Playing Politics: How Would You Move Democrats To “The Center”
A chance for readers to play political strategists
Let me begin with a warning that this is an experimental post. And there’s a better than 0% chance that this blows up in my face. That said, I think it has the potential to be an interesting experiment. So buckle in and Via Con Dios!
A long-running theme once again emerged in the comments thread of my Pundits post from earlier today: Democrats need to temper their political positions to appeal to the center. We here at OTB have gone round-and-around-and-around on this topic so much that we’re all dizzy and a little sick from/of it.
So I thought it would be fun to do a thought experiment: what might this look like in practice if it was applied to a specific policy position? And long-time commenter Charon thought of an example that I think is worth building off of.
The specific example I had in mind was MR’s assertion that trans girls participating in high school sports stirs the MAGA’s up unnecessarily, combined with my impression that is a common position for him.
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-observation-about-classically-liberal-punditry/#comment-2780546
Here is my challenge: instead of being a team GM (Fantasy Football) you are an advisor to the Democratic State legislature (hence Playing Politics–this post originally went out under “Phantasy Politics” but that wasn’t alliterative enough). And given that all of the commenters here are political junkies, I suspect this might speak to a certain level of Monday Morning (political) Quarterbacking that I feel we have a tendency to do.
The political issue: The topic of trans inclusion in sports has come up and you know that Republicans plan to introduce a bill to enact a statewide ban.
You are in a battleground state with a split legislature (often a narrow majority in either direction) — thanks Charon. What play do you run against this?
What’s the messaging? How do you handle activists (who are protesting against this) and the base? Do you try to block the legislation? What if this comes up to a vote? What do you recommend for the membership to do? What trade-offs do you consider? How do candidates standing for election handle the issue in debates?
Looking forward to specific plans for what you think a centrist approach might look like for Democrats. With that, get commenting.
Note: I try not to moderate comments in my posts. That said, everyone needs to respect that this is an important and meaningful issue to a lot of families out there, not to mention trans and other athletes. If this goes south, I reserve the right to remove comments or even delete this thread (with a public mea culpa). Please be respectful of each other and the topic.
I’m old enoungh to remember when in 1976, S.I. Hayakawa, an academic and a Republican politician of Japanese ancestry, ran for the Senate in California. Once, on the campaign trail, when asked for his views on dog racing, the subject of a statewide referendum another occasion, he replied, paraphrasing, that he did not give a good goddamn about dog racing, that he was running for United states Senator. I’m a Democrat and I loved that response. No dodging, no weaseling, he was candid, it was how he felt.
I’m not quite sure how a progressive should culture war handle questions about, say, transgender people, perhaps something like, ‘I believe that transgender people, as American citizens, have the same rights of self determination, privacy and access to medical care that we all respect.
The important thing – no matter what the subject – is to be direct, honest, and authentic. Do not play a game with this stuff.
Stop it with the “both sides love our country and we can reasonably disagree on what’s best crap” and start attacking the Republicans as Russian agents and domestic terrorists trying to undermine the US so that that we can all be enslaved by Putin and portraying the Democratic Party as the loyal patriots protecting us from vatnik infiltrators
Trans kids in sports is a niche issue that almost no one cares about, but it is a nose-in-the-tent issue that leads to a lot more discrimination being codified into law.
Part of this equation is going to what state this is — in California, you tell the Republicans to go pound sand, and in West Virginia you have no influence whatsoever. So, purple state. Pennsylvania, Michigan or Arizona. One of those. This specific topic is also so three years ago, so I’m answering it like that.
I hate Bill Clinton — the dude just strikes me as immediately creepy, pretending to care about others but without an ounce of sincerity — but some of his triangulation was the right way to go at the time. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a shitty policy that was less shitty than the alternatives and that led to the normalization of queer folks in the military as those closet doors were half open.
So, I think we would want a position that gives up on the hot button issue that affects almost no one, but shores up legal status for things we do care about. A broader bill that sets out the rights of trans kids in school broadly.
– not allowed on competitive sports teams
– must change for gym in an office or whatever (school must provide safe, private space)
– not allowed to use bathrooms without separate stalls with doors (school must provide doors, etc), but can use bathroom associated with their gender identity.
– teachers are to use a student’s chosen pronouns and name
– students can dress as they want
– parental notification for all students of pronouns and name used (I hate this one)
Note that the bathroom one creates an entirely fake scenario and bans it, as if it is creating a reasonable middle ground. At least, I hope the toilets with no stalls is fake.
The parental notification I hate, but kids should be very aware that what happens at school will get home to mom and dad at some point, and if it is not safe to be out at home, it is not safe to be out at school. I think it actually protects the kids, but I hate the way it makes me feel inside to favor it.
There are parts of this that I think are flat out wrong and unjust, but it codifies a slightly more liberal version of the status quo, and prevents backsliding. Come back in a few years and fix it if/when society changes.
And get ahead of the curve (remember, trans sports was a while ago) limiting gender affirming care to:
– therapy, social transition at any age
– puberty blockers (age 12)
– hormone therapy (age 16)
– top surgery (age 16)
– bottom surgery (age 18)
Again, there’s a lot here that makes me queasy. And it would likely have to be called “the protecting minor genitals act” or something and be promoted with the bottom surgery or something like that.
However, the time for all that is past, as we are moving past the questions of “how should trans kids live their lives?” to questions of “should trans anyone live at all?” And on the recent question, there is no compromise position.
Your question omits a key detail: which party controls the legislature? Or do we separately address each possibility = both houses R or D or are they split?
@Gustopher:
TY for that thoughtful engagement. There’s a lot to get into there and I may have questions/pokes.
@al Ameda:
I like the direction. And my immediate follow-up question is what do you recommend that legislator does when it comes time to actually vote on the issue?
What I’m asking: Is voting against a statewide ban on trans-gender high school athletes resisting a move to the center?
That’s a serious question.
I think you got all that right, and chose a challenging topic that well illustrates the problem. I’ve got no brilliant ideas on how to handle it.
It’s also late in the day, so I’ll express a hope that the community will keep this thread going tomorrow.
@Gustopher:
The question specifically stated “swing state,” but note that even in a red state there is some play. In Utah, the legislature passed a bill that the governor vetoed, so even if the leg is a writeoff you have a governor and public you can work on.
@charon:
Great question (that’s one to consider). My first reaction is to ask “why does that matter” if the assumption is “Democrats should move to the center on this issue”?
But for ease of response (hopefully, I’m making this up as I go along) let’s say split (that alternates narrow majorities in either direction).
First my bonafides…
Lettered in seven sports in high school.
Played college football for a top Juco and walked on at UCLA.
Played rec-league basketball from age 13-55
Played co-ed softball until age 58.
Currently a six handicap on the golf course.
I’ve completed 11 marathons, including LA, Paris, New Orleans, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Honolulu marathons with a best of 3:00:17 in 1993 (failing to qualify for Boston by 17 seconds), and my last being four years ago in Hawaii.
Finished two Ironman distance triathlons, and too many sprint triathlons to count.
Have several trans friends, but no trans men or women in my family.
Having said all that, the athlete in me has a very, very difficult time coming up with a scenario that is both fair to the trans athlete and the non-trans athletes with whom they are competing. Simply put, transwomen have a huge advantage over cis women when it comes to any sport having to do with strength or speed. Running. Jumping. Swimming. Weightlifting. Soccer. Golf. Basketball. Baseball. Football.
Lia Thomas, the transwoman swimmer at the University of PA, shattered pretty much every school record. She was a so-so swimmer on the men’s team from 2017-2020, and on the woman’s team in 2021-2022. She dominated the woman’s team. This was not fair. Despite her protestations, she had a huge advantage over her cis-female competitors. She was physically superior to every cis-woman swimmer she competed against.
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/trans-swimmer-who-broke-records-won-championship-says-she-belongs-on-the-womens-team-lia-thomas-sports-illustrated-transgender-athlete-university-of-pennsylvania-ncaa-swim-swimming-men-women-freestyle
Tiffany Newell, a transwoman runner in Canada, shattered the woman’s record in the race, a year after breaking the record initally. Her times now put her in line to break the world records in several races and categories. World records. As in Olympic level world records.
https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/trans-runner-wins-another-womens-race-one-year-after-breaking-record-angering-critics
I think this is a loser for Democrats as this happens more and more often. If I were advising a candidate, I’d have no idea how to advise them. None at all. Because to me, it’s a losing issue. If I, an ally of trans men and women, feel this strongly about it, I can understand how strongly non-allies feel about it, especially if their daughters are competing.
Furthermore to illustrate the unfairness of it all…. This issue only goes one way. There are no cis-men complaining about transmen competing against them. It’s only transwomen competing against cis-women that is an issue.
@EddieInCA:
*WHISTLE!!!!/Flag on the comment*
DQ’d for ignoring the prompt!!! Hit the showers!
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but that isn’t moving Democrats to the center my friend. We need answers for losing issues (since I am told the Democrats are losing the culture war for being too progressive).
One area where this is an issue is in Folkstyle/High School Wrestling. Unfortunately in many cases, the trans men don’t even get the chance to compete because of various policies.
Also that gets to a side point about the competition being allowed for women but not for men. That’s a topic for a different post.
@Stormy Dragon:
*WHISTLE!!!!/Flag on the comment*
DQ’d for ignoring the prompt!!! Take a seat hot shot!
While I agree with the Bothsiderism issue, we don’t allow working the opposition or the refs in this fantasy competition.
@gVOR08:
The refs accept that you are calling a time out… but watch out the shot clock is still ticking down!
I fear I might be losing this sportsball mixed metaphor!
@EddieInCA: @Matt Bernius:
Please! This started out as about high school sports, not about elite competitions where performance records are an issue.
If this is now about elite or even college level competition, fuck it, I’m outahere.
@charon:
I’ve already ejected Eddie. Are you working the ref? 😉
(and for the record I responded with a HS sports counter-data-point)
@charon:
And, BTW, at the high school level, puberty blockers are an issue, with some pros and cons on that. Trans who have transitioned subsequent to male puberty are a whole nother story.
@Matt Bernius:
Ban competitive school sports and go to the club system that the rest of the world uses?
Without having thought this through, it separates trans issues from education issues in the area of sports.
Sure, it creates another problem, because people tie their school pride to sports. But I think you can at least find a way to reason with people on that issue.
I am digging around trying to research some relevant issues, but just to get the ball rolling found this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/27/high-schools-should-not-ban-trans-athletes-theres-far-better-approach/
gift linky:
https://wapo.st/3Ji5OBP
@Matt Bernius:
Once we’re arguing trans youth in sports, we’ve already lost because we’re playing defense on their home field. We need to start forcing them to play defense on our field
@Matt Bernius:
Fair.
But I have a question for the Ref?
Was I ejected like an NBA player? If so, shouldnt’ I have just gotten a technical foul first?
Ejected like an NFL player? If so, fair. Unsportsmanlike Penalty resulting in ejection.
Did I get a red card, like a football (soccer) player? If so, that was a harsh sending off. Only deserved a yellow card.
Did a get a match penalty like an NHL player? If so. that was harsh. I deserved no more than a misconduct penalty – 10 mins in the box.
@EddieInCA:
I’m going to take a honest crack at the question, because I have an obvious stake in this issue. But, I just wanted jump in briefly here to point out your dead wrong. You’re wrong in general and you’re wrong about Lia Thomas.
Testosterone confers an enormous advantage, but once that’s gone no more advantage. All that other stuff is just post hoc nonsense, bad science and misogyny. Lia Thomas won one race. The runners in CT won like one race. Masculine puberty doesn’t create some sort of mythic advantage. Testosterone is poison, but it does work for a lot of that stuff.
Anecdotally, I’m 6ft, 210lbs (/cry). My partner is a Cis woman, maybe 5,5, like 130lbs. She can straight up pin me to the floor. It’s pretty hot, and pretty sad.
@Beth:
https://www.phillyvoice.com/lia-thomas-penn-transgender-swimmer-ivy-league-championships/
Penn swimmer Lia Thomas sets six records at Ivy League Championships
The senior, whose achievements have led to a fairness debate regarding transgender athletes, won three individual events
Is trans sport even an issue amongst people who are fit and healthy? Lia Thomas was an elite swimmer before and after she transitioned. Before she took hormones, she was 12 seconds off the men’s 500 free record. After she fully transitioned, she’s 12 seconds off the women’s 500 free record. End of story, basically. And if you accept that being trans is real, then you have to accept that it’s hard as hell to be an athlete in the wrong body.
Regarding messaging–there’s no other way to put this but the GOP is just dark and fucked-up and the opposite of fit and healthy. One thing about Biden is he’s not insecure as a man and that’s why he’s pretty good about trans issues given how old he is. Whereas you have Ted Cruz, who fights gender ideology while his daughter (who apparently says she’s bi) tries to take her life.
I don’t know how you craft a message which says what everybody knows about these people and the way they relate to the world. They are in so many closets, and you shouldn’t drag in kids who are being ruined by their ideologies, but they are also calling for the genocide of trans people.
As as non-fearmonger, you don’t win this, or any other issue, in the weeds. You need to be able to tell a universal story.
The story, in this case, and most similar ones, is basic: we are going to treat everyone, but especially children, with respect. We are going to treat people fairly and equitably. We aren’t going to single folks out for shame or ridicule for being who they are. We aren’t going to make a class or group the “other”. We are all of us.
So, of course we are going to oppose the bill. We are going to allow our children to compete in sports because it is good for kids to be on a team or enter into competitions; to be part of the community.
Are some kids going to be better at some things than others? Of course. So what?
Everyone means all of us.
@Beth:
Does the muscle evaporate as soon as testosterone levels drop?
Knowing very little about it, I have no idea.
You say your wife can pin you to the floor, but I assume that at 210 lbs, a lot of your effort is also just moving yourself (I’m 6’6” 270lbs, was 310lbs…. Not trying to fat shame (is 210 even fat at your height?), just know from experience that many of my joints and muscles don’t really do much more than my size). And I also assume your wife is tough and scrappy, just because that’s a fun assumption. So, your anecdote doesn’t strike me as persuasive.
I also don’t care about sports, and don’t know why it’s such a big deal. I didn’t care about girls high school swimming before a trans kid won something, and I don’t care now.
I’d throw all the jocks, cis and trans, under the bus if I could. Give me an option to defund high school sports and use that money for school supplies, recreational pot, a furry club, whatever… totally on board.
Look to principle rather than identity. I’ll write you a speech.
“Americans have always had a right to define themselves. Whatever you were in the ‘old country,’ America is where you could re-imagine who you were. Redefining yourself, imagining a different life, a different world for yourself? That is basic US of A Americanism.
Now, today, we are faced with the fact that sometimes nature makes mistakes. Sorry, but it does. Sometimes nature gives us a child who can’t walk, so we use all our skill, all our brilliance to try and help that child to walk. Nature makes mistakes, we try to correct those mistakes. Well, as unusual as it may sound to people, and I get it, sometimes the mistakes nature makes are in terms of sex. This is challenging stuff, isn’t it? It goes right to the heart of what we think we know about humanity.
But hell, this is not the first time nature has unveiled a surprise or two. And this surprise, this revelation, is that sometimes nature gives a male body to a female mind. And sometimes it’s the reverse. Now, nature mostly gets it right. 99% of the time nature gets it right. But for that one percent, they live their lives feeling wrong. Feeling like the clothes they wear never fit. Like the face in the mirror is not quite their own.
Yes, sometimes in life there’s a 1%. Some small group of people who nature did not include in the 99%. The question we have is simple: do we have the right to tell those people how to live their lives? Look, trans male athletes? No, I think that’s unfair. It’s also unfair for an American who sees themselves as a woman being required to use a male bathroom. Speaking as a male, no one should have to use male bathrooms, they’re generally pretty gross.
You’re going to hear a lot of scare stories about trans folk. There’s no other word for these stories than this: lies. These are lies. The people telling these lies want you scared and angry, because when you’re scared and angry they ask you for money or for votes. The truth is a daughter who becomes a son, or a son who becomes a a daughter still has the same mother and father, the same brothers and sisters. They don’t become different people, just people more comfortable in their own skin.
Do some have regrets? Sure. About 2% of people who transition express some regrets. By the way, guess how many people express regret over face lifts? 80%, about 40 times as many. Do we need safeguards in place? Absolutely. Must parents rights be considered? Absolutely. Can this all be tough on parents? Absolutely. But moms and dads all want the same thing. You all want your child to be happy. To find purpose. To make a contribution. Now, almost all of you moms and dads will have a child who is happy being whatever sex they’re born. But some of you won’t have that easy experience, you’ll have it a little harder. But it is still your job to guide your child to happiness. And it’s the job of all the rest of us, to help them as we would any child of God.
So here’s my stand: 1) I don’t tell other people how to live their lives. 2) I believe our Founders had it right when they included language about the right to the pursuit of happiness. 3) If what a tiny percentage of your fellow citizens need to pursue happiness is to identify with a different sex than they were born with, well, how is it our business to stop them?”
Or we could just say, “Hey, if you don’t like it fuck you, you bigot POS!”
I don’t think this is a good case to use for the exercise Matt wants. Sports are run by various organizations like schools, universities and athletic associations. Decisions about sensitive issues are best left to them, because there is no reason to believe politicians will handle them better and every reason to believe they’ll try to score partisan points which have no regard for the interests of the people directly concerned. I would therefore oppose any legislation about this matter for those reasons.
@Gustopher: There’s a reason the combat sports use weight classes. But even there I think it’s pretty well understood that weight isn’t everything. It’s not like eating gallons of ice cream is the path to boxing success. Remember Raging Bull, and how Jake LaMotta struggled to keep himself in middle-weight range, then as soon as he retired he just let himself go and became the fat man he was always destined to be?
Sports has plenty of artificial ways of dividing up athletes, and they work pretty well most of the time but they aren’t sacrosanct.
Sports participation is the wedgiest segment of the wedgiest social issue that the Democrats are currently back on our heels about. But I’m old enough to see the pattern.
When I was a young man coming of age, it was all about how the “gays” were going to ruin society with their crazy ideas about who they wanted to love. Some of them were even hoping to adopt children. Children! Imagine two dads raising a kid – that poor kid didn’t stand a chance to grow up healthy and happy.
Gay parenting was the wedge issue of gay rights back in the day.
And I’m not talking about an old-timey, scratchy black-and-white photos era of American history, I’m talking about 40 years ago, when I was a high school graduate looking to make my way in the world. And we heard the same arguments.
I was an immature idiot in those days. I didn’t feel strongly one way or the other on that issue, so I just let them fight their battle on their own. When I was 22-23 or so I got to know a gay couple, no kids, and one of them was dying from AIDS. I saw so much love in that relationship that it changed my entire perspective on the issue of gay marriage and family raising. Their family had FAR more expressed love than mine did growing up.
So I became an advocate and ally.
Conservatives will *always* have a target, a distraction, an “other” – this time it’s Trans folks in sports. I often criticize conservatives for having no empathy, but at age 20 I had no empathy either. I had to get to know some people personally for my heart to change. And I think that’s the answer here too.
The Democratic approach, if we care about this issue to the point we want to stake out a position on it nationally, should be to humanize the people involved.
I’m seeing more Trans people on TV these days, portrayed as just normal people going about their lives. 90 Day Fiance, a quite popular TV show on TLC, has a young trans man on the current season this year, and he’s a great representation for the community.
Humanizing whomever the Conservatives are targeting is the best way to take the wind out of their sails.
@Tony W:
How so? Democrats aren’t passing any laws regarding trans kids in sports. Democrats should keep not doing that and keep vocally opposing Republican attempts to pass such laws and thus remove these discussions from local control and the onus of parents, teachers, and medical professionals who know these kids best.
This entire discussion is predicated on the hairbrained lie that Democrats are losing, the same bullshit alternate reality fake narrative that led folks to believe huge giant Red Wave was coming in 2022 on issues like trans kids in sports and Latinx. These are not the issues that motivate the voters needed to win elections.
So the answer is that Democrats don’t need to move to the center. The Democratic Party’s current ideology is the center. Republicans are the ones who’ve lost the last three election cycles. Republicans are ones now controlled by fringe extremists. Republicans are the one staring into the political wilderness due to the unprecedented hostility towards the right with the next rising two generations of youth voters. Republicans are the ones who need to move to the center, not Democrats.
@Ken_L:
Good point, Matt’s question as stated ignores some relevant players, e.g., athletic associations, that may get down in the weeds with eligibility rules. (There are pros and cons to, for example, involving checking testosterone levels.).
Also, judges. What often happens is legislatures pass a ban, then the ban gets overturned by a judge on sex discrimination or equal opportunity grounds.
@Tony W:
Trans kids being treated like normal kids in H.S. would be good for them, including psychologically. It would be good for the other kids too.
(Correlation may not be causation, but trans kids involved in H.S. sports are much less likely to be suicidal).
It may be a while, but I want to do some reading, catching up, before coming back with more thoughts.
@Tony W:
Twenty years, tops. IIRC Rove was putting anti-gay marriage initiatives on state ballots to drive R turnout in support of W’s reelection. And it worked. And D pols were doing their damndest to duck the issue. And they were ducking it because, as with trans issues, they didn’t have a good response. If @Michael Reynolds: can cut that speech down to a bumper sticker, or even a snappy 20 second debate response, maybe we’d have something.
Put them on pallets, shrinkwrap them, use a forklift to load them on a lorry, drive that to The Center, unload them there.
Simple, really.
🙂
It’s your friendly ref, back at halftime with some observations. Starting from the top:
@EddieInCA:
You plead a good case. Consider that a yellow card for icing and you are back in the game! But I’ve got my eye on you hot shot!
@Kurtz:
“Democrats want US schools to adopt a European style sport system” doesn’t feel like it’s movng towards the center.
@charon:
At least at the High School level, legislatures have definitely attempted to regulate aspects of sports.
Not a concern in this case because we’re concerned about the legislature.
@Ken_L:
Ken L and @Michael Reynolds both score single points for clearly stating what the voting position will be: they would vote against the legislation.
However, neither of you accounted for how those votes will be interpreted by heterodox pundits and the Opposition. So how do you deal with this:
It’s clear from their opposition to and votes against this common-sense legislation that woke legislators Ken L and MR are in lockstep with radical trans-activists who believe that trans girls should dominate girl’s sports (not to mention be able to shower with them).
Heck, even in this thread we see people concerned about trans girls and record keeping. The rhetoric is great (and I appreciate how you are bringing facts to the table), but you have yet to convince me you actually moved the party to the “center.”
Also, while those facts about how rare these cases are doesn’t really address what parents are feeling–that at any time their child might be beated in a sports event by a trans athlete from another school.
@Modulo Myself:
I want to remind everyone that this is more than just messaging. That’s why there’s a vote involved here. That requires both sides to go on record and creates something that can be used against them in campaigning or by pundits. So please remember to address that.
@gVOR08:
Most Dem politicians didn’t even support gay marriage, though they usually supported civil unions, which was kind of gateway drug toward acceptance, as it was an angle that was more likely to inspire empathy (as when partners were denied hospital visits). Biden himself was one of the most interesting examples of a Dem trying to navigate the issue. During the 2008 vp debate, he stated that he (and Obama) supported benefits for “couples in a same-sex marriage.” The baffled moderator then asked him if he supported gay marriage, and he immediately said, “No,” but added that people are free to define the unions how they please. This was clearly a slip-up by Biden–he was supposed to say he merely supported benefits for “same-sex couples.”
Four years later, let’s remember, it was Biden who came out in support before Obama, and it pushed Obama (who had been saying he was “evolving” on the issue) to expressing his support earlier than he had planned. But that was also the year when polling first showed a majority of the public coming on board. The pols weren’t being profiles in courage. But we shouldn’t have expected them to be.
Even though the progressive position on trans people in sports may not be popular, Republicans so far haven’t been able to capitalize on it the way they once did with gay marriage. I’m not convinced they’ve sold the public on the idea that it’s anything more than a very niche issue. They’re not going to being winning national elections on it.
@DK:
*TWEET-Flag on the Ice*
Calling the ref “hair-brained” is one demerit!
Questioning the rule of the games is a yellow card!
Assuming the Ref thinks the democrats need to move to center is offsides!
Get yourself to the penalty square!
One thing I find noteworthy is so far, other than around the rhetoric from politicians, I have yet to see anyone actually do anything that moves the Democrats to the center in any substantive way. By that I mean away from the BLM/Woke issue–being able to separate themselves in the public’s mind from activists.
The people who have declared votes are all against any sort of ban. Which can all be easily flipped to being “pro-trans athletes” and all the culture war baggage that comes along with that. Classical Liberal Pundits like Jonathon Chait and Jesse Singal… not to mention all of Fox News are not impressed that you’re in lock step with trans activists.
It’s also concerning to… gasp… Ruy Teixeira whose writing indicates he would probably be very skeptical of Dems engaging on topics like trans sports. See for example “When did transgender bathrooms become a civil right?” Or his objection to including trans language in abortion bills. I know you all are voting against a bill, but how do you separate yourself from “trans rights are civil rights”?
@Kylopod:
So this. In my last BJJ competition, the 165 I weighed was really different than the jacked 165 that my opponent who quickly subbed me with a choke weighed.
That said, after a point even if it isn’t fit weight, weight still makes a difference. There’s a saying in BJJ that for every 20 lbs the opponent has on you, they go up a belt rank. And I’ve experienced it. I (a purple-belt, halfway to black) lost in-school competition match to a new white belt (beginner–though he did have some high school wrestling experience) who just joined the school to get in shape. He had me by at least 80 lbs and while he was strong a lot of that was just weight. I made a mistake early in the match and he ended up on top of me. After that it was just a case of slowly drowning under the weight.
@Michael Reynolds: I think your speech is just about perfect.
@Matt Bernius: “The rhetoric is great (and I appreciate how you are bringing facts to the table), but you have yet to convince me you actually moved the party to the “center.””
I’ll probably get evicted for this, but I think the whole premise here is backwards. You don’t win by “moving to the center.” You win by moving the center back to you. That’s what Republicans have done with phony issues like CRT. And it’s what MR’s speech is in aid of.
@Matt Bernius:
If we are constrained to stay on that basis, this whole discussion is totally pointless. Republican legislators are committed, adamantly, (for reasons) to an eliminationist stance, there is no reaching them, no moving them. Dems will be all over the map on their concerns and constituencies, too diffuse to target efficiently.
Do you mean trans girls?
And I call bullshit, trans will never be numerous enough to dominate many team outcomes. How much effect can one trans girl on each of a few teams matter to team results?
So maybe Karen (mom) is bothered that little Maddy needs to compete with the trans girl to make the team. I say, if Maddy’s abilities are that marginal, sucks to be you, Maddy.
The problem as I see it is that there is an asymmetry between how we see left, right, and center between the Republican and Democratic party. I mean why are we having a discussion about moving Democrats to the center … they are there, and have been since forever. It’s not like the uber-progressives in the democratic party have taken over and were calling the shots when they were in the majority in congress. The only reason the Democrats look like a progressive party is because the Republicans have been so thoroughly taken over by reactionary right wing fascists that it’s hard to even see normal with a telescope form where they are standing.
So now instead of insisting on a Republican party that, at the bare minimum, isn’t throwing a temper tantrum more befitting a three year old, we have to talk about “moving the Democrats to the center”. But say the Democrats do this and “moves three more steps to the center”? Then what? The Republicans will simply double down and move 50 years more to the right. The Democrats already spend most of their time trying to swat away bad faith arguments in a never ending cycle outrage. And if there is nothing really to outrage anyone the Republicans will conger it out of thin air.
Honestly, lying your ass off is standard protocol for Republicans these days and that fact does nothing to blunt their popularity with the base. If anything they love them more for doing it because lying in the name of the lord is holy.
I apologize if this contribution was not what the OP was looking for but I find the question odd. If Republican voters responded to “policy”, it might make sense. Even “independents” seem to be more easily manipulated with right wing talking points. The only “independents” that end up voting Democratic are those who just don’t like Trump’s style and will reject even the most moderate Democratic party candidates if they can’t thread a very small needle.
However, if you are looking for such a candidate who can speak to independents and still keep progressives in the fold, you need to look at people like Elisa Slotkin (MI) and Katie Porter (CA). Slotkin won back to back elections in two different districts both that were + GOP and did it simply by emphasizing those things that resonate across both parties and downplaying her more progressive stances (and she is a lot more progressive then most democrats who don’t know her giver her credit).
My $0.02
@charon:
Completely. Great catch and corrected! Thank you.
Listen, as ref it’s my job to bring in the important voice of classically liberal pundits and centrists who have “lots of questions” about the topic of trans athletes (trust me, I’ve read them) and have identified this as an area where Democrats are outside the center and scaring off white working-class parents with their support of trans athletes. I appreciate you sharing the statistics, but that’s ignoring the reality that parents (especially white working-class ones) are genuinely concerned that at any sporting meet with another school their kid could compete against a trans athlete. Or have one force their way onto the school team. I’m not seeing anyone address the reality of that fear.
Not to mention, high school sports is such a small issue and like you said, it affects so few people, that it cuts both ways. Why should we take a political hit to support it when polling shows that Democrats are split on this issue: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athletes-trans-rights-gender-transition-poll
Thats before we get to those independents we need to win over: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/npr-transgender-issues-2022
Shouldn’t we be elevating the position of center-leaning democrats who are closer to independents over the “trans rights are civil rights” activists? Why not support a bipartisan ban for the time being that would win with the majority of the US?
@Matt Bernius:
Those polls show why the orcs are investing so much effort on these issues, as with, back in the day, same sex marriage.
So, you say, best to move to the “center.” I wonder, though, perhaps instead try to move where the center is.
@charon:
Exactly. That was the point of the speech I offered up-stream. Change the definitions, change the targeting, don’t get trapped in ideological knife fights if you can find a way to talk about universal values. Be willing to compromise on maximalist positions, because Don’t Ask Don’t Tell led to Aw, Fuck It, Who Cares? Keep up the propaganda but make it less godawful and self-harming. More Will and Grace, less Velma. (So much less Velma.) Then, be patient because if I’ve learned anything in more than 50 years of obsessing over politics is that change is slooooow.
I’ll go ahead and draw a flag by rejecting the premise.
First, Democrats really ARE in the middle already. Yesterday I noted that Biden’s immigration policy is every bit as restrictionist as any Republican and the economic and foreign policy of the party is about what poll after poll have told us is the preferred policy of most Republicans (excluding the plutocrat wing).
Second, and most importantly, the most important thing in American politics today is the cutlure war issue of identity, and whose is considered legitimate.
This is a binary, not subject to any compromise. Trans people are either full equals, or they’re not. And the Republicans have made it crystal clear that they want nothing less that the complete subjugation of LGBTQ people; Anyone who is “Republican-Curious” at this point has already rejected the foundational premise of the Democratic Party.
So, I will see myself to the penalty box.
@Chip Daniels:
With all the various bigotries, misogyny, racism, all the rest, they come in various levels ranging from mild entitlement through the spectrum to MTG and beyond to Nick Fuentes and the neo-Nazis.
AFAIC, all levels are in the Republican wheelhouse. At least at the national level, Democrats are about rejecting the entire spectrum. Locally, if you want to be governor of Louisiana or Senator from Montana, you need to adjust.
@Michael Reynolds:
Two things I want to point out:
1. Going back to the debates about Teixeira (and my critique) it’s important to note that this is NOT what he is advocating for with his policy suggestions. He is explicitly saying to move policy towards the center–not move the center towards policy.
2. I am struggling to see how this is different than what the Democrats as a whole have been trying to do on the national level. I’m going to go back to criminal legal system reform as an example. Everyone seems to concede that few if any statewide Democratic politicians ran on “Defund the Police.” And if you go back and read most of the speeches they gave they talked about reforming the police (see Biden’s speeches on the topic) to enforce the laws more fairly. And yet it’s an accepted fact that “Defund the Police” was a political misstep by the Democrats. In fact, in most areas, including solid blue ones, police budgets went up.
And yet even today, I keep hearing that Democrats’ priority must be to make communities feel safe, move away from Criminal Legal System reform, and reject “Defund the Police” (again see Teixeira).
So why is Trans High School Athletes an area where the mainstream party is somehow able to not get associated with the activist position and the job is to move the center versus move towards the center?
And if this is a long, long effort, why are people taking a maximalist position (that Democrats need to be against any ban) which is going to most likely alienate white working-class voters in the short term?
[Note: As someone who personally afrims that trans athletes should be able to play sports with their identified gender, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. And I am asking these questions honestly to understand people’s positions about this, in part, because I feel like there’s a lack of consistency between what I see written here and opinions expressed on other posts and I’m honestly trying to understand that better.]
@Ken_L:
It is worth noting, however, that that is often how wedge issues work.
Indeed, a lot of the things that the OTB commentariat argue about in regards to Dems being too progressive or failing on messaging often are not truly national issues (“Defend the Police” is a state and local matter) and things like Latinx are not even legislative topics.
Most of the wokery that is allegedly a problem from Dems is likely not stuff being legislated in Washington (and perhaps not even being legislated at all, save perhaps in performative ways, a la DeSantis).
@Matt Bernius:
Indeed.
To switch from referee to professor grading assignments, I would say that almost all participants have failed to follow instructions and have, instead, mostly shared their views on the subject/debated the prompt rather than engaging in the assignment.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m just hoping for a “C” so I can stay eligible for the sports teams.
@Steven L. Taylor:
As was pointed out upthread, the assignment as stated is pretty unworkable/futile given the nature of the Republican state legislators, so people just segued to the pertinent considerations.
@Matt Bernius:
The essential problem with trans athletes is that we are wrong. We’re just wrong about that particular issue and as it is an issue that has only a minuscule effect and no detrimental effect on 99% of trans people, I’d have chosen to pre-emptively concede. I tend to a military approach: I don’t see the point of dying to take a hill of no strategic importance, and one where we will inevitably be forced back.
I don’t care about Mr. Texeira’s framing, that’s his problem. My problem is that I’m on a team that makes stupid plays and loses otherwise winnable fights. The trans sports issue is a hill of very little importance that creates a huge vulnerability. The inflexible, maximalist approach always appeals to the yutes because the youths are not capable of imagining that their brilliance will be rejected. We should not let the most dogmatic elements dictate positions to the larger group of trans people and trans allies. Our position should not be 100% or nothing, it should be 70% now, 80% in a few years, and figure to come away with 90% in the end.
The ‘center’ is a moveable point, a re-definable point. The goal is not to move to the center of the field, the goal is to win the game. In order to score the point the runner needs to be able to move more nimbly than rigid ideological positions allow. The goal is not to be correct – that’s the college kid goal, the academic’s goal. The real goal, the one that matters, is to win freedom and equality for transpeople.
I would probably do something I would call the “Pooh-pooh and Pivot”. You know, “Well, as a Democrat I believe in treating everybody equally. I’m far more interested the very serious budgetary issues we face, such as [blah blah blah].”
Or getting the traffic signals to work in a particularly place. Which is how that trans woman got elected in VA a few years back.
Because I don’t think politicians are thought leaders. They are followers to a very great extent.
Another thing I would like to see is a series of YouTubes and/or ads that familiarize viewers with actual trans people and their parents. Obviously, there are a lot of issues to work through there with regard to safety, but actually knowing a trans person is worth thousands upon thousands of words.
For instance, back before my daughter transitioned, a guild mate in my online gaming did. I was talking with another guild mate about it, since I had, out of sheer coincidence, read something on it prior to that even. He then related that he had a school friend that was transitioning. He said that his friend had put up with so much sh1t, including from her parents, that it had to be real.
Crudely put, perhaps, but I’ll take it. It’s the best evidence that most people will experience – the complete dedication trans people have to their transition. It’s also clear that it isn’t some kink, once you get to know them. Not that trans, or cis, people don’t have kinks.
So, I want to enable more people to get to know a trans person and/or their parents. It’s the best way for them to understand the reality of the situation.
@Michael Reynolds:
MR, can you unpack what we are wrong about?
I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
@Matt Bernius:
It is wrong to insist that a person with the musculature and stature of a male should be allowed to compete with people lacking those advantages.
Now, science may do its science thing and demonstrate that the advantage is illusory. But even if a rock solid report came down from St. Fauci himself, no one will believe it. Yet. Some day? Maybe. Now? No.
We handed them a wedge and we didn’t need to. Only a fool of a general loses the battle by letting himself be drawn into a sideshow skirmish.
And a general, pre-emptive: spare me the, “it doesn’t matter what we hand them, they’ll always come up with something,” wheeze. What a defeatist, loser mentality. We’re helpless cuz of the bully, waaah. They’ve tried using social security as a wedge. How did that go for them? They used gay marriage but overnight that wedge was blunted. Astoundingly we mostly won on bathrooms. We’re only losing on this issue now because we’re letting the most extreme voices on Twitter decide the plan of battle.
@Michael Reynolds:
Ok, ty for the clarification! I really appreciate it. So it sounds like from your perspective the ban would be OK.
I’m asking because my interpretation of your @speech was that your Democratic candidate would oppose/vote against a block.
This was the block that threw me off (if it helps):
Did I get that wrong?
The GOP has been effective at portraying trans girls as just guys wearing dresses, basically – a generalization that a lot of people have bought in to.
In reality, depending on when the girl transitions, how the girl transitions, whether puberty blockers are used etc. there may not be much in the way of male stature and musculature.
If not inclined to take up my “pallets and a forklift” solution, I would suggest the main point is that, unless you are defining according to an Overton window skewed by screeching alt-right loons, the Democrats ARE in the centre.
If you define that as being broadly rational, consensual, open to discussion and so forth. And broadly in line with he majority of public opinion.
The Dems may still have some fringe cases, primarily of entertainment/irritation value depending on your mood on any given day. But there are genuinely the exception that proves the rule.
In economic and social policy, Democrats are still if anything a bit right-of-centre from a Euro p.o.v.; though of course that doesn’t help appealing to the more, umm, upset American exurbanites.
Some you’ll never reach; others, try locally crafted messaging on say economic reforms, where the Biden train is really starting to pick up steam IMO.
Lessons from the UK don’t really map over.
But Starmer and Labour is showing something IMO: you don’t have to be “centrist as defined by the Daily Mail” (read: Fox News) to get to 50/25 in the polls.
See a list of Conference policy proposals (sadly not all will make it to the manifesto, at least this time round). Wonder how they’d be received by the NYT 🙂
The key thing was rejecting the combination of unrealism, anti-westernism, anti-semitism and sheer mean spirited, querulous sectarian unpleasantness of Jeremy Corbyn and his flock of tankies and trots.
Byeee Jezza; and don’t f’in bother to write.
@JohnSF:
Crap I forgot to award you 2 points for creativity and then dock you one for ignoring the prompt!
*TWEET-Yellow Card for the Ref*
I’m benching myself for a bit and going to enjoy some orange slices.
Now, science may do its science thing and demonstrate that the advantage is illusory. But even if a rock solid report came down from St. Fauci himself, no one will believe it. Yet. Some day? Maybe. Now? No.
Yeah, who should we trust more about women’s swimming? The NCAA and women’s swimming, or some old guy on the internet?
You guys make it sound like trans people are suing the NCAA or there are mass protests by high school kids to keep their sports team Volk-pure, when in fact it’s a bunch of old fat white guys sitting around blathering about high school sports.
I think a basic tenet of politics is that politicians need to consider what is popular among their constituents, especially if they want to get reelected. I think the “center” is usually meant as short-hand for what the majority of people who are not political hobbyists at the extremes want, especially in an age when the extremes are louder than ever and also less representative than ever of the normie public.
So this…
…is really contingent on the constituency you are running in and the salience of that particular issue among that constituency. If you are at, say, the state legislature level, then that is going to be highly variable. By contrast, if you’re the candidate for Governor in a purple state, then it may be more difficult. So what I would recommend in terms of tactics would depend on these specifics as well as what one should do while in office vs how to campaign.
The best option, IMO, is usually to just keep your mouth shut. This is especially the case if a politician is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t position. Avoid the topic, and avoid giving the opposition sound bites to use against you. If that’s not possible, then focus on generalities and first principles – don’t commit to a specific bill, but talk about the importance of fairness, both in terms of fair competition and also in terms of the desire to give everyone a chance to compete. For a purple constituency, it’s ok to state the issue is complicated, that the government should really examine the issue and its impacts before making drastic changes, and that there must be a balance that most can accept. Promise to be a fair player in that process.
As for the merits of trans athletes, I’m mostly with Michael and Eddie. The evidence is very strong that male bodies competing against female bodies give the male bodies a significant competitive advantage. Even trans women who have fully transitioned, and have female levels of testosterone, still get an advantage if they went through puberty as a male. And before on this blog we’ve talked about the very rare cases where female athletes can have very high levels of natural testosterone due to their genetics, which gave them physical advantages, and whether that is fair to female athletes who don’t have that advantage. These are tough issues on the merits.
And we shouldn’t forget trans men in sports. One of the problems with proposals that seek to mandate that everyone must compete with their biological sex is that a trans man could be on hormones or fully transitioned. Forcing that person to compete with females would give the trans man a competitive advantage over females as well.
Ultimately this is a value judgment about where one thinks the balance should be struck between an equal playing field in terms of competition vs maximizing inclusion.
My own view is that sex segregation should remain in sports and that trans people should only compete against members of their new gender after they have fully transitioned and have hormone levels comparable to other athletes they are competing against. I think that’s a reasonable compromise.
@Andy:
Focusing on competitive advantages and competitive fairness is fine, appropriate when it is college level competition. At the high school level, I see socialization and social acceptance as relevant considerations also.
This is interesting (from Scientific American):
Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief
@Steven L. Taylor: I agree with that. It follows that there is no “centre” to move towards. The right invents an issue out of whole cloth – quite openly, in the case of CRT – and tries to make party-political mileage from it. The effective response is not to concede the issue is a genuine one which has a “moderate” political solution, but to dismiss the issue as manufactured bullshit.
Policing, on the other hand, is clearly a political matter. Matt’s project might have worked better if he’d asked us to explain how we would adopt more “moderate” positions around the role of police in society, although here again, I’d contend there is nothing “extreme” about the Democratic policies that actually exist. Democrats have to respond to Republicans’ dishonest misrepresentations by finding ways to discredit them. It’s a marketing problem, not a policy one.
You know, there are a lot of women out there who are better at basketball than I am. I know because A) I love playing pickup basketball, and have played with a few of them and B) I am built completely wrong for basketball
Why would we think that there’s any correlation between someone’s build and where they fall on the trans-cis scale? I know a trans woman who does roller derby, and the other women don’t care. My friend was never athletic at all before transitioning. She says she thinks it was she was doing her best to ignore her body. Now she competes – she has some assets, and also liabilities, just like most athletes.
@Jay L Gischer: That was my core opinion, which as you can see, is quite different from how I expect a politician to handle it. That’s the thing, I can say things that politicians can’t really. I don’t necessarily expect them to lead on this kind of thing.
@anjin-san: From the article:
“We find instead that the main difference between the left and right is the belief that the world is inherently hierarchical.”
This is cited as some new discovery, but it’s actually how the terms “left” and “right” first arose. As the story goes, during the French Revolution the people supporting the monarchy were seated literally on the right side of the court, supporters of the revolution on the left. Since then, the terms have been used to differentiate those who believe in maintaining traditional hierarchies and those who wish to break down those hierarchies and make society more egalitarian. Of course it’s a lot more complicated than that in practice, but the basic concept has stayed with us to the present day. It’s why, for example, labor rights and feminism are associated more with the left, laissez faire and cultural traditionalism more with the right.
@Kylopod: @anjin-san:
I don’t know—take your average upper middle-class liberal family and have their Ivy grad daughter marry a guy named Jim Bob (or Jamal) who is a security guard at TJ Maxx and you’re going to see a few inherent hierarchies in the mix.
Cultural politics has become focused on the men are men/women are women idiots, and it’s become a drag to the level of insanity. We’re talking about political solutions designed to unresolve what’s already been resolved by people whose job it is to deal with the problem. It’s actually like a lack of respect for any hierarchy that doesn’t flatter the prejudices of someone stuck in 1993 in perpetuity.
https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1633600653338484739
First they came for the athletes, but I did not care as I was not an athlete.
@charon:
FWIW, while I appreciate the discussion this generated, I kinda regret choosing this topic–especially given that tweet.
If I had it to do over again, I think I would have chosen Drag Shows (Steven Taylor’s suggestion in a separate conversation) as I think it is ultimately a less charges issue.
Either way the court/field/pitch is open for everyone’s reflections for a bit longer and then I will share my thoughts on this experiment in a summation post.
@Matt Bernius:
Less charged? It’s not an issue at all. It’s a completely made-up controversy that the right is using as another means to attack gay and trans people. There’s no moderation or compromise available: it’s just the right being vile bigots, and everyone else realizing it and rejecting it. And unlike trans issues, it’s not something where you can reasonably say it’s new to most Americans. Drag has been around for eons, and outside of a few very narrow circles has been basically uncontroversial for decades–until now.
@Kylopod: I don’t think it is less charged, but I do think drag show bans illustrate the problem of “going to the center” for political purposes.
But really, it is hard to “go to the center” on any binary choice. If the choice is “ban or not ban” then either one capitulates to the ban or one doesn’t. And once you have to have a philosophical argument about why “not ban” is ok, you are likely going to win any of the “ban” folks to your side.
Quite frankly, as it pertains to trans rights broadly defined, the only way the Dems can move the issue to the “center” is to just not talk about them. (And is that “moving to the center” or is that capitulation? Or is Teixeira’s argument really not about the center, but in simply abandoning certain issues?–And, indeed, what some commenters here seem to want on issues of racial politics?)
@Steven L. Taylor:
I think we can be diplomatic and say that the world is changing faster than some are comfortable with, but it’s very telling that the moderate position is that we should ignore what the NCAA thinks about women’s swimming and focus on what older guys with Substacks believe.
It’s like compromising about medical issue by overruling what the medical establishment thinks, which is obviously what one side wants with trans rights. It’s not a compromise.
@Matt Bernius:
I suppose it would depend on the details, but banning drag shows seems like a no-brainer since it’s clearly unconstitutional on freedom of association grounds. It would, therefore, be easy to argue against such a ban on those grounds without having to either promote or condemn the idea of drag or drag shows. One could also argue that passing such a law is just stupid, because it would get legally challenged, overturned, and cost the state a lot of money and effort for no good reason, which is something that people who hate drag could reasonably argue.
Trans people in competitive sports is a better example for what I think you were doing with this post because it is a difficult question that involves real tradeoffs – at least for Democrats. As Eddie stated, this is a “losing issue” for Democrats, and “losing issue” is a euphemism for “really unpopular with the general public.”
@Matt Bernius:
If I were voting I’d vote consistently to expand trans rights while making clear that I am not 100% on board, but that’s the way voting on legislation tends to work. A bill I agree with 80% is a bill I’ll support. I don’t think it’s a bad idea for politicians to be honest about the compromises they make. In fact I’d include in my stump speech that there’d be times when I’d have to hold my nose over the 20% in order to get the 80%. Voters already know there’s some hypocrisy and inconsistency in politics – I’d make that a feature rather than a bug.
@Michael Reynolds:
Would that also include voting against legislation that restricts rights? The prompt was legislation
banning trans athletes at the high school level.requiring all high school athletes to only compete against other athletes based on their gender at birth. [TY Andy].Do you try to block or vote down? Or, given that you think that this is a losing issue (see below), would you vote for the measure?
@Michael Reynolds:
I might be wrong, but that sounds like 80% agreement and as you said:
@matt bernius:
What do you mean by “banning trans athletes” specifically? If you mean what those words commonly mean – preventing trans people from participating in any athletics at all, I think that just wouldn’t fly. I haven’t followed this issue super closely, but most of the proposed legislation doesn’t ban trans athletes, it bans them from competing with and against people of a different sex.
@Andy:
You are correct that I was using the phrasing that Democrats and other opponents of that legislation would use. It should be “only complete based on their gender at birth.”
*TWEET!! REF PENALTY*
I’m going to drop and give myself 20.
@matt bernius:
I’d abstain or oppose on the grounds that I won’t help malicious actors even when there are areas of agreement. That’s less about ideology and more about oppositional defiance disorder. I react strongly to being manipulated. It’s of a piece with my policy on bullying which is, ‘never be bullied, no matter what.’ Never.
Then I’d give a speech sneering at the adolescent trouble-making of legislators who could not be bothered to do anything useful, but always had time to shit on a vulnerable minority. “I find myself broadly in agreement with much of the gentleman’s proposal, but I simply cannot stomach the deliberate nastiness behind it, the contempt for anyone different. I will do nothing to support this kind of malice, or this gutter level pandering for votes. When the gentleman is ready to have a rational, adult discussion on the issue, I’d be happy to engage. But I was elected to help people with their lives, to solve real problems, not to engage in cheap stunts. I’ve never been a big fan of clowns.”
@Michael Reynolds:
Thanks for the clarification.
So voting no or abstaining.
@Michael Reynolds:
MR, FYI, I am most likely going to build a post off this. Not because I disagree with this position–in fact I support it. And I think it also demonstrates the challenge with centrism and culture war edge issues in politics. Given my schedule that probably won’t happen until this weekend. With your ok, I’d like to reach out privately to you about it because I’d love to give you the chance to respond not in comments if you were interested. Let me know and I can email you.