Everyone has an opinion about how Democrats should respond to anti-trans attacks. But unlike most of us, Lanae Erickson has the data to back hers up.
Lanae and her colleagues at Third Way have conducted more than 40 rounds of research across four campaign cycles to figure out how Democrats can respond to attacks on trans Americans that have become central to the Republican Party’s 2026 midterm strategy.
This week, Lanae and I connected on how Democrats can stake out positions that voters respect, avoid punching down at a marginalized group, and win the battle over “reasonableness.”
Hope you enjoy Lanae’s research-backed — and very thoughtful — insights.
THIS IS ON BACKGROUND
6 short questions. 6 quick responses featuring the wisdom of Lanae Erickson, Third Way’s Senior Vice President for Social Policy, Education & Politics
Lanae, what’s the first thing you say to a comms director or media consultant who doesn’t want to attack a marginalized group, but also believes they’ve gotta win and that their candidate will be a lot better for trans people than the Republican they’re up against?
Don’t believe the hype that this is an “80/20 issue” on which Democrats are on the wrong side. Public sentiment on these issues is much more complicated than that slogan. There is a way to inoculate yourself against these attacks, respond confidently and authentically when they come, and even go on offense here. And a candidate can articulate their values in a way that appeals to both swing voters and the Democratic base—if they prepare and get comfortable saying what they really think. If they don’t, they can end up reacting in a way that both hurts transgender people and turns swing voters off. Don’t let them wander down that path!
Poll after poll shows Democrats with a lead on the cost of living issues most important to voters. Why can’t Democratic candidates just ignore the anti-trans ads? Is there an example of someone you think has done a good job here?
Clearly costs are the number one issue driving voters this fall, but in order to win, Democratic candidates need to both land the affordability argument and show that they are authentic and mainstream.
Last cycle, too many consultants (and a fair amount of LGBT advocates) told Democrats not to respond to the anti-trans attacks and to just change the subject. That led to a situation where most voters thought Democrats believed there should be no rules in sports and no rules around healthcare for transgender young people.
The caricatures from those attacks stuck, because we completely failed to rebut them. Silence is deadly on these issues, because although it isn’t their first priority, voters do care—and our latest testing shows the attacks take about eight points off the Democratic vote if we don’t respond. Voters also know that every person in America has a viewpoint on these issues at this point, so if you change the subject or sound evasive, you sound like a tricky politician.
The good news is that we can win the battle of reasonableness on these issues, addressing concerns of cross-pressured voters without taking positions or using rhetoric that hurts transgender young people.
Here’s how it goes: we all want sports to be fair and athletes to be safe—that’s why sports associations should absolutely make rules around transgender athletes’ participation, but those rules don’t need to be the same in college and kindergarten. And parents are the ones who should be making health care decisions for their kids, not politicians. Lindsay James in Iowa offers a fantastic example of this approach, embracing rules (not laws) and parents (not politicians). That’s the winning formula.
Third Way’s research seems to suggest that “don’t let boys play girls’ sports” isn’t the most effective thing for a candidate to say? Why not? And what does that data suggest may resonate more?
I think there are three reasons that pat response doesn’t work.
First, it conjures images of big dudes running around playing against little girls, which is not helpful to put in voters’ minds.
Second, it’s confusing—by boys, do you mean transgender girls? I’ve had consultants argue “but it doesn’t mean trans girls, it just means non-transgender boys!” That’s confusing at best and evasive at worst.
Third, and most importantly, it’s disrespectful. Calling transgender girls “boys” is unnecessary and in the same vein as the people who insist on calling Rep. Sarah McBride “Mr. McBride.” You don’t want to be that guy. And you don’t have to be—our research shows that talking about rules tests better by double digits!
James Talarico has done a great job here, deploying what I call the “Susie Lee approach” (Rep. Lee from Nevada did it first in her statement opposing a blanket sports ban last year). He said, “I will oppose trans athletes playing in girls’ sports *if* it risks safety or fairness.” He didn’t misgender anyone. He supported rules. And he left space for the fact that those rules can and should differ by age, sport, and level of competition, because they should be based on addressing fairness concerns, not based on animus towards a group of people. He can come to Washington and vote against the Republicans’ blanket bans on kindergarteners playing with their friends at recess all day long without flip flopping.
This is a tough issue. What makes Third Way want to help folks navigate on it? What makes you want to?
I’ve been at Third Way for 18 years, and over that period, the issues at the forefront have changed, but the mission hasn’t. We want to help Democrats navigate social issues in a way that builds sustainable progress and also helps them win in red and purple places. We recognized that the anti-trans attacks were coming for every Democratic candidate in America, and we’ve done more than 40 rounds of research over the past 4 years to create a roadmap to help them navigate this debate. That work isn’t just about winning elections, it’s about winning them while bringing voters along on a journey toward the America we want to live in. We can meet them where they are and persuade them, and we have a moral imperative to do just that.
Personally, this has been the work that has kept me up at night and gotten me out of bed in the morning since Trump won his second term. This MAGA movement is obsessed with hurting transgender people, pushing conversion therapy as the only health care available to them, confiscating people’s ID documents so they can’t travel or pick their kids up from school, shutting down their access to the national suicide hotline—it is horrifying. If there is any way I can have an impact to stop their cruel campaign in this moment, I would spend every waking hour doing it.
What do you want to shout from the rooftops? (this can be about any thing in politics)
We have to be able to distinguish between folks who acknowledge nuance in these conversations, a need for rules in competitive sports, a primary role for parents in their kids’ health care, and “throwing trans people under the bus.” I’m hopeful that the tide is turning on these conversations—just this week, Rep. Don Davis in North Carolina, who Cook Political Report calls “without a doubt, the most vulnerable House Democrat in the country,” released an ad that emphasizes the need for rules but does not misgender anyone. If we can continue to move candidates toward more effective and more respectful responses, hopefully this can be the last cycle we all have to spend so many hours talking about this topic!
Who else should we make time to talk to?
Ari Drennen. She’s doing God’s work helping people combat disinformation, holding space for nuance while holding Dems’ feet to the fire on anti-trans votes, and regrounding this conversation in reality. (Plus she’s hilarious, subscribe to her Substack and read this perfection debunking the MAGA claims about medals transgender athletes have “stolen”—which include hundreds of “wins” where the athlete was the only person in the event and 11 from oyster shucking!)