith human first if you want anyone with a hint of media literacy to acknowledge you
there is zero evidence you are not a bot
You mad bro? You seem big mad.
Oh, you again. I see you’re still very attached to your line. Not really sure what the relevance is, though…
Lmfao you’re the reason Trump won twice
you look smart, Chuck.
This article just happens to pop up in my feed. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with trans kids in sports. What the hell are you talking about?
I don’t know man, did you read the article? The “gender parity” rules are clearly addressed.
They fired him not for being the idiot that he is but because of his sex. Proving, of course, the idiots that they are and why they will never win young men back to their party.
Idiot, beta males may just be a growth market.
Being American is fucking exhausting...
First, great read! Well-written and insightful. I'm subscribing.
I find it sad and funny that for as crazy as the GOP and Trumpers can sometimes be, the RNC primary system is the only one that serves a "democratic" purpose. Sure, it's still pay to play, but just the mere idea of someone like Trump breaking through when the establishment DID NOT want him, then turning from joke into President is a remarkable bit of democracy.
The DNC is vicious in attacking authentic, less-corporate candidates. They've screwed over Bernie twice but will no doubt co-opt his current crowds and message (and he'll let them), then do the opposite. Kind of like how Kamala Harris was for Medicare for All for a week and a half in 2020. They chew through authenticity in the search for compliance, all chasing an easily defeatable, but wholly authentic character in Trump.
Barack Obama wasn't the establishment candidate either.
Republican presidential primaries are less democratic by being more winner-take-all, which favors early front-runners, establishment or otherwise.
Fair point on Obama, but that speaks more to his “outsider” persona (so similar to Trump). His campaign was quickly absorbed into the mainstream, at least when he added Biden to the ticket.
My point on the GOP is if a left version of a Trump-esque candidate emerged, he or she would be crushed by the DNC.
Already happened, just ask the Bernie Bros, and how the DNC gave Hillary the Questions before the Dems debate in 2016. Thumb on the scale…
And it utterly screwed them. These moves offered no short term gain at all and did long term damage.
I wrote about it awhile back if you have any interest:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dennisonwrites/p/democrats-lost-men-when-they-knifed?r=38gm6o&utm_medium=ios
David, thanks for the link, that was a great article. Remember the Democratic Party is whiskey owned by Team Obama who inherited it from Team Clinton. The puppet masters were never never never going to have a Communist at the top of the ticket, that was a bridge way to far. Just now the Clinton people are fading into the twilight, however the Obama people are still around and will be in 2028 just like they were in 2024 when they took up residence in Wilmington to prop up Joe one last time. So David don’t expect anything to change. Again great article I have book marked it for future reference.
It was way more than that. The DNC was allegedly "broke" at the time and guess which campaign loaned them a lifeline of money? No wonder they picked Hillary over Bernie. I also think this was the acceleration of today's "fundraise" over everything approach.
And they seethe that people don’t want to vote for them anymore. After shit like this.
Spot on. I really don't like David Hogg, but I like the people who ousted him over BS even less. Dems are indeed cooked.
It’s so weird, because the counterpunch came so quickly. I had just found out about Hogg’s Maher appearance and I was like, ‘oh cool, a rare glimmer of hope.’ And then bam
I didn't think that was weird. The dem octogenarian hold-outs move very swiftly and intentionally.
Bingo. The Democrats of late only want the appearance of doing something different, not actually doing something different. It’s infuriating.
Well it’s not like Hogg can’t move forward with his project; he’s already got the money, I believe, which means he’s also got the connections to raise more. The Democrats are in dire need of their own version of the GOP Tea Party revolt. While it may have been destructive in the short term, I think that in the long run it was valuable in making space for actual change in the institutional party and bringing the Congressional party into closer alignment with their voters.
They are gonna kick his ass to the curb if they can’t get him in line.
I feel like I've seen these sorts of shenanigans before, but in a different context, and I think you have too. Using arcane procedural rules to neutralize candidates that advocate uncomfortable change? It would be nice if the Democrats would Move Forward from such tactics.
Beautifully written and reasoned.
In further defense of David Hogg, the guy is literally like 24 year olds and a lot of his cringiest opinions literally dates back to like when he's 17, 18, 19, whatever.
Whomst among us didn't hold silly opinions at that age that we've since revised?
Also, I think the whole affair provides conclusive evidence that for better or worse, the GOP is a lot reformable (for better, for worse, or honestly both simultaneously as has been in the Trump era) than the Ds.
Boomers don’t want to let go.
Note that Republicans have this problem, too — even worse
That’s one of the reasons I find it so upsetting. I sort of liked being on the high ground, and I’m mad that I don’t get to stand there anymore.
The demon in common is ever widening wealth inequality. Democrats are much better positioned to fix the issue, but Republicans have unlimited money to thwart.
They are dimwitted buffoons who can’t read their own rules book. This has been the case for a decade before Hogg came along.
Don’t love Hogg, and I’m actually completely fine with them firing him, but ONLY if they fire him for the actual reason they want to fire him. Cooking up this BS about the rules and the process is so pathetic. Dem leadership culture is so darn passive. Like take a stand, and stand behind your choice!!
Passive aggressiveness is always a pathetic look in supposed leaders.
Card carrying Democrats say Hogg must be purged because he broke rules or something. Keep infighting and then complain when no one votes or votes incorrectly like the last major election