There's a thread going around about Kamala Harris, defending her transphobia. It of course glosses over and waters down the bad parts, and just ignores the inconvenient ones. So let me break it down a little more specifically.

The biggest example, the most direct example, is that she used the power of her office to block gender affirming surgery for two inmates. Her choice was eventually overturned, but that overturning wasn't on her—she did something that had to be overturned.

Now why is this a problem? They're just inmates, right?

Think intersectional. There's a reason we talk about defunding police and dismantling the prison system. It's not just a meaningless fad agenda.

Inmates are humans, deserving of human rights. Can we agree there?

If you believe that inmates are humans, deserving of human rights, then by extension anything that is a human right should be afforded to them. Correct?

Gender affirming care is a human right.

Kamala Harris's choice in these cases says one of two things:

The first thing it might say is that she does not believe gender affirming care is a human right.

That's transphobic and downright deadly to trans people.

If she DOES, then she believes inmates are not deserving of human rights.

That's beyond inhuman. Literally. By definition.

So either way you look at it, Kamala Harris is a huge problem for this.

But there's a much more insidious example of her transphobia, one that takes a little more understanding and explanation for a lot of people who don't deal with trans issues constantly:

SESTA-FOSTA

Before you say "but SESTA-FOSTA was passed overwhelmingly by both parties in a huge bipartisan push," yeah, we know that.

It turns out, in a transphobic culture, transphobia is bipartisan.

And Harris didn't just vote for SESTA-FOSTA, she helped draft it and cosponsored it.

Now why is SESTA-FOSTA transphobic? Quite simply, transgender people engage in sex work on a wildly disproportionate level. In fact, it's one of the most common fallbacks for us in a world where just getting and keeping the most basic jobs is difficult at best.

If you've paid any attention to the activism against SESTA-FOSTA, you'd know that the law doesn't really do what it says it does. In fact, in a lot of ways it's known to enable trafficking. So, really, it only exists to hurt sex workers.

No knock on sex work, but for a lot of trans people, it's not a first or even thirtieth choice. It's a thing they have to do to survive. Intersectionally, SESTA-FOSTA hurts many marginalized communities, because sex work skews toward marginalized identities.

Most importantly, Harris has repeatedly stood by her choice to cosponsor SESTA-FOSTA. So when presented with the reality and the harm she's done, instead of apologizing and dismantling it, she doubles down and allows the harm to persist.

"BUT WE CAN WORK WITH HER!" they say.

If we could work with her on trans issues, then we should be able to work with her on much more popular issues. If we could work with her, then she'd back off SESTA-FOSTA. Specifically trans issues are MUCH less popular.

There's a third one. A HUGE third one.

Medicare For All.

She supported it when it was convenient, and she backed off it the moment she thought it could win her political points. This is important: It means we're a breath away from being under the bus.

The Medicare For All bill she supported offered transgender care as part of the package. It literally guaranteed gender affirmation to any American that wants it. She dangled it in front of our faces then jerked it away for career advancement.

That's unforgivable.

Medicare For All could arguably be the single most important thing for countless transgender Americans. It has overwhelming, 70+% approval. But to people like Kamala Harris, our lives are on the chopping block.

Make no mistake: Medicare For All would save transgender lives. Maybe it's not so important to trans people working in Seattle and San Francisco for six figures, but it's a literal lifesaver for so many of us in poverty.

There you go.