Yeah, as a Californian, I’m not surprised, just disappointed. Gavin is the textbook definition of a “shitlib”, and it’s so frustrating that Fox makes him out as some far left radical.
Because it helps them
Oh cool. My governor gives me even more reasons to hate him.
At least he’s term limited…
Dems are part of the ruling class. Always has been.
You know? Burn the whole fucking system to the ground. Fuck democrats.
Misleading article. The issues where Gavin pointed out alignment were regarding trans athletes in sports, in particular the competitive advantages ftm athletes possess, and whether or not the state should pay for gender reassignment for inmates. Kirk was clearly trying to bait him into an article like this
That being said, Newsom’s responses were tepid at best. However, remember that this is also the man who took the step to legalize gay marriage in California when he was mayor of San Francisco. He’s definitely not perfect, and far too centrist for my tastes, but when the chips are down he generally does the right thing.
Having Charlie Kirk on your first podcast was not one of them, however.
Here’s a link to the podcast. Transcript is available in the drop down.
The issues where Gavin pointed out alignment were regarding trans athletes in sports, in particular the competitive advantages ftm [sic] athletes possess, and whether or not the state should pay for gender reassignment for inmates
Oh, is that all. 🙄 Yeah man, it’s a really hard question on whether trans people deserve to participate as full members of society and whether they deserve medically necessary care when imprisoned before a trial. I bet the KKK has some really interesting points to make too, we should get him to do an interview with them.
Oh, he also agreed with Kirk on no treatment for trans youth.
Kirk continued, “Youth should be off limits, you might be right on deportations, I know I’m right on this,” to which Newsom simply acknowledged, "Yeah.”
But other than all that I’m sure he definitely for sure has the best interest of trans people in mind!
I didn’t say he was right on these issues, and you’re correct in taking issue with him because of it. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the article is a misleading smear piece capitalizing on Newsom’s rather foolish attempt to “cross the aisle” and have Kirk on his show.
I have a lot of problems with Newsom, as I actually alongside his campaign for mayor in the 90s through my volunteer work at Peace Action. I ended up leaving the campaign before he won due to his anti-homeless measure, which (predictably) restricted social services and made the homeless problem worse. It was clear back then he was always going to take the side of the rich in California politics, just as it was clear that he had already been effectively anointed as an upcoming governor by the Pelosi / Feinstein machine.
He’s also kind of a dumbass (this was really clear when he was younger - just look at his taste in women), but smart enough to usually listen to the more intelligent people in the room. This has redeemed him during the governorship to some extent, but he’s definitely made a rightward turn in response to recent events that’s left me less than confident in his leadership ability.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but this is not a misleading hit piece. This is written by a prominent trans journalist (if you’ve seen the trans legislative risk map, that’s her) who is married to a high profile trans state representative (Zooey Zephyr).
You may not like her interpretations of his statements, but they come from a place of familiarity with the political scene for trans people both as a reporter and as a trans person. She has a high reputation with a lot of the trans community who follow political news, and calling her work a hit piece is unreasonable.
Regardless of her credentials, this was clearly written to cast Newsom in the worst possible light. The article is rife with hyperbole and only targets selected statements in the transcript.
And it’s absolutely misleading to say someone “completely aligns” with someone on an over-arching concept like trans rights when they agree with one subset of the argument.
It was this statement in particular that changed the tone from an opinion piece to a hit piece IMHO:
When Newsom platforms someone like Charlie Kirk, he isn’t fostering a “discussion” on transgender people in sports—he is handing a known hate monger a microphone to denigrate an already vulnerable community. That’s the real objective. Newsom isn’t engaging in open dialogue or debate; he is recalibrating his political stance to make targeting transgender people seem palatable, selling that shift to his base as a strategic necessity. And he’s doing it by giving one of the most notorious anti-LGBTQ+ extremists a seat at the table.
Emphasis mine. Here the author makes the claim that Newsom is deliberately targeting transgender people to score political points - yet he’s not. In the interview, Kirk brought those topics up, and when they came up, Newsom was describing the political landscape, not justifying it.
I mean, hell, go ahead and call Newsom out for the dumb shit he does (and this shit was not bright), but forcing a purity test on the man who made gay marriage legal is counterproductive. Claiming that he’s deliberately trying to target transgender folk is just plain false.
Removed by mod
It’s just a reality of nature that humans soaked in male hormones while they develop gain about a 25% advantage in physical sports.
People who transition to female are taking female hormones, dummy. A friend explained how even her sense of taste changed and she no longer likes some things she used to like.
Hey, guess what? Your argument is shit.
catty rhetoric and response like this are why we’re in the current degrading sociopolitical situation.
idk why most leftist seem to get the idea that being right means you no longer have to try in discourse.
hey, guess what? people will listen to you more if you actually try and engage instead of being a shithead every time someone “gives bad vibes.”
going harder on this stuff than before as a reaction to the rising tide of neofascist in the west is the most boneheaded thing i’ve seen come out of my spaces on the internet as of yet. have you considering that this divisiveness only serves the people who actually want to oppress you?? it’s not an “eNlIGhteNeD cENtrIsT” take to recognize this, it’s just being mildly intelligent. anyone decently well-read on their “theory” that everyone likes to harp on about would know that this is the fucking case and refrain from DOING IT OVER AND OVER.
but no, instead the temptation of a well-placed social burn or a quippy remark is just too strong for most to even consider that the exchange would better serve the world if an actual attempt at communication was made. no, being “tired” or “exhausted” at having this responsibility is not an excuse. sorry, outreach doesn’t fucking sleep or take vacation. instead people now just seem to need the dopamine rush they get from “winning” more than they actually care about what they’re saying.
i don’t mean to be a dick and all j’accuse at you. idk. it just really hurts my soul when i see this behavior propagate in my communities. it’s like you guys understand that bigotry, intolerance, and hate are bad but you don’t get the functional reasons why that is true and so there’s a moral emptiness and inconsistency in your rhetoric. i’ll venture as far to say it, if you actually cared about this issue you would’ve engaged in a more proactive manner, and that goes for all situations like this.
this sort of comment, while likely well intentioned, is performative activism at best
if you actually cared about this issue you would’ve engaged in a more proactive manner, and that goes for all situations like this.
Don’t try to tell me whether I truly care about my loved ones. You fight for people your way, I’ll fight my way.
Even ignoring the bad trans biology you’re saying, do you actually think top female athletes are worse than the worst male athletes? The difference is generally much smaller than you think, with tons of overlap between those 2 distributions.
Hey look, it’s the left ready to eat the left.
Where have I heard this before?
“the left”
