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

[Goldwater]

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

Such a heartwarming level of support and empathy for the trans community!

[Devout Centrist]

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.

Political parties and candidates can shape public opinion over time. The Republican Party has consistently run on a platform of mass deportations for the past 12 years, and for most of that time public opinion was firmly *against* their stance on the issue. Yet now they control the Presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary. They were not punished for being out of step with public opinion.

In fact, I would argue following majority opinion is part of the reason why our country is in this mess and why the Democratic Party has withered so dramatically. By refusing to find and take principled stances on a variety of issues, Democrats have failed to persuade the electorate and have lost support among their own base.

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.

How does this "solve" the issue? Politics isn't a game where you can resolve difficult questions or issues through elegant, simple solutions (at least in most cases). American history actually has plenty of "solutions" to hot button issues that did not work - The Missouri Compromise fell apart in a little over 30 years, Roe v. Wade ignited a fierce and prolonged fight over abortion rights, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not the final word on anti-black discrimination, and so on. Why should we expect capitulation to "solve" the problem for Democrats and the country?

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.

I don't have much to say about this future, other than we are already at this point. The time to stand up and fight is here, not in some imagined 2028 election.

[Joe Biden 2028]

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.

Political parties and candidates can shape public opinion over time. The Republican Party has consistently run on a platform of mass deportations for the past 12 years, and for most of that time public opinion was firmly *against* their stance on the issue. Yet now they control the Presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary. They were not punished for being out of step with public opinion.

In fact, I would argue following majority opinion is part of the reason why our country is in this mess and why the Democratic Party has withered so dramatically. By refusing to find and take principled stances on a variety of issues, Democrats have failed to persuade the electorate and have lost support among their own base.

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.

How does this "solve" the issue? Politics isn't a game where you can resolve difficult questions or issues through elegant, simple solutions (at least in most cases). American history actually has plenty of "solutions" to hot button issues that did not work - The Missouri Compromise fell apart in a little over 30 years, Roe v. Wade ignited a fierce and prolonged fight over abortion rights, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not the final word on anti-black discrimination, and so on. Why should we expect capitulation to "solve" the problem for Democrats and the country?

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.

I don't have much to say about this future, other than we are already at this point. The time to stand up and fight is here, not in some imagined 2028 election.

Could you please answer the question?

And I to clearify, when I mean “solved” I mean in the context of 2020 culture wars. Not solve trans discrimination in general. Like how the civil rights act solved segregation not anti black discrimination

[Transgender for Everybody]

Makes sense. They both also strongly enforce traditional gender roles

I don't get this argument. If a trans person doesn't lean into traditional gender roles, they're condemned by cisgender society for "not trying hard enough", certainly far more severely than by their fellow trans people. And I mean, 90% of people who yammer on about "free speech" don't actually give a sh**t about it. Like, I don't want the government to go after people who are mean to me; I just want to be able to tell them when they're being an asshole. Meanwhile, this "free speech" government thinks it ought to be illegal to describe people who aren't trans in the most obvious way.

[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.

Makes sense. They both also strongly enforce traditional gender roles

Aren't you the guy who got all pissy that people jumped on you for claiming the lack of women pilots was because of inherent biological differences or something?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

And generally, decoupling the concept of "man" and "woman" from reproductive biology is really dangerous to traditional gender roles(at least in the anglo world) which are extremely reliant on reproductive differences to justify themselves. If a man can get pregnant and a woman can have a dick, then suddenly using pregnancy and giving birth to justify forcing women to do all the unpaid childwork while men do all the paid labor is impossible.

If trans people enforced traditional gender roles in the way certain anti trans types insisted we do, the religious right would not be making us their number one priority to attack.

[Voice of low info America]

Starting a podcast is bad enough, but inviting Charlie Kirk as your first guest? F off, Gavin. You're dead to me.

[Devout Centrist]

Could you please answer the question?

It's a false dilemma to begin with, but of course I pick Option 1. That being said, were I a Democrat, I would renege on that "solution" as soon as we got power and start advocating for much more trans participation in athletics.

And I to clearify, when I mean “solved” I mean in the context of 2020 culture wars. Not solve trans discrimination in general. Like how the civil rights act solved segregation not anti black discrimination

But that isn't how the cultural war works - the American public is still debating the extent of gay rights, gun control, and abortion restrictions *to this day*. It is fantasy to believe that some kind of compromise will solve the matter. The Civil Rights Act, for example may have ended de jure segregation in the American South yet it prompted a vast reaction against Democrats and led to increased white retrenchment in housing discrimination and de facto school segregation.