Steyer is saying all the right things and I can’t help but wonder if he’s going to backtrack if elected. He only said he’s in favor of trans athletes in high school, not specifically saying trans girls playing on girls teams. We already have AB Hernandez competing but as an exception, so that scenario would still be included in Steyer’s statement. The fact that Steyer has never held public office concerns me, but I think he’s the best option we have at this point. It’s been disappointing how Newsom has thrown trans people under the bus, and Becerra’s vagueness is typical. We are beginning to see two Dem parties: progressive and establishment.
Well he has been endorsed by Equality California, so there's that. But honestly I think we have two excellent candidates who could do very well as Governor of California. Both have their obvious strengths and both have their obvious weaknesses. The biggest and most important thing, however, is to make sure that either one of them beats Tom Hilton.
Typically, Equality California endorses establishment candidates. Hate to say it but I am sort of pissed that they didn't say a word about Becerra's problematic comments in a debate about trans children playing sports.
If you watched the interview, Becerra basically said there is no guaranteed right for trans children to play in sports. Actually there is. Tom Ammiano, an Assemblymember, passed legislation in 2014 protecting the right of trans children to play sports.
Progressive issue have to start at local level and grow to an undeniable majority, then you can vote for a progressive governor or a even a progressive president.... we are not there.... to many independent wishy washy.....furthermore, I do not like candidate buying their way to the top. You always end up with kleptocrates in the governing body....
Agree but faced with the current situation (Steyer or Becerra), the dilemma is who to vote for. There are no other viable options for the CA dems race bc votes for other dems will water down the top 2, paving the way for a possible 2 republicans.
Mamdani said all the "right things", yet now he remains silent on pushback on NYC hospitals that have shuttered trans youth care, even in the face of a court order that they reopen.
Silence.... crickets.
I don't trust anyone to be an ally to our community.
I hate the populist tactics some Democrats are advocating for that include de-emphasizing support for marginalized groups such as Trans People, civil rights, and treatment of immigrants and so on. Newsome throwing Trans people under the bus is the result of such thinking. Becerra's equivocation regarding the Trans people in sports frankly pisses me off. I don't think it's as bad as Newsome but it's hard to know who to trust these days. I was leaning to Steyer, in terms of people polling at the top, because of how straight forward what he said in the debate was. But then I saw EQCA's endorsement. While I don't vote based on endorsements, It did prompt me to do deeper dive and Becerra does have a long history of supporting and defending Trans people rights including in health care. Just take a look at his work at HHS. Steyer has no experience. Even if he really does support Trans people he can't possibly know how to navigate the politics it takes to be effective as an ally. But as someone said. Hilton is the last person I want as Mayor.
ugghhhhhh I know..... It's coming down to the wire and I still go back and forth. I definitely want 2 dems at the top of the primary so in that regard perhaps a vote for steyer will achieve that and buy more time to evaluate and decide between the two before Nov.
I was already leaning towards Steyer because of his environmental stance and Equality California had already endorsed Becerra. But after this statement I am fully onboard with Steyer and he will definitely get my vote. Now I've got to wade through this MASSIVE mail-in ballot in time for the primary.
I’ve been trying to decide between the top two dem candidates and Tom’s response to this question sealed the deal. The fact that neither Becerra nor Katie Porter could articulate support on this topic did not help them (although I will support the Dem candidate come November despite his word salad non-answer).
Again, someone voting with his heart instead of using his brain... the trans question in sport isn't black and white, yes or no... and steyer isn't all clean... but perhaps you rather have Hilton a maga than Becerra a pragmatic democrat...
When neither candidate checks all the boxes then, yes, voting with my heart. As I said, I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate in the general but for now Steyer has my vote. I’m done with the litmus test of how he made his money because he’s been putting it to good use studying & funding climate initiatives. Also I figure there’s a very good reason the utilities are dumping Super PAC money against him. Becerra is a pragmatic though unappealing candidate and I really worry about this Administration filing trumped up charges against him related to his former campaign manager that would then doom him in the general. Praying that doesn’t happen but can’t ignore the possibility either.
I see a trap to this we should avoid and want not to exploit even temporarily.
The word testosterone did not come up.
For all athletes desiring to participate in girl's or women's categories, a past atypically high effective testosterone blood level is an athletic advantage over other female athletes whose T blood levels are more female typical.
While I can certainly believe that for youth or for some sports, less than the two years on effective HRT is required for "fairness" ( T suppression is the relevant part ), like what the IOC required from 2004 to 2018, is a good starting point for medically sane policy -- for all athletes wanting to participate in women's categories, whether transgender or cisgender.
We are not required to like the fact that male typical T levels provide an advantage which is readily apparent in most sports, and that anabolic steroid supplementation is prohibited in sports generally for like reason.
But it is so.
Recent overviews demonstrating MtF athletes have no advantage, but may be at a slight disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes, are overviews of data from athletes who were on T suppression.
For MtF athletes who avoid a masculine puberty starting with the start of Tanner 2, no such rules have any applicability. For those of us who underwent a typical masculine puberty, they have full applicability.
Everyone wants to include nuance, from the standpoint of biology -- to a first order and likely second order of things -- that's the nuance.
While I believe your post is overall right, testing makes me nervous because all of the responsibility is on female athletes. I think it should be enough that if someone is faking being trans to compete, then they are cheating. I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion. Especially in regards to the Olympics, the founder, Coubertin, didn't want women playing at all and created a women's category not out of fairness but rather to keep women separate. I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex.
It's complicated but the whole discussion makes my head spin because in the end it's not even about women's sports. It's about discrimination and discriminating against trans women (I know that you know that but I'm just emoting).
The screening for atypically high testosterone and it's analogs. and other PEDs, are present in sports at all competitive level with any real stakes, for both men's and women's categories.
" I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion."
I'm well aware of that history, and that in a few sports, the creation of women's categories was agitated for by men because some women were beating some men.
"I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex."
That's why I phrased that comment as I did. The general rule that some acceptably high standard deviation (please no one be triggered by the statistical term of art 'standard deviation') figure for blood testosterone levels, beyond which there must be medical lowering of that to compete in women's events, is applicable to all athletes -- transgender and cisgender, intersex or not. And there needs to be a bit more detail to it than only T levels, someone one with CAIS or PAIS may not benefit from high T no matter what the level is.
I do know the Social Conservatives are only motivated by bigotry. Focusing only on the actual biology of it in my view completely disarms them about it, and highlights their real motivation in the bad light they earn.
Thanks for this reply and highlighting the standard deviation bit. I think that clarifies things considerably for me. I am still skeptical at whether any testing should be done at a high school level but I know that certain programs are very completive and there is an amount of fairness we all want in the rules. And, yes fairness is thrown around in a bigoted way but anyone that cares about women's sports, beyond the bigotry, wants that basic concept to be imbedded in rules.
My feeling is that athletic organizations and school systems should set the rules as they see fit, and the rules should provide a path for ALL people potentially to compete as the gender with which they identify. The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me. The only thing I want is the possibility of participation if an athlete does all the right things. Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American.
"Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American."
I agree any baseless prohibition or division is evil. I think there are rules which are reasonable to make about testosterone blood level history in individual athletes, with respect to the typical bimodal spectrogram of T blood levels.
"The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me."
It is I think a proper endeavor for those details to reflect what is known of biology.
2. Just to add another note, with regard to human dignity: If you were to tell me I must meet certain athletic bars that I could NEVER attain in order to compete in the Olympics, I would have no problem with that. I'm an old lady with bad knees. I realize I'm not going to ski the moguls during the Winter Olympics! However, if you tell me I'm prohibited from participating in the Olympics because of who I am, we're going to have a problem, and I'm going to get in your face about it.
And from a psychology perspective, there is nothing particularly upsetting about knowing that I won't be able to meet certain qualifications to do something. (For instance, I would probably enjoy flying, but I don't think I have the time, energy, or financial means to go through all the training.) However, being told that I'm not allowed even to try is something utterly soul-crushing. It says I'm not good enough or that I'm less than someone else.
EDIT: Oh, and finally (LOL): Blanket bans are a direct deprivation of our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. None of us has the right to succeed, but we all should have the right to try.
1. Sure. I know it's important to athletes and athletic organizations, and I would like to think that my colleagues in the biological sciences could provide helpful guidance (particularly from the field of kinesiology). However, I think the LAW should say only one thing - that there is no discrimination based on sex, gender, or gender identity. The law should say nothing about restrictions (e.g. based on testosterone levels). My concern is that it weakens all our civil rights laws (and not just for trans people) when exceptions are carved out to the Fourteenth Amendment and the guiding principle that we are all equal before the law. Discrimination must never be written into the law, because then the law falls apart.
If I had a nickel for every time I thought a billionaire might be the best candidate for the job... I'd still be $999,999,999.95 short of being a billionaire.
I applaud Tom Steyer for meeting this issue head-on.
It is amazing that politicians in both parties still have not learned that avoiding or skuting the issues surounding transgender youth over sports participation or bathroom designations is not a winning issue.
These manufactured culture wars do nothing to improve people’s lives, and election after election has shown that fearmongering and scapegoating transgender youth will not deliver the votes they think it will.
Americans are tired of politicians targeting vulnerable young people instead of addressing real issues that affect everyone.
That's a pretty definitive difference, and a level of clarity that one doesn't often hear from politicians. It will affect my choice for certain (I haven't dropped my ballot in the box yet!)
It also shows that being rich is not, per se, a disqualification from being human. 😏
That's the rub. Becerra has a long history of support for Trans people that includes actually getting shit done. It's one thing to mouth support as Steyer it's another thing to effectively demonstrate that in practice. Becerra has a record. Steyer doesn't.
Yes, I did read the interview link. Both candidates pass a minimum test, and whoever wins will, I think, win the election and CA will remain a trans-protective state. But there is a difference between the two.
As both an internal recruiter and actual hiring decision-maker in small companies (i.e. startups), I learned to try to divine the character that a statement revealed, rather than rely on face value. With politicians it's especially hard, because the very occupation demands that they appeal to a wide range of opinions (some of which will be contradictory).
Wow! A Democrat who actually believes all people should be equal under the law - and says that unapologetically! If I were a Californian, he would have my vote. We trans people need places where we can go and be safe. California is a mostly-safe state that could be safer still under Steyer's leadership. The governor should not be vetoing civil rights legislation that his party is willing to stand behind.
Talk is cheap and unfortunately Steyer doesn't have a track record to judge how his support translates in practice. Becerra does. An extensive. I still don't like his equivocal response regarding sports.
I realize that it is late in the game and I do not hope to change anyone's vote. But I went to high school with Tom Steyer. He is 69 years old. I have known him across five plus decades due to frequent contacts at regular reunions and while I cannot speak directly to his support or non-support of LGBTQIA+ rights - mostly because I would never discuss anything I actually care about with the man - I can say that for someone with his resources he is, in my opinion, and experience, extremely ungenerous and very, very full of a high opinion of his own intelligence. He is and always has been a dork - an awkward guy who ably performs "genuineness" and "likeability" and "just a humble guy-ness" (I note a few commenters feel that performative nature, too), but I do not find him reliable and I do not trust him and there have been occasions when he has dorkishly directly insulted me. Further his management of an Arizona solar power initiative (I was living and voting there at the time) was so unbelieveably heavy-handed and amateurish, so inartful, that it lost overwhelmingly at the polls in a state with lots and lots of sunshine where it could have been a slam dunk. I almost lost my mind when he had the nerve to make running for the Democratic nomination for President his first "stab" at public office. He is very much a Billionaire with a Capital B, and he is very used to being the Boss and getting his Way and the last elected office he held was as President of our senior class in high school. If elected governor, you can expect you will likely get an old guy who will probably not do a totally terrible job, but who is just not very good at serving others or hearing those who disagree with him.
Ouch. That's a whole lot of personal insight. And it is very worrisome. I hate to hear that he could be--in his own way--just as unsuited for office as The Guy Who Cheats At Golf. That's the last thing we need...
The difference being I don't think Tom is a dementing sociopath. And I am glad he spoke affirmatively for trans kids. I just think there are better candidates (and, yes, worse ones) out there for Governor. I wish our Californian neighbors the best of luck.
Meanwhile we have to fight to re-elect a not particularly popular Democratic governor up here in Oregon because her Republican challenger is a fucking anti-choice nightmare, backed by saturation TV ads funded by big out of state money, who parrot-promises to "cut taxes and job-killing regulations and keep more money in hard-working Oregonians pockets". And people here are just desperate enough to want to believe that same old empty GOP mantra will work "this time".
I deeply respect your work but I have a very different take. I am from CA and longtime ally/parent of adult trans kid who transitioned long ago. I have been to Sacramento to lobby legislators to pass laws protecting trans rights and will fight forever for the trans community. Since February I have been deep in the CA Governors race and decided to support Becerra, in part because of his 30 years of demonstrated allyship and legal protections efforts. Where Steyer has never actually DONE anything, he is performative and polished and trying to buy his way into the left. Becerra on the other hand, has real world chops. He has stood by trans folks as well as the LGBTQIA+ community his entire career. This is why he received Ally of the Year from Equality California -twice!! And is endorsed by them for CA Governor. I’m attaching Rose Montoya’s interview with Becerra in April. It reads to me as genuine and not performative. He has trans kids in his own family. I’ve met him and he’s the real deal. Please consider. I’m very concerned about the billionaire buying our state for his own financial goals, not our human ones. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX9pXI2PY7D/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
I am not unsympathetic to the skeptical amongst us who are queasy about Steyer's wealth and the amount he has spent to become a viable candidate. It speaks unflattering volumes about our current elections process that huge bankrolls are necessary for a credible campaign. But wouldn't it be preferable to know where the funds originate, than have to guess what shadowy group of backers will be showing up later for their payback? I mean, if Steyer is investing in his own campaign, who's going to come around demanding return on investment in the form of compromised principles? Also, it is notable that Steyer has been endorsed by Robert Reich, who is not exactly a fan of billionaires in general.
I definitely agree with what you said re: funding his own campaign. The optics are a bit iffy, but it does show how much money is necessary to run a campaign in California. I'm still skeptical of Steyer because he's never held public office. How do we know he will follow through on these campaign promises? I've already voted in the primary, but if Steyer is up against Hilton in November, I would like to see who he's planning to bring into office with him. Is he currently working with the California legislature? Will they work with him if he's elected? I hope so, but you never know. Ultimately, we'll have to see how the primary election shakes out and go from there.
All valid points, and impossible to answer in advance with the tangled mess that has been intentionally made of campaign financing and media reporting.
Steyer's comments stand in stark contrast to his main opponent, Becerra , who gave a very weak non answer. Becerra is the former AG of California and should have known that legislation passed in 2014 that provided trans kids can play sports.
Compare and decide between the two main Democrats in California.
What also stands in stark contrast are the records of each putting their money where their mouths are by putting into practice what they preach. Becerra has a record one can judge. Steyer does not. Take away Becerra's equivocal comment on sports and you have a solid Trans ally.
Well actually that's a very good point that I can get behind. That's how I feel about SCS in California, more specifically here in San Francisco. I would have loved for Newsome to have blessed SCS when he had the opportunity to do it. Pledging to protect the people and orgs who offered to establish and run them from federal persecution like Bloomberg did in New York. But of course Newsome didn't. Instead he vetoed Wiener's bill. I would have liked to have seen the same thing in San Francisco with Breed ignoring both Newsome's veto and Federal considerations but of course she instead went tough on crime, because it was the politically expedient thing to do. So I'm all for the mentality you characterize Steyer with but I need to see evidence that Steyer is in fact that guy and then some. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a record to speak to that. Also, just looking at the issues he wants to focus and his plans to do so on his website I don't see where he mentions Trans care or Trans rights-ever. He has the perfect opportunity to do so when he specifically speaks about Care and Health Care. Unfortunately, not a peep. For a guy that's suppose to be gung ho all in on supporting Trans people that's a huge red flag, for me anyway. He's willing to speak about abolishing ICE why not have plans for Trans healthcare? Funding clinics that offer Trans care that have been devastated by federal cuts and local cuts? He doesn't unfortunately. He just doesn't have anything to boast of other than some initiatives he funded and that's about it.
I want to be honest, Gov. Newsom is a mixed bag, to me, I see him as a strong voice against the status quo, and yet he did get warm and fuzzy with Charlie Kirk (for the record - his assassination was wrong, no matter what an asshole he was, and he was). I haven't made a firm commitment in the 2028 race, other than to support AOC if she chooses to run, but I'm open to whatever comes of it, it's a must win, no matter who.
Having said that, California deserves new blood, new ideas, unwavering pro-trans support. This candidate clearly delivers.
Were I a Californian, I would definitely lean towards Steyer if he is supporting equal rights here. I am going to read up more on his platform and see if this is a person I will tell all my Calipeeps to consider.
This is the kind of energy we need.
Yes!!! 💯
Steyer is saying all the right things and I can’t help but wonder if he’s going to backtrack if elected. He only said he’s in favor of trans athletes in high school, not specifically saying trans girls playing on girls teams. We already have AB Hernandez competing but as an exception, so that scenario would still be included in Steyer’s statement. The fact that Steyer has never held public office concerns me, but I think he’s the best option we have at this point. It’s been disappointing how Newsom has thrown trans people under the bus, and Becerra’s vagueness is typical. We are beginning to see two Dem parties: progressive and establishment.
And Becerra is definitely part of the Establishment.
I've listened to his interviews. He definitely comes across as someone in the Establishment.
Well he has been endorsed by Equality California, so there's that. But honestly I think we have two excellent candidates who could do very well as Governor of California. Both have their obvious strengths and both have their obvious weaknesses. The biggest and most important thing, however, is to make sure that either one of them beats Tom Hilton.
Typically, Equality California endorses establishment candidates. Hate to say it but I am sort of pissed that they didn't say a word about Becerra's problematic comments in a debate about trans children playing sports.
If you watched the interview, Becerra basically said there is no guaranteed right for trans children to play in sports. Actually there is. Tom Ammiano, an Assemblymember, passed legislation in 2014 protecting the right of trans children to play sports.
Progressive issue have to start at local level and grow to an undeniable majority, then you can vote for a progressive governor or a even a progressive president.... we are not there.... to many independent wishy washy.....furthermore, I do not like candidate buying their way to the top. You always end up with kleptocrates in the governing body....
Agree but faced with the current situation (Steyer or Becerra), the dilemma is who to vote for. There are no other viable options for the CA dems race bc votes for other dems will water down the top 2, paving the way for a possible 2 republicans.
Compare and Decide: Becerra vs. Steyer on trans kids
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
Mamdani said all the "right things", yet now he remains silent on pushback on NYC hospitals that have shuttered trans youth care, even in the face of a court order that they reopen.
Silence.... crickets.
I don't trust anyone to be an ally to our community.
That's right. It's hard to know who to trust.
I hate the populist tactics some Democrats are advocating for that include de-emphasizing support for marginalized groups such as Trans People, civil rights, and treatment of immigrants and so on. Newsome throwing Trans people under the bus is the result of such thinking. Becerra's equivocation regarding the Trans people in sports frankly pisses me off. I don't think it's as bad as Newsome but it's hard to know who to trust these days. I was leaning to Steyer, in terms of people polling at the top, because of how straight forward what he said in the debate was. But then I saw EQCA's endorsement. While I don't vote based on endorsements, It did prompt me to do deeper dive and Becerra does have a long history of supporting and defending Trans people rights including in health care. Just take a look at his work at HHS. Steyer has no experience. Even if he really does support Trans people he can't possibly know how to navigate the politics it takes to be effective as an ally. But as someone said. Hilton is the last person I want as Mayor.
ugghhhhhh I know..... It's coming down to the wire and I still go back and forth. I definitely want 2 dems at the top of the primary so in that regard perhaps a vote for steyer will achieve that and buy more time to evaluate and decide between the two before Nov.
That would be ideal.
I was already leaning towards Steyer because of his environmental stance and Equality California had already endorsed Becerra. But after this statement I am fully onboard with Steyer and he will definitely get my vote. Now I've got to wade through this MASSIVE mail-in ballot in time for the primary.
I’ve been trying to decide between the top two dem candidates and Tom’s response to this question sealed the deal. The fact that neither Becerra nor Katie Porter could articulate support on this topic did not help them (although I will support the Dem candidate come November despite his word salad non-answer).
Again, someone voting with his heart instead of using his brain... the trans question in sport isn't black and white, yes or no... and steyer isn't all clean... but perhaps you rather have Hilton a maga than Becerra a pragmatic democrat...
When neither candidate checks all the boxes then, yes, voting with my heart. As I said, I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate in the general but for now Steyer has my vote. I’m done with the litmus test of how he made his money because he’s been putting it to good use studying & funding climate initiatives. Also I figure there’s a very good reason the utilities are dumping Super PAC money against him. Becerra is a pragmatic though unappealing candidate and I really worry about this Administration filing trumped up charges against him related to his former campaign manager that would then doom him in the general. Praying that doesn’t happen but can’t ignore the possibility either.
I love to hear it. Thank you for the reporting.
I see a trap to this we should avoid and want not to exploit even temporarily.
The word testosterone did not come up.
For all athletes desiring to participate in girl's or women's categories, a past atypically high effective testosterone blood level is an athletic advantage over other female athletes whose T blood levels are more female typical.
While I can certainly believe that for youth or for some sports, less than the two years on effective HRT is required for "fairness" ( T suppression is the relevant part ), like what the IOC required from 2004 to 2018, is a good starting point for medically sane policy -- for all athletes wanting to participate in women's categories, whether transgender or cisgender.
We are not required to like the fact that male typical T levels provide an advantage which is readily apparent in most sports, and that anabolic steroid supplementation is prohibited in sports generally for like reason.
But it is so.
Recent overviews demonstrating MtF athletes have no advantage, but may be at a slight disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes, are overviews of data from athletes who were on T suppression.
For MtF athletes who avoid a masculine puberty starting with the start of Tanner 2, no such rules have any applicability. For those of us who underwent a typical masculine puberty, they have full applicability.
Everyone wants to include nuance, from the standpoint of biology -- to a first order and likely second order of things -- that's the nuance.
While I believe your post is overall right, testing makes me nervous because all of the responsibility is on female athletes. I think it should be enough that if someone is faking being trans to compete, then they are cheating. I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion. Especially in regards to the Olympics, the founder, Coubertin, didn't want women playing at all and created a women's category not out of fairness but rather to keep women separate. I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex.
It's complicated but the whole discussion makes my head spin because in the end it's not even about women's sports. It's about discrimination and discriminating against trans women (I know that you know that but I'm just emoting).
The screening for atypically high testosterone and it's analogs. and other PEDs, are present in sports at all competitive level with any real stakes, for both men's and women's categories.
" I also think testing is a recognition that the entire existence of female sports categories are largely based in exclusion."
I'm well aware of that history, and that in a few sports, the creation of women's categories was agitated for by men because some women were beating some men.
"I can criticize my own opinion here because sports are very high performing right now and testosterone levels do matter. But, we have seen so many stories of intersex athletes being exclude from female categories which they actually belong to and really didn't even know they were intersex."
That's why I phrased that comment as I did. The general rule that some acceptably high standard deviation (please no one be triggered by the statistical term of art 'standard deviation') figure for blood testosterone levels, beyond which there must be medical lowering of that to compete in women's events, is applicable to all athletes -- transgender and cisgender, intersex or not. And there needs to be a bit more detail to it than only T levels, someone one with CAIS or PAIS may not benefit from high T no matter what the level is.
I do know the Social Conservatives are only motivated by bigotry. Focusing only on the actual biology of it in my view completely disarms them about it, and highlights their real motivation in the bad light they earn.
Thanks for this reply and highlighting the standard deviation bit. I think that clarifies things considerably for me. I am still skeptical at whether any testing should be done at a high school level but I know that certain programs are very completive and there is an amount of fairness we all want in the rules. And, yes fairness is thrown around in a bigoted way but anyone that cares about women's sports, beyond the bigotry, wants that basic concept to be imbedded in rules.
My feeling is that athletic organizations and school systems should set the rules as they see fit, and the rules should provide a path for ALL people potentially to compete as the gender with which they identify. The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me. The only thing I want is the possibility of participation if an athlete does all the right things. Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American.
"Put another way, I believe blanket bans are thoroughly un-American."
I agree any baseless prohibition or division is evil. I think there are rules which are reasonable to make about testosterone blood level history in individual athletes, with respect to the typical bimodal spectrogram of T blood levels.
"The details of how that happens don't particularly concern me."
It is I think a proper endeavor for those details to reflect what is known of biology.
YMMV.
2. Just to add another note, with regard to human dignity: If you were to tell me I must meet certain athletic bars that I could NEVER attain in order to compete in the Olympics, I would have no problem with that. I'm an old lady with bad knees. I realize I'm not going to ski the moguls during the Winter Olympics! However, if you tell me I'm prohibited from participating in the Olympics because of who I am, we're going to have a problem, and I'm going to get in your face about it.
And from a psychology perspective, there is nothing particularly upsetting about knowing that I won't be able to meet certain qualifications to do something. (For instance, I would probably enjoy flying, but I don't think I have the time, energy, or financial means to go through all the training.) However, being told that I'm not allowed even to try is something utterly soul-crushing. It says I'm not good enough or that I'm less than someone else.
EDIT: Oh, and finally (LOL): Blanket bans are a direct deprivation of our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. None of us has the right to succeed, but we all should have the right to try.
1. Sure. I know it's important to athletes and athletic organizations, and I would like to think that my colleagues in the biological sciences could provide helpful guidance (particularly from the field of kinesiology). However, I think the LAW should say only one thing - that there is no discrimination based on sex, gender, or gender identity. The law should say nothing about restrictions (e.g. based on testosterone levels). My concern is that it weakens all our civil rights laws (and not just for trans people) when exceptions are carved out to the Fourteenth Amendment and the guiding principle that we are all equal before the law. Discrimination must never be written into the law, because then the law falls apart.
If I had a nickel for every time I thought a billionaire might be the best candidate for the job... I'd still be $999,999,999.95 short of being a billionaire.
But it's weird that it ever happened at all.
Fair, but FDR would have been a billionaire by today's standards, and he is one of the best Presidents that we have ever had.
Pritzger in Illinois has been a great Governor and is a billionaire. He also gave a full throttled defense of trans children.
I applaud Tom Steyer for meeting this issue head-on.
It is amazing that politicians in both parties still have not learned that avoiding or skuting the issues surounding transgender youth over sports participation or bathroom designations is not a winning issue.
These manufactured culture wars do nothing to improve people’s lives, and election after election has shown that fearmongering and scapegoating transgender youth will not deliver the votes they think it will.
Americans are tired of politicians targeting vulnerable young people instead of addressing real issues that affect everyone.
That's a pretty definitive difference, and a level of clarity that one doesn't often hear from politicians. It will affect my choice for certain (I haven't dropped my ballot in the box yet!)
It also shows that being rich is not, per se, a disqualification from being human. 😏
I would say listening to the interview is better than just reading the text. It's the tone in Becerra's voice ...
Go here to listen to both.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
That's the rub. Becerra has a long history of support for Trans people that includes actually getting shit done. It's one thing to mouth support as Steyer it's another thing to effectively demonstrate that in practice. Becerra has a record. Steyer doesn't.
Yes, I did read the interview link. Both candidates pass a minimum test, and whoever wins will, I think, win the election and CA will remain a trans-protective state. But there is a difference between the two.
As both an internal recruiter and actual hiring decision-maker in small companies (i.e. startups), I learned to try to divine the character that a statement revealed, rather than rely on face value. With politicians it's especially hard, because the very occupation demands that they appeal to a wide range of opinions (some of which will be contradictory).
Wow! A Democrat who actually believes all people should be equal under the law - and says that unapologetically! If I were a Californian, he would have my vote. We trans people need places where we can go and be safe. California is a mostly-safe state that could be safer still under Steyer's leadership. The governor should not be vetoing civil rights legislation that his party is willing to stand behind.
Talk is cheap and unfortunately Steyer doesn't have a track record to judge how his support translates in practice. Becerra does. An extensive. I still don't like his equivocal response regarding sports.
Again, I would urge people to listen to both candidates, as opposed to our interpretations of what they said.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
I realize that it is late in the game and I do not hope to change anyone's vote. But I went to high school with Tom Steyer. He is 69 years old. I have known him across five plus decades due to frequent contacts at regular reunions and while I cannot speak directly to his support or non-support of LGBTQIA+ rights - mostly because I would never discuss anything I actually care about with the man - I can say that for someone with his resources he is, in my opinion, and experience, extremely ungenerous and very, very full of a high opinion of his own intelligence. He is and always has been a dork - an awkward guy who ably performs "genuineness" and "likeability" and "just a humble guy-ness" (I note a few commenters feel that performative nature, too), but I do not find him reliable and I do not trust him and there have been occasions when he has dorkishly directly insulted me. Further his management of an Arizona solar power initiative (I was living and voting there at the time) was so unbelieveably heavy-handed and amateurish, so inartful, that it lost overwhelmingly at the polls in a state with lots and lots of sunshine where it could have been a slam dunk. I almost lost my mind when he had the nerve to make running for the Democratic nomination for President his first "stab" at public office. He is very much a Billionaire with a Capital B, and he is very used to being the Boss and getting his Way and the last elected office he held was as President of our senior class in high school. If elected governor, you can expect you will likely get an old guy who will probably not do a totally terrible job, but who is just not very good at serving others or hearing those who disagree with him.
Ouch. That's a whole lot of personal insight. And it is very worrisome. I hate to hear that he could be--in his own way--just as unsuited for office as The Guy Who Cheats At Golf. That's the last thing we need...
The difference being I don't think Tom is a dementing sociopath. And I am glad he spoke affirmatively for trans kids. I just think there are better candidates (and, yes, worse ones) out there for Governor. I wish our Californian neighbors the best of luck.
Meanwhile we have to fight to re-elect a not particularly popular Democratic governor up here in Oregon because her Republican challenger is a fucking anti-choice nightmare, backed by saturation TV ads funded by big out of state money, who parrot-promises to "cut taxes and job-killing regulations and keep more money in hard-working Oregonians pockets". And people here are just desperate enough to want to believe that same old empty GOP mantra will work "this time".
I deeply respect your work but I have a very different take. I am from CA and longtime ally/parent of adult trans kid who transitioned long ago. I have been to Sacramento to lobby legislators to pass laws protecting trans rights and will fight forever for the trans community. Since February I have been deep in the CA Governors race and decided to support Becerra, in part because of his 30 years of demonstrated allyship and legal protections efforts. Where Steyer has never actually DONE anything, he is performative and polished and trying to buy his way into the left. Becerra on the other hand, has real world chops. He has stood by trans folks as well as the LGBTQIA+ community his entire career. This is why he received Ally of the Year from Equality California -twice!! And is endorsed by them for CA Governor. I’m attaching Rose Montoya’s interview with Becerra in April. It reads to me as genuine and not performative. He has trans kids in his own family. I’ve met him and he’s the real deal. Please consider. I’m very concerned about the billionaire buying our state for his own financial goals, not our human ones. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX9pXI2PY7D/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
I am not unsympathetic to the skeptical amongst us who are queasy about Steyer's wealth and the amount he has spent to become a viable candidate. It speaks unflattering volumes about our current elections process that huge bankrolls are necessary for a credible campaign. But wouldn't it be preferable to know where the funds originate, than have to guess what shadowy group of backers will be showing up later for their payback? I mean, if Steyer is investing in his own campaign, who's going to come around demanding return on investment in the form of compromised principles? Also, it is notable that Steyer has been endorsed by Robert Reich, who is not exactly a fan of billionaires in general.
I definitely agree with what you said re: funding his own campaign. The optics are a bit iffy, but it does show how much money is necessary to run a campaign in California. I'm still skeptical of Steyer because he's never held public office. How do we know he will follow through on these campaign promises? I've already voted in the primary, but if Steyer is up against Hilton in November, I would like to see who he's planning to bring into office with him. Is he currently working with the California legislature? Will they work with him if he's elected? I hope so, but you never know. Ultimately, we'll have to see how the primary election shakes out and go from there.
All valid points, and impossible to answer in advance with the tangled mess that has been intentionally made of campaign financing and media reporting.
I would say again that Pritzger is a billionaire and has been a huge ally of trans folks in Illinoia and very progressive.
Also FDR would have been a billionaire by today's standards and was an amazing President.
Steyer's comments stand in stark contrast to his main opponent, Becerra , who gave a very weak non answer. Becerra is the former AG of California and should have known that legislation passed in 2014 that provided trans kids can play sports.
Compare and decide between the two main Democrats in California.
Becerra vs. Steyer on trans kids
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
What also stands in stark contrast are the records of each putting their money where their mouths are by putting into practice what they preach. Becerra has a record one can judge. Steyer does not. Take away Becerra's equivocal comment on sports and you have a solid Trans ally.
Well actually that's a very good point that I can get behind. That's how I feel about SCS in California, more specifically here in San Francisco. I would have loved for Newsome to have blessed SCS when he had the opportunity to do it. Pledging to protect the people and orgs who offered to establish and run them from federal persecution like Bloomberg did in New York. But of course Newsome didn't. Instead he vetoed Wiener's bill. I would have liked to have seen the same thing in San Francisco with Breed ignoring both Newsome's veto and Federal considerations but of course she instead went tough on crime, because it was the politically expedient thing to do. So I'm all for the mentality you characterize Steyer with but I need to see evidence that Steyer is in fact that guy and then some. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a record to speak to that. Also, just looking at the issues he wants to focus and his plans to do so on his website I don't see where he mentions Trans care or Trans rights-ever. He has the perfect opportunity to do so when he specifically speaks about Care and Health Care. Unfortunately, not a peep. For a guy that's suppose to be gung ho all in on supporting Trans people that's a huge red flag, for me anyway. He's willing to speak about abolishing ICE why not have plans for Trans healthcare? Funding clinics that offer Trans care that have been devastated by federal cuts and local cuts? He doesn't unfortunately. He just doesn't have anything to boast of other than some initiatives he funded and that's about it.
Possibly so👍
I listened to the full interview and found his entire answer to be word salad honestly.
Here is the full interview:
https://youtu.be/7bYu7KTmhko?si=Th2t-U-OTYgmzHSr&t=629
I would not trust him enough to vote for him on this one issue.
Compare and decide. Listen to both Becerra and Steyer.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/942854158581838
Here is the full interview:
https://youtu.be/7bYu7KTmhko?si=Th2t-U-OTYgmzHSr&t=629
I want to be honest, Gov. Newsom is a mixed bag, to me, I see him as a strong voice against the status quo, and yet he did get warm and fuzzy with Charlie Kirk (for the record - his assassination was wrong, no matter what an asshole he was, and he was). I haven't made a firm commitment in the 2028 race, other than to support AOC if she chooses to run, but I'm open to whatever comes of it, it's a must win, no matter who.
Having said that, California deserves new blood, new ideas, unwavering pro-trans support. This candidate clearly delivers.
Were I a Californian, I would definitely lean towards Steyer if he is supporting equal rights here. I am going to read up more on his platform and see if this is a person I will tell all my Calipeeps to consider.