From the article I posted:

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.