In what may be an ill omen for liberal orthodoxy, noted political weather vane and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom recently declared that requiring women to compete against men in sports is “deeply unfair.” Gasps of dismay and shrill charges of betrayal emanated from the usual suspects in the Democratic ranks, as the LGBTQ-plus poster boy who championed same-sex marriage in San Francisco, broke ranks with the progressive wing of the party.
While perhaps driven by political opportunism, could perhaps a bit of introspection and pragmatism be emerging in the Democratic party? Will we see ambitious Democrats heading for the “lifeboats” as the Democratic Titanic continues to sink?
The Trump campaign ad most often mentioned as being especially effective has been the “they/them” jab at the Democrats’ embrace of the transgender agenda, a position that has been often cited as illustrating the party’s break with the values of most of the country.
In my September 2023, column I predicted a growing rift between feminists and transgender advocates over women’s sports and men in women’s spaces. The conflict has developed into game forfeitures, activism by student athletes, and a political upset. Many Democrats have privately admitted to disagreement with the party over women’s sports, although few have been willing to publicly break with the party and risk social and political ostracism.
As Democrats have often pointed out when dismissing the issue’s importance, it effects only a small number of athletes nationwide. So, why the opposition among moderate voters?
First, observational data. Accepting the liberal dogma that men have no biological advantage over women in most sports requires embracing an Orwellian fiction that is readily disproven just by considering the respective athletic performances. We cannot accept that subjective feelings and emotions have control over objective biology. As the famous “Brandon” meme demonstrated, the public does not respect an obvious lie. We find it insulting.
Second, people then wonder why they are being ordered to observe a new article of faith that they know to be false, and why so few in the Democratic party have the courage to challenge it. The answer is fear of being thrown out of the liberal “tribe” for straying. In November 2024, Liberal celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson created quite a stir on Bill Maher’s show by refusing to distance himself from the outlandish claim in Scientific American that the performance differential between male and female athletes was caused by systemic social bias, not biology. If even a scientist is not willing to defy his party’s mandated “truth,” who will?
Third, the use of mandated fictions evokes George Orwell, in which something becomes “true” simply because it is decreed to be so by those in power. This sort of authoritarianism scares many people.
Asking the party membership to buy into the trans position on athletics and other gender issues was simply a bridge too far and alienated moderates who otherwise might have been willing to bury their misgivings and vote for the progressive Kamala Harris. Hatred of Trump can only take you so far. Probably more than any other issue, it vividly illustrated the vast disconnect between the Democratic leadership, and most of the American people. The young college progressives and urban hipsters who seem to serve as the ideological spirit guides for the party do not represent most voters.
Will the Democratic party be able to reform itself and rethink their embrace of these politically costly outlier causes? I am doubtful.
Obviously, pragmatic politicians like Newsom can, and likely will, deftly reposition themselves, hoping to ride a wave of moderation into the White House. But many of the party faithful have emotionally absorbed and embedded these stances into their worldview and may not be ideologically agile enough to reverse course. An issue that most had never even considered until relatively recently has now become sacred political dogma and “a hill that they are willing to die on.”
The Democrats have trapped themselves. By previously loudly and hyperbolically defining the trans agenda as a “civil rights issue,” and by viciously attacking nonbelievers, they have eliminated their ability to walk away from the cause. To them, it would be like Dr. Martin Luther King announcing that he was abandoning “all that equal opportunity stuff” in order to move on to new things. You can’t be seen discarding what you proclaim to be a moral imperative just because it is politically untenable. Abandoning what they see as a righteous cause would be too shameful to endure. And transgender advocates are unlikely to let them just ignore the issue. Δ
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who is scared of high places. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in May 8-18, 2025.
Jon D:
Not a word about our economy in your entire article. All these people freaking out about gender and marriage equality will probably just disappear if our economy actually functioned, as would all the immigration theatrics. No one cares about any of it when people feel they have a future. Right now, most Americans view their future as very dystopian. I can see a Gilded Age or Victorian Era scenario unfolding: no old age pensions, no Medicare, poorhouses, workhouses, settlement houses, no child labor laws, a return of tuberculosis and other preventable diseases, a return of street preachers, the return of horse drawn carriages for transportation, diets consisting of potatoes and rat meat, yes, this is our future. This is what happens when we place boutique issues like transgender athletics over economics. Jon D. just spilled a gallon of ink doing just that, ignoring our ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. Bravo, sir, bravo….
@Fly: There are other things happening beside the economy, and which won’t suddenly disappear if the economy booms. It is funny that you see most Americans viewing the situation as dystopian. While SLO is not representative of the nation, I see “someone” bidding up the prices of homes, plenty of people driving late model cars and trucks selling for well over $50K, loads of toys like boats and ATV’s, thriving bistros, and lots of people indulging in luxuries like Doordash and Grubhub. If someone is incapable of mustering the initiative to drive to McDonalds for a burger, and instead wants it delivered to them, I can safely say that their situation is far from desperate.
John D:
These people driving $50,000 trucks or owning boats and trucks may be the large land owning farmers and ranchers from the Central Valley coming out for the weekend and people dining at local bistros might be members of the bourgeois and white collar professionals, and although retired, yeah, people like you. Or, as Veblen called people of your socio-economic class, members of the “leisure class.” People with the actual time to dine in a bistro and pick up a pen to consciously ignore the people living in the creek. Or, as they say in AA in regards to a drunk getting sober after destroying their families, their jobs, and their reputations, “the alcoholic is much like a person emerging from a storm cellar after a tornado destroyed their town only to remark, “ain’t it grand the wind stopped blowing?” Basically they’re oblivious to the consequences of their actions, only aware that all they really did was stop drinking. That’s you, John. The depth of your inquiry stops at, “Hey, someone drove by in a $50,000 truck. The economy is awesome.” That’s about as far as it gets with you, sir.
Try doing a keyword search on YouTube using the words “collapse, unemployment, mortgages,” or “downward mobility.” America has fallen, you just don’t see it because as a retired Boomer/lawyer, you probably made out like a bandit.
And so, John, I bid you Adieu. Enjoy your wine and nouvelle cuisine at the “bistro.” Why don’t you tell all of us to just eat cake while you’re at it? Shall we call you call you Madam Antoinette Esq? You’re living quite the charmed life, aren’t you?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair,
PS: this is me laughing at you
John Donegan, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, John Donegan, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, John Donegan, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich….
Kinda rolls off the tongue.
Mr. Donegan – you and I do not agree on much but I have to admit I agree that democrats have gone too far with insisting that it is the constitutional right of trans-athletes to play on sports teams opposite of their biological gender. There is nothing in the constitution that addresses it. We are in un-charted waters on this issue. While they do have the right to decide about their own bodies – well, at least men do, women not so much these days – and while I have no issue with their decisions, I happen to believe that it is purely a safety issue for trans-athletes to play on sports teams not of their biological gender. Period. It is simply a fact that male and female bodies are built differently and, for the most part, males are bigger and stronger than women. So for me, it is simply a matter of the possibility of injuries. However, I also think it is ridiculous for girls and women to be frightened of trans-athletes sharing their locker rooms because it violates their privacy when most women and girls constantly flaunt their bodies in public. Seriously, what do they have to be so frightened about? Are they also frightened of the male attention they get when they dress the way they do in public? I dont think so. But, like you said, democrats have stepped up for this issue too much for reasonable, moderate democrats while not stepping up at all while our economy and markets are falling quickly.
Regarding Newsom, this may or may not be simply a political switch looking to garner support for a presidential run in 2028, but I think that he simply feels the way I do about this: the trans-athlete issue is not a sacred political dogma and a hill they are willing to die on. Honestly, I am not even sure most democratic leaders believe this is the hill to die on, but rather it is the ONLY hill they have right now. Their hands are tied from accomplishing anything in Congress so they are letting themselves be easily baited by these Republican distractions. And that is what these issues are: distractions that further serve the Republican agenda, sort of like dealing with a group of people with ADHD and saying, Look, theres a chicken over there! while they continue to tear apart our government and democracy.
I will whole-heartedly disagree with your statement that democrats are viciously attacking nonbelievers, AKA people who disagree with them about the trans-athlete issue. I attended the Lucia Mar School Board meetings and witnessed first hand the vicious and personal attacks perpetuated by the judgmental, narrow-minded religious groups not only fighting against trans-athletes in girls sports but also publicly naming, shaming and attacking school children (minors) who think differently than they do. These are the vicious attackers. I also witnessed first hand at these meetings that the democrats on the other side of this issue were not viciously attacking anyone but instead doing the opposite with their message of love, understanding and inclusion of all students.