As a consequentialist, I don’t believe that the party is obligated to support discriminated against groups regardless of the consequences. After all, the re-election of Trump, and Republican control of Congress, would be a greater disaster than the rejection of the legitimate claims of transgender people to express themselves as they wish.

The harm that a second Trump term would produce, Singer argued, “puts the transgender issues you mention in perspective. We may believe that people should be able to use whichever bathroom they choose, but standing up for that isn’t sufficient reason to risk the future of our planet,” not to mention “the many other ways” that a “Trump/Republican victory would be bad.”

This is why I believe there are not two actual sides to this. If the only two things that transgender people needed were permission to use the bathroom we want to and permission to express ourselves then certainly it seems reasonable for us to sacrifice that for the greater good. Perhaps if moderate Democrats understood that any delay in our rights is a sacrifice not of dignity but of actual human lives, they wouldn't so callously decide for us what is most important.