Harris-Walz / Dems

I think Newsom is pulling an Obama on trans issues. Back in 2008, Obama said he was against gay marriage, then once the polls shifted, he "evolved" and fully supported it.

Now Newsom, who has been one of the most pro-LGBTQ governors, suddenly says letting trans women compete in women's sports is unfair. This isn't some random change of heart. He knows the polls are moving and he's definitely thinking about 2028.

He wants to look reasonable to moderates while hoping progressives aren't willing to sacrifice another election by sitting it out or throwing their votes away on someone like Jill Stein.

This is the ugly face of pragmatism. He wants the job, the big office. And he's sat back and seen how the country voted this last go around. It's scummy. Despicable. And completely in line for any politician. They want the job. And they'll say whatever they think will get them the job.

Those that don't tend to not get the office.

People acting like Newsom has suddenly turned anti-trans need to take a step back.

This guy has been one of the strongest pro-LGBTQ governors in the country. He was officiating same-sex marriages way before it was cool. As governor, he signed laws making California a "sanctuary state" for trans kids seeking gender-affirming care. He banned state-funded travel to states with anti-LGBTQ laws. He pushed for inclusive policies in schools and healthcare, and he’s been a loud voice against anti-trans legislation across the country.

So yeah, his new stance on trans athletes is a shift, but let's not pretend he was ever some right-winger on these issues. He’s making a political calculation, not flipping sides.

He's making a wrong calculation.

Polling shows that out of all the jive the far-right is doing, the anti-trans stuff is among the least popular.

Most anti-trans stuff from the right is super unpopular, but this specific issue is different. Polls show that a majority of Americans, including a lot of Democrats, think trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports.

Newsom isn't jumping on some far-right bandwagon, he's just reading the room. This is one of the few issues where public opinion isn't on the left's side, so it's not exactly a bad political move.

Glad to know which trans rights are acceptable to torch.

Sports have always had eligibility rules based on biology. Weight classes, age restrictions, and disability classifications all exist to keep competition fair. This is a discussion about where the line should be drawn, not about taking away anyone's rights in daily life.

The real question is whether fairness in women's sports should take priority over inclusion, or if inclusion is important enough to justify allowing some level of competitive imbalance. According to the polls, a majority of voters believe the former.

This is from the January NYT/Ipsos poll:

I'm sorry, but the idea that trans women routinely have a biological advantage is a scientific falsehood. DEMONSTRABLY so. If you want to argue testosterone levels or physical advantages, we can have that discussion, but then that may also cause certain cis women to be excluded, but we don't seem to be having that conversation.

I do not care what the majority of voters or poll takers think. I care about accuracy and truth.

And the truth is that the physical advantages of a trans woman who is on hormones to bring them in line with their gender physically are negligible to non existent - and under a certain age in school the biological differences between boys and girls are inconsequential.

There is ONE study that claims otherwise and it has been repeatedly discredited.

The most recent study showed that the only real advantage that trans women had was in grip strength, and a slight advantage in run speeds. Offset by worse cardiovascular capabilities and jump capabilities. In other words the kinds of advantages and disadvantages already present from cis woman to cis woman.

We have a handful of cases of trans women doing exceptionally well at a professional level, and in every case if you look past the wins that make headlines their records and stats are in line with those of their peers.

This is an invented issue, and I do not care how pragmatic it is - I'm not going to pretend it's not to appease people who think the rights of people like me are acceptable losses.

And for teenagers, being on puberty blockers is literally a disadvantage in most sports.

M. Virion said:

This is an invented issue

Click to expand...

You’re absolutely right: this is an invented issue. But invented issues still shape public opinion, and elections are largely vibes-based. Voters don't always decide based on policy or facts. They go with what feels right to them. Those vibes sway votes and votes decide elections. You don't have to like it. I know I don't, but that's the reality we're stuck with.

This isn't Newsome giving a campaign speech on a critical issue; this is him running his own ******* podcast and inviting on a notorious hatemonger because he happens to share that particular flavor of hate.

Pale Rider said:

You’re absolutely right: this is an invented issue. But invented issues still shape public opinion, and elections are largely vibes-based. Voters don't always decide based on policy or facts. They go with what feels right to them. Those vibes sway votes and votes decide elections. You don't have to like it. I know I don't, but that's the reality we're stuck with.

Click to expand...

That's the kind of attitude that leads to climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers getting their way.

The solution to voters being ignorant dumbasses is education, not pandering to ignorance.

You’re absolutely right: this is an invented issue. But invented issues still shape public opinion, and elections are largely vibes-based. Voters don't always decide based on policy or facts. They go with what feels right to them. Those vibes sway votes and votes decide elections. You don't have to like it. I know I don't, but that's the reality we're stuck with.

Click to expand...

And on civil rights, public perception should not be where the line is drawn. End of discussion.

A politician deciding that a 'lesser' right is an acceptable throw away may be a pragmatic choice - but bare minimum - allies, which I presume you consider yourself, should not be dictating to a minority how we're meant to feel or respond to that.

If Newsom is the nominee I'll have to make a choice then - but him deciding to make good with a VEHEMENT bigot while 'shifting' a position is getting the deepest side-eye and scowl I can manage - and I do not need someone supposedly on my side giving me or other queer folks jive for reacting that way.

Paladin said:

This isn't Newsome giving a campaign speech on a critical issue; this is him running his own ******* podcast and inviting on a notorious hatemonger because he happens to share that particular flavor of hate.

Click to expand...

Everything he says in public between now and the 2028 primaries is a form of campaign speech. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and he wouldn't have touched this issue if he thought it would hurt him more than help.

NovaSaber said:

That's the kind of attitude that leads to climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers getting their way.

The solution to voters being ignorant dumbasses is education, not pandering to ignorance.

Click to expand...

In a perfect world, voters would always be rational and well-informed. But we don’t live in that world. Or anywhere close to it. We live in one where elections are decided by emotions, narratives, and, yes, sometimes ignorance.

You can focus on long-term education, but in the meantime, you still have to win elections. Refusing to acknowledge how voters actually behave doesn't change that.

and remind me, how did it work out for Kamala when she tried cozying up to Republicans for potential votes???

Kamala’s problem wasn't that she reached out to moderates. It was that she didn’t have enough time to run a full campaign and build strong enthusiasm with any group.

Her biggest failure was probably when she went on The View and said she wouldn’t have done anything differently than Biden. That made it harder for her to define herself as a fresh choice rather than just a continuation of the status quo.

And as much as I wish we could have that status quo back, too many Americans thought Trump's tariffs would magically bring down the price of eggs. What can I tell you? People are stupid.

People are stupid, but there are a million ways to dodge an issue without giving full throated agreement to CHARLIE-*******-KIRK.

Let alone inviting him on your own show to give him a platform.

On that we can agree. There were definitely less toxic ways to handle this issue than platforming a high-profile right-wing agitator who actively pushes harmful rhetoric.

But at the end of the day, this was a political calculation, and he clearly thinks the trade-off is worth it. It's up to the voters to decide if he was right.

Assuming anyone remembers or cares by the time 2028 rolls around. After four more years of Trump, we might be ready to vote for Beelzebub himself.