Well, as Newsom said on the podcast, there are some things he supports for reasons of principle, not popularity; and trans access to gender affirming care is one of those positions.
This is one of these things where assessment of the evidence is key. I don’t support it because I’ve looked at the evidence for it and my assessment is that it’s very unreliable and bad treatment. Of course, if Newsom has actually looked at the evidence and sincerely concluded that it’s good treatment, he ought morally to do what he is currently doing, and support it.
So then what is the real Centrist position on gender affirming care and transgender participation in sports? What about “a person can be actually a woman despite having a male body”? Is this clearly not a Centrist position?
I didn’t say there would be no right-wing viewers, but comments are a tiny fraction of actual audience, so I don’t think you are right to draw that conclusion.
Well… It’s complicated.
Polling shows that most Americans believe that gender is determined by sex at birth. It also shows that most Americans oppose trans women in women’s sports. But it also shows that most Americans favor protecting the rights of trans people.
The Pew link doesn’t specifically say what centrists believe; but if we assume that to get a strong majority on the poll takes either the left or right, plus the center - a not particularly unreasonable assumption, since I doubt this is a very horseshoe-y issue - then it seems like a Centrist might:
- Not really understand the whole “trans” thing and not accept that someone’s sex and gender identity can be different because of that;
- Feel that trans athlete participation in women’s sports is unfair;
- Despite that lack of understanding of the metaphysical issues involved (see the tired discussion on “what is a woman”), they have enough basic decency to support Trans people being treated by society as belonging to the gender they identify with
- Opinions on gender affirming care are pretty mixed, it’s really hard to draw any conclusions about what a Centrist might believe on this one.
That might be true, but even so, this conversation has definitely entered the right wing media sphere. I don’t think that’s deniable.
That said, I hope that Newsom’s strategy isn’t going to be limited to his own podcast. He should go on right wing podcasts as well (and progressive/leftie podcasts too), to make his pitch for Liberalism and get the message spread as widely as possible.
Incidentally, it wouldn’t surprise me if every serious presidential hopeful in 2028 has a podcast. Long form casual conversations are an amazingly effective way to communicate with people; there’s a reason why people love Rogan so much, despite how idiotic he often is.
Sounds like it would be hard to know if I had a conversation with someone about transgender issues and know if they were really a centrist or not.
I’ve had conversations with someone I thought was a centrist and they thought transwomen were women, but I guess I was wrong.
Brigading is a slang term for an online practice in which people band together to perform a coordinated action, especially a negative one, such as manipulating a vote or poll or harassing a specific person or members of an online community.
brigading Meaning & Origin | Slang by Dictionary.com
And mass posting in comments sections.
And I know because I’ve seen it happen in the live chat and comments section of neutral platform debates on YouTube.
Well, if they were really a Centrist, it probably would be pretty confusing. It’s a contentious issue in American politics.
On the other hand, if you’re talking to a “Centrist” - you know, the people like Joe Rogan, who make a huge point to tell you over and over again that they’re free thinkers willing to criticize both sides as they just so happen to only ever criticize Democrats while bending over backwards to explain away MAGA’s actions - it would be pretty easy to tell.
I would be surprised if there’s any country in the world where that represents the view of more than 50% of the adult population.
I’ve had those conversations too. I’m often wrong about what individual people believe on this subject before I talk to them.
However, playing the percentages, if you’re having conversations with people you actually want to win back to the Democrat side - people who might have voted Democrat before but last time voted for Trump - you should probably assume that most of them have the majority opinion on this
Yes. “I support your right to believe you’re a woman but I don’t actually believe it myself” is a perfectly self-consistent, and centrist, position.
Well then I’ve had conversations with centrists that have been perfectly fine. Unless of course you think I was being tricked and that they weren’t really centrists at all.
Were these people who voted for Trump?
Maybe? It’s that a requirement to be a centrist?
That’s the context of the discussion. @Babale was saying that left-aligned people should go where the right wing people are, in order to wean them off Trump. I’m suggesting there’s so much base assumption difference between the average Doper and right-wingers that most dopers need to start a lot smaller.
If you personally are already good at that, well that’s great. I guess you’re ready to go do street epistomology in the Deep Red, if you happen to want to do so.
Vox populi, vox scientiarum medicinae?
“Most people” don’t have the medical training and knowledge to evaluate whether or not a medical treatment is appropriate or not for a particular person. In fact, we insist that people undergo more than a decade of training to be able to make such decisions. And now we want to ban things because they’re “icky”? Is that how we want to make medical decisions these days? Are YOU okay with total strangers milling around on the street deciding YOUR medical treatment?
There is “smack” being talked about it because the Cass report is deeply flawed but why let that stop people when the deeply flawed report supports and ideological viewpoint you like and want supported even before you hear medical or scientific evidence?
What I care about is whether or not a person is better off after treatment than before. People with gender dysphoria that is NOT treated, or treated “old style” by forcing them to conform to societal norms with progressively more harsh treatment, have high rates of suicide and self-harm. People who receive “gender affirming” treatment have lower rates of suicide, self harm, and are better able to function in society from the standpoint of being able to support themselves. I view the latter result as “better”. That, to me, is what is important, not whether or not you find it “icky” or whether or not other people approve or not.
We don’t normally approve of chopping peoples’ legs off but I’m pretty sure we can all agree that there are circumstances where that can save a life or result in a person having a better quality of life. We don’t normally approve of cutting out someone’s heart or liver but I’m pretty sure we can all agree that there are circumstances where an organ transplant can save a life. Likewise, I do believe there are circumstances when “gender affirming care” can produce a better result than doing nothing or attempting other forms of treatment that have had disastrous results in the past.
From that viewpoint it doesn’t matter if I think a transwoman is “really a man” or even “really a woman”. What matters is whether or not that person is functioning better after treatment rather than before. From that viewpoint, it costs me little to nothing at all to use the person’s preferred pronouns and treating them with courtesy.
What are you credentials for making the decision? Are you medically trained? Scientifically trained? Why should your opinion count any more than mine?
Rebecca Watson goes into some details about the problems with the UK study referenced above.
Why bother engaging with experienced medical professionals who disagree with you when you can just … find a random vlogger to reassure you that you were right all along!