You’ve seen the signs before “trans rights are human rights” or “women’s rights are human rights” or whatever. They’re everywhere, but are they working?
Probably not.
These slogans feel good to say. But they don’t persuade. They often do the opposite.
I’m going to stick to the topic of trans rights, but this applies similarly to all “X rights are human rights” statements. Also I want to state upfront that I am trans, so please just give me the benefit of the doubt as you’re reading.
What does “trans rights are human rights” mean?
This statement is an appeal to empathy. A statement of, if you consider yourself a good person, then you care about your fellow humans and thus their rights to exist and thus you must also care about trans people having their rights protected. But to many people, more so it feels like an accusation.
But there’s an important question to ask, what rights are under attack that are strictly for trans people?
As the opposition might say, there are none.
Let’s look at some history to understand this.
Gay marriage
While the legalization of gay marriage in the US seems like it happened a long time ago, it was just 10 years ago (2015). I was in college then and so this is a topic I was there to experience firsthand.
The arguments against gay marriage were that gay people wanted extra rights over straight people. We all already had the right to get married, so long as it was heterosexual. But gay people wanted, not just the right to get married, but the right to get married to someone of the same sex — thus a new right.
Of course this argument falls apart under any sort of analysis. The right to marry someone of the same sex isn’t a special right for gay people, but a removal of a restriction for all people. Regardless of the logical flaw, this was a common conservative argument and it worked well because of the emotional framing to it.
So let’s go back to trans rights.
Repackaging the attack
Just like how conservatives weren’t targeting gay people, they now say they aren’t targeting trans people. Instead they say things like “we’re banning puberty blockers for everyone under 18”. On paper, it’s nice and equal. But in reality it’s a pointed attack at trans people.
It’s important to remember that laws don’t exist in a vacuum. If we pass a law against puberty blockers, we have to discuss who is most impacted by this and for what, supposedly, good reasons were they banned.
Who does this statement appeal to?
We’ve already seen that conservatives oppose the demands for trans right due to the feeling that they would be special rights just for trans people and thus making them “more equal”. Also as an aside, I hate how many people read Animal Farm and didn’t understand what that was about.
It’s also a deeply abstract concept. If you don’t know what issues trans people are having, then nothing is being conveyed to you. They don’t leave with an awareness that trans people are under attack and need protecting. But you know what isn’t an abstract statement, “protect women”. That’s a powerful statement that we can all agree on. One slogan requires a political science degree and the other, a conscience.
For progressives, who already support trans rights, it’s just a tool for self-reassurance rather than outreach.
And yes, visibility does matter, but signs that prioritize self-validation over meaningful activism isn’t, well, activism. It’s just a decoration.
But to conservatives, moderates, or other fence-sitters, it’s moral grandstanding. It’s an implicit attack against them. A statement that if you’re opposed to trans people that you must be an evil person, in the eyes of a progressive. They don’t feel curious to learn more, but feel defensive.
Why are progressive slogans often ineffective?
Progressives’ messaging is often rooted in some abstract concept that needs addressing. Climate change, systemic racism, toxic masculinity, defund the police. Who’s the enemy with each of those? If someone doesn’t know that term, will they understand what you mean?
Just like conservatives, progressives rely on tropes as a way of communicating complex ideas with simpler words. It’s easier to say “toxic masculinity” than to go into a long explanation of what it means each time you want to talk about the concept.
Unlike conservatives, progressive tropes are so easy to misinterpret. Toxic masculinity — people very often will hear that and assume you’re suggesting that all of masculinity is toxic and that you’re attacking men simply for existing.
One real issue is that progressives are often pushing for new ideas as their previous ideas become normalized, which means they need to generate new terms that are easily understandable by outside groups. And boy howdy are they bad at it.
Why are conservatives better at selling their ideas?
Going back to the concept of tropes, they’re often impossible to misinterpret — or at the very least you have to try to get confused. There’s a house near me that has a sign saying “God, guns, and Trump”. How do you misinterpret that? Simply put, you can’t.
They also often focus on simple messages and appealing to people’s emotions. The feeling that those coastal elites don’t care about your fly-over state. It’s an emotional statement that a lot of people can easily connect with, without having to do any research.
Slogans are simple and easy to repeat. Something you could see on a billboard or a bumper sticker.
What should progressives do instead?
Progressives have to actually talk like people — not academic papers. In language that the average person can immediately understand. No one is going to go home and research the history of trans rights in the US and look at hate crimes stats. It just doesn’t happen.
So here’s how to make your message more powerful:
Name the villain
When we say “protect trans kids”, the question is protect them from what? Who’s attacking them?
Instead we can say “Politicians want to control my kid’s haircut” or “Politicians want to have a say on what clothes my kid likes”. That’s strong. The enemy is politicians. It’s politicians absurdly trying to control children.
Ditch the jargon
People will say “End the trans genocide”, but to the average person, what does that mean? Genocide evokes a strong image of war and bloodshed caused by a military. But we aren’t seeing the US military invading the nation of trans people, so what does this mean?
Instead of using some academic term like “trans genocide”, say what you mean “Politicians want to erase trans people”.
Bumper sticker test
The bumper sticker test is the idea that your slogan could be put on a bumper sticker and that it’s easy to read and understand by someone driving by you. Which means it can’t be too wordy and it needs to be exceptionally clear with what you’re talking about.
In response to bathroom bills, instead of some long winded monologue about how this is going to get people killed or is boiling people down to their genitals, we should say something shorter and more action-y. Something like “Keep trans women in women’s bathrooms”.
It’s short and simple. You read it and know that this person believes trans women belong in women’s bathrooms. There’s no debate as to what it could mean.
Weaponize conservative values
You ever hear a conservative say “so much for the tolerant left”? Of course you have. It’s a way of making progressive second guess their beliefs because it attacks a core tenet of progressivism.
Flip the script and frame your slogan in their ideals. So instead of, protect trans kids, say:
“You don’t trust the government with your taxes. Why trust it with your kid?” or “They want small governments, but want to control what shoes my kid can wear.”
These tackle conservatives’ strongly held beliefs of being pro-freedom and anti-authoritarian government, which is a lot more powerful at changing their minds.
Circling back
So how do we fix “Trans rights are human rights”?
Well, we don’t. We can’t really fix it.
The slogan is intrinsically flawed. It’s abstract, vague and ineffective for persuasion. It’s just a tool for signaling your beliefs without changing anyone’s minds.
There’s a saying I like:
It’s not about bathrooms, just like it was never about water fountains.
This isn’t just a comparison of the wrongness of segregation and anti-trans laws. It’s a reminder that old attacks keep repeating, but with new targets.
And we have a duty to learn from history and communicate as if people’s lives depend on it. Because they so often do.