[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

For the past eighteen months, a favorite talking point of legacy political pundits is that Democrats have a young male voter problem.

It’s been incessant and so ubiquitous that you’d be led to believe—based on the commentary—that Democratic candidates had all but told young men they don’t want their votes.

Last November, one of the biggest stories coming out of the election was that Democrats are lackluster in their outreach to young men. There had been too much focus on young women (defending bodily autonomy and talking about the need for paid family leave is, apparently, “too much focus” on young women).

Legacy pundits (mostly straight, white men) had ideas on how to solve this crisis. They said the left needs a Joe Rogan type. They said Democrats should “moderate” on issues like trans equality. They opined that the Democratic Party had become too feminized.

Remember James Carville ranting about “preachy females” and claiming that women’s empowerment in messaging is somehow a dealbreaker?

As far as I can tell, none of the big Democratic winners from last night got these histrionic memos from the legacy pundit class.

Not Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger. Not New Jersey Gov-elect Mikie Shirrell. Not NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. None of the baker’s dozen of Democrats who increased the party’s majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

None of them.

There were no special ads cut begging for young men specifically to vote for them or radio spots stumbling through a weak Rogan impression or comprehensive plans published by these campaigns addressing young men.

Hell, not only did Zohran Mamdani reject their advice, but he released an ad dedicated to the proud history of trans advocacy in New York City. And not even during Pride Month! He just put it out there late in the campaign like a reckless lunatic.

So, how did these candidates do with young men? According to NBC exit polling:

Abigail Spanberger won 58 percent of male voters aged 18-29 and just edged out her Republican opponent among male voters aged 30-44. In fact, she damn near won the overall male vote, regardless of age — 49 percent. And she did this while flipping a swing state.

Mikie Shirrell won 57 percent of male voters aged 18-29 and 62 percent among male voters aged 30-44. Likewise, she barely lost the overall male vote — 49 percent.

Zohran Mamdani won 67 percent of male voters aged 18-29 and 67 percent among male voters aged 30-44. A full two-thirds of all young male voters. He won half of the male vote overall — exactly 50 percent.

Ghazala Hashmi—the first Muslim American elected to lieutenant governor of any state—also performed well among young male voters in Virginia: 55 percent among the 18-29 bracket and 49 percent of men aged 30-44. She didn’t lose by much among men overall — 46 percent.

Even Jay Jones—who many predicted would lose the race for Virginia Attorney General in the wake of his texting scandal—not only defeated his Republican opponent with a comfortable overall margin but did well among male voters: 50 percent of men 18-29, 49 percent of men 30-44, and 45 percent of men overall.

Did I mention that Virginia Democrats achieved their largest majority in the House of Delegates in modern history? They’re on track to win 64 seats, an increase of 13, in opposition to relentless anti-trans messaging from Virginia Republicans all year.

Democrats clearly won young men last night. There is no debate over this. The numbers are loud and unyielding.

They didn’t do it by pandering to young men. They didn’t do it by begging in broken fratboy speak. They didn’t do it by treating young men like special little boys who need their hands held. They didn’t do it by abandoning women and trans people.

They did it by talking to young men about affordability. They talked to young men like young voters who are worried about the cost-of-living, not like men who need some dipshit masculinized pitch.

That doesn’t mean they didn’t have fun or decline to chat with young men. Zohran Mamdani went on podcasts and chatted it up with conservative young men about the need to focus on working class families. Mikie Shirrell and Abigail Spanberger talked to young male influencers and content creators about addressing their generation’s lack of enthusiasm about owning a home someday or just paying for basic needs.

They didn’t condescend to young men; they made them part of the solution. They told them they’re essential and deserve better because they’re adults living in a society where no one should get left behind — not because they’re men.

All of these candidates who won last night didn’t shy away from talking about gender equality and LGBTQ rights. They didn’t buy the ridiculous theory that doing so would alienate young men.

And they were right. My god, were they right.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Carville.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a private conference, will consider whether to take up a challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

The great Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes for us:

As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis’ challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.

I would be lying if I said I’m not pessimistic about this. I believe the Court will grant review, and they will eventually overturn Obergefell. I don’t think the votes are there to stop it. I hope I’m wrong. If the Court does decline review in the coming weeks, I will be relieved and celebrating. But I don’t think I’m wrong.

It will be a tragic setback for LGBTQ rights—both here and globally—but fortunately, due to the leadership and foresight of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and President Biden, the damage of that eventual overturning will be significantly mitigated.

Back in 2022, Senator Baldwin cobbled together a bipartisan majority in the Senate—which included twelve of her Republican colleagues—to overcome the filibuster and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which was then signed by President Biden.

Among other things, it provided federally-enforced reciprocity between the states on the validity of same-sex marriage licenses. Basically, if and when Obergefell is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that marriage licenses issued in states where it’s legal are still valid in states where issuing them would be illegal.

So, if I get married to another woman in Massachusetts, that marriage license would still be valid in, say, my home state of Texas, where it would be illegal to issue them when Obergefell is overturned.

Obviously, this is a very imperfect protection because many same-sex couples living in states where it would be illegal to get married can’t afford to travel to a state where it would be legal. Imagine, alone, the implications of that in a medical emergency. Or in having parental rights. Not great.

Regardless, it’s a crucial backstop that will protect millions of LGBTQ families in our country, and I’m deeply grateful to Senator Baldwin and President Biden for getting it across the finish line. It’s hard to believe there were twelve Republican senators who went along with it just three years ago.

We’re in this sad situation—on the precipice of witnessing one of the most important advances in LGBTQ rights dissolved—because of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell ruling.

A lawsuit was filed against her by same-sex couples who were denied, which she lost in district court and eventually at the Supreme Court, and after she continued refusing to issue licenses, she was jailed for contempt.

Following her release from jail after five days and a promise not to interfere with the work of her deputy clerks, Ms. Davis had alternate forms created which removed her name and she refused to add her signature to marriage licenses. Although the legality of these licenses were recognized by the state, some wondered if they could still be challenged in other contexts (out-of-state) for lack of a clerk’s signature.

There’s an entanglement of lawsuits here I won’t get into, but the most germane here is that a same-sex couple—David Ermold and David Moore—originally denied a license by Ms. Davis sued her to recoup their legal fees, which was eventually upheld in federal court and ordered to be paid by the State of Kentucky. But the state refused to pay them and said that burden should fall on Ms. Davis.

Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore also sued Ms. Davis for $100k in emotional damages, and a jury found in their favor in 2023.

So, that’s why we’re here and wondering if Obergefell will be overturned. Because in order for that to happen, someone would have to convince the Supreme Court that an unconstitutional burden has been placed on them by the legalization of same-sex marriages.

But there’d be no constitutional burden if Ms. Davis had carried out her duties as a county clerk because same-sex marriages don’t place a burden on anyone outside of those marriages.

We’re in this incredibly frustrating situation because Ms. Davis can lay claim to being the only person in America whom can, in theory, assert that she’s been burdened by Obergefell because of the legal fees she’s been ordered to pay (along with the jail time, emotional burden, etc).

All of this even though Ms. Davis brought it upon herself by neglecting her oath as a county clerk in favor of her religious views despite swearing to uphold the laws in a country guided by a constitution that guarantees freedom from religion.

She used her public office to force others to abide by her religious views and she got heavily penalized for it, and thus, she has a (ridiculous) argument for legal standing because of damages she incurred.

Ms. Davis has a curious relationship with her faith. As a Christian myself, I recognize all of us who follow Christ are vastly imperfect, but Ms. Davis is particularly dubious when it comes to Christ’s teachings.

She’s been divorced three times. Her second failed marriage included an affair she had with the man who would become her third husband and the father of twins she birthed during that second failed marriage. She later divorced that third husband and remarried the second one. Four marriages, three divorces.

I’m not here to judge Ms. Davis for her track record on shattered nuptials and broken commitments before God. That’s not my place, and it never will be. I have always maintained that whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

People should have sex with whom they want and marry whom they want and divorce whom they want, and at no point should my opinion on any of that be taken into consideration, let alone be the basis for any law. My religious views are for my personal life alone, and I should mind my own business.

Ms. Davis does not feel that way. She dismisses critics who point out her own imperfect journey, claiming her sins have been washed away by God’s salvation, liberating her to stand in punitive judgment of anyone she believes to be imperfect in the eyes of God.

I do not believe this is because Ms. Davis has an enduring faith in God. Quite the opposite. Her actions reflect a deep insecurity over her own faith and a relentless need to have her religious views validated by everyone around her in order to assuage that insecurity.

Kim Davis is the kind of Christian whom requires the irritation of her doubts to be calamine’d not by the perfect love and understanding of God but by the unyielding resignation of strangers’ personal lives to her religious purity, and while she does so, her own religious impurity should be met only with endless grace.

Grace for me but not for thee.

Ms. Davis is not someone with strong faith, but moreover, she is clearly not a happy person, and it is somehow the obligation of everyone else to sacrifice themselves for her spiritual validation and personal happiness.

I genuinely feel bad for her. I can’t imagine spending my life in the constant pursuit of ensuring every other adult is miserable so that my wobbly faith can be duck-taped together with the unnecessary pain of strangers.

I pray she finds peace somewhere because it’s abundantly clear she’s not seeking it from God.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Hey folks, this evening, I joined my dear friend Allison Gill (MuellerSheWrote) for a lively discussion about Pope Leo XIV, the new head of the Catholic Church. We discussed his politics and ideology, the shadow of the sex abuse scandals of the Church, and why this new pontiff is a direct opponent of Trump’s worldview.Earlier today, I published this piece about the rightwing outrage directed at the new pope — basically, that these folks are never happy. Check it out.

Thank you Reda Rountree (she/her), Kim B., A. Hofferkamp, Joanne, MagnaAnimus, and many others for tuning into my live video with Allison Gill!

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

You may have missed it in the chaos of our current news environment, but this week, the bodies of four American soldiers were pulled out of a peat bog—basically a swamp—in Lithuania about a week after they went missing there while on a training mission.

Last week, while a search was still underway for the missing soldiers, Trump was asked in the Oval Office by a reporter about the unfolding crisis and he responded that he didn’t know anything about it.

Yesterday, the bodies of the four soldiers arrived at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and were received in a ceremony known as a “dignified transfer,” which is attended by senior government officials and often the sitting president.

Last night, it was reported by NBC News that instead of attending the dignified transfer to honor the deceased soldiers, Trump flew to Florida to watch a LIV Golf tournament and attend a reception being hosted at his resort.

I understand many of you aren’t familiar with dignified transfers and why what Trump has done here is so disgusting and unbecoming and insulting to the memories of these soldiers.

During my time in the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), I was honored to take part in many dignified transfers at the height of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, I’ll explain:

The straight-line distance between Washington, D.C., and Dover, Delaware, is less than 85 miles. It takes a helicopter about 40 to 45 minutes to make the trip.

I was 19 years old, and it was my first time riding a helicopter.

I barely remember any of it. I was distracted.

I was more nervous than I've ever been in my life about what was to come next, and so, as this Black Hawk floated above the earth with my casket team, me the youngest and most junior, I could only think: What if I mess this up? What if I fail? How will I live with myself?

That's how it should be in a moment like this. You should be nervous. You should let that sharpen your focus. Because there is no room for error when handling the remains of a service member returning to the United States after they’ve died. You should strive for perfection.

The helicopter landed, and my anxiety spiked.

In retrospect, I recall noticing the silence of the rest of the casket team. These were young men, mostly early 20s, loud and boisterous and chests puffed. Now, they were quiet. It was unnerving.

When you're a new enlisted soldier in an infantry unit (the FNG) you're treated like you know nothing. Because you don't. Everyone around you is older and vastly more competent and confident. Yet, in this moment, despite having done this before, they were all nervous, too. It was unsettling.

We were brought into a holding area near the tarmac on Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where the remains of service members who have died in a theater of operations arrive on a C-17 transport plane. We rehearsed our steps. And did it again. And then again. No room for error.

The plane arrived. The ramp was lowered. The transfer vehicle that would complete the next leg of the journey was parked. Our casket team was positioned. We were now each wearing ceremonial white cotton gloves we had held under the bathroom faucet. Damp gloves have a better grip.

We’re a casket team, but these are not caskets. They're transfer cases: rectangular aluminum boxes that bear a resemblance to a crate for production equipment. Yet, the dimensions are obvious. Any given civilian would take only a few moments to realize that's for carrying bodies.

It's called a "dignified transfer," not a "ceremony," because officials don't want loved ones to feel obligated to be there while in mourning. But it is as highly choreographed as any ceremony, probably more so. It is done as close to perfection as anything the military does.

I was positioned in formation with my casket team, and I could see the transfer cases precisely laid out, military dress-right-dress, in the cavernous space of the C-17, each draped with an American flag that had been fastened perfectly. I remember my stomach dropping.

There is simply no space for other thoughts. Your full brain capacity is focused on not screwing up. The casket team steps off in crisp, exact steps toward the plane, up the ramp (please, oh God, don't slip), aside the case, lift up ceremonially, face back and down the ramp.

During movement, everyone else is saluting: the plane personnel, the OIC (officer in charge), any senior NCOs (noncommissioned officers) and generals, and occasionally, the president. The family is sometimes there. No ceremonial music or talking. All silent, save for the steps of the casket team.

You don't see the family during this. You're too focused. There are other distractions. Maybe they forgot, but no one told me there'd be 40-60 pounds of ice in the transfer case to prevent decomposition over the 10-hour plane ride. You can sometimes feel it sloshing around a bit.

Some of the transfer cases feel slightly heavier, some slightly lighter. The weight is distributed among six bearers, so it's not a big difference. But then you carry a case that's significantly lighter, and you realize those are the only remains they were able to recover.

It probably takes all of 30-40 seconds to carry the transfer case from the plane to the mortuary vehicle, but it feels like the longest walk ever each time. The case is carefully placed in the back of the mortuary vehicle, and the casket team moves away in formation.

When it's over and you're on your way back to Washington, you're overcome with a mixture of intense relief that you didn't screw up and profound sobriety over what you've just done and witnessed. I wouldn't call it a good feeling. Maybe a numbed pain.

From the outside, the most egalitarian place in America is a military transfer case. They all look exactly the same: an aluminum box covered with the American flag. We didn't know their names, rank, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation — none of it. All the same.

Whatever cruel and unfathomable politics had brought all of us to that moment, from the killed service member in the box, to those of us carrying it, to the occasional elected official who attends to pay respects, there were no politics to be found during a dignified transfer.

The fallen service members I helped receive and carry during this part of the journey to their final resting place were not "losers" or "suckers" — as Trump has infamously called them.

They were selfless and heroic, and I had the honor of being among the first to hold them when they returned home.

There are service members and civilians around the world involved in caring for our war fatalities: the mortuary specialists, the casket teams, the family liaisons — so many people who work to ensure that this final act is done with the greatest amount of dignity and honor, seeking perfection.

I suppose the one thing we all took for granted is that dignity would always be affirmed by all our civilian leaders to those service members who gave everything. I never would have predicted any official, let alone a sitting president, would insult fallen service members.

This is not to say the four American soldiers who died in Lithuania were not honored by a sitting president.

On Thursday, when the bodies of the soldiers were being transported to the airport in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, thousands of people there lined the streets to pay their respects.

Among them was Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, who, apparently, has more respect for our troops than our own commander-in-chief.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

Today is International Transgender Day of Visibility, often shortened to Trans Day of Visibility (or TDOV).

It was created by Rachel Crandall Crocker in Michigan in 2009, and it’s now celebrated in countries around the world.

Most estimates put trans and nonbinary people at between 0.5 and 1 percent of the total U.S. population, but some data suggests we may be as high as two percent.

Personally, I think it’s higher than that. I believe there are millions of closeted trans and nonbinary and gender-expansive and gender-questioning people in our country who don’t have the necessary encouragement and resources to live authentically.

I don’t need to elaborate on how our political climate has been saturated with an ongoing campaign of fear and terror against trans people.

That’s why visibility is so important: it saves lives, it gives voice to the voiceless, and it offers joy and hope and comfort where scarce.

I would not be alive today were it not for three primary blessings: 1) friends of all backgrounds who ensured I had love and safety and dignity, 2) the grace of a merciful and loving God who kept me buoyed through many difficult years of feeling incongruent with the world around me, and 3) every trans and nonbinary person whose visibility gave me strength and confidence to come out in my own time.

I exist today in my authenticity because of the visibility of trans and nonbinary people whose selflessness and courage paved roads that have permitted me to navigate the world with an expansive liberation in broader society they never got to experience.

I think of the closeted trans girl in Central Texas who once felt so alone and scared and ashamed of how I was born. For many years, I prayed every day that God would cleanse me of my desire to be who I really am, and it took a long time to recognize that being trans is a gift from God and part of my soul’s commission.

I thank God that I’m trans.

I can’t help but feel sympathy for the tens of millions of non-trans people in our country who are constantly burdened and tortured with struggling to meet the gendered expectations demanded of them by so much of society.

I think many non-trans people struggle with how our culture successfully and cruelly controls them, forcing them to be who they’re not, shaming them who they really are, all in service to a painful and unnecessary gendered framework that insists on an unforgiving rigidity solely meant to avoid discomfort based on irrational fear.

I think non-trans people who hate those of us who are trans are really motivated by a taught fear of themselves. It has to be terrifying to suppress oneself, only to witness people who have rejected that painful suppression.

Every transphobic argument can basically be boiled down to: "I actually don't know the science at all or have a good argument here, but trans people challenge my long held view of the world and it's very uncomfortable and everyone should be expected to move around my discomfort."

There’s obvious bigotry in that mindset, of course, but there’s also an extraordinary and unyielding and obvious pain, too.

Trans people are a constant reminder that there’s an entire world outside of what most non-trans people have been aggressively and irrationally conditioned to accept.

Today is about trans visibility and trans joy, to be sure, but I would also like to believe it can mean so much more. It can mean that non-trans people feel greater comfort and acceptance in embracing their own authenticity—however that may look—by the example trans and nonbinary people set.

I want every trans and nonbinary child in this country to be safe and loved and empowered, and I also want that for every non-trans child. I want every trans and nonbinary adult to be safe and loved and empowered, and I also want that for every non-trans adult.

I think that’s an essential North Star worthy of any compass.

That’s why I’m visible, and that’s what I wish for all of you, too.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

This evening, I sat down with my dear friend, the brilliant Shannon Watts, author of the Playing with Fire Substack (among many other hats), for a live discussion on why we both strongly believe the time has come for Sen. Chuck Schumer to step down as leader, why we’re supporting a boycott of contributions to Senate Democrats until they force him to do so, and what all Democrats can do to make this happen.

Shannon and I walked through the understandable concerns some of our fellow Democrats have felt over this effort and why, after all our discussion and introspection, we still believe Mr. Schumer needs to step down.

If you’re unsure of why so many of us want Mr. Schumer to step down, I’ve outlined my reasons in this essay.

And if you, too, are angry over our current situation with Democratic leadership and believe Mr. Schumer needs to step down, please sign our petition and join the 42,000 (and growing) Democrats (including a number of elected officals) who are calling on Mr. Schumer step aside for the good of our democracy.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: [email protected]. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]

Last night, I spoke with Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, author of Salty Politics, longtime political commentator, and founder of Lift Our Voices.

For ninety minutes, we had a frank discussion on trans rights, the state of the Democratic Party, and what it means to have effective messaging in this moment.

I enjoyed chatting Ms. Roginsky because we’re two proud Democrats who believe our party could be doing a hell of lot more in this moment and demanding that is an act of love and respect.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Yesterday afternoon, the bodies of Gene Hackman, Betsy Arakawa, and their dog were found at their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The County Sheriff’s Office did not have reason to suspect foul play this early in the investigation, and there’s no official confirmation on the cause of their deaths. Many have suggested it may have been carbon monoxide poisoning.

The couple had been married since 1991.

Betsy Arakawa, 63, was a retired classical pianist and co-owned Pandora’s Box, a home furnishings store in Santa Fe which she launched with her friend Barbara Lenihan. She resolutely avoided the spotlight and cherished her privacy, never giving public interviews and preferring to live a quiet life with her husband.

Gene Hackman, 95, was a Marine Corps veteran who had wanted to act since he was ten years old and pursued that dream several years after he left the service.

At the Pasadena Playhouse, Mr. Hackman and his friend Dustin Hoffman were voted “The Least Likely to Succeed” and shortly thereafter moved to NYC to prove the doubters wrong and make their way into the industry. They befriended Robert Duvall, and the three struggling actors shared apartments for much of the ‘60s.

All three became some of the best actors of their generation and among the greatest of all-time.

Mr. Hackman won Oscars for Best Actor (The French Connection, 1971) and Best Supporting Actor (Unforgiven, 1993), along with additional nominations for Best Actor (Mississippi Burning, 1989) and Best Supporting Actor (Bonnie & Clyde, 1968; I Never Sang for My Father, 1971).

He also won three Golden Globes (five additional nominations, plus the 2003 Cecil B. DeMille Award), two BAFTAs (five additional nominations), and a Screen Actors Guild Award along with the rest of the cast of The Birdcage (1997).

That’s all swell, but itemizing accolades doesn’t come close to doing justice to the spell cast by Gene Hackman onscreen.

The magic of Mr. Hackman is that he somehow played the same person and a completely different person, simultaneously, in every movie, and it always felt exactly right.

If you saw his face in a movie when you were flipping channels, you stopped to watch.

Because it's Gene Hackman. I mean, Hoosiers (1986). C’mon, now.

Every big character Mr. Hackman has done is so individually compelling whilst simultaneously bearing hallmarks that can only be done by Gene Hackman and wouldn't be as good without them, and we completely bought it every time.

It never felt like he broke himself down for characters. He seemed to just put on a costume and act his ass off. And it always worked.

My favorite performance by Mr. Hackman is Captain Ramsey in Crimson Tide (1995), the commander of a nuclear submarine who is clearly emotionally unstable and paranoid.

I’ve watched that movie so many times, and even when he’s not onscreen, Mr. Hackman looms large in every frame, somehow stealing scenes he’s not even in.

The pettiness and resentment and narcissism of the character is so palpable that the thought still briefly crosses my mind during every rewatch: “Damn, he’s gonna get ‘em all killed.”

One of the more interesting “what ifs” in the history of film casting is how Mr. Hackman almost played Calvin Jarrett, the father in Ordinary People (1980), but withdrew due to a financial disagreement with the studio.

The late, great Donald Sutherland was cast instead and gave a superb performance—which was infamously snubbed for a Best Actor nomination that year—but just for a second, try to imagine Mr. Hackman in that particular role.

I want to see that movie, too.

Mr. Hackman fully stepped away from acting in 2004 and confirmed his retirement in subsequent years, only making a guest appearance in an episode of “Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives” in 2008 and lending his voice to two Marine Corps documentaries.

Ms. Arakawa and Mr. Hackman remodeled a home in Santa Fe and built a quiet and peaceful life there over the past 35 years, away from all the glitz and glamour and gossip of Hollywood and the film industry, for which neither had much patience.

Their idea of a good time was spending every Friday night watching stand-up comedy, Susie Izzard being one of their favorites.

Their family and friends are in my thoughts today.

What a year, y’all. What a year.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

On Friday, actress and model Hunter Schafer posted an eight-and-a-half minute video on TikTok in which she revealed that the replacement passport she had just received had the gender marker changed from female to male.

Ms. Schafer is a trans woman, widely beloved among Gen-Z for her acting—particularly her performance in “Euphoria”—and broadly considered one of the most beautiful women in the world. Over the years, she’s modeled for Prada, Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, Alexander McQueen, and many other houses.

She came out as a teen girl and has renewed previously with the correct gender marker, with no issues. That means the State Department is either intentionally flagging all American passports with record of a gender marker change and/or they’re intentionally cross-referencing passports with birth certificates, some of which are issued by states that ban gender marker changes.

Not to mention: the ridiculous complexity for intersex Americans.

Florida, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas all prohibit gender marker amendments on birth certificates. Their number will very likely grow by the end of this year. Last week, the Arizona House approved a bill banning residents from amending their birth certificates to reflect their authentic gender identity.

I’m worried for all the obvious reasons: the government tracking, the likely surveillance of trans people, the grave risk of an incorrect, “outed” passport for any trans person who needs to travel internationally, the potential for confusion and obstruction over government documents for things like security clearances, etc.

That same day, the Bureau of Prisons announced that trans people incarcerated in federal prisons would be moved to facilities that align with their sex assigned at birth, as early as next week. There are nearly 2,300 trans people incarcerated in federal prisons at the moment.

Trans women transferred to men’s prisons will obviously be at substantially greater risk of violence.

The same day—yes, all on Friday—Iowa Republicans announced a bill that, if successful, would remove ‘gender identity’ as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, thus eliminating anti-discrimination protections for all transgender Iowans.

It would make Iowa the first state to remove a protected class from civil rights law.

Meanwhile, at the White House—yes, same exact day—Trump was speaking to a large, bipartisan group of governors and went after Maine Gov. Janet Mills from behind his podium.

“Is Maine Here? The governor of Maine?”

“Yeah, I’m here,” she said from her seat in the audience.

“Are you not going to comply with that?” Trump demanded of her, referencing the executive order he signed on Feb. 5th that bans trans girls and young women from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

“I’m complying with the state and federal laws,” she responded.

“We are the federal law,” snapped Trump. “You better do it… You better comply , you better comply, because otherwise you’re not getting any federal funding.”

“See you in court,” she retorted from her seat.

“Good,” said Trump. “I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a real easy one, and enjoy your life after governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”

It was yet another moment Trump attempted to intimidate elected officials across the political spectrum over trans issues.

On Saturday, Trump spoke to the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where he took a victory lap for ending “transgender insanity.”

“It’s all out now — critical race theory and transgender insanity. It’s all gone from our schools and from our military and I believe it’s gone, too… I believe that it’s all gone.”

Today, Bill Maher appeared on the “Pod Saves America” podcast and argued with co-host Jon Lovett about trans issues, urging him that Democrats would “lose every election” if they don’t give up more on trans equality.

Side note here: anti-trans punditry that claims to be offering the “reasonable middle” argument always seems to intensely focus on what they don’t want.

There is never a good faith framing of what they believe should be legal. There are reasons for that: either they don’t actually believe in minimum rights for trans people or they fear being targeted by extremists for offering support for even a modicum of trans equality.

The relentless pace of anti-trans actions and rhetoric have become overwhelming.

That’s how I’m doing.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I had the great pleasure of chatting with my dear friend, the incomparable, brilliant, and wonderful Shannon Watts, about the, um, state of Democratic politics at the moment.

And I promise, despite all the things, y’all will feel a bit better after watching.

Also: subscribe to Shannon’s blog. She’s a gem.

Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.