As the saying goes, success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. Such is Skrmetti. Barely twenty-four hours after the landmark decision, the New York Times Magazine published a lengthy profile of the case. I would encourage you to read the entire piece. We often think of the political left as some sort of monolithic and coherent institution of group think. But this article reveals many fractures on the left, some of which I suspected, but had no first-hand knowledge.
First, the article speaks to how quickly the national conversation changed around transgender rights. During the lead-up to Windsor and Obergefell, I often remarked how effective the social movement was for gay marriage. The argument was simple: allowing this couple to marry will in no way affect traditional marriage. Even the phrase marriage equality was so easy to grasp! I don't think things were so simple, but the messaging was effective. Moreover, the movement took decades to develop. People had time to accept the argument on their own terms.
However, the argument for transgender rights felt much different. Most Americans had no clue what "cisgender" or "gender affirmative care" meant. Yet, if people refused to uses these neologisms, they were cancelled and deemed bigots. And, unlike with gay marriage, the transgender movement necessarily required others to make changes. People would have to accept transgender athletes in female sports. Women who had privacy concerns about bathrooms would have to just suck it up. And that was before doctors started telling parents they could either have a dead daughter or a live son, coupled with school districts that deceived parents. All of this seemingly happened in a few years. Trump had so much influence in averting this movement.
