2014 was years before it became a mainstream cry to treat trans women as cis women. I didn’t really hear or notice this until the late 2010s.
I also believe the trans community hurt itself and its own members by pushing this narrative/falling into this trap, though things like the bathroom bill made it inevitable?
Perhaps it’s old fashioned, but what I believe is an acknowledgement and celebration of differences. What the new generation pushed is hiding those differences; by pretending there are none.
It’s much harder to argue against “let’s all agree we’re all human and make this work”.
> 2014 was years before it became a mainstream cry to treat trans women as cis women. I didn’t really hear or notice this until the late 2010s.
That's because somehow you only managed to notice the protests against the rollback of protections by those favoring discrimination but somehow missed the long push for those protections that led up to the federal policy wins (many of which were in 2014, specifically) including:
* Executive Order 13672 (explicitly prohibiting discrimination on gender identity or sexual orientation for federal agencies and federal contractors)
* Formal DoJ guidance that discrimination on the basis of gender identity was included within the scope of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—an interpretation later validated by the US Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020).
* A wide array of regulatory and administrative actions by other federal agencies, mostly applying the same logic as the DoJ guidance referenced above to other existing sex-discrimination provisions in law an regulation.
In the past no one cared about cis or trans because it didn't matter, but they found how it could be used for political leverage to divert attention away from more important things like the actual quality of work.
In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software. It is only natrual to want to turn open source communities to be explicitly accepting.
Not convinced trans (especially trans women) weren't already over-represented prior as open source allows low barriers to join and anonymity on top of predominantly male (and trans women) + young.
You may not be convinced but I am simply stating my experience. I would be open to proof of the opposite. This is also seen in other open source adjacent communities around the world (eg: hacker conventions)
> In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software
It was "your" claim about others and in general ("you could see"), i.e., not mine or your anecdotal awareness.
> I would be open to proof of the opposite.
It's on you to prove LGBT, especially T, weren't already over-represented (versus typical population) in open source prior to the 2010s.
I think this sub-thread (specific: trans) on Python Foundation's DEI (general) got supercharged with a claim that Hillary would've championed trans rights. To me, she was always very transactional and would've adopted "rainbow capitalism" approaches that optimize branding premiums with little substance.
Meanwhile, trans rights have always been a favorite of marxists as an in-direct tool to attack capitalism (nuclear family, property rights, etc.)
Worse than that, they've been a favorite for men to attack women. It's the most sexist policy for a long time, harking back to an era of misogyny that should have long since been left behind.
> It wasn't exactly the Streisand effect, but I remember thinking the whole flourishing of trans rights and acceptance between 2017 and 2021 never would have happened if Hillary had won. Is there a name for this phenomenon?
2017-2021 wasn't a flourishing of trans rights and acceptance, it was the big wave of active discrimination by, particularly, state-level Republican governments against previous progress in that dimension. That made the issue more visible, but specifically because it was the exact opposite of a flourishing of trans rights and acceptance.
But, sure, it probably would have looked a bit different if there had been a federal administration likely to defend rather than abandon that progress (but it probably still would have happened.)
> 2017-2021 wasn't a flourishing of trans rights and acceptance, it was the big wave of active discrimination
Right, I didn't make the point clearly enough, I meant that pushback and resistance to what you mentioned created more net sympathy and progress. My hypothesis is that the ugliness of the extremism turns off all but their base.
I don't understand the implication of your first sentence.
The NC Bathroom Bill passed in March 2016, and it had an immediate flurry of corporate backlash that lasted to the partial repeal in 2017. The bill was part of a growing amount of anti-trans rhetoric (and legislation) from the Republicans starting a few years before. But it was the first bathroom bill AFAICT.
Are you saying that the Republicans would have been less likely to pass that bill under a Clinton presidency? If so, what's the extraordinary evidence for that?
Alternatively, if you are saying they would have been more emboldened to pass it, are you suggesting that the backlash would have been smaller under a Clinton presidency? That's in the realm of possibility, but again what's the evidence here? Obama had already shifted to supporting gay marriage before the relevant Supreme Court case (probably due to Biden's gaffe of pre-emptively announcing his own support for it). So I just don't see why you would assume a Clinton presidency would effectively muzzle support for trans rights in this case, or have any effect whatsoever on the NC Bill and its aftermath.
Yes, if the running government is seen to be anti-trans, it makes sense that trans supporters will show more support.
Likewise for every topic that is under contest, including right wing topics.
As an aside, I'd say calling it "the Streisand effect" could be seen to be hinting that if people just stopped support trans so strongly, there would be less backlash. That might be true, but given trans people have historically suffered abuse, it would be risky for trans supporters to let things settle and hope for the best.
