Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Dude this isn’t like she stole their lunch in an office. If you work in an office and a co-worker calls you a slur HR shouldn’t reprimand you for calling them a racist. Zephyr is working with people who want her to go away or die. You’re literally victim blaming.

Zephyr is working with people who want her to [...] die.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If you're a clueless and feckless enough moral coward that you can both sides a moral issue as simple as this one, your advice on how she can better help her community isn't worth anything at all

Well, if the community wants a representative that willingly goes against the rules wholesale (I do regard the GOP's offer to let her apologize to be in good faith even if far from every lawmaker was acting that way), then in a sense she's doing an excellent job representing said community.

But I would note that this sort of combativeness burns bridges and does nothing to stop what the community bemoans.

Your willingness to call me a coward for, in my hypothetical example, not wanting a Muslim representative to act that way is duly noted.

Believe it or not, working with institutional rules and coalition-building are an important part of how you achieve what you want or at least trying to stop what you don't want and going to war with institutions and relying too much on outrage and insulting people (however justified or unjustified it is) makes things harder for you!

This sounds exactly like the sort of stuff a lot of people told MLK in the 50s and 60s.

Ah yes, because trans rights movement has as broad backing in American society as the American civil rights movement and can also act as though its claims are self-evident in much the same way!

Meanwhile, the trans rights movement, at least overall, has generally been losing support over the past half-dozen years, instead of gaining. Regardless of where you assign blame for that, that alone makes comparisons to the 50s and 60s, if done in this way, less than helpful. It is manifest laziness to rely on comparisons to a time in the past for legitimacy in these sorts of circumstances, as if to bandaid over existing issues. The job of activism is generally to convince people of your views, no?

There are protest and activist movements that have failed completely, y'know. If a movement is on a failing track, no amount of MLK comparisons will save it or shift the winds too much; it amounts to preaching to the choir. All while, you know, a reactionary pushback is asserting itself, attacking drag shows (nonsensically) and, in time, likely quite a few other things. I didn't even know drag was something straight people did until people on this forum informed me so, and this was years after the some on the right began to target drag! How can you expect to defend drag shows and the fun they give people without even educating people about them in a comprehensive way?

Really, this building counterreaction is a mighty opponent and is the hidden cost to activists acting uninterested in accountability towards anything. The power of said counterreaction ought to be handled and opposed firmly and thoughtfully, because if everything and everywhere is a battlefield, then nowhere are you completely safe.

And the rights of adults to legally transition (something valuable to preserve even in red states) should not be indirectly jeopardized by weirdos in the activist class who seem either bad at their jobs, unreasonable in their demands, or both. Over the past seven years, the two groups that I have seen my respect for decline the most, are Donald Trump, and activists, taken as a whole. There's boatloads of great activists, but also tons of nasty activists who seem to want to use the fact they are an "activist" as an excuse to conduct intolerance under another name and dominate others to their whims.

You act like this is war. Well, then you must then know discipline is important to victory, the objective of war? And to win hearts and minds, discipline helps. That comes from disciplining those within the cause as needed. Set some standards and let people change; and most importantly, make sure you are able to talk to normal people on the street in terms they understand, as opposed to (just) your academic lingo. The civil rights movement broadly succeeded because it spent more time on persuasion than name-calling, talked in ways that ordinary people understood (give black people all-American rights they were denied) and never lost sight on the prize.

We will best defeat this upcoming counterreaction through things that earn empathy. Protect what matters most above all else, hold oneself to good standards even if one's opponents are not, and hammer home the excesses of the right where it hurts them the most. For example, tell people stories of drag queens who have lost out because of mindless demagoguery from right-wingers who don't understand what drag is. Machiavelli is a good guide for ruthless strategizing, but the methods, applied to something too unpopular with not enough backing, won't save you from failing.

The pro-life movement has made many of these same pitfalls...consider that a warning sign.

[GoTfan]

If you're a clueless and feckless enough moral coward that you can both sides a moral issue as simple as this one, your advice on how she can better help her community isn't worth anything at all

Well, if the community wants a representative that willingly goes against the rules wholesale (I do regard the GOP's offer to let her apologize to be in good faith even if far from every lawmaker was acting that way), then in a sense she's doing an excellent job representing said community.

But I would note that this sort of combativeness burns bridges and does nothing to stop what the community bemoans.

Your willingness to call me a coward for, in my hypothetical example, not wanting a Muslim representative to act that way is duly noted.

Believe it or not, working with institutional rules and coalition-building are an important part of how you achieve what you want or at least trying to stop what you don't want and going to war with institutions and relying too much on outrage and insulting people (however justified or unjustified it is) makes things harder for you!

This sounds exactly like the sort of stuff a lot of people told MLK in the 50s and 60s.

Ah yes, because trans rights movement has as broad backing in American society as the American civil rights movement and can also act as though its claims are self-evident in much the same way!

Meanwhile, the trans rights movement, at least overall, has generally been losing support over the past half-dozen years, instead of gaining. Regardless of where you assign blame for that, that alone makes comparisons to the 50s and 60s, if done in this way, less than helpful. It is manifest laziness to rely on comparisons to a time in the past for legitimacy in these sorts of circumstances, as if to bandaid over existing issues. The job of activism is generally to convince people of your views, no?

There are protest and activist movements that have failed completely, y'know. If a movement is on a failing track, no amount of MLK comparisons will save it or shift the winds too much; it amounts to preaching to the choir. All while, you know, a reactionary pushback is asserting itself, attacking drag shows (nonsensically) and, in time, likely quite a few other things. I didn't even know drag was something straight people did until people on this forum informed me so, and this was years after the some on the right began to target drag! How can you expect to defend drag shows and the fun they give people without even educating people about them in a comprehensive way?

Really, this building counterreaction is a mighty opponent and is the hidden cost to activists acting uninterested in accountability towards anything. The power of said counterreaction ought to be handled and opposed firmly and thoughtfully, because if everything and everywhere is a battlefield, then nowhere are you completely safe.

And the rights of adults to legally transition (something valuable to preserve even in red states) should not be indirectly jeopardized by weirdos in the activist class who seem either bad at their jobs, unreasonable in their demands, or both. Over the past seven years, the two groups that I have seen my respect for decline the most, are Donald Trump, and activists, taken as a whole. There's boatloads of great activists, but also tons of nasty activists who seem to want to use the fact they are an "activist" as an excuse to conduct intolerance under another name and dominate others to their whims.

You act like this is war. Well, then you must then know discipline is important to victory, the objective of war? And to win hearts and minds, discipline helps. That comes from disciplining those within the cause as needed. Set some standards and let people change; and most importantly, make sure you are able to talk to normal people on the street in terms they understand, as opposed to (just) your academic lingo. The civil rights movement broadly succeeded because it spent more time on persuasion than name-calling, talked in ways that ordinary people understood (give black people all-American rights they were denied) and never lost sight on the prize.

We will best defeat this upcoming counterreaction through things that earn empathy. Protect what matters most above all else, hold oneself to good standards even if one's opponents are not, and hammer home the excesses of the right where it hurts them the most. For example, tell people stories of drag queens who have lost out because of mindless demagoguery from right-wingers who don't understand what drag is. Machiavelli is a good guide for ruthless strategizing, but the methods, applied to something too unpopular with not enough backing, won't save you from failing.

The pro-life movement has made many of these same pitfalls...consider that a warning sign.

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

[DrScholl]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

This is exactly the sort of person MLK described when he warned about the "White moderate". The folks who acted fair minded and preached unity, but didn't want to do anything and thought MLK was a troublemaker. MLK was a peaceful leader, but he never had on rose colored glasses. His "I Have A Dream" speech is intense and way more than the more poetic quotes that conservatives love to cherrypick. He was the "woke" of his era.

[DrScholl]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

Do you know how long it took to get there and how hard it was? People died. Viola Liuzzo, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, etc were all murdered fighting for civil rights. I know you'll say I'm being negative and "woke" but that's fine.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

This is exactly the sort of person MLK described when he warned about the "White moderate". The folks who acted fair minded and preached unity, but didn't want to do anything and thought MLK was a troublemaker. MLK was a peaceful leader, but he never had on rose colored glasses. His "I Have A Dream" speech is intense and way more than the more poetic quotes that conservatives love to cherrypick. He was the "woke" of his era.

I am guilty as charged for being a white moderate, in the sense of a white man who is moderate. I am also aware that MLK in fact shifted over time from speaking about civil rights first and foremost, to talking about it in combination with Vietnam and other domestic issues (including urban poverty). I have always stood in general opposition to class warfare on the poor, and that includes the poor of any race.

In any case, like it or not, if you want change done in this country, the road for that runs through convincing people in the moderate, mushy middle to change things. Anyone who does not understand this and thinks that you can substitute coalition-building for name-calling is plainly lazy or misguided. Anger, of course, has a time when it is perfectly justified and should be used when it is likely to work or is the clearly best option. In this very thread I endorsed the aggrieved MT state rep talking harshly about this on Twitter if she so pleased.

And in any case, a Montana Republican legislature would look worse stripping her of her voice in legislation for insulting colleagues on Twitter than on the House floor, and that would also make it a bigger news story too!

There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

MLK was in fact advocating what I am encouraging here. You are in fact pre-judging what I am saying based off the caricature then ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Do you know how long it took to get there and how hard it was? People died. Viola Liuzzo, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, etc were all murdered fighting for civil rights. I know you'll say I'm being negative and "woke" but that's fine.

My first instinct would not be to jump on you with a "woke" accusation, even if a TON of woke people ultimately are quite counterproductive in their methods. Even if you were woke, it would not automatically invalidate what you have to say. I'd assess each of your claims separately from each other because I don't think any one side has a monopoly on the truth.

I'd simply note that the Senate voted for Cloture before at least some of the people you mentioned were murdered by vile people who did not want black people to have what they were owed (albeit by a margin of a few days), just to underline my point that coalition-building was important and the decades of black political activism (from the NAACP, for example) was key for the gains of the later 50s and earlier 1960s and those gains are well visualized by the Civil Rights Act passing that difficult cloture threshold.

And yes, MLK does use name-calling in his speech, but he uses it against George Wallace and the white Alabama electorate that had made a point of actively shutting down black civil rights with what tools they had, whether it be gubernatorial bully pulpits, or their votes (Wallace in part losing his bid for governor in 1958 because of them). You know who he's not heavily aiming it at in this speech? Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen. Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen were in the path of least resistance to achieve the goals. MLK had goals and he knew how to achieve it.

Of course, MLK understood that another Civil Rights Act, alone, was not part and parcel of what was needed to deliver justice to the black community, and issues like urban poverty were simmering; the riots of 1968 would come to show the consequences of that status quo. The riots of 1968 were many things, but entirely unprovoked, they were not.

If there are any lessons to be gleaned from all this, it only underlines what I have to say, not undermines it. Discipline is important. And leadership is preferably wielded by coalition-builders who gather support for the interests of the group and act in defense of its interests together with others, taking steps as needed to achieve this. MLK could not the support of Southerners to end Jim Crow, so he got Northerners on board. As well as others. In fact, the "white moderate" that MLK spoke of was key to narrowly attaining a large enough majority in the Senate for (what was probably) the single most transformative civil rights bill of them all.

If you are going to evoke comparisons to the 50s and 60s, you need to accept the parts of that comparison that call into question your self-image and view of how to handle things, and not just the ones you can use against someone as a one-liner in an argument.

[Badger]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

Thank you for this additional information. Could you provide links to any source for it? I'm not questioning your assertions here, but would like to delve deeper.

Based on what you're saying, I guess I'd want to know more about the allegations of Reed supposedly doxing zephyr's colleagues. I mean, if it's outing them for having mistresses while standing Foursquare for so-called family values, like the house speaker and other legislators in tennessee, then good on her for doing so. Otherwise that's concerning. But even if she did do so, that really doesn't give the house Speaker the right to silence Zephyr from saying passing a bill which could drive trans people and kids to Suicide will leave blood on their hands. Is that any different than if someone made the same claim in a debate about significantly loosening gun control restrictions? One might disagree with the proposition, but it's zero basis to silence debate or demand an apology for such a statement before permitting the legislator to speak on the house floor again.

And then just other legislators misgendering Zephyr because they can I submit isn't just icing on the cake or a background footnote, but frankly gets the heart of what's really going on here.

I should clarify, "doxing" is shorthand for posting videos of them to followers, and providing their emails, numbers, offices. Which if you are in a small state are often direct lines. Whether you feel this is harassment or just very aggressive lobbying I think there is a feeling that Reed simultaneously wanting to be invited to state house events and treated as a spouse, to testify as an expert witness, and then to run a national lobbying/activist campaign, is a contradiction, and taking advantage of people's hospitality.

This in no way is meant to engage on moral equivalency re policy. Merely to explain why if your priors are not to buy these policies as beyond debate or particularly outrageous, then Zephyr's refusal to separate out her official and personal roles or even accept why others are upset about it, is causing what would otherwise be an inexplicable reaction.

I don't agree but I understand why they are doing this. I do not even begin to grasp what set off the Tennessee Republicans.

Thank you for the clarification. If we're talking about Reed aggressively campaigning for people to call their legislators, I say God bless her. Whether we're talking about Montana or california, that is anything but commendable.

She is hardly the first legislators significant other or spouse to be actively involved in lobbying or otherwise raising public awareness. And yet other state legislatures don't retaliate with cutting off a representative Mike over a harsh attack on a policy position - not the other members of the legislature personally .

I'm sorry, but I don't see that ruffling the feathers of the literal good old boy Network as such grounds for this type of retaliation. If any legislators, Democrat or republican, can't treat a fellow legislator and their significant other with civility while acknowledging they may be on opposite sides of a political or social issue, sometimes vehemently opposed, then they shouldn't be in office.

[Badger]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

This was in 1964 after the culmination of Decades of aggressive civil rights campaigning. You are proving GoTfan's point.

[GoTfan]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

That came what, ten years after Brown? Six years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott? And all it took was a Presidential assassination and a legislative genius of a successor to get it passed.

Sit down.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

That came what, ten years after Brown? Six years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott? And all it took was a Presidential assassination and a legislative genius of a successor to get it passed.

Sit down.

I've already made it clear that the way you see me is very much in the vein of a caricature.
Moreover, I already said what I wanted to say, and all those actually inclined to read it in good faith would have probably already read it. Dr. Scholl's posts gave me the chance to dispell some notions.
I feel satisfied. Have a nice week.