167

Katie Couric confronts Gavin Newsom on his shifting views on transgender youth (www.advocate.com)

submitted 5 months ago by xc2215x@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] JayTreeman@fedia.io 72 points 5 months ago

I wish they'd wake up and stop pushing this guy. They need to be pushing a Bernie style left of center. Otherwise it's going to swing so far left there's going to be carpenters working to build mideval structures outside their homes.

[-] DillDough@lemmy.zip 36 points 5 months ago

We have a right wing party and an ultra far right wing party, neither of them will ever allow a left wing progressive into power.

[-] kittykillinit@lemy.lol 7 points 5 months ago

We got close to having Bernie twice.

If just a few scumbags had less influence, he would've won.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, this unfortunately. Truth nuke

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

Pushing this guy is how they stay in power. They don't give a fuck if they win or lose. Democratic consultants had their best year in 2024 pushing two right wing slop candidates.

[-] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Actual Bernie would have been dope.

Trump: Rants for an hour over fucking windmills and how he can't flush his KFC shits.

Bernie: Walks to the podium, shouts out some reasonable policy, then shuffles off.

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 1 points 5 months ago

One of those people need to actually run.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 62 points 5 months ago

For everyone arguing it’s a niche issue, there’s plenty of non-LGBTQIA people who also care about trans rights. And the fascists are going to keep flogging the issue so the only way to deal with it is to address it head on. The fact that this is a question about Newsom makes this a problem.

[-] hedge_lord@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

How much ~~sawdust~~ transphobia can you put in ~~rice crispies~~ a politician before people ~~notice~~ care enough to complain?

Also did he just do the "I have a black friend" thing with his godson? Because it kind of seems like he just did almost exactly that.

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The idea of Gavin Newsom running as a spoiler legitimately terrifies me.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 23 points 5 months ago

He is the chosen representative of the part of the party that would rather have Trump than someone like Bernie.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 5 months ago

If I did not vote for him it would not be because of this statement. Heck im one who thinks maybe we just need to stop having sports seperated by sex and just have the league levels and you participate in the highes league you can get into.

[-] null@lemmy.org 10 points 5 months ago

I want to not dislike they guy and I'll still vote for him over whatever fascist the Republicans nominte, but damn. It would be great if he actually was the person his social media team makes him out to be.

He'll get the nomination either way because he's the corporate pick.

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Feel free to dislike him, as I do, but I'll vote for him if he's the nominee as well, because "not fascist" is how low the fucking bar is now.

[-] duncan_bayne@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Trans rights are a niche issue, in that only a very small percentage of people are trans themselves. But that's what makes trans rights a vital litmus test for politicians.

Will they uphold the human rights of a group of people whose votes they don't need in order to win?

[-] Akh@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Wrong .1% issue to care about. Literally there are pedos running the whitehouse committing so many crimes

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 60 points 5 months ago

Newsom isn't a democratic nominee running against Trump. He's a Democrat who wants to be chosen over other Democrats to be the 2028 nominee.

Calling out any apparent backsliding or bigotry is relevant, be it transphobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-semitism, sexism, or racism.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 35 points 5 months ago

It’s not backsliding if he’s always been a bigot.

And frankly, the way he deals with homelessness is bad enough for me to vociferously oppose him.

We need solutions that fix people’s problems, not feeds the prison slave labor industry.

[-] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 5 months ago

If he can't be trusted to help .1% amount of the population, how can he be trusted to help .6%, or 26%?

[-] kittykillinit@lemy.lol 1 points 5 months ago

It's difficult to gauge leftist support for LGBT when everyone who opposes it is silenced.

[+] TwilitSky@lemmy.world -10 points 5 months ago

Here's something important for everyone: It's actually a GOOD thing to be able to change your views when confronted with new evidence. Many of the Nordic countries, Canada and the rest of Europe are putting the brakes on certain gender affirming care up to a certain age and I'm going to guess it's not just childish discrimination as to the reason they're doing it.

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 months ago

It’s actually a GOOD thing to be able to change your views when confronted with new evidence

Yes, it is, but how is that relevant here? What "new evidence" appeared that caused Newsom's increasing anti-trans rhetoric?

[-] TwilitSky@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Good point.

The only new evidence for Newsom is the 2028 election. I'll be glad to see him go.

[-] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

What do you think is the reason several countries are putting the brakes on certain gender affirming care under a certain age?

[-] TwilitSky@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

I've read a few things but the primary concern is irreversible treatments.

I'm not the expert and think it should be up to doctors and their patients based on whatever consensus the medical community reaches.

[-] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I agree with with it being between doctors and patients based on the medical consensus.

Tho that's kinda the opposite of your original comment, which seemed to suggest it should be determined by politicians. Or at least implied that politicians are basing their laws on the medical consensus, which isn't always true especially with topics like trans rights that have been overly politicized and then demonized as a moral failing.

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026

167 points (97.2% liked)

politics

30930 readers

1897 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News