Today in poison pills:

"It is an issue of fairness, it's deeply unfair. We've got to own that. We've got to acknowledge that." According to California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking to noted racist, transphobe, and human toe Charlie Kirk, on trans women in women's sports.

Newsom and Kirk seen here sitting on
chairs upholstered in genuine puppy-leather.

On the upside, I can't wait to vote for his
replacement when he terms out in 2026.

What's messed up here is that Newsom was agreeing with Kirk, and saying that trans women playing in women's sports is deeply unfair. Now, if it sounds to you like I'm saying "women playing women's sports" it's because I am. Trans women are women. Gender is a construct. That's the whole goddamn point, and with one ill-chosen podcast interview, Newsom has likely just made it impossible for a lot of us--including myself--to vote for him should he ever run for President. 

Remember? When everything wasn't
an absolute trash fire all the time?

Speaking of, I have to admit, there's a part of me making excuses for him. A part of me saying "oh, well, he doesn't really feel that way, he's just setting himself up as a candidate that even conservatives can vote for." After all, pre 2008 election Barack Obama said that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because he wanted to be President of America. Then, post 2012 election Obama was all: "Gay marriage for all!" Because he'd already won a second term, and no longer needed to court the homophobe vote.

It's not like a medical background
is necessary anymore. 

But this is different. Newsom's comments sound dangerously close to "trans women are just dudes in dresses" and I don't know that he feels that way, but it sounds like he's saying that being born biological male--which, is way more complicated that I'm about to make it sound--confers unfair athletic advantages. And I have some problems with that. Actually, I think science has some problems with that, but again, I'm not a doctor, so I'm just going to yammer on about things that seem correct to me.

According to this article from PBS, the NCAA says there's something like ten trans athletes out of half a million competing in college sports. And I know we're not necessarily talking only about college sports, but even if there's a hundred we're still making up rules that apply to a tiny fraction of people. But ok, is there evidence that athletes who went through, let's call it male puberty, and then later transitioned, had an athletic advantage? 

Above: male puberty.

I think it's safe to say that being a cis man
in no way confers no athletic advantages.

Yes, but also no. Ok, according to the same article, there's a possibility that there's something to the idea that some trans women might have an advantage. Or they might not. It's an incredibly small sample size. But what I'd like to know is is this possible advantage outside the range of ability of cis women athletes? That is, are all trans woman, by virtue of having gone through male puberty, naturally stronger and bigger than all cis women? Or, are we going on gender stereotypes?

When the President bloviates about how he "will not allow men to beat-up, injure and cheat our women and girls." I can't help but feel he's not coming from a place of protecting women, but just pandering to the nutters he's conned into voting for him.

Again, this is a guy who bragged that he liked to sneak into the changing
rooms at beauty contests to ogle teens, so forgive me if I don't take him at his word.

Pictured: I don't know, tennis?

But to get back to Gavin Newsom's gross pandering, I guess I just don't care enough about sports? Let's say for the sake of argument that there's a chance that some trans women can, in some really specific cases, have a slight athletic advantage over some--but again not all--cis women. So what? Chromosomes, hormone levels, and whatever are just factors, and can't replace hard work and training. I assume. Again, I don't sport, and to be clear, I'm not any kind of expert.

But since when has not being an expert stopped anyone? I guess what I'm saying is that discriminating against an entire class of people feels far more deeply unfair than some women having a vaguely defined, possibly not real advantage while playing a game. And is Newsom's sudden, gross stance on this enough to keep me from voting for him in some hypothetical race against an octogenarian Trump in some grim future where he's somehow allowed to run again? Yikes, I don't know.

Of course, that presupposes that we'll even have elections in the future.