I was in Trump’s “They/Them” ad. Here’s my advice for Democrats

Candidates can’t evade questions about trans issues

Mara Keisling is an American transgender rights advocate and senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute. She was the founder and executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, the nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization for transgender people.

---

In 2024, I was featured in one of Donald Trump’s campaign ads. You probably remember seeing it on TV. “Kamala Harris is for they/them; Donald Trump is for you.”

Five years earlier, I sat for an interview with Harris in a downtown Los Angeles hotel when I was the head of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). And here it was, my interview and my likeness in a presidential political ad for a cruel and craven candidate whom I did not support. By the end of the 2024 campaign, it is estimated that Trump and his Republicans went on to spend almost one-quarter of a billion dollars on anti-trans attack ads.

I am not one to believe that the anti-trans ads were the deciding factor in the presidential race, but of the swing voters who broke for Trump during the final stretch of the campaign, 67% thought Democrats were “too focused on identity politics.” Subsequent polling has shown that certain issues important to the trans community have become divisive, if not outright unpopular with the voting public.

As Democrats gear up to retake the House and Senate this election cycle, candidates and political operatives have been asking me how to counter these attacks. How can they advance trans rights in a political environment that is, and we must be aware of this, turning against trans people? Just a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual states can decide whether to ban transgender girls from participating in sports, allowing 27 statewide bans and any future laws to be enacted. Democrats need to be ready to talk about this decision and articulate where they stand.

I’ve spent thirty-plus years working in this space. We are still in a much better place with this work than when I started. Which is why we need to be pragmatic in advancing a politics that protects trans people while not empowering the sort of hateful politicians that run those ads.

Here’s my answer for those candidates: It depends. Sounds simple, but there’s actually more to it than it sounds. “It depends” means we need to give more Democratic candidates more space to answer questions that align with the values and voters in their districts. I’ll elaborate below on what that means to me.

First, I want to make it clear that this does not mean Democrats should further any hate against trans adults or children. That’s what President Trump is doing. He says that being cruel to trans people and using us for political purposes is gold. His party, as always, is shamelessly following his lead. That’s why my top goal is to kick Republicans out of power.

Still, Democratic candidates, especially in swing districts, will be asked questions about trans issues this election cycle. They need to be ready to answer them.

No evasion, no litmus tests

I’ve seen some political operatives say that Democrats can avoid questions around trans issues and just pivot to issues like affordability. I think that’s just bad politics. Voters rarely reward avoidance or insincerity.

Even if it is not a priority for most people, many voters now have an opinion about trans issues. So if a candidate avoids direct questions from voters or reporters, or doesn’t respond to attack ads, they look insincere or uninformed. Conversely, voters usually appreciate authenticity and commitment. They reward candidates who show conviction and appeal to universal values around empathy, fairness, and respect.

But I also often think about something a Democratic political operative told me:

“Republicans aren’t actually attacking trans people, they’re attacking Democrats. Trans people are just the prop. They want to make Democrats look weird, evasive, captured by radical activists. The way to beat that is to not be those things.”

That’s why it’s important for candidates, as well as the transgender community, to understand where public opinion is on our issues. Again, I’ve been doing this work for a long time. I started the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2003. Public opinion on trans issues is in an entirely different place than it once was. But I want to highlight a few key findings from my recent Searchlight report.

• A majority of Americans (59%), including a plurality of Democrats, believe that trans children should play on school sports teams that match their birth sex rather than their gender identity.

• A large majority (67%) support access to hormone treatments for adults after physician consultation, but 61% believe puberty blockers and hormone treatments should not be available to those under eighteen.

• Fundamental civil rights are still popular: 69% of voters think businesses and landlords should treat trans people equally, and 70% agree that people should be able to live their lives free from discrimination and bullying. Admittedly, many or most Americans don’t understand that trans people can’t work if they are frequently being bullied or called the wrong name. And if there is a rule against us using the bathroom, we can’t work there. Still, almost 7 in 10 people believe we have the right to exist.

I read this polling and I see tough, yet navigable terrain. I don’t have a single answer for candidates, but I do want to share one more finding that provides an important general framework when dealing with sensitive issues around trans minors. Ninety-two percent of Americans believe it is important to ensure that parents are involved and have the most important say in decisions about their children.

I understand that a vast majority (74%) of voters do not support gender transition surgeries for minors (which is so rare that it is basically just a Republican talking point) and that hormone treatments for minors are also fairly unpopular. So candidates can ground their answer in discussions about youth trans healthcare with the belief that a parent should have the most important say in their children’s lives.

On sports, 59% of Americans do believe that trans children should play on teams that match their birth sex, but our polling also found that only 48% of Americans believe a federal law is needed to enforce this rule across the country. That means opposing federal legislation banning transgender athletes from participating in youth sports will put you on the wrong side of some voters.

But there are plenty of examples of politicians discussing the issue with reasonableness and humility, emphasizing that the decision should be made by leagues and athletic associations or parents, rather than by candidates or legislators.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear told Bill Maher just after vetoing a sports bill and a youth healthcare bill: “I care too much about sports to want to let the government run them.”

Secretary Pete Buttigieg said that trans rights issues should be handled with “compassion for transgender people” and “empathy for people who are not sure what all of this means for them.” Specifically around sports, Buttigieg added that there were “serious fairness issues” when it came to sports participation that have to be answered, but that “decisions should be in the hands of sports leagues and school boards and not politicians.”

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has said that he would veto any bill that does not make everyone in the state feel safe and welcome.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers

Candidates cannot hide from these challenging questions around trans issues and trans rights. The candidate’s answers should also adapt to the district they’re running in. Transgender activists need to understand that too. The stakes are just too high to impose litmus tests. We lose the support of the public, and we empower the exact politicians that hate us.

Candidates should be authentic to their values

Transgender attack ads are just politically motivated negativity. The gotcha questions are just gotchas. Sometimes, though, attacks or questions from voters and reporters are opportunities to connect the issue back to your values and personal style as a candidate.

For example, if the candidate is a parent, grandparent, or doctor, they should speak from that perspective and solidify the positive vibes from that point of view. For instance, if you are a parent, express how you would feel if you found out your child was transgender, and Congress or your state legislature had outlawed or prevented insurance coverage for the medical treatment that providers were recommending. If you are a physician, express how you feel that your expertise had been pushed aside so legislators or the president could pretend they were medical experts.

I also firmly believe candidates should always use shared language rather than virtue-signaling jargon that activists might prefer. For example, rather than “gender affirming care,” they should talk about “healthcare for trans people.” Voters know that they are tired of politicians making “healthcare” decisions, but most don’t have any familiarity with “gender affirming care,” except as activist-speak. It might sound like special rights only for transgender people.

Shared language is always the best way candidates can show they are concerned for all their constituents, including the person asking a question at a public event. That’s partly about the language used, but also about showing unconditional positive regard for whoever they are talking with or talking about. Voters don’t just want to like a candidate; they want to like a candidate who likes them.

Remember, different candidates will need to take different approaches. Candidates and activists need to better understand that the goal isn’t to install more purity tests, it’s to advance transgender rights in a manner that is cognizant of public opinion—in a manner that will actually work.

And if you see me in one of your opponent’s ads, I’m sorry. I was not consulted.