Find Something You Love as Much as Gavin Newsom Loves Having Anti-Trans Pundits on His Podcast
Find Something You Love as Much as Gavin Newsom Loves Having Anti-Trans Pundits on His Podcast
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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?
Did newsom do that here? Because it sure looks like he brought charlie kirk on his podcast to make a point of agreeing with him about trans people.
Wow, he must just totally be lying about that now too. Where will his madness end???????
Logic says that what he's doing is what he said: bridge the gap between opposing forces in society.
Centrism's holy grail is common ground between bigots whose approval they seek and... whatever whiny minority wants unreasonable shit like equality.
Newsflash. In a democracy, the bigots still get to vote. And if there are more bigots than minorities then the bigots get to keep the minorities down. The minorities effectively need to convince the bigots to give them the rights. But this whole rhetoric is bs, trans people have equal rights, not equal acceptance into society, but the government can’t really force that.
No one who is in favor of trans women in sports, or for minors to have any form of hormonal treatment is gonna win an election and trust me that for a lot of people those two issues, while they will never affect them, are greater than any economic issue. It tends to cause such an emotional reaction in people that it overrides everything else.
This is the political reality that a would be candidate needs to grapple with.
Exactly.
“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.
Bro, you’re saying we should give racists microphones so they can recruit more racist shit bags, what the fuck are you smoking?
Im saying that shunning everyone from the right is giving the racists a platform, a stage and an audience in which they can still recruit more racist shitbags but without any opposition and even more disimformation.
They built an entire eco system under your noses, and they have as much reach and influence as the “mainstream” ecosystem. That would have never happened without this whole deplatforming people bullshit for even the smallest disagreement with the agenda mentality. This is why far right ideology is spreading more than ever. You cannot suppress ideology, when you do you only make it more appealing to the kind of people who are already susceptible to it.
You know there’s a difference between letting someone’s objectively garbage opinions watch adults do the right thing and validating those opinions on large platforms?
It’s not a difference in opinion anyway, it’s a huge lie fueled by high-octane hate. They aren’t serious people and are not coming to the table with any intention of talking in good faith. If they even slightly cared about reality they wouldn’t have these views and as the old saying goes “you can’t logic someone out of an argument they didn’t logic themselves into”.
The reason this has gone on for so long is because Americans are spineless and enable this behaviour. They are thoroughly afraid of upsetting the status quo and so the best they can do is weak centrism while validating and giving confidence to the worst people you know. It isn’t the right-wing echo chambers, those have always existed and will continue to exist, it’s the fact that the public at large allows those echo chambers to grow by doing literally nothing about it or even helping because “balance”.
OH AND ALSO the right owns most of the mainstream media, like the enormity that is FOX-FUCKING-NEWS, and loves to deplatform progressive opinions. They enact huge amounts of censorship all the time and consider words like “cisgender” a slur while asking for trans people to live in silence and fear. Don’t come in here acting like they’re poor little oppressed babies.
You’re a clown.
It’s not validating them it’s about not letting them fester in the shadows where they can create social unrest like they are doing now. And it is a difference in opinion in a few ways, like I don’t hate trans people but I for the life of me no matter what cannot state that trans women are the same as a assigned at birth women. The fact that I had to sit and think for a moment there about which words to use so that it cannot be twisted through rhetoric highlights that. I have no hate against trans people though, I’ve even been involved with one. But to say that they are the same? I can’t trick my brain that way especially if they don’t pass. So you might say that it is a fact that trans women are women, but due to the lack of hard scientific evidence of that (and of what my own two eyes tell me) Im just gonna call it an opinion and disagree with you.
Also the reason the echo chambers are allowed to grow is because you live in a country in which freedoms of expression is a right, an almost holy one one would think, so it’s legal to say whatever hateful thing you want and be a part of hate groups. It’s enshrined in the constitution and that’s not gonna change. There’s no legal basis to disrupt them unless they act on their rhetoric.
The best you can do is not let them control the narrative and give them the spotlight a little in places where they will meet resistance so they can embarrass themselves like they always do. We used to bring the KKK on tv and they basically stopped existing for a long while after that.
This idea that letting someone speak in a forum is validating their opinions is ridiculous and is the reason we are where we are.
Yea but these people aren’t being embarrassed. They have no shame, they do not care, and the places that people are the most mad at are specifically not doing anything to really pressure them to feel bad about it. There is disagreeable speech and there is hate speech and I have zero time for the latter.
Sorry, I bit your head off, I’m just so angry these days, thank you for taking the time to explain it to me
Everyone is, which is why we kinda need to take a step back and maybe listen and even if we disagree on the conclusions you’ll find the root grievances to be the same.
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.
That kinda falls down when you invite them on your show and agree with 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.
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.
Can't have someone saying bad things about the anti-trans movement.
Lol, many of us saw this coming when you first posted here. We already know your opinion on the matter and asking us to think more on it just makes you look.... less flattering.
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.
I read it as either cowardice or malice.
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?
No one ever talks about all those times Benedict Arnold didn't betray the US.
Lol are you kidding??? Now he's Benedict Arnold. My fucking God. It's like it's impossible to help yourself to be reasonable and understand not everyone will agree with your exact definition or view of everything, and STILL not be against that. Totally okay for you do that though...
Yeah, he would've had to pretend to be an ally in order to betray people.
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.
But it wasn't just sports, he also agreed that minors shouldn't be allowed to transition. Forcing a minor to go through one type of puberty when they wish to go through a different kind IMO is torture. Regret rates for transitioning are extremely low, and even if you do regret it you're no worse off than someone who regrets not transitioning.
OK lol Bro shut the fuck up, you’ve already made so many wrong assumptions in this giant ass fucking wall of text, do you really just hearing yourself speak, do you mouth the words as you type?
