Current Events > Gov Gavin Newsom Completely Aligns With Alt Right On Trans Issues In Podcast

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sonixs posted...

I'm liberal as fuck and all for letting transgender people be transgender.

But I'm also on the side of males that transitions to females cannot play female sports.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many years worth of hermones you take, you're still going to have the athletic edge of being born a man.

Yeah. Youre a liberal alright.

Sonixs posted...

But I'm also on the side of males that transitions to females cannot play female sports.

That's because you know exactly fuck-all about the subject and decided that made you qualified to dictate other people's basic humanity.

Sonixs posted...

I'm liberal as fuck and all for letting transgender people be transgender.

But I'm also on the side of males that transitions to females cannot play female sports.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many years worth of hermones you take, you're still going to have the athletic edge of being born a man.

What I'd like to see is everyone agreeing that fucking Republican bigots should not be getting their grubby meathooks into this issue for political gain.

Naturally that should extend to not agreeing with the damned GOP talking points. FFS, everything else they say is a lie, so why do so many people apparently want to think Republicans are telling the truth on this issue?

Lmao listen to you gate keeping fucks. Guess what, you can be liberal and still say transgender people should play transgender sports.

Sonixs posted...

Lmao listen to you gate keeping fucks. Guess what, you can be liberal and still say transgender people should play transgender sports.

You can if you want to be wrong, I guess.

EPR-radar posted...

What I'd like to see is everyone agreeing that fucking Republican bigots should not be getting their grubby meathooks into this issue for political gain.

Naturally that should extend to not agreeing with the damned GOP talking points. FFS, everything else they say is a lie, so why do so many people apparently want to think Republicans are telling the truth on this issue?

Yeah, Charlie Kirk is a piece of shit and can fuck right off. But in this particular instance, it's not agreeing with them. It's just being factual.

Intro2Logic posted...

You can if you want to be wrong, I guess.

Have any of you even played sports before? Because you all know damn well if a 6'7 college basketball player transitions to female, they're still going to be 6 fucking 7.

Sonixs posted...

Lmao listen to you gate keeping fucks. Guess what, you can be liberal and still say transgender people should play transgender sports.

Is there a difference between that statement and the following?

"You can still be liberal and still say black people should drink from black fountains"?

If so, what's the difference? If not... why are you defending the argument?

Sonixs posted...

Have any of you even played sports before? Because you all know damn well if a 6'7 college basketball player transitions to female, they're still going to be 6 fucking 7.

Brittany Griner is 6'9".

Bans on trans athletes in women's sports inevitably catch cis women in their net when those women don't fit into the narrow box people have for women.

Sonixs posted...

Lmao listen to you gate keeping fucks. Guess what, you can be liberal and still say transgender people should play transgender sports.

I'm sorry you think "gatekeeping" and "telling you your seventh grade biology class was 98% bullshit" are synonyms.

But by all means, dazzle us with the best you've got, you might even get clear to tenth grade.

Umbreon posted...

Is there a difference between that statement and the following?

"You can still be liberal and still say black people should drink from black fountains"?

If so, what's the difference? If not... why are you defending the argument?

That is literally not at all the same and you know it.

Anyways.

https://stringinamaze.net/p/the-tyranny-of-public-opinion

The idea that the Democratic Partys real problem is the visibility of the left within its coalition has a lot of purchase in establishment circles. The argument has grown in popularity as the political fight over transgender rights has intensified. Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff and Chicago mayor, recently said that Democrats are focusing too much on gender identity issues. Various middling pundits have taken the same line.
The gist of the argument coming from the strategist types is simple: left-wing positions, on culture war issues like trans rights especially, are not popular with the broad public, and the party would do well to distance themselves. At a glance, this seems like common sense. In reality, its just not how politics work.
Many political strategists imagine that voters hold a handful of heartfelt positions, and that the goal of politicians is to meet them where they are. You find some voters who support gay rights, you find some others who support environmental conservation, you offer them favorable policies, and voila, youve got a political coalition brewing. If too many voters come out against one of those issues, you drop it to save your skin and preserve the rest of your coalition.
That is almost entirely backwards. A wealth of research shows that voters dont come to their policy preferences organically - they follow the cues of political figures they identify with. Meaning that generally speaking, its not that politicians see where voters stand and try to move toward them, its the other way around.
This sounds unintuitive and almost unbelievable to most people who hear it. Are we all really just moving at the whims of political elites? Am I so fickle?
In the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, one of the big issues was Social Security privatization. Bush wanted to (partially) privatize, Gore didnt. Political scientist Gabriel Lenz looked at survey data gathered from voters both early in the election cycle and then again right before the election. He found that initially, there was little correlation between voters positions on Social Security privatization and their choice of candidate. By the time the election rolled around, however, the voters had seemingly sorted themselves: people who supported privatization tended to support Bush, and people who opposed it supported Gore.
You might think this makes sense: people saw what the candidates stood for, and then aligned with the candidate who matched their position. But thats not what happened. The surveys showed that the voters choice of candidates generally hadnt changed. Instead, they had changed their position on Social Security privatization to match their chosen candidate. Not only that, but almost no voters changed their preferred candidate based on the issue. The voters werent switching candidates based on their policy positions, they were switching policy positions based on their candidate.
There are countless studies reaching similar conclusions. Party cues, as political scientists call them, are powerful things. Its been found that party cues have lasting effects, and in some cases can even overcome voters own self-interest. Lenz wrote a book on the subject where he compiled and analyzed much of the existing research. He concluded that instead of politicians following voters on policy, voters appear to follow politicians.
This idea has its limitations: research shows that the ability of political leaders to influence voters is minimal in some circumstances. When issues are already salient and opinions have hardened, the ability of party leaders to drive opinion wanes. A candidate is not likely to change an affordable housing experts position on affordable housing. But for an issue like trans rights, which has only come to the center of the publics attention recently, voters are highly moveable.

Tl;dr on most issues, voters follow political leaders.

Sonixs posted...

Yeah, Charlie Kirk is a piece of shit and can fuck right off. But in this particular instance, it's not agreeing with them. It's just being factual.

Come on. Right wingers are as stupid as they are evil, so they aren't factually correct about anything.

Let me know what other positions of theirs are "simply factual". That ought to be a hoot. And if there are no such examples to point to, then how is it that they can possibly be correct on just one issue?

We in the worst timeline

Antifar posted...

Brittany Griner is 6'9".

Bans on trans athletes in women's sports inevitably catch cis women in their net when those women don't fit into the narrow box people have for women.

Correct, there are women that are born taller. There's also men that are born tall. So if you'd like to use 7'3 instead of 6'7 to held you visualize then fine. The tallest male will always be taller than the tallest female.

Sonixs posted...

That is literally not at all the same and you know it.

How so? There was a time it was unpopular for someone like me to drink from the same water fountain as whites. There was a time where fighting segregation was "politically inconvenient".

EPR-radar posted...

Come on. Right wingers are as stupid as they are evil, so they aren't factually correct about anything.

Let me know what other positions of theirs are "simply factual". That ought to be a hoot. And if there are no such examples to point to, then how is it that they can possibly be correct on just one issue?

None. There you go.

Just transitioned females in female sports.

Glad I could help.

It turns out I'm fucking prescient.

DrizztLink posted...

Here's the thing:

You're conflating "pro trans rights people" and "idiots who change their opinion at the slightest backlash because they're performative cowards."

Those aren't the same groups, look at how much longer that second title is.

Sonixs posted...

Correct, there are women that are born taller. There's also men that are born tall. So if you'd like to use 7'3 instead of 6'7 to held you visualize then fine. The tallest male will always be taller than the tallest female.

What distinction do you make between the height advantage of being born male and the height advantage of being Victor Wembanyama?

Someone is always going to be the tallest in the league.

Umbreon posted...

How so? There was a time it was unpopular for someone like me to drink from the same water fountain as whites. There was a time where fighting segregation was "politically inconvenient".

If you can't see the difference between telling black people they have to stick to drinking from black only water fountains and telling women born as men they can't play women's sports, then I don't know what to tell you lol

Sonixs posted...

telling women born as men

Look who failed "Trans 101."

Again.

Antifar posted...

What distinction do you make between the height advantage of being born male and the height advantage of being Victor Wembanyama?

Someone is always going to be the tallest in the league.

This is disingenuous and you know it lol

Sonixs posted...

This is disingenuous and you know it lol

I'll take "Things You Thought Every Time You Said You Supported Trans Rights" for $500.

Even if one were to concede that trans women are at an advantage (again, studies show otherwise: https://cces.ca/transgender-women-athletes-and-elite-sport-scientific-review)

You're still left with two big questions:
1. Is this an issue large enough to expend state energy on?
2. How do you intend to enforce it without being either invasive of privacy or excluding cis women?

Sonixs posted...

None. There you go.

Just transitioned females in female sports.

Glad I could help.

Look at this. The Eighth Wonder of the Modern World -- the one and only position US wing nuts are correct on.

Now which is more likely here, option 1 or option 2?

Option 1, there really is an issue on which the US right, which has been a howling mob of hysterical bigoted willful morons for decades, actually holds the correct view on, OR

Option 2, someone here is having a moment of weakness and has accepted right wing propaganda on this issue, almost certainly as a result of unexamined prior assumptions from having participated in sports long before this was a live issue.

DrizztLink posted...

I'll take "Things You Thought Every Time You Said You Supported Trans Rights" for $500.

So if I say "I don't hate you because you're transgender" and do nothing to advocate against them being transgender, I don't support them?

Sonixs posted...

If you can't see the difference between telling black people they have to stick to drinking from black only water fountains and telling women born as men they can't play women's sports, then I don't know what to tell you lol

Your argument is either that trans women have an unfair advantage, which people have posted evidence that disputes that belief.

Or that it's too politically unpopular, in which case the statements are exactly the same.

Sonixs posted...

So if I say "I don't hate you because you're transgender" and do nothing to advocate against them being transgender, I don't support them?

You have to recognize that the panic over trans athletes in sports is the tip of the spear. It is now, and has only ever been, the foot in the door for a campaign of removing trans people from public society. You give them an inch and they will take people's lives.

So if I say "I don't hate you because you're transgender" and do nothing to advocate against them being transgender, I don't support them?

At this point, I'm not entirely convinced you know what "transgender" even means.

Sonixs posted...

So if I say "I don't hate you because you're transgender" and do nothing to advocate against them being transgender, I don't support them?

You do realize that the GOP is using the sports issue as a wedge to lead to broader discrimination against trans people.

Without exception. So there is factually no such thing as supporting the GOP position on the sports question (as Newsom does here) without effectively supporting a broader oppression.

Intro2Logic posted...

You have to recognize that the panic over trans athletes in sports is the tip of the spear. It is now, and has only ever been, the foot in the door for a campaign of removing trans people from public society. You give them an inch and they will take people's lives.

Eh, nah. Get Dems back in office and nothing will happen to transgender people.

Them playing in women's sports is not the hill to die on.

Intro2Logic posted...

You have to recognize that the panic over trans athletes in sports is the tip of the spear. It is now, and has only ever been, the foot in the door for a campaign of removing trans people from public society. You give them an inch and they will take people's lives.

Remember when it was just about kids "being too young" and how trans people were totally fine once they turned 18?

DrizztLink posted...

At this point, I'm not entirely convinced you know what "transgender" even means.

transgender
/trns-jndr, trnz-/

adjective
Identifying as or having undergone medical treatment to become a member of the opposite sex.

I have used the word correct based on the definition in every post. So not sure what you're crying about there.

Sonixs posted...

So if I say "I don't hate you because you're transgender" and do nothing to advocate against them being transgender, I don't support them?

If you aren't advocating for us you are complacent in our murders.

Sonixs posted...

Eh, nah. Get Dems back in office and nothing will happen to transgender people.

Them playing in women's sports is not the hill to die on.

And just how are Democrats supposed to get back into power with a track record of abandoning their own in tough times?

FFS, this strategy would be morally unacceptable even if it would work, but where's the argument it even works?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That's because the people in this thread are trying to jump through hoops to say "if you don't align 100% with this viewpoint you hate all transgender people!"

I'm beginning to get more than a whiff of fornicating rodents in this topic.

Sonixs posted...

That's because the people in this thread are trying to jump through hoops to say "if you don't align 100% with this viewpoint you hate all transgender people!"

Gee, people are being mean to you for regurgitating MAGAt talking points?

The ones backed by zero science, that have been rebuked already, that you have nothing but "lol trust me brah" to show for evidence?

Golly, you're so oppressed.

Possibly the most oppressed in the Unit-

Oh, wait, right.

The incipient genocide.

Sonixs posted...

That's because the people in this thread are trying to jump through hoops to say "if you don't align 100% with this viewpoint you hate all transgender people!"

Nobody is doing that. They are calling out your shit view of agreeing with shit right wing anti trans views.

Sonixs posted...

If you can't see the difference between telling black people they have to stick to drinking from black only water fountains and telling women born as men they can't play women's sports, then I don't know what to tell you lol

The difference is...trans people are a much smaller portion of the population and thus it's easier for you to just ignore the discrimination against them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


transgender
/trns-jndr, trnz-/

adjective
1.Identifying as or having undergone medical treatment to become a member of the opposite sex.

2. Of or relating to transgender people.

3. Having changed gender identity from male to female, or from female to male

See this is what I'm talking about. "You're using the definition of the word transgender which is hateful language."