Necessary background: In October 2024, I published Trans People and Sports: Everything You Need to Know, an in-depth essay countering all the misinformation and disinformation regarding this topic. In it, I pointed out that every single U.S. state that has passed laws banning trans athletes has gone on to pass additional anti-trans laws—in fact, 27 out of 29 such states have banned gender-affirming care for trans youth as well. Furthermore, many of these same states have also passed “don’t say gay” laws and other policies that negatively impact LGBTQ+ people more generally. In all seriousness, MAGA Republicans (which is virtually all Republicans these days) don’t give a shit about women’s sports—some even openly discuss eliminating them. In their minds, trans athlete bans are just the first step toward pushing all LGBTQ+ people out of the public sphere.
In February of this year, my essay Trans rights aren’t tanking the Democrats was published in Boston Review (it also exists as a video essay). In it, I reviewed numerous lines of evidence demonstrating that 1) poll after poll shows that U.S. voters rank transgender issues among the least important to them, 2) Republican’s anti-trans attack ads do not help them win over new voters, although it may help them mobilize their deeply anti-LGBTQ+ white evangelical base, and 3) Democrats who cave on trans rights in response to said ads will not win over new voters either (for all the aforementioned reasons), although they are likely to alienate their own largely pro-trans/LGBTQ+ base. If you doubt this, the essay links to numerous polls and political analyses in support of these points.
I ended the essay with multiple ways Democrats can counteract Republican anti-trans ads: “critique them as baseless fearmongering, as government overreach, as interfering with personal family decisions. . . a distraction from ‘kitchen table’ issues,” and so on. They can make boilerplate statements about how all people deserve equal rights, or (to quote Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear) “all children are children of God.” Or they can go on the offensive and call their trans-obsessed opponents “weird” or “genital inspectors.” Sadly, today in September 2026, Democratic politicians can also reply to women’s-sports-related questions by saying: “in the last few years, trans athletes have already been banned from the Olympics, World Aquatics & World Athletics, the NCAA, and in K–12 in 29 different U.S. states—so why are Republican’s still so irrationally fixated on this issue?”
Democrats can choose from any of those options and more, tailoring them to best fit their campaigns and constituencies.
On top of that, those running in this year’s midterms have been gifted perhaps the best retort ever: Elon Musk (via his America PAC) is spending about $100 million dollars across multiple midterm races, almost all of it on anti-trans attack ads. This creates a perfect opportunity for Democrats to tie their GOP opponents’ anti-trans ads to Musk—the Nazi saluting, DOGE perpetrating, data center pushing, CSAM enabling, Epstein-adjacent, virulent racist, who (not coincidentally) happens to be the vengeful father of a trans child (who he insists is “dead” to him). Musk is the world’s richest man and he is literally trying to buy out-of-state elections! If you are a Democratic politician who doesn’t know how to take advantage of this, I honestly don’t know what to tell you.
But unfortunately, rather than taking that route, several Democratic candidates have chosen to cave on trans issues instead. Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico is perhaps the most disappointing example, especially given his earlier statements in seeming support of trans people. Back in March, he responded to questions about trans athletes with this excellent line: “The only minority destroying this country is the billionaires.” But in more recent comments, he has backtracked on trans athletes and come out in favor of a national law that would restrict gender-affirming care for trans youth.
Even more extreme positions have been espoused by Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek, who responded to questions about trans athletes with actual anti-trans activist language: “I don’t believe that biological males should compete against females in sports” (see Assumption #1 below for more context). And according to his campaign spokesperson, Turek “opposes taxpayer-funded sex changes”—as journalist Erin Reed pointed out, “This would include Medicaid and adult care.”
In a separate Bluesky thread, Reed also observed that, despite Talarico’s and Turek’s capitulation on trans sports and healthcare, their opponents and/or Elon Musk have continued to barrage them with anti-trans attack ads. This is unsurprising to anyone who has been paying any attention over the last five years. As I explained in the first paragraph: Republican’s will keep pushing further and further on this issue until all LGBTQ+ people are eliminated from the public sphere. There is no meeting them “halfway” on this.
As these events unfolded over the last week, trans people have publicly expressed our disappointment, frustration, and outrage. On my particular corner of social media (Bluesky), I saw many cisgender people doing the same. I’m sure many of these allies have trans friends, colleagues, relatives, partners, or children whom they are concerned about (as I discuss in my Boston Review essay).
However, I also saw other cisgender people—some random accounts, others quite high profile—express concern or anger at trans people for potentially “hurting” Talarico, Turek, et al.’s campaigns. Some even accused us of essentially “handing the race” (and possibly the Senate majority) to Republicans. There are so many assumptions crammed into these accusations that I need to unpack them all one by one before directly responding to Talarico, Turek, and other Democrats who have recently thrown trans people under the bus.
Assumption #1: These politicians’ positions are not that big of a deal, trans people are merely overreacting
This assumption is especially common regarding sports. But as I discuss in my Trans People and Sports essay, the language and rationale behind trans sports bans (e.g., that trans girls and women are “biological males”) is the exact same language and framing that red states and the Trump administration have used to deny trans people driver’s licenses and passports, gender-affirming care, access to restrooms, jobs in the military, and so forth. This is why sports are not a compromise position!
If you doubt this, can I ask you, have you ever once heard a Democratic politician say, “I’m opposed to trans people playing sports, but I will fight for their rights on every other issue”? No, you haven’t! Nobody ever says that. Because once they cave on trans sports, it’s a sign that they are willing to backpedal on other trans rights if it is politically expedient for them (as we’ve just seen with Talarico and Turek embracing restrictions on both trans athletes and trans healthcare).
Assumption #2: Trans people are a brand-new minority group, so you just need to be patient until the rest of society is finally ready to accept you
If you seriously believe this, then you are completely clueless. Transgender people are a pancultural and transhistorical phenomenon (we have always been here), plus we played a central role in the gay liberation movement of the 1960s. As I put it in my Boston Review essay:
I’ve been involved in trans communities since the early 1990s, and during that entire time trans people have acted locally—in their schools, workplaces, and communities—to increase awareness and challenge discriminatory practices. The International Olympic Committee began allowing trans athletes to compete way back in 2004, and gender-affirming care for trans youth is now almost three decades old. These are not by any means “novel” or “radical” developments.
When I transitioned 25 years ago, trans people were able to get our documents changed to reflect our current lived sex in most jurisdictions. But since 2025, the Trump administration and several red states have reversed those policies. In other words, trans people are not asking for new rights, we are losing rights that we’ve had for decades!
So whenever a Democrat comes out in favor of trans sports bans or restrictions on trans healthcare, those are not neutral positions, they are actively participating in the rolling back of trans rights that have long existed!
Assumption #3: Red state Democratic politicians have to cater to their more conservative constituencies
As I alluded to earlier, Andy Beshear is the twice-elected Democratic Governor of Kentucky. If he can unflinchingly stand up for his trans constituents, so can your favorite candidate.
I am aware that some political sentiments vary greatly across states (e.g., gun rights). And of course, red states typically have more anti-trans/LGBTQ+ voters than blue states, but that’s largely because they have disproportionately more white evangelicals. Those white evangelicals (and other religious-right voters) are never going to switch parties no matter how many anti-trans positions a Democratic candidate takes. And (as previously discussed), independent and swing voters tend not to be interested in transgender issues at all, so there are no new voters to pick up by embracing anti-trans positions, even in red states (once again, see my Boston Review essay).
If you showed me a poll with verifiable evidence that your favorite Democratic candidate would gain an additional 3 to 5 percent of the electorate if they reversed positions on trans rights, I would hate that news, but at least I would understand the strategy. But there are no such polls! None! If such polls existed, The New York Times, Matthew Yglesias, and countless other “popularist” pundits would be writing about them non-stop. But they got nothing. All they have are “vibes” that Democrats will likely be better off without trans people supposedly “weighing them down.” (I’ll let readers decide for themselves where those “vibes” are coming from.)
Assumption #4: The elephant in the room that no one is talking about
There is a striking disconnect between Talarico, Turek, et al.—who have clearly made a political calculation that abandoning trans rights will help them more than it will hurt them in this election—and the many cisgender liberals I’ve encountered online who are absolutely freaking out over the possibility that trans people’s critiques and protests will ultimately tank said candidates.
Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true!
If you think your favorite candidate enacted the correct political strategy, then there is no reason to berate trans people for protesting it, as those protests should already be baked into your candidate’s calculations. So why are you berating trans people then? (Unless, of course, you enjoy berating trans people just for the sake of it.)
Alternatively, if you think trans people *are* capable of tanking your favorite candidate via our criticisms and protests, doesn’t that imply that your candidate (and their consultants and strategists) totally fucked up in their political calculations here? And if they did fuck up, shouldn’t you be reaching out and complaining to *them* (rather than berating trans people), in the hope that they might reverse their bad decision?
In other words, why are we blaming trans people for a decision that was made by cisgender politicians, consultants, and strategists? I think I know the reason . . .
Assumption #5: If Democrats lose the Senate, it will be trans people’s fault
I’ve seen numerous cis people online explicitly saying this over the last few days, even though it’s inane and completely misplaced for all the reasons that I just laid out in Assumption #4. But if it strikes a familiar chord, that’s probably because many cis politicians and pundits tried to blame trans people for Kamala Harris’s 2024 election loss, even though 1) trans people were not running her campaign! and 2) she lost for reasons that had nothing to do with the anti-trans attack ads that targeted her (discussed in more depth here).
So why are so many cis people determined to blame trans people for political outcomes that we did not cause?
Well, that could be an entire essay unto itself. In fact, I’m in the process of writing an academic paper (that will hopefully be published next year) on the “asking for it” trope: the unconscious tendency to blame marginalized/minority groups for things that the dominant/majority group has actively done to them. If you want a sneak-peak into my thinking, I’ve previously expressed some of these ideas in my Prejudice and the Unmarked/Marked Mindset essay and video (especially during the “activists gone too far trope” section, about 17 minutes in).
Assumption #6: Trans people should wait until after these Democratic candidates are elected before putting pressure on them to change their positions
Are you fucking kidding me? That is not how politics works at all.
Imagine for a moment that Talarico or Turek or some other Democrat conceded a different (non-trans-related) issue to their Republican opponent. For instance, what if they said that, if elected to the Senate, they would vote for a nation-wide ban on mifepristone. Would you expect women and other pro-choice voters to “keep quiet” until after the election before speaking out against that position? Of course you wouldn’t!
If that doesn’t persuade you, just think for a moment about a political issue that is most important to you personally. Do you have it in mind? Now imagine how you would react if a Democratic Senate candidate conceded that issue to Republicans. Wouldn’t you immediately and loudly protest their position change? To let the candidate know that they made the wrong decision, in the hope that they might eventually reverse course?
Or how about this: Imagine that Republicans were specifically set on revoking *your rights*: Your access to healthcare, public restrooms, driver’s licenses and passports, and so forth. If their Democratic Senate opponent sided with them, would you simply keep quiet and patiently wait for some imaginary future timepoint when (according to people on the internet who don’t actually give a shit about you) you can “properly” express your concerns?
If people told you to keep quiet when *your rights* were on the chopping block, wouldn’t that sound condescending if not downright cruel to you?
Assumption #7: Trans people are selfish and only thinking of themselves
Assumption #8: Trans people will be way worse off if the Republican wins
I am grouping these together because they are both common responses, sometimes espoused by the same person, even though they are inherently contradictory. The former tacitly recognizes that protesting the Democratic candidate in question is in trans people’s best interest, while the latter suggests that it’s not in our best interest. So which is it? It can’t be both!
While contradictory, Assumptions #7 and 8 can both be used toward the same end goal, namely, dismissing trans people’s perspectives. They are both “polite” ways of telling trans people to “shut the fuck up.”
Regarding Assumption #7: If you sincerely engaged in the thought experiment in the last section, you can see why this “selfish” accusation is deranged. It’s *our rights* that are on the chopping block, so of course we are speaking out. And if *your rights* are not currently on the chopping block (insert “First They Came” reference here), then you are the one being selfish by telling us to put aside our concerns for yours!
Regarding Assumption #8: This isn’t necessarily true. One only needs to look at the UK, where Labour (the center-left party that is analogous to Democrats here) tried to appease anti-trans activists in an attempt to garner broader support, but it completely backfired, and now they have alienated much of their base (a lesson that Democrats should pay heed to). And now with both major UK parties embracing anti-trans policies, trans people face a nation-wide situation that is arguably worse than it is in most red states.
There is a strong case to be made that trans people would be better off with a Democratic party that stands up for trans rights, even if it meant them losing the occasional election or two. But as I’ve been saying (once again, please consult my Boston Review essay), there is no credible evidence that supporting trans rights has hurt any candidate in any state-wide or national election.
This is the thing that really baffles me: Trans (and LGBTQ+ people more generally) currently vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. And there is zero evidence that abandoning us will help garner any additional votes for Democrats. In other words, there are only votes to be lost here. So given this, why the fuck are Democratic candidates and consultants trying to throw us overboard? It’s almost as if they simply want to purge trans people from the party, even if it hurts Democrats’ prospects in the long run (especially given how pro-trans/LGBTQ+ younger voters are). Which brings us to . . .
Assumption #9: Vote blue no matter who
This is a popular slogan intended to encourage leftist, liberal, and centrist voters to all band together in order to oppose and defeat MAGA and all of its authoritarian and fascistic tendencies. I’ve expressed my desire for trans people to be a part of such a coalition many times, including in the Afterword to the 3rd edition of Whipping Girl (p.387). And speaking for myself, I have on many occasions voted for Democrats (including in every Presidential election this millennium) who were way more moderate or centrist than I preferred, because I thought they were a better option than their Republican opponents.
But of course, none of those Democrats campaigned on rolling back my rights.
Whenever I publicly criticize Democrats who flirt with or outright promote anti-trans positions, random social media accounts will appear seemingly out of thin air to insist that I must “vote blue no matter who.” When they say this, it is most certainly not in the spirit of building a mutually beneficial coalition—as I’ve argued, that would involve *them* contacting the Democratic politician in question and petitioning them to not abandon trans people, since that would shrink the coalition.
Rather, when these strangers bark “vote blue no matter who” at me, they are essentially accusing me of being “divisive” for not “voting blue” (even though I haven’t actually said who I’m voting for; see final section below).
In my book Excluded—which examines the recurring problem of how marginalized groups are often excluded from movements that they have a stake in—I discuss (on p.57) how the word “divisive” is a red flag for me. To paraphrase that passage: When trans people critique trans-exclusion within our own communities and coalitions, we are often called “divisive” for doing so. In contrast, I have never once heard anyone use the word “divisive” to describe cis people who promote or tacitly support trans-exclusion (in this case, Talarico, Turek, et al.). The fact that acts that marginalize trans people are not typically described as being “divisive” implies that there is a presumed and unspoken “one-ness” that exists in people’s minds that implicitly precludes trans people.
I’d argue that the central issue here isn’t what candidate X says about trans athletes or trans healthcare (although that is certainly important), or what trans person Y says in response. Rather, it’s that many cisgender Democrats will by default view Y as divisive and X as not. And by doing so, they are essentially communicating (whether they realize it or not) that trans people are not really a part of the Democratic coalition in their eyes: We are either votes to be taken for granted or else “dead weight” that the party should drop.
Everyone is fixating on what trans people are saying about Talarico, Turek, et al., or how we might vote come November, but they have it all completely backwards. Trans people are not the problem here—we are merely reacting to what (overwhelmingly cisgender) Republicans and Democrats are doing to us. This is a cisgender problem. Cisgender Democrats have to decide whether y’all want us (and our heretofore reliable votes) to be a part of the anti-MAGA coalition moving forward or not. I sincerely hope (for your sake and mine) that you ultimately recognize the value that trans people bring to the coalition, and that you stop blaming us for the actions of anti-trans bigots and trans-exclusionary candidates.
Enough with all these assumptions Julia, just tell us who you are voting for!
So you do realize that asking me that is a trap, right?
If I were to say, completely hypothetically, “vote for Talarico” or “abstain from Turek” (or any other permutation), some people will get mad at me for choosing an option that they disagree with, and they will likely blame it on the fact that I am transgender (“trans people are so irrational, selfish, overly sensitive, cult-like,” etc.). Once again, see my Prejudice and the Unmarked/Marked Mindset essay/video, which delves into this unconscious tendency.
Other cis people will presume that my opinions must reflect the entire trans community (because people compulsively stereotype minority groups as being “all the same”). In this scenario, if another trans woman decided to abstain from voting for Talarico due to his anti-trans positions, some cisgender Democrat is likely to say, “well Julia Serano said she’s voting for Talarico,” as if that’s some kind of trump card that invalidates her decision (once again, the minority group is or should be “all the same” in their eyes).
And in this scenario, if Turek were to lose, there is a 100 percent chance that some cisgender Democrats will blame me and other trans people for the loss, rather than Turek and his campaign’s bad decision-making (or any of the countless other factors that might have influenced the election).
In my opinion, this is the very worst part of all this: If Talarico, Turek, et al. lose their elections, cis Democratic pundits and consultants will inevitably blame the loss on trans people (just as they did with Harris’s election) no matter how we vote, and they will use it as an excuse to throw us under the bus during the next round of elections. Alternatively, if Talarico, Turek, et al. win their elections, these same dipshit cis Democratic pundits and consultants will use those wins as supposed evidence that “moderating on trans issues” (read: rescinding trans rights) is a politically sound strategy.
Like I said, Democrats have a cisgender problem. And we’re going to go through cycle after cycle after cycle of this until either 1) Republicans stop demonizing trans people (which I don’t see happening any time soon), 2) cis Democrats purge transphobic and trans-exclusionary candidates from their ranks (my preferred option and also best for the party in the long run), or 3) cis Democrats allow transphobic and trans-exclusionary politicians and pundits to flourish and purge trans people from the party (in which case, I hope you enjoy your smaller coalition).
As I was finishing this piece, I saw a political writer whose work I appreciate by and large suggest that Democrats feel “blackmailed” when trans people start talking about potentially abstaining from voting for candidates like Talarico, Turek, et al. To be clear, he wasn’t saying that we are blackmailing them, just that many people feel this way. And if this is truly how many cis Democrats feel, well, I have to say that’s the most ass-backwards thing I’ve ever heard! Trans people are not in control of what is happening here (we are a mere 1 percent of the population). We are simply reacting to what cis politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) are doing to us.
If anything, trans people are the ones being proverbially blackmailed by cis Democrats, who seem to be telling us: “So here’s the deal, you’re gonna vote for the Democratic candidate who says he’s gonna take away some of your rights. And if you don’t vote for him, then we’re gonna to blame the election loss on you.”
Trans people are people. And politics works the exact same way on us as it does for everyone else. If you’re a politician or a political party, then you’re going to strive to build yourself a winning coalition. You will do this by saying what you are for and what you are against. Depending upon the principles and policies you forward, some voters will be drawn to you and others not so much. You can’t please everybody. But you are the ultimate “decider” of said policies and principles! And if you decide to ignore, discard, or demonize a particular constituency, it is inevitable that *some* of them will become disenchanted and may turn elsewhere when it comes to election day.
For the love of God, stop blaming trans people for all of this! Blame the cisgender politicians and consultants who are ignoring, discarding, and demonizing us. Call them divisive, as they are the ones who are attempting to divide our current anti-MAGA coalition in the name of (misguided) political expediency.
I will end this essay by officially declaring that I won’t be voting for either Talarico or Turek this election. Because I live in California. But if I did live in Texas or Iowa, I’m not sure how I’d vote just yet. There is still almost two months to go. Maybe one or both of them reverses course on trans issues? Or maybe they double down on their anti-trans talking points? This is why I will not stop speaking out about this issue, because there is still time to influence their campaigns.
But I will say this: If you are a Democrat who flirts with or outright promotes anti-trans positions, it makes me want nothing to do with you. If you are ever in a Democratic primary that I can vote in, I will almost certainly vote for one of your opponents over you. And there is no chance in hell that I will donate money or campaign for you. And I will likely frequently mention (whenever the subject comes up) that you sold out transgender people.
If or when I ever do this, it’s not because I’m petty (or irrational, selfish, overly sensitive, cult-like, etc.). It’s because I know that you don’t have my best interests at heart. And why would I, as an informed voter, support someone who has very clearly communicated that you don’t give a shit about me?
This essay was made possible by my Patreon supporters — if you appreciate it, please consider supporting me there! You can also sign up for a paid or free subscription here: