Well, there’s this problem that the public doesn’t really share this view based on state-level population movement:
People tend to move based on factors like housing costs, tax rates, how they perceive their cities to be managed, and so on. Competently run states ensure that taxes are used efficiently, housing can be built without excessive obstacles, crime and homelessness are controlled, etc.
Better messaging isn’t going to solve this problem. Blue states (more specifically, their governors and mayors) have to actually be competent.
We’re also seeing how this message is playing out in practice: shooting up Tesla dealerships and firebombing the cars. Cars owned largely by liberals. This doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me.
No, by Liberals I mean people with a commitment to liberal values: that the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed; that self determination, equality before the law, and the protection of individual rights are important virtues in a society.
Bret Devereaux explained it far better than I ever could:
No one is talking about doing that. They’re talking about which team trans people should play on.
Sports are segregated by sex because of real, physical differences that make it impossible for men and women to compete on an even playing field. That’s not bigotry. Transitioning does not eliminate the physical advantages that comes from being born AMAB. recognizing that is not bigotry, either.
You insisting that it is bigotry does not make it so.
I am in favor of trans people getting access to gender affirming care. I am in favor of trans people being treated in all social contexts as the gender they identify with. If you think I’m not “supportive” of trans people because I don’t also think self ID should be the basis by which sports teams are split up, that can’t really be helped.
Unfortunately, all of that is completely at odds with progressivism. It’s strange that liberals and progressives are considered allies at all given that their principles bear no resemblance to each other, though I suppose the intersection is that support for individual rights tends to have a preferential benefit to those not in power–i.e., those that don’t already have the ability to do what they want. And a focus on the powerless is a key principle of progressivism (maybe the only principle).
Banning trans women from playing on the women’s team is, effectively, banning them from playing, though. Very few trans women could compete effectively in the men’s division.
It absolutely does, though - “the trans woman who dominates in women’s sports” is 100% myth. There was a good decade of sporting organizations moving towards allowing trans women to compete, not based purely on self ID, but with reasonable standards around hormone levels and years since transition. No trans woman ended up dominating in her sport. No trans woman ended being significantly strong in her sport. The idea that trans woman have an automatic, unfair advantage in sports is not actually supported by any actual evidence.
The fact that trans women in sports is a national issue is, 100%, the result of bigotry. Which is not the same as saying that everyone who believes there’s an issue there is a bigot. But this was a nonissue until transphobes (on both the left and the right - it’s important to remember what “terf” originally stood for) seized on it as a wedge that they could use as a tool to roll back trans rights in general, and they’ve been distressingly successful.
I think Newsom is probably making the right call in ceding ground on the issue, though. He’s smart enough to know it’s all bullshit, but it’s also an area where he can position himself as a social moderate, and throw the minimum number of people possible under the bus - the number of people directly impacted by a ban on trans athletes is probably less than a thousand, nationwide. I’m concerned that he might decide that just th athletics ban doesn’t do enough for his polls, though. Gender care for minors is another anti-trans wedge issue where he could pick up some Trump voters if he came out against it, but that’s one that’ll actually cost people their lives if the Dems cave on it.
Also kind of hopeful that’s he’s just lying his face off, and once he’s in office, he’ll “evolve” on the issue like Obama did on gay marriage.
It won’t. If he starts chasing votes based on not wanting to look “woke”, the Republicans will happily keep sliding more and more things into the “woke” column while centrists cheer him on because they’re more interested in dunking on the “woke crowd”.
Exactly. Not only would we not be able to compete with men, it also signals to the general population that we are not really women if we are forced to compete with men. After years of being on hormone replacement therapy, my physical abilities have significantly decreased to the point that any advantage over a cis woman would be miniscule at best. There is also the flip side of trans men dominating if they are forced to compete with women, since they do have an advantage in their case.
This is where I disagree. This is a stepping stone to make taking away other rights of ours more palatable to people. And I get it, sports aren’t important to me so I used to think this was an issue we could cede some ground in to get people off of our backs when it comes to the bigger issues. But I realized that if they are going after one issue that affects us, it won’t stop there.
I don’t really think that’s true. Progressives are on a different scale than liberalism/illiberalism. You can be a liberal progressive; you can be an illiberal progressive.
I think progressive messaging used to be a lot more liberal; but as the internet allowed relatively fringe groups to get bigger by covering a larger geographic area, illiberal progressives have gotten more and more momentum.
Part of it might also be Trump and MAGA normalizing illiberalism as a whole which then spread to the left. I think being openly illiberal in America was nearly unimaginable not that long ago, but now we have major illiberal voices on both sides.
Because they’d never be competitive with the top players due to innate biological advantage? Yeah, I agree, that sucks. Unfortunately, if trans women play women’s sports, then cis women are in the same boat. There are competing interests to balance there.
First: socially transitioning absolutely has zero impact on athletic performance, as you are well aware; and since in my state of California the law of the land is self ID, then I’m not sure why you’re only addressing the most generous possible case of someone transitioning pre-puberty and never undergoing male puberty, when the opposite extreme of someone socially transitioning and participating in female sports is, per California’s official interpretation of Title IX, also on the table.
Second, cite? Do you have any scientific studies that actually show that there is no gap between cis and trans women in athletic performance? I’ve looked at quite a few studies, and the closest I’ve found is the fact that many studies, in their conclusion, will say something along the lines of “Our results are preliminary, our sample size was small, and the gap we found while statistically significant isn’t that massive, so please don’t use this study to ban trans athletes, further study is needed”. Which, fair enough, thanks for making your study harder for transphobes to use - that’s genuinely a valuable thing for you to do - but it does not support the claim that the differences are nelegible.
I would agree - we need long term, longitudinal studies that track athletic performance over many years, before and after transitioning, and with transitioning at different ages.
That’s fantastic! So you’d agree with Gavin Newsom that California’s current law of the land, which is purely based on self ID, is in fact deeply unfair compared to reasonable standards around hormone levels and years since transition?
If that was true, it wouldn’t be very surprising, considering the tiny percentage of the population that is trans and the even tinier percentage of the population that are elite athletes.
In fact, there have been a few trans women who have been, if not dominant, then extremely strong in their sport.
It’s not just about who wins first place, you know. Having an advantage isn’t only a problem if you win first place every time.
Come on, man. You know this is completely untrue. Do you need me to go find lists of trans women who were significantly strong in their sport? Dominant is a subjective term, but you can’t deny strong. There have been trans Olympians, and trans people who set state and even national records.
Every athlete at the Olympics (except for maybe in niche sports, like breakdancing) is an elite, significantly strong athlete. You’re not really gonna deny that, are you?
You can keep insisting that this is the case, but I really don’t think that’s the case, any more than splitting sports by sex in the first place is an example of sexism.
There is a categorical difference between treating trans people with dignity and respect, allowing them to participate in society as full fledged members of the gender they identify with at a social level; and between ignoring physical differences in a field that’s split because of physical, not social, differences.
Not wanting trans women to compete with cis women athletically on the basis of self ID is not a slippery slope to banning gender affirming care or shoving trans people back in the closet, any more than accepting gay marriage was a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia or bestiality. These are categorically different things.
I am not denying that trans women would have a disadvantage against men. Of course they would. But cis women have a disadvantage against trans women, and so we have to weigh conflicting social priorities, and the least unfair option is to have to leagues: one dedicated to cis women, and one that’s open to anyone.
Where is the scientific evidence for this claim?
Note that no one is saying that because you’re trans you’re going to be the best woman at the sport. But you’d certainly be better at it than a cis woman with your level of athletic activity over the years.
Even if the advantage is relatively small, it would still be an unfair advantage over cis women.
This is the strongest argument for allowing trans women in women’s sports, because it doesn’t rely on what is fair; it points to harm that could be caused. And to that I am much more sympathetic. That said, the reason we separate men and women in sports is not to validate the social role of trans people; it is done because the physical gap between cis men and cis women is too large for fair competition.
Yes, trans men who physically transitioned would have to play in the open league rather than women’s league, too. I’ve never heard them complain about this, though? Are any trans men unhappy about competing with men?
This isn’t about “going after” trans people and their rights. It’s about what we do when different groups have their rights intersect.
“Trans women would unfairly dominate women’s sports” is a statement of faith, not evidence. Yes, some trans women may have an unfair advantage, but that doesn’t translate to the article of faith in the first sentence. Trans women who have unfair advantages shouldn’t play women’s sports (or the rules should be changed for them such that they can compete fairly). This is definitely not the case for all trans women. And men who pretend to be trans women (if this ever occurs) in order to get an advantage in sports should be banned entirely (which I’m pretty sure no one would disagree with).
But I’ll reemphasize that this is a non issue affecting perhaps a few dozen people in the entire country (if that), and is being used as just another distraction from the ultra-wealthy and corporations destroying the environment, access to services, and many of our very rights.
It’s also a statement that, while you put it in quotation marks, was not made by anyone in this thread, as far as I can tell. So, you know, nice straw man.
A few dozen trans athletes; a couple thousand athletes who compete with them.
Then maybe we on the left need to stop playing into it by going to bat for Self ID in sports, an idea that only a tiny fraction of the electorate agrees with, and that a majority of Democratic voters disagree with?
Do you have data that the few dozen (or whatever) actual trans athletes actually have an unfair advantage? If not, then this is NOT actually affecting anyone except those actually competing against someone with an unfair advantage.
Further, do you have any cites that prominent Democrats actually support “self ID in sports”? I don’t support that, but I do support allowing trans athletes to compete, barring unfair advantages.
Your claim is the positive one - that transitioning eliminates all advantage from being AMAB. But I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of this, and the studies I see linked to support this claim, like the Harper study, actually did find that trans women have an advantage! But people ignore that and point to the conclusion, where they crop out the part that says “further study is needed” and just quote “don’t make any conclusions on trans athletes based on this study alone!”.
It’s the fucking law here in California, dude. How did that happen? Magic? Republicans? Or do enough Democrats support this position that it became the law of the land here in California, and people like Gavin Newsom have been crucified on this very board for coming out against that policy?
We have multiple people in this very thread arguing that coming out against Self ID in sports, as Newsom did, is “throwing trans people under the bus”. How can you claim that there is no support for this?
By the way -
That’s my position, for which I’ve been called a bigot in this very thread. Congrats, Andy! You’re a bigot now too!
You are the only person talking about “Self ID” here. The organizations that govern various sports usually have the requirement that trans athletes have hormone levels in line with the gender/sex they are competing with for a certain amount of years prior to competing. Which is a perfectly fine requirement.
No one is arguing that someone who has not yet medically transitioned should be able to compete.
If someone is playing women’s sports, than any advantage that stems from being AMAB is unfair, since that’s unfairness based on the very grounds we segregate sports by sex because of.
Do you disagree with that? Do you feel that some level of advantage that specifically stems from being an AMAB person is acceptable in women’s sports?
Do you think I’m lying? Do you think Newsom was lying when he talked about this on his podcast?
If you want to say “it’s a distraction, I’m not gonna focus on that, I’ll just accept the public opinion here” that’s one thing. But what you’re trying to do is say “it’s a distraction. Everyone needs to just accept my view on it, and we need to move on”. That’s not how this works.
Andy! You’re a bigot now too!