85
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
85 points (92.1% liked)
politics
23993 readers
2078 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Geez, y'all go overboard with some of this stuff and it's ridiculous. Newsom is not anti-trans, he's not anti-LGBTQ+, and he's not against any rights of any other marginalized communities as far his other statements and actions assert. He said he thought the sports issue was "deeply unfair".
Guess what? Lots of people do. I hate to use a meme phrase, but we DO live in a society that has to somehow represent all people where possible. We have to try and make as many people happy with what we have to work with.
You can think that's an unfair situation for BOTH SIDES and not be against either one. Cis women thinking it's unfair to compete against newly transitioned women are bad now? Women are suddenly bad or wrong for speaking out on something they take issue with? What about them?
Is Newsom on the wrong side of society for being an advocate in all other ways to the LGBTQ+ community but thinking this one thing isn't fair to either side? No. That's a stupid assertion.
It's a complicated issue that nobody seems to have a great idea on how to solve to make everyone happy as of yet, and we have bigger societal issues for Trans people that are more pressing than fucking sports. Like protecting their existence and making sure they aren't further marginalized.
Get a grip with this bullshit.
Did we listen to the same interview where he asked Charlie Kirk what policies they should borrow from MAGA and eventually landed on banning trans women from sports?
Yeah, and he shot Kirk down and ignored all the other idiotic shit, and the only common ground he found was...this. He didn't even say he was against it ffs, just that it was unfair. Immediately everyone started up the "HE'S ANTI-TRANS" flagpole and refused to come back down. It's insane.
Anti trans is anti woman.
That is categorically untrue. Sit and think about your comment for a few minutes.
I have been thinking about it since Rowling made her dumb comments. Civil rights are human rights.
just wondering if you could expand on this for me a bit
It's not unfair for trans women to play in sports though! His answer is what I expect from someone who hasn't done their homework on the topic, which would be strange for a potential presidential candidate. I read this not as ignorance, but as a political calculation.
This isn't just about trans people in sports. He is giving his platform to bigots who are anti-trans people existing in hopes of getting their support in 2028. It's gross.
"It’s a complicated issue that nobody seems to have a great idea on how to solve to make everyone happy as of yet, and we have bigger societal issues for Trans people that are more pressing than fucking sports. Like protecting their existence and making sure they aren’t further marginalized."
Giving platforms to bigots make this much harder. Why give them greater access?
Logic says that what he's doing is what he said: bridge the gap between opposing forces in society.
Rationale says that he's trying to appease a wider audience to run for President.
Do I like it? Not a fucking bit. Is either solution necessary to keep operating in politics? Absolutely.
Im not sure you have to platform bigots. You could have on conservative guests who don't have a history of hateful comments.
I could talk to JD Vance about stopping this bullshit with the tariffs, but he wouldn't be the person to talk to about that, right?
Would you say Vance isn't a bigot?
“Deplatforming” people is explicitly the reason why the far right has gained so much power. We used to bring the KKK to tv and they always embarrassed themselves. When you deplatform people you in fact send them to platforms where they can control the narrative, and where everyone agrees or won’t disagree with them (like Joe Rogan). Instead platform them and put them in a position in which they have to defend their views against someone who disagrees with them.
Forbidden ideology is as alluring as forbidden knowledge.
Not offering someone a guest spot on your show isn't deplatforming them. They aren't the same thing.
I know that. Hence the implication that we should actually be platforming them.
In some cases, sure I'll grant it can be unfair for newly transitioned women, i.e. on hormones for less than a year. After that, any potential advantage is for a large part nullified (which is overly simplistic as a timeline but whatever). Also, let's be real honest on just how many people this affects. The amount is so staggeringly small that even if we put aside that there is only a temporary advantage, there's really not much of a problem, just a handful of individuals.
But, and this is vitally important to understand, sports are not a core, vital governmental interest and thus do not need to be legislated. To be very plain, games are not important to the functioning of society. Individual leagues can come up with their own policies if they feel it so necessary to exclude the small number of trans women who want to participate.
The entire "debate" just shows we are not a serious society. God forbid trans women want to exist and pursue their interests.
As for Gavin Newsome, this really shows he's trying a bit too hard to start a presidential run with a theory of "let's be Republican Lite." That worked so well the last time.
Then why you keep passin' the hot mic to people talkin' shit about trans athletes? Why amplify that voice on your government podcast? Thats literally Nazi shit. The Nazis made all this "traditional family" bullshit we are drowning in. So no, he shouldn't be saying it and isolating the already vulnerable. Theres like 10 trans althetes in the fucken nation, leave them alone and fix the fucken markets.
Youre really leaning into my point. You're going out of your way to equate random shit that has nothing to do with his actions or anything other things he's done, but only that...he said the sports issue was deeply troubling. Nevermind the piece of shit he was talking to, which is way more troubling. Get mad that he was talking to Charlie Kirk of all people.
That's what we are complaining about. His second guest is also a known transphobe.
Did you even read the post linked? This is the subheading: "California’s Democratic governor was once considered an LGBTQ+ ally. So, what’s with the heel turn?"
You don't think that's a bit of an irrational headline? Newsom isnt turning heel, or abandoning a community, or anti-gay/trans/LGBTQ...he's attempting to bridge a communication gap and find common ground with someone is ideological opposite him. It's very clear from listening to this.
There's this sophomoric element in the online world where people latch onto a single example of something they don't like, and immediately rail against it and use it to tout and amplify their own ideas and beliefs by shouting people down. It doesn't work and never has. It creates echo chambers for sure, but it doesn't solve problems or change minds. Talking with people who don't agree with your point of view is the only way to gain an understanding, and possibly shift some views or find some sort of common ground. Civil rights leaders throughout history sure seemed to understand that, but people seem to want to ignore that now. I don't see people jumping all over Jon Stewart for having people on TDS who he clearly does not agree with, as an example.
Charlie Kirk IS a humongous piece of shit, an abuser, a hater of women, and all kinds of other bad shit. Does he have people that listen to him? Yup. Will completely ignoring that and isolating yourself from him and his uncle followers and advance the general politiknor help change any minds? Sure as shit didn't seem to happen in the last election, so...
He has two episodes and he has platformed bigots who aren't rational conservatives so it's entirely possible he has turned his back on the LGBTQ+ community.
Do you honestly think the people who support Kirk will support Newsom? I dont
That's the point... He brought on Charlie Kirk, and rather than, arguing with him... or trying to show his audience why what Kirk has to say shouldn't have a place in the discourse. He basically was looking for something he can agree with and highlighting the good.
That's not how you change minds or find common ground with people who are ideological opposite of you. It doesn't work. We're living through proof of that right now.
News flash... we've been trying the "oh yeah we don't fully disagree, we grant you a bit of what you like, then you grant a bit of what we want", and they respond, "oh thank you for what I want... GIVE ME MORE, oh and your stuff FUCK YOU".
No different than when we caved out obamacare to give into the insane nonstop demands the republicans had for it, but it was worth it to earn... Zero republican votes, 60+ attempts to repeal it.
But less on the policy side lets go on just narrative public speaking types. Next step is the make your case, give a strong arguement for your side. But he's not really doing that, he's bringing the far right on, letting them speak, half the time agreeing, half the time being silent.
But ok, so he's going to mix his guests 50/50, bring on one he agrees with, one he disagrees with, 2/2 right wing... nah doesn't look that way either.
So question is, what's he doing that's different than Joe Rogan at this point?
I think you're missing the point. Trans people are under attack in the US. Many are considering fleeing the country due to how unsafe they feel. Some are unable to get passports as easily as you or I, so they cannot just up and go. Which is why many are considering asylum, because there are places now in the US where they are considered criminals, felons, just for existing.
Now out of all the topics this man can talk about, having an anti-trans bias is absolutely a choice he is making. I agree with you that the trans community has much bigger issues, and every breath we waste on who is playing kickball with who is time better spent discussing their real issues.
What's deeply unfair is trans people being shuffled into prisons, and the media is latching onto sports. Let this podcaster fade into irrelevence, as he isn't helping the actual problems by muddying the waters with this.
Not missing the point at all, and I even said so in the very comment you're responding to.
And I agreed to your point in the very comment you're reaponding to. The only thing I'm disagreeing with is giving trans sports issues a platform over their right to exist. It's a distraction and a waste of energy.