An Alarming Number of Democrats are Throwing Trans People Under the Bus

biological men competing [snorts] in women's sports. That's a big deal here in Texas. >> That's right. And I oppose trans athletes playing in girls sports if it endangers safety or fairness. Uh, every sport has to be safe and [snorts] fair. As a former public school teacher, I care a lot about our student athletes. I care a lot about our students. And and so I will oppose trans athletes playing in girls sports if it uh risks safety or fairness. You just heard Texas US Senate candidate James Telerico come out in favor of discrimination against trans people, which to me is a move that's as baffling as it is immoral because James Telerico is currently in a really advantageous position right now. So, he doesn't have to capitulate on anything. In fact, it's Ken Paxton, his Republican opponent, who should be the one playing defense right now since he's one of the weakest Republican candidates since Roy Moore. And it's also an election cycle that's shaping up to be an anti-GOP wave. And aggregate polling actually shows that James Tarico has a 2.6 point lead over Ken Paxton. Nonetheless, James Terico is seemingly trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pissing off his own base for no reason whatsoever. But he's not alone because as NBC News reports, other Democrats have also decided to come out and throw trans people under a bus ahead of the November election. In July, Iowa Senate candidate Josh Turk told the New York Times, quote, "As someone that spent a lot of my life in high level sports, I don't believe that biological males should compete against females in sports." In June, Amy Action, the Democratic nominee for governor in Ohio and a former statewide health official, told the Toledo Blade, quote, "I do not support boys playing in girls sports and pointed to a state law passed in 2024 banning transgender girls from playing in female sports. Quote, I will enforce and uphold the law." She added, "In Iowa last month, Rob Sand, the Democratic nominee for governor, told Politico, I just think girls sports are for girls and boy sports are for boys, and I think that that's fair and reasonable." His remarks came a year after he told a local radio program no when asked whether he thought trans women should participate in female sports. In Nevada earlier this year, state attorney general Aaron Ford told local media, "I personally do not support trans athletes competing in sports opposite their gender assigned at birth after his opponent, Republican Governor Joe Lombardo, sought to create a ballot initiative on the issue." So, this is really starting to become a trend. And to add insult to injury, a significant number of 2028 Democratic presidential contenders have also jumped on the anti-trans bandwagon, including Kla Harris, Gavin Newsome, Rahm Emanuel, and even Pete Buddha Judge, who you'd think would know better. Nonetheless, you know, political opportunism is more important than even his own community. Now, I already know what some of you are going to say. Mike, you have to understand that this is an 8020 issue, okay? It's a losing issue for Democrats and it is political suicide for them to die on this hill. So, it's better for them to endorse at least some tiny little bit of discrimination against trans people so that way they can beat the Republicans who want to ban trans existence altogether. It's a cynical but necessary political calculation. And I can assure you before you write that comment, I've heard that argument again and again and again. And when I talked about how dumb it was for Colin Alred to throw trans people under a bus back in 2024 when he was running for the US Senate against Ted Cruz, one of his staffers actually reached out to me and they told me that Alred had no choice. Their internal polling showed that he was getting cooked on this issue and he had no choice but to oppose trans rights at least a tiny little bit just to beat Ted Cruz, just to get across the finish line. Just a tiny sprinkle of anti-trans bigotry was all he needed. And guess what? He lost. And the problem with this Bill Clintonesesque strategy of triangulation is that it actually doesn't help Democrats, contrary to popular belief. Not even a little bit. You're not going to win over a single [ __ ] Republican by throwing trans people under a bus. If anything, you'll end up losing votes because you are alienating your own base. Because the thing about trans issues is that even though most Americans do in fact oppose trans rights, unfortunately, polls show that it's not a very salient issue among independents and Republican voters. But when it comes to Democrats, however, that is a very salient issue. Why? Because we actually have friends and family who are trans that we care about, that we want to protect. So when Democrats communicate to us that our trans family members are expendable to them, it deflates whatever enthusiasm we might have had for their campaigns. It doesn't mean that we're going to vote for the Republican, obviously, but maybe we don't donate or a canvas to them now that they've pissed us off. Some might just forgo voting altogether because they're rightfully worried that voting for anti-trans Democrats gives the party permission to shift even even further to the right on this issue as was the case with the Labor Party in the UK who's become outright hostile towards trans people. And I understand people not wanting to give Democrats permission to go the way of the Labor Party. So, Democrats have nothing to gain and everything to lose by capitulating on trans rights. And more broadly speaking, pivoting to the center on any issue, it never helps them. Political science research from Europe found that center-left candidates that pivoted to the center on issues like immigration actually hurt their campaigns because they didn't win over any conservative voters and actually ended up alienating their core bases. And we've seen countless American elections now where Democrats campaigning as diet Republicans, even in red states, didn't end up winning. It didn't help them at all. Because why would voters opt for a counterfeit version of a bigot when they can have the real thing? Not to mention, it comes off as disingenuous to just suddenly pivot for purposes of political expediency. Everybody sees through it. It's cynical. It's gross. Republican voters aren't giving James Telerico or any of the other anti-trans Democrats credit for throwing trans people under a bus. By the way, do you want to know how they're reacting to this flip-flop? Well, they're taking a victory lap and they're calling him a liar. And guess what? Elon Musk is also spending hund00 million to target Democrats with anti-trans ads, including Democrats like Josh Turk, who already capitulated on the issue of trans rights. So, I don't know if these Democrats expected credit from Republicans or even a thumbs up for throwing trans people under a bus, but it's not going to change the way that Republicans campaign against them. The lesson is that they're always going to portray Democrats as woke gender extremists because Republicans don't have anything else to run on. But the good news is that this issue doesn't have to be an albatross around Democrats necks, even in red states. I say this because Republicans in Kentucky tried to checkmate their Democratic governor, Andy Basher, by passing a bill banning trans people from playing sports because they thought that it would be a political win for them. Either way, if Basher signed it, he'd piss off his own Democratic base. But if he vetoed it, then that would give them a reason to attack him for being too protrans or whatever. Now, conventional wisdom would dictate that a Democratic governor in that position in a deep red state would have no choice but to sign that anti-trans legislation and silence his right-wing critics. But do you want to know what Andy Basher chose to do? He vetoed that transphobic piece of legislation. And I'm going to let him explain how it affected his re-election campaign. >> I was going to veto it the whole time. Some things are worth losing over and I was going to stand up for those individuals. They are Kuckians and children of God just like anybody else. But I tell you what, um, by explaining that why, I didn't lose a single point. Not one. They ran $10 million of anti-trans ads. I ran $9 million of, "Hey, look at all our great new jobs ads. And I won by four and a half points more in re-election than I won the first time uh around." and and I just I think that people respect conviction um and that we can't abandon them, but they do deserve our respect to explain what we're doing. So, I'll never forget after talking about Children of God, the next day I'm open a factory because the next day we always have to be opening a factory and and a guy in a trucker hat makes a beline towards me and I think, "Oh goodness, I I know what's coming." He sticks his hand out and he says, "Uh, Governor, I'm not sure I agree with what you did yesterday, but I know you're doing what you think is right." And he patted me on the back and walked away. Wait, so you're telling me that voters actually respect candidates who have conviction, even if they don't necessarily agree? Really? That's shocking because I, for one, thought that Americans were yearning for more craven, opportunistic politicians who were willing to say whatever they thought that people wanted to hear to get elected. But it turns out you actually can have it both ways. You can protect vulnerable communities and still win even in deep red states. And Democrats should learn from the case study in Kentucky. Not only because it's good politics to have a [ __ ] spine, but because defending trans people is the morally right thing to do. And when I say defending trans people, by the way, I mean unequivocally defending their humanity. I mean committing to full equality without hesitation because hedging even a little bit opens the door to fullthroated dehumanization and discrimination. And the reason why so-called maximalists like myself refuse to budge even on the issue of transports is because it's a Trojan horse for anti-trans discrimination more broadly. You give bigots an inch, they're going to take a mile. I say this because after a significant number of Democrats had already conceded to Republicans on the issue of transports, Republicans expectedly started to move the goalpost and then started to turn their attention to trans healthcare. Because if you agree that some discrimination, a little bit of exclusionary policies are okay with this one particular community, you've already pissed them off, so you might as well go the whole way and make sure that you entirely capitulate to Republicans. And unfortunately, that strategy is actually working for Republicans. anti-trans creep is real. And on that note, James Tarico did not just stop at transports. By the way, case in point, >> would you vote in favor of a national ban for transgender surgeries when it comes to minors? >> Absolutely. And in fact, in the legislature, I voted for an amendment that would have restricted uh the the the bill in question to a ban on surgeries for minors. >> In 2023, you voted against SB14. That was the Texas law banning transgender surgeries for minors and puberty blockers. How come you voted against that? >> Because the bill was overly broad. And in fact, if you go back and check, I voted for a major amendment to limit the bill to banning surgeries for minors. So, I've been consistent on this issue. >> Again, if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile. And the problem is that by conceding on this issue, he's legitimizing a right-wing lie. Bottom surgeries aren't being performed on minors. Unless, of course, we're talking about circumcision. That bottom surgery isn't controversial, apparently. But in terms of actual gender affirming bottom surgeries, that is not happening on minors. There are some rare instances where a 17-year-old trans boy might be able to get top surgery with parental consent because wearing a binder is really uncomfortable, but that is very, very rare. And the problem with pieces of legislation that just ban surgeries for trans minors, as James Telerico alluded to, is that they're often too broad. Republicans use those specific bills as a pretense to ban all gender affirming healthcare, not just surgeries. And they'll often try to slip in provisions banning life-saving and medically necessary treatments like HRT and puberty blockers as well. But in the event there was some kind of clean bill exclusively banning gender affirming surgeries. I'll admit it'd be as useless as the Republican bills where they ban Sharia law. But the reason why you should still oppose them is because you shouldn't prime people to think that it's acceptable for the government to make medical decisions in lie of doctors. That's a can of worms that we don't want to open because it's the basis for abortion bans and bans on contraception. And Abdul Elsed was also asked about trans healthcare. and he handled this issue so much better than James Telerico because he actually took the time to do what Democrats never do and explain how this issue affects everybody and how this is a freedom issue. Not his words, but let's hear what he said. >> The decision about what health care is necessary ought to be held between a patient and or their parents if they're under the age of 18 and their doctor. That's it. I don't think the government gets to have a say about what healthc care is provided in what circumstances and why. And to me, that is the standard on which we decide how we make healthcare decisions. Not what government says you can or can't do, but what a patient and or their parent, if they're under 18, and a provider get to decide. That's the most important thing. Now, there's a lot of missing disinformation about what's what what we're talking about when we talk about reproductive rights. when we talk about uh uh health care for uh for trans folk. But in the end, the place where the rubber hits the road is in that clinical room between a patient and their provider. And that to me is a standard we should engage on. And here's the interesting thing. Even even conservatives agree, they just don't agree when it comes to transare and reproductive rights because conservatives fought for a very long time for this legislation called right to try legislation, which was the idea that the government couldn't tell you you couldn't have a certain medication if it was available to you. So they agree that the decision about healthcare ought to be between a person and their provider. That's it. So, let's use that standard and keep to that standard and make sure government doesn't have the ability to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body. Seems to me to be a conservative idea. I mean, is it that hard for other candidates to do this? To do what Abdul Elsa did and just explain the position that he's taking? I mean, as easy as it would be, you can't reduce every single policy position that you have down to a bumper sticker. And sometimes you are required to take the time to actually educate voters and debunk right-wing disinformation. That's your responsibility as a candidate if you want to run an effective political campaign. So reentering the conversation is what these candidates have to do. And this might seem counterintuitive, but Democrats don't actually have to play defense 100% of the time because believe it or not, you can actually force the Republicans to defend their positions and make them look like the bad guys, even on issues that they like to dwell on, like trans rights. James Tarico in particular, he has so much to work with when it comes to Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton literally launched a tip line so transphobic Texans can report people to the government for using the wrong bathroom. You can easily use that transphobic policy against him and turn his transphobia into a liability so it's not an asset. You can run an ad talking about how creepy Ken of the Epstein party is encouraging people to be peeping toms in bathrooms and nobody really knows how to determine who's in the right bathroom unless you inspect their genitals. So, do we want bathroom police where genitals are inspected? Like, where is this going to lead to? So you can you can bring that up and then say vote for James Tarico to keep creepy Ken out of your daughter's bathrooms or something. And anytime he attacks you for being protrans, you bring this up and you hammer him on the trans issue. So that way it's a liability for him and not you. And look, it's not like it would be hyperbolic because anti-trans bathroom bans have resulted in creeps acting like de facto bathroom police. You can use viral videos like this in political ads to demonstrate your point. When I walk in the stall and sit down, um, like 30 seconds in, I start to hear this lady like ranting and raving about trans people and it and identities and blah blah blah. And I'm like, she's probably talking about me. >> Figure out your identity in your bedroom. >> Like, when I start recording, I am a little confused because I've never had a problem um going to the bathroom since cutting my hair short. But um for some reason I knew she was talking about me. >> Are you a man or a woman? >> Why does that matter? >> Well, because you're in a lady's room. >> Okay. >> And I have gotten called out several times for being in the men's room. >> Okay. >> And you're going to be called out for whatever you're doing. So, what are you identifying as today? >> I don't think that's any of your business. >> Figure out your identity in your bedroom. >> Okay? And then project it on everybody else and we'll accept it. This is not acceptable. >> Let's go get security. >> Yes, harassed. >> Okay. >> She's harassing me for being in the bathroom. >> What's going on? >> Well, I'm asking her what her identity is. It's >> my girlfriend. It's a full on woman. >> It's your girlfriend, so it's a matter. >> To the people asking why I didn't tell her what my identity was, it doesn't matter if I'm trans or not. I literally went in there to go to the bathroom to go pee. So, the fact that she followed me into the bathroom thinking that I was a trans child to harass me and bully me out of the stall is unacceptable cuz I was literally going to the bathroom minding my business. >> This is the direct result of the anti-trans policies enacted by Republicans. Why aren't Democrats attacking them for this? They passed these anti-trans laws under the guise of protecting women and girls when in actuality transphobic laws have harmed women and girls, both trans and cis alike. And this is applicable to almost all trans issues, including sports. By the estimation of both pro and anti-trans organizations, there's only about five known trans athletes at the K through 12 level across the entire country. And during the height of the anti-transport sports panic in the early 2020s, lawmakers who were pushing these bills couldn't name a single example of a trans athlete disrupting a sport in their state. In fact, most of them didn't even know if there were any trans athletes at all in their states. In the case of Kentucky, a seventh grader named Fischer Wells was the only known trans athlete in the entire state, and her girls hockey team wouldn't exist without her since she recruited enough girls to be able to form a [ __ ] team. I don't know about you, but that doesn't necessarily seem like a trans person is causing a disruption to sports. Quite the contrary. So, Republicans are trying to create solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. But that's not to say that transport sports bans have had no impact, because they have. It's fermented hysteria that's harmed the people that they say they're trying to protect, which is women. And yes, that includes cis women. An Olympian from Algeria named Demani Khalif was bombarded with harassment after prominent trans investigators like Elon Musk and JK Rowling accused her of being trans. She's not trans, she's a siswoman. A 9-year-old girl in Colona was traumatized at a track meet after a grown man accused her of being trans because she had a pixie haircut. And these are just some of many examples that demonstrate the impact transphobia has had on the public. And you might think that you're only hurting trans women, but you're actually hurting all women. And this is obviously not about fairness in sports. It's about discriminating against trans people. That's always been the case. In fact, more studies are concluding that trans athletes are actually at a physical disadvantage compared to their cis peers. But even if that wasn't the case, there are plenty of cis athletes with biological advantages that are celebrated. Michael Phelps has a bigger wingspan than the average human and near superhuman lung capacity. Yao Ming is a giant compared to other NBA players, but the shorter players, they're not crying unfair due to his height advantage. They're trying to find other ways to accommodate for that discrepancy, right? They're trying to get better at their three-pointers. I don't know. I'm not good at sports analogies, but like this is a [ __ ] conversation specifically intended to fment bigotry against trans people. And if you can bait people into agreeing that discrimination against trans people in sports is okay, well maybe you'll also be open to discrimination in health care and bathrooms, too. Again, if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mild. And the thing that's so frustrating is that Democrats don't have to play along. They just have to make the [ __ ] case or at the minimum reenter the conversation to terms more favorable to them if they don't think that they can persuasively make an affirmative case for trans people. James Tarico was actually very close to doing that in this now infamous Fox News interview. >> In the 2021 hearing, you said there are six biological sexes. Do you still believe that standing here with me right now? >> No. Uh I've missed the mark on some of my past statements. I will be the first to admit it. What I meant is that there are two sexes and then there's a small percentage of people with genetic abnormalities. I obviously didn't say it correctly, there are not six sexes, there are two um and and I think the reason that politicians in that convention center across the street want to talk about six sexes is because they don't want to talk about $6 diesel. Everywhere I go across the state of Texas, people are struggling to survive in this economy. They are struggling to afford the basics, groceries, gas, utilities, healthcare. And that's what I'm gonna be focused on from now until election day. >> So, just to nail it down here standing with me, you can confidently say there are two sexes, a man and a woman. >> Absolutely. >> James, James, James, you were this close. You were this close. Stop playing defense. James, tell them that you could believe in 10,000 different genders and it wouldn't make a single difference. It would make zero material difference to voters. Okay, we're 2 years into the Trump regime and trans people have lost almost all of their rights in most states and thousands upon thousands of immigrants are being rounded up and deported as we speak. But guess what? Things are still getting worse. Billionaires bought ads for Republicans telling you to blame immigrants and trans people for all of your problems so that way you won't blame them for all of your problems. But it turns out that things are still bad even though the big bad trans and immigrant boogeymen were slayed. So, they're hoping that you're stupid enough to buy the same exact argument again two years later, even though we have definitive proof that the wrong minority was scapegoed. Billionaires should have been public enemy number one. Because immigrants aren't making your grocery prices go up, trans people aren't responsible for rising gas prices. You can blame Trump's inflationary tariffs and illegal Iran war for those things. Things that he's doing, by the way, to enrich corporations and his defense contractor donors, mind you. I mean, if we Thanos snapped every single trans person and immigrant out of existence like that, most Americans would still die poor and hungry. So, are we going to continue to beat up on people with no money and no power? Or actually blame the real culprits here, which is the greed of the Epstein class who helped get Trump elected so that way he can rob you blind? I mean, you don't have to word it in this exact way, obviously. But I'm trying to offer Democrats some productive alternatives that they can use so that way they don't feel like they're obligated to throw trans people under a bus. You don't have to [ __ ] do that. And you shouldn't, at least if you want to win. But I mean, that'll require you to actually put in the work and make the [ __ ] case for things that you believe in. Is that too [clears throat] hard to ask? You want to be a senator? Make the [ __ ] case. If you're not even going to try to beat Republicans at their own game when they're the ones with the uphill battle to climb right now in this political environment, then there truly is no hope for the Democratic party. You might as well pack it up because they're just they're not willing to do the bare minimum to win. Okay? So, it would behoove them to once and for all pull their heads out of their asses and stop being afraid of Republicans, stop running from their own shadows. Because if they're going to continue to do [ __ ] like this and defy their own base on another issue, trans rights, also Israel Palestine, Medicare for all, I promise you Republicans, they're not going to be the only thing that you're going to have to worry about. Democrats, okay? You're going to learn the hard way that there's a lot of trans people and people with trans friends and family like myself who know how to hold a [ __ ] grudge. And I've seen how weak and spineless you Democrats are. So, I know that you don't want this smoke. But if they're adamant about joining the fascists in this war against my trans family members, then they better be prepared because if it's war that they want, it's war that they're going to [ __ ] get. Because trans people may only represent like 1% of the population. But an attack on them is an attack on me and millions of other sis allies who you're going to have to go through first to get to them. So tread lightly, Democrats, because if you continue to go down this path year after year, it'll be at your own [ __ ] peril. [music] >> [music]