Democrats' Dilemma

Sailing between Scylla and Charybdis

In “What is Gavin Newsom doing?” (New York Times Op-Ed, March 14th, 2025), Michelle Goldberg expresses her frustration about Newsom’s conversation with Charlie Kirk (in Newsom’s new podcast, March 6th). She writes: “What could have been a show of intellectual confidence on Newsom’s part has turned out to be a demeaning display of submission.” What upset her?

On the issue of keeping women’s and girls’ sport for women and girls (and therefore excluding trans-identifying men and boys), Newsom did a U-turn and expressed agreement with Kirk: “The issue of fairness is completely legit,” he said. “So I completely align with you. And we’ve got to own that.”

We don’t need to go into the opportunism and Newsom’s eyes on 2028. Yes, we know.

His little pivot has predictably annoyed everyone. The TQ+ crowd see him as a treacherous opportunist, while those who mildly welcome this apparent shift point out that the 2013 California law allowing boys to participate in girls’ school sports and facilities is still in place. That is why it is only a little pivot: As long as Newsom does nothing to change the law, he will be accused of hypocrisy. He has also been very strong on gender identity in areas other than sport: in 2020 he signed SB 132, allowing male offenders who “identify” as women to be sent to women’s jails. As far as pediatric gender medicine is concerned: in 2022, Newsom signed SB 107, making California the first state to establish itself as a legal sanctuary for trans-identifying youth seeking “gender-affirming care.” In 2024 he signed AB 1955, according to which school staff do not have to notify parents if a student requests to use a different name or pronouns. The only departure from this strong alignment with gender identitarians was his veto in 2023 of AB 957, which would have required judges in custody disputes to consider a parent’s affirmation of their child’s gender identity as a factor in determining the child’s best interests. He cited judicial overreach – the only time he appears to have taken account of views other than enthusiastic advocates of gender identity.

Disturbed by Newsom’s words on sport, Goldberg has two things to say: first, if the governor was going to pivot on this issue, he shouldn’t have done it in a discussion with Charlie Kirk, who has said extremely insulting things about trans-identifying people. Second, she says:

“As a matter of both political expediency and simple honesty, Democrats should be able to acknowledge that it’s unfair to expect elite female athletes to compete against trans women who’ve gone through male puberty. But at a time when the Trump administration has singled trans people out for persecution, Democrats need to couple their recognition of physical difference with a broader defense of trans rights.”

Goldberg seems to have taken lessons in incoherence from Judith Butler. She assumes for some reason (unlike Newsom) that this issue only matters at the level of elite sport. Sorry, girls, sorry, recreational players – you only qualify for safety, fairness and dignity if you ever get to the elite level. How you get there, without having these rights before then, is a mystery. She has the nerve to advocate “simple honesty,” when the Democratic Party has been fiercely opposing this position for years. Is she admitting that the party has been dishonest up to now? Or is it after all, only “political expediency” – given that 79% of the US public, including 67% of Democrats, are opposed to natal males being admitted to girls’ and women’s sport? Where was Goldberg’s editor?

After the mandatory hyperbole of “persecution” comes a wonderful word salad: “Democrats need to couple their recognition of physical difference with a broader defense of trans rights.” Perhaps the assigned word limit prevented Goldberg from explaining what she meant and which “trans rights” she felt need a “broader defense.”

What are you saying, Michelle? What should the Democratic Party be broadly defending? Preferred pronouns? Gender-neutral facilities? Funding for gender reassignment surgery? Stronger promotion of natal males in women’s jails?

I think that if she dared to be more explicit, Michelle Goldberg would revert to the old line that we are talking about a tiny, vulnerable group in society whose demands (“rights”) deserve respect and special dispensations. Which is wrong – on so many levels.

As for that coy nod to the “recognition of physical difference” – it is still taboo within the Democratic party to spell that out. So, let’s spell it out here: yes, there are physical differences between the sexes — between male people and female people. It was tragi-comic to hear Bill Maher, playing the “moderate” as he fended off Jon Lovett’s cultish frenzy on “Pod Save America” (Feb 23rd), call it “ridiculous” to say that there are only two sexes. Sorry about that, Bill. There really are only two sexes. It’s about gametes – sperm or eggs. Even those whose reproductive systems don’t function or who have disorders of sexual development are either male or female. That is the single, demonstrable truth that the Democratic Party is terrified to say.

Because once you finally admit that there are only two sexes, the whole edifice of what are falsely called “trans rights” crumbles to dust. You can’t “identify” as someone with a body you don’t have and can never have. There are many, many areas of life in which it doesn’t matter if you are male or female. It doesn’t matter if you are studying architecture, apartment-hunting, or applying for a job as a lab assistant or a coder. It doesn’t matter if you are a customer at a computer store, using public transport, or playing in a band. But there are some areas in which it does matter – a lot.

It matters in sport. It matters on dating sites – especially to lesbians. It matters to women in rape crisis centers. It matters to female prisoners. It matters in changing rooms and other places where women and girls undress.

And where it matters most to insist that there are only two sexes, Bill, Jon, Michelle and the rest of you – it matters most when we’re talking to, or about, children. Puberty is not optional. There is no such thing as “the wrong puberty” and no one was ever “born in the wrong body.” Children should not be encouraged to think – falsely -- that they could change sex. They should not be given drugs so powerful they have been described as too cruel for sex offenders. They should not be offered hormones that ruined the bodies of East German female athletes in the 1980s. This whole medical scandal must be stopped.

Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute addressed Newsom’s mini-pivot in an incisive piece on the Democrats’ dilemma: “On Gender, Democrats are All Talk.”¹ He depicts the party as navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. Many of its policies — especially on gender – are wildly unpopular with the electorate. But the party remains dependent on its activist base for funding, organizing, and electoral mobilization. I hope there are people within the party who are trying urgently to address this problem.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Democrats would bite the bullet and stop promoting these cult beliefs. If they tried practicing “simple honesty.” If instead of saying “We need to recognize physical difference,” they could come right out and say: “There are only two sexes and no one can change sex.” – and stay firm until the storm passes. Which it would. It will.

Either now or later. How about now: before the mid-terms?

1. https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-party-transgender-ideology-gavin-newsom