Gavin Newsom: Trans athletes playing in women’s sports ‘deeply unfair’

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.



Also BTW I will point out that trans rights issues are very polarized along gender lines, and a 90% male forum is going to be a lot more anti trans than a demographically similar sample except with a more balanced gender proportion.

[The People's Liberation Army of Rancho Cucamonga]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.

Crazy how the two most anti-free speech groups in this country are Christian conservatives and trans people.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.

Crazy how the two most anti-free speech groups in this country are Christian conservatives and trans people.

Crazy how the wannabe trey parker/matt stone libertarian isn't smart enough to not take everything literally.

[HisGrace]

Again, if the Democratic party line moved to "Yes, they do have advantages, but that's OK because it's more important to be inclusive than to worry about who wins and loses," that would be better

When red avs say stuff like this I understand how they managed to lose to an idiot like Donald Trump twice.

You're chopping up a quote to make it seem like I'm advocating for a position that I'm not. That's not cool.

I wasn't addressing the merits of the issue in that post, it is just very clearly not "better" to essentially say "all your criticisms are correct but I'm still going to disagree with you". That's both conceding defeat on the issue and clinging to the losing position. Dems just have the worst political instincts these days. If you're going to fight on an issue actually fight and try to convince people.

As I noted elsewhere this isn't an issue to be fighting on in my opinion, but that's a separate issue.

[HisGrace]

No actually, but I don’t go on Grindr for political debates?

brb, gonna start a grindr account just to argue with people.

[7,052,770]

Again, if the Democratic party line moved to "Yes, they do have advantages, but that's OK because it's more important to be inclusive than to worry about who wins and loses," that would be better

When red avs say stuff like this I understand how they managed to lose to an idiot like Donald Trump twice.

You're chopping up a quote to make it seem like I'm advocating for a position that I'm not. That's not cool.

I wasn't addressing the merits of the issue in that post, it is just very clearly not "better" to essentially say "all your criticisms are correct but I'm still going to disagree with you". That's both conceding defeat on the issue and clinging to the losing position. Dems just have the worst political instincts these days. If you're going to fight on an issue actually fight and try to convince people.

As I noted elsewhere this isn't an issue to be fighting on in my opinion, but that's a separate issue.

But I am on [somewhat reluctantly] Newsom's side on the issue. The way you chopped up the quote makes it seems like I'm saying "It would be better for Newsom to say ..." when no, I don't think that at all, and it's the complete opposite of every post I've made in this thread.

Both of these positions are bad, political losers:

• "We should allow transgender participation in athletics because the idea that they have an advantage is a transphobic myth."
• "We should allow transgender participation athletics even though it's true that they have an advantage, because inclusion is more important."

I have more respect for the 2nd position because it's least it's honest, and position #1 is so blatantly untrue that it is insults the intelligence of basically everyone. Politicians being fake and dishonest is something I hate far more than politicians having a different opinion than me. But again, I think it's very obvious from what I've posted in this thread that I do not suggest that Democrats make #2 the official party line.

[Bacon King]

could the folks ITT still posting good-faiths arguments from either extreme pls explain why my BEAUTIFUL COMPROMISE is not satisfactory? genuinely curious

the only way to implement restrictions in a truly fair way is, ironically, most similar to how Nebraska currently handles it. A panel of medical experts in the relevant fields (e.g. endocrinology doctors) empowered to decide everything on a case by case basis

I'm fine with making a grand compromise that says "student athletes must compete in the gender category they experienced puberty under" if we also stop trying to prevent trans kids from taking puberty blockers when doing so is medically warranted. If the kid, their parents and their doctors all agree its the best course of action, then interfering with their healthcare needs is malicious in outcome even if not intent. *

we should accept puberty blockers are normal and safe, of course: they've been regularly prescribed to treat a wide variety of conditions for more than four decades in some cases, it's not like we somehow haven't been recording treatment outcomes in all that time. Obviously it has side effects like literally any prescription medication but that's why we trust medical professionals to decide when and how they should be administered.

i think this is a fine way for all reasonable people to get on the same page and resolve this issue. Let students compete in sports with the biologically appropriate gender without actively discriminating against anyone




* = aside: sure, maybe require the school nurse or counselor or someone to also sign off on it if you're really truly worried about the largely hypothetical fearmongering that parents might strongarming their child into transitioning and hand-picking a doctor willing to go along with it, whatever, i'm on board if that will resolve the issue. of course it bears mentioning that such a thing is not common in the slightest, and if we're opening the door to "legislating how we handle scenarios where parents refuse to accept the child's preferred gender" then statistically it's exponentially more common that parents refuse acknowledging a child's desire to transition, even into adulthood... but now this is getting too far removed from the issue of sports to which our discussion is nominally restricted

[Goldwater]

Also BTW I will point out that trans rights issues are very polarized along gender lines, and a 90% male forum is going to be a lot more anti trans than a demographically similar sample except with a more balanced gender proportion.

Bold of you to assume that hypothetical gender balanced Atlas wouldn't be filled with TERFs.

[The People's Liberation Army of Rancho Cucamonga]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.

Crazy how the two most anti-free speech groups in this country are Christian conservatives and trans people.

Crazy how the wannabe trey parker/matt stone libertarian isn't smart enough to not take everything literally.

Damn, you don't even have the guts to admit that you meant it.

[7,052,770]

could the folks ITT still posting good-faiths arguments from either extreme pls explain why my BEAUTIFUL COMPROMISE is not satisfactory? genuinely curious

I support it, but I don't think it's feasible. Puberty blockers aren't even legal in half the states, and probably won't be legal in any state before long, either by Congressional ban or by the courts blessing Trump's executive order.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ferguson’s point shows why activists from either side rarely get what they want in politics and many times bring upon the slippery slope they are so afraid of . The reason is simple , taking unpopular positions make it more likely you will lose elections which then will make it easier for other parties to implement their agenda on the issue .

If you actually care about an issue (doenst matter which because it applies to any issue) it makes it even more important that you are willing to compromise on that issue to ensure your not losing credibility on the issue to the other side .

There is a reason why democrats don’t have credibility on either trans issues or immigration and that is they took extremely unpopular positions and the same is true for republicans on abortion or healthcare .

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.

Crazy how the two most anti-free speech groups in this country are Christian conservatives and trans people.

Crazy how the wannabe trey parker/matt stone libertarian isn't smart enough to not take everything literally.

Damn, you don't even have the guts to admit that you meant it.

Google post-irony.

[Joe Biden 2028]

It's as clear as ever to me that Democrats just need to rip the Band-Aid off now. No reason to let this drag out any longer. Sports teams are split up by biological sex, end of story. There's no excuse for ever having let any of this become a major issue in the first place.

It’s not going to stop with sports. If Democrats cave on this, it sets a precedent that trans women aren’t real women, which will make it easier for Republicans to take away all of their other rights.

There is no scenario where Republicans win on the sports issue and Democrats win on everything else. This is all or nothing.

It amazes me that some of the same people who recognized that the repeal of Roe is going to make it easier for Republicans to come after contraceptives, but can’t seem to recognize a similar pattern here.

Genuine question

You are given a magic crystal ball where you see the future.

Trans women are banned from women sports at all levels in all 50 states because of a federal bill. But nothing else changes. No state bans being tran or medical tranisitions for adults. The status quo remains except for sports. No death camps.

Because of the federal bill, the American people no longer talk about trans issues and Democrats win the 2026 and 2028 elections.

Are you okay with this?

(This isn't asking if you think this will happen. I know you think it won't stop there. This is asking that are you willing to give up sports if you magically KNEW that it would not lead to banning being trans and help Democrats electorally)

Or are trans sports issue truly the hill to die on. Strictly sports, not the fear it'll lead to worst.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.



Also BTW I will point out that trans rights issues are very polarized along gender lines, and a 90% male forum is going to be a lot more anti trans than a demographically similar sample except with a more balanced gender proportion.

Sure this forum is probably over 90% assigned male at birth, but is it over 90% identifying as male?

[BlueSwan]

Both of these positions are bad, political losers:

• "We should allow transgender participation in athletics because the idea that they have an advantage is a transphobic myth."
• "We should allow transgender participation athletics even though it's true that they have an advantage, because inclusion is more important."

I have more respect for the 2nd position because it's least it's honest, and position #1 is so blatantly untrue that it is insults the intelligence of basically everyone. Politicians being fake and dishonest is something I hate far more than politicians having a different opinion than me. But again, I think it's very obvious from what I've posted in this thread that I do not suggest that Democrats make #2 the official party line.

Yup, I totally agree with this.

My own position is this: Inclusion IS important, but so is fairness in sports. The SOLE purpose for having female categories in sports is to allow for females to be able to actually compete, just like there exist junior categories, senior categories, etc. If those categories didn't exist, males between 20 and 35 would win just about every physical sports contest on the planet. Hence allowing for biological males to compete in female categories defeats the entire purpose of having female categories in the first place. But as I said, inclusion IS important, which is why I think in general, transwomen should be allowed to compete with women at all levels below the elite levels. At the elite levels, organizations should be able to distinguish whether it is a sport where males have an inherent advantage or not. In the latter case I guess even dividing up between males and females would be pointless.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Both of these positions are bad, political losers:

• "We should allow transgender participation in athletics because the idea that they have an advantage is a transphobic myth."
• "We should allow transgender participation athletics even though it's true that they have an advantage, because inclusion is more important."

I have more respect for the 2nd position because it's least it's honest, and position #1 is so blatantly untrue that it is insults the intelligence of basically everyone. Politicians being fake and dishonest is something I hate far more than politicians having a different opinion than me. But again, I think it's very obvious from what I've posted in this thread that I do not suggest that Democrats make #2 the official party line.

Yup, I totally agree with this.

My own position is this: Inclusion IS important, but so is fairness in sports. The SOLE purpose for having female categories in sports is to allow for females to be able to actually compete, just like there exist junior categories, senior categories, etc. If those categories didn't exist, males between 20 and 35 would win just about every physical sports contest on the planet. Hence allowing for biological males to compete in female categories defeats the entire purpose of having female categories in the first place. But as I said, inclusion IS important, which is why I think in general, transwomen should be allowed to compete with women at all levels below the elite levels. At the elite levels, organizations should be able to distinguish whether it is a sport where males have an inherent advantage or not. In the latter case I guess even dividing up between males and females would be pointless.

This touches on something that has always made most physical sports competition seem like complete nonsense to me. The idea that it is somehow "fair" to allow people who have very different physiology  to compete under identical terms, so long as they have identical sex chromosomes is just a garbage-level take. If you want to do what boxing (and, I think, some wrestling?) does, and rigorously segregate competitors by their actual physical characteristics, I have no real issue with that.

But it seems to me that the whole (very tiny) "issue" of trans-people in sports exists because it is an easy form of discrimination, and serves as a distraction from the facts that, particularly at the lower-levels of competition (which so many bigoted people who don't otherwise care about those sports whine about endlessly) that genetics, epigenetics, and childhood influences are major factors that are at least as determinative as the impact of skill and practice.

[BlueSwan]

Both of these positions are bad, political losers:

• "We should allow transgender participation in athletics because the idea that they have an advantage is a transphobic myth."
• "We should allow transgender participation athletics even though it's true that they have an advantage, because inclusion is more important."

I have more respect for the 2nd position because it's least it's honest, and position #1 is so blatantly untrue that it is insults the intelligence of basically everyone. Politicians being fake and dishonest is something I hate far more than politicians having a different opinion than me. But again, I think it's very obvious from what I've posted in this thread that I do not suggest that Democrats make #2 the official party line.

Yup, I totally agree with this.

My own position is this: Inclusion IS important, but so is fairness in sports. The SOLE purpose for having female categories in sports is to allow for females to be able to actually compete, just like there exist junior categories, senior categories, etc. If those categories didn't exist, males between 20 and 35 would win just about every physical sports contest on the planet. Hence allowing for biological males to compete in female categories defeats the entire purpose of having female categories in the first place. But as I said, inclusion IS important, which is why I think in general, transwomen should be allowed to compete with women at all levels below the elite levels. At the elite levels, organizations should be able to distinguish whether it is a sport where males have an inherent advantage or not. In the latter case I guess even dividing up between males and females would be pointless.

This touches on something that has always made most physical sports competition seem like complete nonsense to me. The idea that it is somehow "fair" to allow people who have very different physiology  to compete under identical terms, so long as they have identical sex chromosomes is just a garbage-level take. If you want to do what boxing (and, I think, some wrestling?) does, and rigorously segregate competitors by their actual physical characteristics, I have no real issue with that.

But it seems to me that the whole (very tiny) "issue" of trans-people in sports exists because it is an easy form of discrimination, and serves as a distraction from the facts that, particularly at the lower-levels of competition (which so many bigoted people who don't otherwise care about those sports whine about endlessly) that genetics, epigenetics, and childhood influences are major factors that are at least as determinative as the impact of skill and practice.

Nonsense. A 80 kg female boxer stands zero chances against an equally skilled 80 kg male boxer. Likewise in every other physical sport.

[Devout Centrist]

Here is my modest proposal:

Recreational/anything below the collegiate level: no restrictions whatsoever. Unless someone is bullying your child, I don’t care. The stakes are low enough such that none of this really matters.

Collegiate (Division 1+2 mainly): Case by case basis, depends heavily on the sport. No uniform ban. Since this is usually where real money starts to get involved, I can understand wanting to ensure more rigorous standards for distinctions on the basis of puberty and biological sex.

Olympics/Professional association: league rules prevail, more stringent requirements + testing regimes for sex hormones are the norm here.

Much of the reason why this topic gets so heated comes down to scholarship money and its implications for PMC types. Very nasty stuff and reflects badly on the parents, most of all. I would be more willing to understand the fairness argument if trans women were consistently beating cis women in athletic competitions, but this is just not the case. At the end of the day, this is driven by parents grasping at straws for why their perfect child failed to get a large swimming scholarship to UCONN or smth.

[DaleCooper]

could the folks ITT still posting good-faiths arguments from either extreme pls explain why my BEAUTIFUL COMPROMISE is not satisfactory? genuinely curious

the only way to implement restrictions in a truly fair way is, ironically, most similar to how Nebraska currently handles it. A panel of medical experts in the relevant fields (e.g. endocrinology doctors) empowered to decide everything on a case by case basis

I'm fine with making a grand compromise that says "student athletes must compete in the gender category they experienced puberty under" if we also stop trying to prevent trans kids from taking puberty blockers when doing so is medically warranted. If the kid, their parents and their doctors all agree its the best course of action, then interfering with their healthcare needs is malicious in outcome even if not intent. *

we should accept puberty blockers are normal and safe, of course: they've been regularly prescribed to treat a wide variety of conditions for more than four decades in some cases, it's not like we somehow haven't been recording treatment outcomes in all that time. Obviously it has side effects like literally any prescription medication but that's why we trust medical professionals to decide when and how they should be administered.

i think this is a fine way for all reasonable people to get on the same page and resolve this issue. Let students compete in sports with the biologically appropriate gender without actively discriminating against anyone




* = aside: sure, maybe require the school nurse or counselor or someone to also sign off on it if you're really truly worried about the largely hypothetical fearmongering that parents might strongarming their child into transitioning and hand-picking a doctor willing to go along with it, whatever, i'm on board if that will resolve the issue. of course it bears mentioning that such a thing is not common in the slightest, and if we're opening the door to "legislating how we handle scenarios where parents refuse to accept the child's preferred gender" then statistically it's exponentially more common that parents refuse acknowledging a child's desire to transition, even into adulthood... but now this is getting too far removed from the issue of sports to which our discussion is nominally restricted

It's not a good compromise because Democrats need to oppose all of that too.

[Casino Democrat]

I think it's a little bit offensive to compare trans athletes to the fight to defeat Jim Crow.

How is it offensive when the goals of transphobes are at best the same as those who supported Jim Crow (making them second class citizens with no civil rights)?

I'm sincerely asking: if there was a magic button that killed every trans person in the world, I think that 60-75% of Republicans politicians would press it. Do you disagree?

"Don't you DARE compare working conditions and pay for factory workers to chattel slavery!  You will get paid a dollar a week to work in smoke filled rooms and you will like it!"-Said some respectable moron in 188whatever.

[Joe Biden 2028]

Here is my modest proposal:

Recreational/anything below the collegiate level: no restrictions whatsoever. Unless someone is bullying your child, I don’t care. The stakes are low enough such that none of this really matters.

Collegiate (Division 1+2 mainly): Case by case basis, depends heavily on the sport. No uniform ban. Since this is usually where real money starts to get involved, I can understand wanting to ensure more rigorous standards for distinctions on the basis of puberty and biological sex.

Olympics/Professional association: league rules prevail, more stringent requirements + testing regimes for sex hormones are the norm here.

Much of the reason why this topic gets so heated comes down to scholarship money and its implications for PMC types. Very nasty stuff and reflects badly on the parents, most of all. I would be more willing to understand the fairness argument if trans women were consistently beating cis women in athletic competitions, but this is just not the case. At the end of the day, this is driven by parents grasping at straws for why their perfect child failed to get a large swimming scholarship to UCONN or smth.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise (unlike others)

But I think K-12 sport’s probably angers average people far more than college/professional level sports. 54% of American kids play sports either at schools, church leagues or private clubs (shocker to the nerds of atlas lol)

Most Americans probably know young people who play sports. Most don’t know a college athlete or an NBA player for example.

Another issue, most professional leagues have already banned trans women. Because of Trump’s order, the NCAA has banned trans women at the college level.

So your compromise is largely the status quo. Half the states have banned trans women in women sports at the K-12 level, Republicans are trying to finish the job by cutting off federal funds.

Any “Compromise” can’t go backwards.

The best compromise is allow trans women to play who NEVER experienced male puberty. Otherwise they are banned.

States that banned puberty blockers for minors? Tough luck. That’s a separate issue

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

I think it's a little bit offensive to compare trans athletes to the fight to defeat Jim Crow.

How is it offensive when the goals of transphobes are at best the same as those who supported Jim Crow (making them second class citizens with no civil rights)?

I'm sincerely asking: if there was a magic button that killed every trans person in the world, I think that 60-75% of Republicans politicians would press it. Do you disagree?

"Don't you DARE compare working conditions and pay for factory workers to chattel slavery!  You will get paid a dollar a week to work in smoke filled rooms and you will like it!"-Said some respectable moron in 188whatever.

Thank you for bringing Ferguson's post to my attention. The ignore function is performing its intended purpose!

Ferguson is lucky that OSR is currently the undisputed Least Compelling Debater in this community. But when OSR finally gets axed, people are going to be reminded of just how bad Ferg can be.

[Devout Centrist]

I appreciate your willingness to compromise (unlike others)

But I think K-12 sport’s probably angers average people far more than college/professional level sports. 54% of American kids play sports either at schools, church leagues or private clubs (shocker to the nerds of atlas lol)

Most Americans probably know young people who play sports. Most don’t know a college athlete or an NBA player for example.

There are these things called "principles" and "universal human rights", which compel me to disagree with the majority and with aggrieved parents - Is it unpopular to oppose these bans now? Of course. Does that mean we should surrender merely because the majority disagrees with us *at this moment in time*? No.

So your compromise is largely the status quo. Half the states have banned trans women in women sports at the K-12 level, Republicans are trying to finish the job by cutting off federal funds.

Any “Compromise” can’t go backwards.

Why not? By this logic, we should accept sodomy laws and chemical castration for open homosexuals, as that was the "compromise" at one point in time.

The best compromise is allow trans women to play who NEVER experienced male puberty. Otherwise they are banned.

Doesn't this contradict the "no going backwards" statement?

States that banned puberty blockers for minors? Tough luck. That’s a separate issue

No, the connection here is rather obvious and straightfoward?

Overall, I am perplexed. You seem to readily accept the Trump Administration's framing of this issue. I reject it outright. If you're not willing to abandon that, then I see no reason to continue our discussion here.

[VBM]

I really wish we could restrict trans discussion rights to people who have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the issue. Sadly, its not really possible to take away discussion priviliges from 90+% of the population.

Crazy how the two most anti-free speech groups in this country are Christian conservatives and trans people.

Makes sense. They both also strongly enforce traditional gender roles

[Joe Biden 2028]

I appreciate your willingness to compromise (unlike others)

But I think K-12 sport’s probably angers average people far more than college/professional level sports. 54% of American kids play sports either at schools, church leagues or private clubs (shocker to the nerds of atlas lol)

Most Americans probably know young people who play sports. Most don’t know a college athlete or an NBA player for example.

There are these things called "principles" and "universal human rights", which compel me to disagree with the majority and with aggrieved parents - Is it unpopular to oppose these bans now? Of course. Does that mean we should surrender merely because the majority disagrees with us *at this moment in time*? No.

So your compromise is largely the status quo. Half the states have banned trans women in women sports at the K-12 level, Republicans are trying to finish the job by cutting off federal funds.

Any “Compromise” can’t go backwards.

Why not? By this logic, we should accept sodomy laws and chemical castration for open homosexuals, as that was the "compromise" at one point in time.

The best compromise is allow trans women to play who NEVER experienced male puberty. Otherwise they are banned.

Doesn't this contradict the "no going backwards" statement?

States that banned puberty blockers for minors? Tough luck. That’s a separate issue

No, the connection here is rather obvious and straightfoward?

Overall, I am perplexed. You seem to readily accept the Trump Administration's framing of this issue. I reject it outright. If you're not willing to abandon that, then I see no reason to continue our discussion here.

Two questions

1. Don’t political parties have to follow majority opinion to win elections? Democrats didn’t embrace gay marriage in 2004 and 2008 because it wasn’t popular enough and would prevent them from winning.

2. You are given a magic crystal ball. In one future, Democratic leaders move against trans women in sports. Nothing else changes with trans issues. The issue is “solved” and Americans move on. Democrats win the 2026 and 2028 elections and overall things get better for trans Americans.

Future 2: Democrats continue to run away from the issue and the American people continue to view this as tactic approval of trans women in sports. Democrats lose in 2028. Vance appoints Thomas/Alito types to replace Kagan and Sontomyere. America becomes a fascist dictatorship.

Which future do you pick?