Gavin Newsom Sparked a Necessary Discussion Among Democrats
Following their defeat in November, the party has avoided addressing the issues surrounding transgender rights.
TroibNews 
When Gavin Newsom remarked this week that permitting transgender athletes to compete in women's sports was “deeply unfair,” many responded with skepticism, suggesting that the California governor was merely pandering as he sets his sights on a 2028 presidential run.
My initial thought was a bit different: Why has it taken this long for a prominent Democrat to articulate what many in the country are already thinking?
This issue has been effectively exploited by President Donald Trump and the Republican Party during campaign seasons, relentlessly attacking Kamala Harris with the memorable phrase, “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.”
More crucially, polling consistently indicates that while the American public does not endorse discrimination, there is significant opposition to transgender female athletes participating in women's sports. A January New York Times/Ipsos poll revealed that 79 percent of Americans expressed reservations, including a significant 67 percent of Democrats.
However, the backlash to Newsom's comments—as well as the scarcity of Democrats standing by him—illustrates the party's struggle to engage with one of the nation’s most contentious issues and the difficulty of fostering open dialogue about it. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, told my PMG colleagues that Newsom’s remarks were “disgusting,” while LGBTQ+ organizations signaled that any Democrat aligning with Newsom could jeopardize their presidential aspirations.
Even some of the party’s adept communicators find this a challenging subject. This was evident in my recent Playbook Deep Dive interview with Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, recorded shortly after Newsom's comments were made public. When I asked him for his thoughts, he quipped, “Are you sure we haven’t run out of time?” before engaging in a thorough, 10-minute discussion of this complex issue that hadn't been part of our initial agenda.
The sensitivity surrounding this matter is clear. Democrats are hesitant to appear as if they are compromising on what they view as a fundamental human rights issue. Boyle, for example, emphasized the importance of not coming across as hostile to a community that has faced persistent attacks from Republicans and suffers from high suicide rates.
He also drew parallels between this issue and the historical ban on same-sex marriage—something Democrats once supported. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan backing, and President Bill Clinton signed it just weeks before his reelection.
However, the past two decades have seen Democrats evolve dramatically on this issue, leading to a strong, effective advocacy campaign that shifted public sentiment. That trajectory contrasts sharply with the nuanced challenges surrounding transgender rights today, particularly regarding women's sports.
The foundation of the argument that turned public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage was centered on fairness—not allowing loving couples to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples was seen as fundamentally un-American, especially when opponents couldn’t definitively show that same-sex marriage endangered straight families.
The conversation about women’s sports, however, is considerably more complex. There is a legitimate debate about the fairness of allowing transgender athletes to compete against cisgender women, making it difficult to envision a public relations campaign that could effectively reshape this narrative. Furthermore, placing the opportunity to play sports on a par with the right to marry raises additional questions.
During much of the 2024 electoral cycle, Democrats sought to frame transgender rights as a non-issue, insisting that Republicans were fixating on a topic affecting only a small fraction of the population. While that may have served as a convenient strategy at the time, it became clear with November's election results that sidestepping the discussion is not a viable option. Republicans will continue to leverage this as a potent campaign issue, and with leaders like Newsom and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton paving the way, there is now an opportunity for more open discourse.
Yet, few Democrats feel comfortable echoing Newsom and Moulton's positions that explicitly state transgender athletes should not compete in women's sports. Instead, some party members have opted for different messaging. For example, during a January House debate regarding a bill to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports, Democratic leaders positioned the proposed legislation as a violation of privacy, suggesting it could lead to invasive strip-searches of minors. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described it as the “House Republican Child Predator Empowerment Act.”
More recently, democratic representatives have coalesced around a federalist approach: allowing localities, states, or even individual sports organizations to determine the eligibility of transgender athletes in women's sports.
Boyle articulated a blend of those viewpoints in response to my inquiry: “At the end of the day, I'm much more comfortable, given these intricacies, with allowing the appropriate sports bodies to make these decisions rather than Congress legislating it—especially Congress legislating it in such a clumsy way that they would, whether intentionally or not, actually allow for genital inspections of minor girls.”
However, Democrats must confront the possibility that voters might perceive such responses as evading the essential questions at hand. They also need to recognize that Trump and the Republicans will be eager to exploit any ambiguity.
A preview of the challenges ahead was evident during Tuesday’s joint session, where Trump urged lawmakers to “pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”
This presents yet another intricate issue, with implications that extend beyond individual rights and where public sentiment diverges from the prevailing stances of most Democratic officials. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center indicates that 56 percent of American adults oppose allowing medical treatment for gender transitions in minors, compared to just 26 percent in support.
Democrats understand the stakes: they must refine their messaging soon, or risk replicating the bitter fallout of a contentious 2024 campaign in next year’s midterms. Boyle characterized Trump’s “they/them” advertisement as “maybe the most effective ad since the Willie Horton ad in 1988,” alluding to the infamous George H.W. Bush spot that was heavily criticized by progressives while proving remarkably effective.
“When you don't respond immediately and when you don't hit back and you don't hit back harder, it can have devastating political consequences,” Boyle cautioned.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
My initial thought was a bit different: Why has it taken this long for a prominent Democrat to articulate what many in the country are already thinking?
This issue has been effectively exploited by President Donald Trump and the Republican Party during campaign seasons, relentlessly attacking Kamala Harris with the memorable phrase, “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.”
More crucially, polling consistently indicates that while the American public does not endorse discrimination, there is significant opposition to transgender female athletes participating in women's sports. A January New York Times/Ipsos poll revealed that 79 percent of Americans expressed reservations, including a significant 67 percent of Democrats.
However, the backlash to Newsom's comments—as well as the scarcity of Democrats standing by him—illustrates the party's struggle to engage with one of the nation’s most contentious issues and the difficulty of fostering open dialogue about it. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, told my PMG colleagues that Newsom’s remarks were “disgusting,” while LGBTQ+ organizations signaled that any Democrat aligning with Newsom could jeopardize their presidential aspirations.
Even some of the party’s adept communicators find this a challenging subject. This was evident in my recent Playbook Deep Dive interview with Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, recorded shortly after Newsom's comments were made public. When I asked him for his thoughts, he quipped, “Are you sure we haven’t run out of time?” before engaging in a thorough, 10-minute discussion of this complex issue that hadn't been part of our initial agenda.
The sensitivity surrounding this matter is clear. Democrats are hesitant to appear as if they are compromising on what they view as a fundamental human rights issue. Boyle, for example, emphasized the importance of not coming across as hostile to a community that has faced persistent attacks from Republicans and suffers from high suicide rates.
He also drew parallels between this issue and the historical ban on same-sex marriage—something Democrats once supported. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan backing, and President Bill Clinton signed it just weeks before his reelection.
However, the past two decades have seen Democrats evolve dramatically on this issue, leading to a strong, effective advocacy campaign that shifted public sentiment. That trajectory contrasts sharply with the nuanced challenges surrounding transgender rights today, particularly regarding women's sports.
The foundation of the argument that turned public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage was centered on fairness—not allowing loving couples to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples was seen as fundamentally un-American, especially when opponents couldn’t definitively show that same-sex marriage endangered straight families.
The conversation about women’s sports, however, is considerably more complex. There is a legitimate debate about the fairness of allowing transgender athletes to compete against cisgender women, making it difficult to envision a public relations campaign that could effectively reshape this narrative. Furthermore, placing the opportunity to play sports on a par with the right to marry raises additional questions.
During much of the 2024 electoral cycle, Democrats sought to frame transgender rights as a non-issue, insisting that Republicans were fixating on a topic affecting only a small fraction of the population. While that may have served as a convenient strategy at the time, it became clear with November's election results that sidestepping the discussion is not a viable option. Republicans will continue to leverage this as a potent campaign issue, and with leaders like Newsom and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton paving the way, there is now an opportunity for more open discourse.
Yet, few Democrats feel comfortable echoing Newsom and Moulton's positions that explicitly state transgender athletes should not compete in women's sports. Instead, some party members have opted for different messaging. For example, during a January House debate regarding a bill to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports, Democratic leaders positioned the proposed legislation as a violation of privacy, suggesting it could lead to invasive strip-searches of minors. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described it as the “House Republican Child Predator Empowerment Act.”
More recently, democratic representatives have coalesced around a federalist approach: allowing localities, states, or even individual sports organizations to determine the eligibility of transgender athletes in women's sports.
Boyle articulated a blend of those viewpoints in response to my inquiry: “At the end of the day, I'm much more comfortable, given these intricacies, with allowing the appropriate sports bodies to make these decisions rather than Congress legislating it—especially Congress legislating it in such a clumsy way that they would, whether intentionally or not, actually allow for genital inspections of minor girls.”
However, Democrats must confront the possibility that voters might perceive such responses as evading the essential questions at hand. They also need to recognize that Trump and the Republicans will be eager to exploit any ambiguity.
A preview of the challenges ahead was evident during Tuesday’s joint session, where Trump urged lawmakers to “pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”
This presents yet another intricate issue, with implications that extend beyond individual rights and where public sentiment diverges from the prevailing stances of most Democratic officials. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center indicates that 56 percent of American adults oppose allowing medical treatment for gender transitions in minors, compared to just 26 percent in support.
Democrats understand the stakes: they must refine their messaging soon, or risk replicating the bitter fallout of a contentious 2024 campaign in next year’s midterms. Boyle characterized Trump’s “they/them” advertisement as “maybe the most effective ad since the Willie Horton ad in 1988,” alluding to the infamous George H.W. Bush spot that was heavily criticized by progressives while proving remarkably effective.
“When you don't respond immediately and when you don't hit back and you don't hit back harder, it can have devastating political consequences,” Boyle cautioned.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
