Yeah, as a Californian, I’m not surprised, just disappointed. Gavin is the textbook definition of a “shitlib”, and it’s so frustrating that Fox makes him out as some far left radical.
Because it helps them
You know? Burn the whole fucking system to the ground. Fuck democrats.
Dems are part of the ruling class. Always has been.
Oh cool. My governor gives me even more reasons to hate him.
At least he’s term limited…
who is this podcast even for
People who could have just got up in the morning and not said anything
Charlie kirk actually has a rare disease that causes his face to shrink and being transphobic is the only thing that slows the progression.
At least that’s how he acts.
Removed by mod
It’s just a reality of nature that humans soaked in male hormones while they develop gain about a 25% advantage in physical sports.
People who transition to female are taking female hormones, dummy. A friend explained how even her sense of taste changed and she no longer likes some things she used to like.
Hey, guess what? Your argument is shit.
catty rhetoric and response like this are why we’re in the current degrading sociopolitical situation.
idk why most leftist seem to get the idea that being right means you no longer have to try in discourse.
hey, guess what? people will listen to you more if you actually try and engage instead of being a shithead every time someone “gives bad vibes.”
going harder on this stuff than before as a reaction to the rising tide of neofascist in the west is the most boneheaded thing i’ve seen come out of my spaces on the internet as of yet. have you considering that this divisiveness only serves the people who actually want to oppress you?? it’s not an “eNlIGhteNeD cENtrIsT” take to recognize this, it’s just being mildly intelligent. anyone decently well-read on their “theory” that everyone likes to harp on about would know that this is the fucking case and refrain from DOING IT OVER AND OVER.
but no, instead the temptation of a well-placed social burn or a quippy remark is just too strong for most to even consider that the exchange would better serve the world if an actual attempt at communication was made. no, being “tired” or “exhausted” at having this responsibility is not an excuse. sorry, outreach doesn’t fucking sleep or take vacation. instead people now just seem to need the dopamine rush they get from “winning” more than they actually care about what they’re saying.
i don’t mean to be a dick and all j’accuse at you. idk. it just really hurts my soul when i see this behavior propagate in my communities. it’s like you guys understand that bigotry, intolerance, and hate are bad but you don’t get the functional reasons why that is true and so there’s a moral emptiness and inconsistency in your rhetoric. i’ll venture as far to say it, if you actually cared about this issue you would’ve engaged in a more proactive manner, and that goes for all situations like this.
this sort of comment, while likely well intentioned, is performative activism at best
if you actually cared about this issue you would’ve engaged in a more proactive manner, and that goes for all situations like this.
Don’t try to tell me whether I truly care about my loved ones. You fight for people your way, I’ll fight my way.
OK, but can you please tell me why its “shit”?
is it that you think its incorrect? I see stuff like this NIH study below specifically about atheletic performance in a transgender population at time of transition and after a period of performance change and it doesnt match whats presented in the links people replied with-- but heres the problem, I trust the NIH study more than I trust the arguments given in such a vehement and angry way in the other links. I have no real skin in this game. I beleive everyone has soveriegnty over their own body and if it doesn’t very explicitely hurt me or another person, I say live your best life.
“post gender affirming hormone therapy, trans women still surpassed cis women for their 1.5 mile run time (765 ± 39.83 s. vs. 855 ± 40.56 s.), but performed significantly slower than cis men (720 ± 40.56 s.) unlike their pre hormone therapy assessment”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/
So why is this study wrong? thats a 90 second on average run advantage on a 1.5 mile course. In sports thats a lot.
If you read past those numbers, you see that a followup study following participants for 4 years saw:
Using these approaches, the researchers showed that trans women performance on the 1.5 mile run was not statistically different from cis women times following two years of gender affirming hormone therapy and remained equivalent to cis women out to year four (874 ± 133 s vs. 876 ± 111 s.)
Also keep in mind that this is selecting for people already in athletics, so there’s a selection bias there. Potentially only the better trans women remain in sports, skewing the results (not saying that is the case, but that it’s hard to say for certain what the data means). Also also the sample size is 46 trans women, which shrinks in the followup study as participants dropped out over time, so that’s a pretty small sample size to base any serious claims on.
Reading on even further, another cited study showed trans women performing worse the cis women. Ultimately, I think these numbers are not useful for you and I because the uncertainty is too large.
The meta study you cite even has a section (5) explaining that this is not a great reason to ban trans people:
However, if these average differences lead to inequity or injury, restricting trans individuals from these sports and athletics may not be the best solution. […] However, when looking at a sample distribution of players, >300 males sampled fall below the 2nd percentile of average male body mass and >300 females sampled are above the 98th percentile of average female body mass. If being too large or too small were a critical concern for rugby injuries, more injuries may be prevented by restricting those >600 players who fell far outside the average player mass than banning trans athletes.
All this also ignores that if it were a real problem, surely trans people would be dominating sports, yet they’re not. Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics for a while, and I can’t name a single trans medalist.
If you believe the study is correct, could you summarize its conclusion for me?
Even ignoring the bad trans biology you’re saying, do you actually think top female athletes are worse than the worst male athletes? The difference is generally much smaller than you think, with tons of overlap between those 2 distributions.
No one said that.
I do think a male athlete has some horomonal, bone structure, limb length and muscle mass advantages over born-female athletes in many sports, and that while time and horomone therapy do decrease that advantage for a trans female, its still there to some degree afterward, which probably makes sports in the female category for trans women unequal. Athleticism means a lot to a lot of people. for some people its a deep part of their identity, just like gender is. Is that peice of these womens identity not worth cherishing? Is it something for you to dictate terms about? I dont think it is.
Its not a simple problem with any sort of simple solution. It seems that with the choices given, Either we make a new athletic category, or some group of people live with an unfairness of one sort or another. And the sooner its figured out, ,the sooner it stops being a political football. Letting it linger just serves the far right. is that what you actually want?
Why has this issue not already been sorted?
Did you glean that from data or did you just assume it must be true?
I dont think that comment should have been removed. Is asking the question forbidden? Is it not an issue anyone cares about?
Questions with a flawed premise that (usually) comes from transphobia are not taken well. If you want to know if it’s an issue, I suggest you actually ask women in sports rather than speculating that surely we must segregate trans people.
But to give a hint to the answer: black women can compete in sports in the US now, but not too long ago there were questions of biological fairness. If you asked those same fairness questions today, people would justifiably assume you’re a racist asking leading questions. Something to think about.
Misleading article. The issues where Gavin pointed out alignment were regarding trans athletes in sports, in particular the competitive advantages ftm athletes possess, and whether or not the state should pay for gender reassignment for inmates. Kirk was clearly trying to bait him into an article like this
That being said, Newsom’s responses were tepid at best. However, remember that this is also the man who took the step to legalize gay marriage in California when he was mayor of San Francisco. He’s definitely not perfect, and far too centrist for my tastes, but when the chips are down he generally does the right thing.
Having Charlie Kirk on your first podcast was not one of them, however.
Here’s a link to the podcast. Transcript is available in the drop down.
The issues where Gavin pointed out alignment were regarding trans athletes in sports, in particular the competitive advantages ftm [sic] athletes possess, and whether or not the state should pay for gender reassignment for inmates
Oh, is that all. 🙄 Yeah man, it’s a really hard question on whether trans people deserve to participate as full members of society and whether they deserve medically necessary care when imprisoned before a trial. I bet the KKK has some really interesting points to make too, we should get him to do an interview with them.
Oh, he also agreed with Kirk on no treatment for trans youth.
Kirk continued, “Youth should be off limits, you might be right on deportations, I know I’m right on this,” to which Newsom simply acknowledged, "Yeah.”
But other than all that I’m sure he definitely for sure has the best interest of trans people in mind!
I didn’t say he was right on these issues, and you’re correct in taking issue with him because of it. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the article is a misleading smear piece capitalizing on Newsom’s rather foolish attempt to “cross the aisle” and have Kirk on his show.
I have a lot of problems with Newsom, as I actually alongside his campaign for mayor in the 90s through my volunteer work at Peace Action. I ended up leaving the campaign before he won due to his anti-homeless measure, which (predictably) restricted social services and made the homeless problem worse. It was clear back then he was always going to take the side of the rich in California politics, just as it was clear that he had already been effectively anointed as an upcoming governor by the Pelosi / Feinstein machine.
He’s also kind of a dumbass (this was really clear when he was younger - just look at his taste in women), but smart enough to usually listen to the more intelligent people in the room. This has redeemed him during the governorship to some extent, but he’s definitely made a rightward turn in response to recent events that’s left me less than confident in his leadership ability.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but this is not a misleading hit piece. This is written by a prominent trans journalist (if you’ve seen the trans legislative risk map, that’s her) who is married to a high profile trans state representative (Zooey Zephyr).
You may not like her interpretations of his statements, but they come from a place of familiarity with the political scene for trans people both as a reporter and as a trans person. She has a high reputation with a lot of the trans community who follow political news, and calling her work a hit piece is unreasonable.
Regardless of her credentials, this was clearly written to cast Newsom in the worst possible light. The article is rife with hyperbole and only targets selected statements in the transcript.
And it’s absolutely misleading to say someone “completely aligns” with someone on an over-arching concept like trans rights when they agree with one subset of the argument.
It was this statement in particular that changed the tone from an opinion piece to a hit piece IMHO:
When Newsom platforms someone like Charlie Kirk, he isn’t fostering a “discussion” on transgender people in sports—he is handing a known hate monger a microphone to denigrate an already vulnerable community. That’s the real objective. Newsom isn’t engaging in open dialogue or debate; he is recalibrating his political stance to make targeting transgender people seem palatable, selling that shift to his base as a strategic necessity. And he’s doing it by giving one of the most notorious anti-LGBTQ+ extremists a seat at the table.
Emphasis mine. Here the author makes the claim that Newsom is deliberately targeting transgender people to score political points - yet he’s not. In the interview, Kirk brought those topics up, and when they came up, Newsom was describing the political landscape, not justifying it.
I mean, hell, go ahead and call Newsom out for the dumb shit he does (and this shit was not bright), but forcing a purity test on the man who made gay marriage legal is counterproductive. Claiming that he’s deliberately trying to target transgender folk is just plain false.
Hey look, it’s the left ready to eat the left.
Where have I heard this before?
“the left”
