Caffeinated Politics

The news this week of the suicide of 21-year-old Lia Smith, a transgender Middlebury College student, was perhaps the saddest story that did not come from Washington, D.C. She soon was to graduate and was known to be intelligent and proved herself to be a former student-athlete. My husband, James, was a graduate of Middlebury, and this week expressed much concern about how the right-wing has used transgenders to demean and target a segment of the nation most callously.

The harsh political climate for transgender people due to Donald Trump’s narrow-minded base of conservatives spewing uneducated vitriol has created unneeded hurdles and stressful circumstances for many people living in our nation. Transgender people were vilified in the 2024 election season, and we know the data proves the harm that comes with such overt bullying and bigotry.

A study conducted in 2023 revealed that 42 percent of transgender adults in the United States have attempted suicide and 81 percent have thought about ending their own lives. We know that the negative aspects in society have led to tragic outcomes.

What I find most appalling is that conservatives will try to spin and game their foul and mean-spirited words about transgender people in a bizarre ‘high-minded’ fashion and insist that “there are two sides to every issue.” While this principle may sound fair or democratic, it becomes dangerous when applied indiscriminately to matters of fact or morality. Such as the human dignity and civil rights that transgender people seek.

Some issues are not matters of opinion. The Holocaust is not up for debate. Animal cruelty is not a lifestyle choice. Climate change is not a hoax. These are not “sides”—they are realities, backed by evidence, history, and ethical consensus. To pretend otherwise is not intellectual rigor; it’s moral evasion. (But that lack of moral accountability is where too many conservatives wish to reside.)

I had a conversation with a conservative in Dane County who felt it was impossible to have any respect at work or in a separate volleyball league. Trying to understand exactly what type of an example might be shared as to support the problem, he told me that scorn and mockery was the result of his arguing that vaccines are all a hoax. When I tried to show that the larger pile of evidence was not on his side, he told me I was wrong. I talked about George Washington ordering all his soldiers to be inoculated with smallpox during the Revolutionary War. I was informed that I was not any different than the liberals who chide him during lunch time. Yes, how could this man be silenced or ignored by co-workers or teammates? I wonder why…….

I did not want to pile on or make him feel too bad but he was not being censored for his beliefs. I would suggest those around him are probably just not interested in those who traffics in misinformation, conspiracy theories, or moral relativism. His lunch partners were not in any way suppressing his views, something that he contends occurs. I would suggest those on the plant floor are just more discerning.

The vile ones who want to create the absurd notion that there are two sides to the lives of transgender people and seek to ridicule or belittle them want to use the “both sides” trope. They want that to be a shield for their horrid behavior. It allows partisan and corrosive lies to masquerade as legitimate perspectives and gives airtime to cruelty under the guise of balance. That’s not dialogue but instead can be a recipe that leads to tragic outcomes.