A Pragmatic Approach to Controversial Federal and State Policies

4 May 2025

Source

This essay explores a difficult and emotionally charged topic. As a liberal, I believe deeply in treating all people with decency and respect, regardless of how society at large may feel. However, from a practical standpoint, I question whether federal and state governments should enact policies that lack broad societal support. Even when the votes exist in Congress or State legislatures to push these policies forward, there is a significant risk of political backlash, one that can ultimately undo not only those policies but also other established rights and protections.

In my view, this backlash has been particularly evident in the context of policies supporting the rights of transgender individuals and undocumented immigrants. I believe the political response to these policies contributed to the election of Donald J. Trump and other Republican leaders, whose agendas have undermined hard won rights and deepened polarization. In hindsight, a slower, more incremental approach, perhaps led by local governments, communities or nonprofit organizations, may have been more sustainable and less politically explosive.

Two issues illustrate this tension clearly: access to public restrooms for transgender individuals and participation of transgender women in sports.

The first concerns which restrooms transgender individuals should be permitted to use. Advocates argue for the right to use restrooms aligned with one’s gender identity rather than the sex assigned at birth. This is uncontroversial when it comes to single user restrooms, but shared restrooms, especially in K–12 schools, have become a flashpoint. Many parents express discomfort with the idea of transgender girls with male anatomy sharing facilities with their daughters. While actual instances of misconduct are extremely rare, the emotional response has been intense and often irrational. Federal and state intervention on this issue has sparked fierce opposition and arguably fueled policies under the Trump or State administrations that rolled back broader transgender rights. In this case, a more cautious approach at the federal and state levels may have preserved progress without inviting such a strong counterreaction.

The second major issue concerns transgender women in sports. Critics argue that individuals assigned male at birth may retain physical advantages in certain athletic contexts, despite hormone treatment. Once again, the number of actual cases is extremely small, but the public reaction has been outsized. This issue has dominated political rhetoric, and, like the restroom debate, has played a role in mobilizing conservative voters and electing officials hostile to a broader range of LGBTQ+ rights.

This raises a fundamental question: was it wise for the federal and state governments to take a leading role on these issues in the absence of a broader public consensus? I believe the answer is no. The consequences have included not only setbacks for the individuals these policies intended to protect but also collateral damage to other progressive causes. A slower, more strategic path might have ultimately produced better outcomes. As more people come to know transgender individuals personally - as friends, family members, neighbors and colleagues - attitudes are likely to shift, making future progress more durable and less divisive.

A similar argument applies to federal or state support for undocumented immigrants. I personally believe in extending certain benefits and protections to this population. Yet when large segments of society are strongly opposed, advancing such policies from the top down can provoke intense resistance that undermines their effectiveness and taints related causes. In such cases, well intentioned federal or state actions may actually worsen the broader political climate and harm the very people they aim to help.

This is not a matter of abandoning moral principles. It is about balancing idealism with pragmatism. Policies that may be ethically sound in isolation can still lead to negative outcomes if introduced prematurely. Advocates must consider not only what feels right but also what is likely to produce lasting, positive change in the real world.

What do you think?

---

The index to my prior essays (mostly post 5 November 2024) is here.

I have another blog on Cancer and Medicine.

You can also follow me at https://www.linkedin.com/in/nat-pernick-8967765/ (LinkedIn), npernickmich (Threads and Instagram) and natpernick.bsky.social (Bluesky).

Email me at Nat@PathologyOutlines.com.

I also publish Notes at https://substack.com/note. Subscribers will automatically see my notes.