Here's the thing. I'm trans. On our own, we represent a tiny sliver of the voting public, not worth considering from a strategic standpoint. But there are plenty of other groups of people in the same boat. Together, we are worth considering - but only together. "What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?" If we try to build a coalition in which we abandon any group that the democratic politicians deem too much of a liability to be worth protecting, that is no coalition at all, and I well understand that after Palestinians, I will be next. The very same logic that these people were willing to deploy against them can and will be deployed to justify abandoning me and mine.

What advantage do I gain from joining together in a "coalition" in "solidarity" with these fair-weather friends who will drop us at the first sign of trouble? Honestly, they are more of a liability than an asset, because if I'm buddying up with them, it damages my credibility among potentially more reliable people who have good reason not to trust them. I would rather do it the right way and build trust even if it means building from the ground up.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but these disagreements are meaningful and important. This election may be over, but the question remains of what the appropriate strategy is going forward, whether to build a coalition that will treat an offense against one as an offense against all, and ensure that anyone who comes for any part of it is unelectable, or whether to "vote blue no matter who" as we are picked off one-by-one, in exchange for temporary, short term security for some.