Rahm Emanuel Still In Denial: Genderwoo 'Not The Dominant Issue' For Him
But cracks in the Democratic Party consensus are starting to show
On the one hand, Rahm Emanuel appreciates how cancel culture has hurt the Democratic Party, telling Megyn Kelly that voters respond to “authenticity” rather than authority. He seems to understand that genderwoo in the classroom, the gym, the pool, and on the track is a massive political loser for Democrats. Asked whether men can become women, Emanuel answers “not… no.”
But then Rahm Emanuel, 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, wants the gender problem to simply go away. He is dismissive: “it’s not the dominant issue,” Rahm insists, still not quite getting that gender does in fact become the dominant issue for everyone who takes up opposition to the blinkered policy demands of genderwoo. Rahm joked that he is going into witness protection for even touching this activist third rail in his party. The sheer ideological supremacy of genderwoo is evident in his jokes. Sir, do you even hear yourself?
There was some excitement when The Hill took note of the exchange on Monday. For one thing, millions of TERFs have been canceled for thoughtcrimes Rahm Emanuel expressed on Megyn Kelly’s show. Ironic as that is, the interview does represent another great crack in the wall of ‘no debate’ silence from Democrats. Here is a link to the full interview, which covers a lot more than this topic. For instance, Kelly’s first question is about the time Emanuel sent a dead fish to a pollster. The relevant clip regarding gender identity is embedded below.
As I keep repeating in my explainers on why and how ‘gender identity’ hurts Democrats, the basic psychological elements of opposition are beyond the capacity of words and phrasing to solve. There is no way to explain why Lia Thomas was privileged to flash his penis in the women’s locker room, or why he received the trophy when an actual woman, Riley Gaines, tied him in the event, that can make American voters un-see the unfairness with their eyeballs.
Likewise, Rahm Emanuel is still fighting a rearguard battle to let parents trans their children as if this has always been a private family decision rather than a form of extortion by self-interested clinicians. Parents are regularly told their children will unalive themselves without dangerous and harmful ‘treatments’, making a joke out of informed consent and medical ethics. Megyn Kelly is also concerned by the evident Munchausen-by-proxy in Jeanette Jennings, the mother of Jazz Jennings, and other famous mothers of ‘trans kids’ who seem to value ther own status more than their children’s health.
Rahm gets kudos for his willingness to appear on a conservative podcast and give clear answers. But his answers on the point also betray the basic problem that Democrats have, now that the long con of medical transition is coming unravelled, and the public sees through the tissue-thin disguise of a ‘civil rights’ movement. He has yet to confront what “inclusion” actually means in practice. He has yet to change his mind the way Donald Trump did, the way the voters have. Rahm Emanuel cannot admit he was simply wrong.
Some Democrats Still Think Americans Will Accept Transgender Sports Cheats
Human brains have evolved heuristics, or cognitive shortcuts, that improve our chances of survival as individuals…
One cannot underestimate the importance of Emanuel’s admission that a man cannot become a woman. However cautiously phrased, it's a line few Democrats have dared to cross. Whether he ultimately walks it back remains to be seen—but anyone seeking the presidency is playing with fire if they later claim not to have said what they said.
Then again, after nine years of Trump, too many Americans have been cut loose from their epistemological moorings. Truth itself has become optional. So even the clearest statements may dissolve in the fog.
Furthermore, Rahm's saying the trans problem is “not the dominant issue” marks a pivot from the classic DARVO playbook. Instead of outright denying the sex-realist claim, the first step becomes diminishing its importance. It's a subtler rhetorical strategy—but no less evasive. DARVO is DARVO. This updated sequence allows politicians to acknowledge biological reality in vague terms while signaling to activists that they still consider the issue politically marginal, even taboo. But minimization is not neutral. It's a form of dismissal—and it still functions to invalidate the concerns of those raising legitimate objections.