Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress, recently offered a critical assessment of the strategies and tactics employed by transgender activists over the past five years. Speaking this week, McBride conceded that approaches reliant on confrontation and isolating opponents have not only failed to advance their objectives but have actively contributed to a decline in public support for transgender-related policies. Her remarks represent a significant internal critique from a prominent figure within the movement, shifting focus from external opposition to internal strategic missteps.
"I think that many of the strategies and tactics that we employed over the last five years, that they didn’t work in staving off the regression." — Rep. Sarah McBride, Member of Congress
McBride specifically identified two primary tactics that she believes have been counterproductive. The first involves the public condemnation of opponents, often characterized by "shaming and blaming." The second strategy she highlighted is the practice of "cutting off conversation, and in many cases, cutting off relationships" with individuals who hold differing viewpoints. According to McBride, this dual approach has alienated potential allies and stifled productive dialogue, ultimately undermining the movement's goals.
"I think that many of the strategies and tactics that we employed over the last five years, that they didn’t work in staving off the regression," McBride stated. She underscored her concern with empirical evidence, citing a measurable decline in public backing for transgender-related policies when compared to figures from five years prior. "Support on individual issues facing the trans community, on individual policies around trans rights, by every objective metric, is worse today than it was five years ago," she elaborated. While acknowledging that not every policy has lost majority approval, McBride noted that even those still holding majority support poll weaker than they did four or five years ago.
While McBride acknowledged the role of external forces, describing "a well-funded, well-coordinated, right-wing, regressive movement" that has successfully shifted public sentiment, she stopped short of placing sole blame on these groups. Instead, she argued that the combative tactics of the transgender rights movement itself may have inadvertently created opportunities for this opposition to advance its agenda. "I think none of those strategies work," McBride asserted. "And they not only didn’t work, I think they often created even more space for those well-funded right-wing efforts to advance their regressive priorities." This perspective suggests a recognition of how internal actions can either bolster or weaken a movement's resilience against external pressures.
Looking ahead, McBride proposed an alternative approach, particularly for allies who may be hesitant to engage in public discourse due to fear of missteps. She emphasized the importance of continued conversation and engagement, even with critics. "If I was speaking to an ally right now, the number one thing I would say is, we need you to speak up and we need you to stay in conversation with people who aren’t on our side," she advised. McBride also sought to alleviate the pressure on allies to achieve perfection, acknowledging that "You might not say everything perfectly. It’s okay. It’s okay not to get everything right." She reiterated this point, stating, "It’s okay to be imperfect. You don’t have to be the perfect ally."
Her closing argument reinforced the idea that severing ties ultimately hinders progress. "When you shut down conversation and when you cut people off, even with the best of intentions, you are eliminating the possibility for that person to change their behavior and grow," McBride concluded. These remarks are particularly notable given her position as the first openly transgender member of Congress, lending significant weight to her internal critique.
The comments come amidst a broader national debate encompassing contentious issues such as the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports, medical treatment protocols for minors, and legal recognition of gender. McBride has previously acknowledged the legitimacy of some concerns raised by critics regarding male athletes competing in women’s sports, indicating a willingness to engage with nuanced aspects of the debate. However, her recent statements did not specify which policies she believes have been more resilient to the decline in public support, nor did she provide a detailed roadmap for the movement's future strategic adjustments. The significance of McBride's statements lies in her willingness to assign internal fault and critically evaluate the movement's own methods, a departure from typical external-focused critiques. Her historic role ensures these comments will likely continue to draw national attention and fuel discussion within and outside the transgender rights movement.
