Bill Maher is on a winning streak with his 7-8-minute politics and comedy bits on his “Real Time” show. Here’s the one from yesterday, called “New Rule: Long Division”: This one’s about gender (he means “sex”), with Maher saying “Until the Democrats come to grips with that, they’ve not going to have much success winning elections.” But the two parties also divide by sex, with young men preferring Trump by a big margin, and young women preferring Kamala by equally large numbers. This leads to a difficulty in dating (if you’re a Democrat, would you have a girlfriend who was Republican, or vice versa?, though James Carville and Mary Matalin seem to have worked it out).
Maher’s message: women are doing better than men now, and, among Democrats, they need to become more aggressive rather than, as Maher says, assuming the victimhood status that Kamala Harris has now adopted. He seems to think, like me, that Peter Buttigieg would have been a great running mate, and I still feel that Mayor Peter is our best hope for 2028 at this point. But all my friends tell me that America isn’t ready for a gay President. This makes me angry, as that attitude takes out of the running one of our best candidates, and haven’t we finally accepted gay people? (One friend that arguments about trans issues have accidentally created more rancor against gays.)
I still am astonished at the Democrats’ enthusiasm for a candidate who was palpably incoherent and muddled–even saying that she was “brat” (that was praise), and brought people “joy.” Seriously? What is wrong with the Democrats? That, my friends, brothers and sisters, and comrades, is the question we have to answer. Maher suggests that Democratic women carry the main burden of saving the party. Do you agree?
I think the “America will not elect a gay man” narrative is nothing more than Democrats projecting their stereotypes and caricatures onto the political right. Scott Bessent is popular in MAGA circles, as is Richard Grenell. Dave Rubin has a decent online following among conservatives and libertarians. What conservatives won’t go for are politicians—whether they are gay or straight—who can’t define “woman,” who support “transitioning” kids, or who want de facto open borders. And as a moderate, I won’t either.
I think a decade and a half ago, electing a gay president would have been possible. We had Will and Grace and other sitcoms I forget portraying gays as outwardly conventional even if a bit eccentric in their private lives. At the time, the issue was getting gay marriage allowed. The organizers of gay pride parades and such seemed to have messaging discipline and managed to keep the exhibitionist fetishist presence to a minimum. Even a tiny majority of Republicans at one point were ok with gay marriage. Most gays and lesbians are, of course, “normies”. Even many Republicans who weren’t in the Bible-thumping end of the party were willing to live and let live.
But things have changed with the explosive trans craze. The addition of T to the LGB hugely harmed the cause. For the last few years Gay Pride parades have become freak shows with the leather boys and guys in rubber suits and the furries in their dog costumes on a leash and etc. Joe and Jane six pack forget that most gays are normies rather than probable pedophiles who want to put on a wig and dress, perform reading hour for the kids, and teach perversion and gender confusion to little children.
Buttigieg is obviously a normie who lacks gay mannerisms. But there is quite a backlash against gays on the part of the right because of the trans lunacy.
I thought that was about the nonexistent support Buttigieg has from black voters?
🎯
I agree w Doug (and I’m also a lifelong Lefty moderate dismayed by what the Left has become). I also think Dems must come to terms with terms. “Gender” is just a collective noun for male and female. It’s not a magic word. It’s not metaphysics. And it’s certainly not science. And while I’m at it, there’s no such thing as “gender identity” for the same reason there’s no such thing as a soul. Zero evidence.
The word “gender” (a “lexical brainworm .. eating away at understanding” (Alex Byrne, 2024)) indeed is in written publications dating far back.
In haste : having read about it I am convinced that it is a mystical occult spell. Consider :
Gender in Mystical and Occult Thought – Behmenism and its Development in England
B. J. Gibbons
Cambridge U. Press
1996
Or The Kybalion (1908).
Modern academic literature e.g. by Robert Stoller, John Money, and Judith Butler, et. al. took this word from somewhere, laundering it (a Boghossian idea) in the process.
Where did they get it? They never need to say. It is part of the magic.
Excellent reply, thx Bryan, and you even included “Boghossian”. Erudite and entertaining.
I looks like you saw this but I’ll add it b/c it has Alex Byrne’s superb piece :
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/03/05/should-we-ditch-the-word-gender/
FWIW, Republicans in Virginia chose an openly gay man, John Reid, to run for Lt. Governor in our upcoming election. So there’s a little bit of evidence that resistance to electing a gay man is not quite as prevalent as Harris feared.
I thought the issue with a gay candidate is that blacks in the south are more socially conservative and are the major democratic constituency there.
It’s possible we have had a gay president, and just didn’t know it.
As a Lefty, I’d date a Republican but he’d have to be a true never-Trumper and a free-thinker. Any Democrat would need to be a Zionist, which really narrows the field for me! Dying alone with my cats doesn’t seem like a worst case scenario!
” (One friend that arguments about trans issues have accidentally created more rancor against gays.)” Indeed, Douglas Murray commented some time ago that allowing “T” aboard the LGBTQIA2S+ train was both illogical and a tactical error.
I was, of course, disappointed that “F” (for the trans-species Community) was never included, an unforgiveable microaggression. And it is perhaps surprising that ScZ (for the Schizophrenic Community) was not invited aboard.
“Douglas Murray commented some time ago that allowing “T” aboard the LGBTQIA2S+was both illogical and a tactical error.”
As I am sure you know:
In the UK, Douglas Murray (very right wing) and Julie Bindel (left wing radical feminist) agree this very issue, not only that the T should be cut away, but the entire TQIA2S.
The tag #gaynotqueer and #NormalGay is really trending more and more on social media now and that says something
And the 2S (two spirit): that seems to be something almost specific for Canada, of course because they won’t offend the native population (First Nations).
As a European I don’t see this as a left vs right issue, rather it’s more: rational science and free speech vs queer pseudo-religious illiberal wokeism
Unfortunately, I think you are correct that the TQ+ cult has done a lot of damage to gay/lesbian rights
Agreed! Those who are LGB and advocate for the split with the damaging QT+ (and that + hides a lot of horrors) have been saying for years that radical transgenderism will lead to a backlash that will hurt gay men and lesbians. The way that those who have made that argument – groups such as Get the L Out (lesbians who have been at the forefront in the fight against men self-identifying as them) and LGB Alliance (the only organisation fighting exclusively for the rights of people who are same-sex attracted or bisexual) – have been treated has been atrocious.
Advice to Democrats:
Stop with stupid unnatural language. It is OK to say “illegal immigrants” instead of “undocumented persons”. It is ok to say “prisoner” instead of “incarcerated person”or “person with justice system involvement”. I fail to see why “unhoused” is nicer and less stigmatizing than “homeless”, they are synonymous. This use of a special in-group language among the left simply annoys ordinary people who might even agree with some of the points you’re making.
Above all, immediately abandon idiotic made up words like “Latinx” and “BIPOC”. Using such words gives the impression that you are servilely craving the approval of kookoo professors of feminist studies and critical race theory and queer theory who just LOVE to hear that kind of jargon. Along these lines, don’t go out of your way to use the words “equity, diversity, and inclusion” in the same sentence. The phrase sounds as robotically jingoistic as “Down with the bourgeoisie”. If a sentence logically calls for the word “diversity”, just say the word but don’t pronounce it as if your tongue is caressing the word.
Get some sense on trans issues. You can’t convince people that it is fair for 6’4” lady-wannabe “Lia” Thomas to easily defeat champion women swimmers. You can’t because the idea is stupid and wrong. No more “pregnant men” and “birthing persons” and “women with prostate cancer”. And stop calling those who have grave doubts about the wisdom of giving puberty blockers to 10 year olds and hormones to 12 year olds haters and bigots and, worst of all, transphobes. The charge is, in most instances, false and you know it.
Use normal language, express your views, and present as a straight talker instead of a purveyor of the excrement of bovines.
To make an analogy, if I met a person who was Marxian in his political and economic views, we might have a great conversation. Even if we disagreed about much, it could be interesting dialogue if we both talk straight. But if the person babbles formulaic slogans about “Long live the proletariat” and “running dogs of capitalist imperialism” and such I would, of course, consider the person an idiot not worth talking to and still less worth listening to.
Many democrats don’t realize that they really come across this way. They annoy the hell out of me who mostly votes for them and agrees with some of their positions.
Bravissimo!
(Sorry for the late comment)
Well said! The problem, of course, isn’t only in the US. In the past week a BBC news presenter has been found guilty of rolling her eyes (!) as she read a news script that mentioned “pregnant people” and corrected it on-screen to “pregnant women”. This despite the facts that her rewording more closely represented the research being reported on in the news story and that the interviewed researcher also talked about “pregnant women”. You couldn’t make it up!
All the “America isn’t ready for X” talk is really just an excuse for failure. It’s a justification for not seriously examining the in-group’s shortcomings and failings. Rather than having to come to terms with the possibility that I might have endorsed bad policy, accepted irrational ideology, engaged in harmful & divisive rhetoric, or generally become a partisan blinded by tribal allegiance, I can simply point to those who didn’t side with me and call them backward, regressive, slow, etc. As a bonus for my ego, it positions me as one of those on the right side of history. I get to be an aggrieved visionary held back by a horde of luddites.
You refer to a historical force whose enormous power is not often recognized: the refusal to admit a mistake. The USSR elevated this principle to state policy, the USSR’s apologists in the West refined it to an art form, and it is today exemplified in the disastrous war against Ukraine waged by the USSR’s successor state. On the other hand, the method of science, which yielded our current lifespan, amongst other modern comforts, rests on an exactly opposite principle.
It is worth noting that some major human institutions are actually capable of admitting an error. The Roman Catholic Church confessed that putting Galileo on trial was a mistake, after a lag of only 359 years.
Oh, Jon, I think you do not give our Jacobins sufficient credit. They readily admit error—of others. It is almost definitional: others = error.
Now that the “Method of Science” is falling under the spell of our putative revolutionaries, those who value it might soon long for guardians with a sense of conservatorship and respect for the wisdom of the past.
Two issues with Pete B.:
What are his major accomplishments? What exactly has he done that shouts “I am going to crush this whole Leader of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth thing.”?
Although Pete himself doesn’t do this, would Democrats try to use Pete’s homosexuality as a way of deflecting criticism? As in “you are just criticizing Pete because he’s gay.” Or even worse “You aren’t voting for Pete? You must be a homophobe.”
I’m worried that if Pete is nominated, it will push the Democrats even more down the identity politics rabbit hole. Guilt-tripping may work on coastal elites, but not on the rest of the country.
Indeed, piercing – and in a Mencken-ishly unapologetic way that polite tiptoeing can never uncover. Human Nature is an infinite mystery – an abyss, which looks into us (Nietzsche). Clarity is essential — not “vibes”.