Harris-Walz / Dems
- Thread starter Teufel
- Start date
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.
www.pewresearch.org
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.
Americans have grown more supportive of restrictions for trans people in recent years
Two-thirds of U.S. adults favor laws and policies that require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.
www.pewresearch.org
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:
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:
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. If those are the two options, it's not even a hard decision.
I think there's a real discussion to be had about why so many sports are gender-segregated in the first place. If we simply broke things by non-gender specific physical attributes, we could solve a lot of these problems.
Historically, it's because women being allowed to play sports at all is pretty recent, and the separation is down to the US's deep-seated history of sexism. Hell, a lot of the arguments about how "biological males" have advantages is really just more of that. Sexism and transphobia tend to go hand in hand.
I keep waiting for the Academy Awards to lead by example and eliminate the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress Oscars so men and women can fight it out in one gender-neutral category.
But I won't hold my breath.
But I won't hold my breath.
It's because sexist men wanted to make it impossible for a man to ever be beaten by a woman (which would happen regularly in many sports, and literally more often than the reverse in tennis).