Sarah McBride is a coward
The Delaware Congresswoman hasn't risen to meet the dire moment we as a community are facing.
I know the title seems a bit too vitriolic, but please bear with me.
About a day ago, an article was put out detailing the reshuffling in the Democratic Party when it comes to trans rights. In it, we got a quote from the first trans rep, Sarah McBride saying in an interview to NOTUS:
The Delaware congresswoman has cautioned moderate Democrats that the tenor and tone of their comments — particularly on questioning trans athletes in sports, which is where most of the debate has focused — might inflame and splinter factions instead of being productive.
“We have to create more space in our tent. If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride told NOTUS.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” McBride continued. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds and, most importantly, winning progress.”
This quote, specifically the section where she talks about creating more space in the tent, can really only be interpreted as one thing: The Democratic Party is going to adopt the Gavin Newsom playbook, and invite anti-trans voices. This infuriated me for many reasons, which we will get to, but it just stings like a motherfucker to hear this from the person that is the first trans rep in US history.
This article aims to do two things: One, serve as an apology of sorts to those of you who read my two articles on Sarah and how I tried to vociferously defend her, when both then and now, her actions were indefensible, and two, to just break down that quote specifically and how it just validates the reason why many in the trans community, including me, think she is a coward.
I’d say that McBride’s borderline cowardice started before she was even elected into Congress. She was coming into a Congressional chamber that, for all intents and purposes, hated her. And what did she do after the Republican majority in the House passed a rule banning trans women from using female bathrooms on the Hill? She took the high road and acted mature. At the time, when I wrote my initial article on this, I said that she shouldnt give any airtime to these type of things, she should brush them off:
Moreover, even if she gave airtime to the attacks, it would probably reinforce the stereotype that all of us are a bunch of colored hair crybabies that will whine over everything. That would be the front page of every single conservative website for days on end. So, instead of making her situation even worse, she picked her battle, took the high road, and made them look like the idiots.
At the time, I defended her and said that we as a community should reserve judgement on her until we see her record on trans issues being brought up in a Congressional bill.
But the attacks kept coming. And she didn’t rise and say anything. And its not like a overly high fire was needed, we just needed something that proved that she wasn’t going to take any of their crap. I've mentioned this before, but we were seeing better examples of bigger fire elsewhere. Take State Rep. Zooey Zephyr from Montana, for example. She’s been fighting anti trans laws for years now. For example, when an anti trans law was brought before the Montana State Legislature, she vociferously spoke against it, saying:
"Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community," she said, exasperated. "At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago… There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you… it was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history," she began.
“When the sponsor closed on this bill, he said, this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud within a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children, we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”
This is the fire needed. This is what Rep McBride should have done. Calm fury.
But no. She didn’t say anything back, further emboldening them. However, when the attacks started to get bigger, she didn’t respond. She didn’t do anything.
No one in the party came to her aid, she didn’t help herself with anything.
And that brings us to the present, with this interview from NOTUS.
Now why does this infuriate me? For one reason mainly: My two articles trying to defend her from what I thought was unnecessary hatred.
I wrote two articles defending her as best as I could from the criticism (which was 100% warranted, let me be clear) she was getting from the trans community. At the time, I had just believed that she was just being judged too harshly. Now reading this quote, I just feel appalled.
I held so much hope that this would be the first step towards us finally getting a fair seat at the table. I thought we had someone who was going to fight for us from the Red Nazi’s and their blatant genocidal attacks on our community. But now, based on this quote, I’m lead to believe that she isn’t going to. That she’s privy to the Democratic Party’s inaction on trans rights, and refuses to do anything about it.
I feel mad at myself for even trying to defend her. Had this come out earlier, I probably wouldn’t have written those pieces in defense of her.
Anyways, back on topic. It’s this section of the quote that I want to focus on the most, because I find it the most interesting:
-that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride told NOTUS.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” McBride continued. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds and, most importantly, winning progress.”
Ms. McBride, if you don’t mind me asking, how on Earth is providing a binary choice for trans rights “not constructive”?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, trans rights, by nature, is a binary choice! You are either all in on trans rights, or not at all. No in between. So, saying that you cant have a binary choice is just not true, simply for the fact that the choice that Rep. McBride is talking about, is by its very nature, binary.
Trans rights, or the rights of anyone for that matter, aren’t something that can have a spectrum of opinions. For example, If someone who says they are an ally says: “Like, Oh yeah, I support them, but not in sports” that is being transphobic. You just can not say that you support trans people, but not in sports. That’s a contradiction waiting to happen.
And how the hell is this winning progress? The only progress here would be for the Red Nazi’s to progress their rampant genocidal attacks with next to no resistance from your party, at least from the leadership.
This will not win progress for the trans community. If anything, having “fair weather allies”, those being allies who only support until it reaches a point no longer benefiting to them, that’s potentially only going to give the Red Nazi’s more allies, and make them believe that they can do this and have the country on their side with no resistance.
I have a feeling that this quote is something that Rep. McBride is saying as a justification to justify her cowardice on the rampant trans genocide that is happening right now. Is there a possibility I could be wrong about this? Yes, but I believe it to be very small. She hasn’t said anything that would even be interpreted as a response to these anti trans laws, especially with her being a trans woman. And that is cowardly.
Look at Rep. Zephyr in Montana. She has been fighting all the anti trans laws, like the one I mentioned earlier, for years, with a calm, furious fire. That is who Sarah McBride needs to strive to be. Put simply, she needs her own inner Zooey Zephyr.
Because her inaction, or flat out cowardice isn’t smart. She isn’t playing some smart strategy.
She and her cowardice, is effectively giving us on a platter to the Red Nazi’s.
Shameful.
I know it’s a complicated place for Sarah. She unfortunately doesn’t have strength in numbers, because the real cowards are her cis Democratic colleagues who won’t come to the defense of trans people. It shouldn’t all fall on her. I can imagine she is so afraid of making a misstep because she doesn’t want to seem like she is JUST the trans congresswoman and that’s all she cares about. Yes, it’s fucking dire straights for us right now, but all eyes are on her.
However - you’re right, there was no reason she needed to sign on to the Gavin Newsom playbook.
The people that she’s talking about - these voters who would need the tent to become bigger to allow them in, ie they need handholding through their soft bigotry - they’re the ones that she can be an example to, of, hey, you’ve likely never actually seen a trans person in real life before (that you know of), and jesus christ, look how fucking normal I am and how I want the same things everyone else does and I’m not the freak the right wing media has told you I am. People (who aren’t brainwashed Christian Nationalists) would come around if they just knew a trans person IRL. A lot of them actually do, we’re just passing and stealth.
She can still strike a “quieter” tone if she’d like to, honestly that seems to be her political style in the first place - while still not selling out. Still, when you’re the “first” of any group, I would think it is hard not to play respectability politics. There is a lot of pressure on her and she’s been threatened with literal physical violence by her own congressional colleagues ffs, so some of it is absolutely a safety consideration for her.
As a transgender woman, I hold perspectives that differ from yours. I believe that effecting meaningful change requires being in positions of power. Currently, the Democratic Party faces challenges due to a lack of strong leadership and unity, hindering its ability to drive change. In my senior leadership role within my company, I view Sarah’s approach as mature and forward-thinking. By focusing on inclusivity and avoiding alienation of voters, she aims to restore the Democrats to power, enabling them to implement the changes we seek.