Category: sports

Cenk Uygur blows it again, this time about sports

August 18, 2026 • 9:30 am

I swear, I don’t know why anybody with more than a few neurons listens to The Young Turks any more (young folk do, but their complement of neurons hasn’t yet connected properly). The show is disgustingly progressive, with founder Cenk Uygur regularly embarrassing himself by having tantrums on the show and in other places, including on Piers Morgan’s show and at airports. Further both he and co-host Ana Kasparian regularly criticize Israel for “genocide” and “apartheid”, lying regularly.  (I swear to Ceiling Cat, Cenk is going to blow an artery some day.) Such are the views of “progressives.”

Now Cenk is pushing to have trans-identified males (“trans women”) compete on women’s high-school athletic teams. That’s ridiculous because already in high school males and males who have reached puberty (almost all of them) have an athletic advantage over women, and so women athletes are disadvantaged. Further, high school sports aren’t like kickball and dodgeball in elementary school: they are the launching pad for college athletics (with scholarships), which in turn are the launching pad for professional athletics.

Cenk’s logic is bizarre, as you can read in this Substack article by Jennifer Sey (click on screenshot below):

An excerpt:

There is a clip going around on X of Cenk Uygur appearing on the Triggernometry podcast and discussing the issue of men in women’s sports. Uygur is the founder and host of The Young Turks, a long-running progressive online news and commentary network, and a frequent voice on the American left.

His views are often considered “heterodox” but not because they don’t strictly line up with leftie party line views or mainstream group dogma. Rather because his views are further to the left of the Democrats. He basically just hates the Democratic Party. Which is fine, I don’t like them either. But for different reasons.

Uygur’s comments on the show were revealing.

Here is the clip:

And Sey put the clip on Twitter (“X”). Do listen to about two minutes of Cenk being a blockhead. Note his emphasis on “inspecting genitals.”

More:

[Cenk] claimed that at the professional and Olympic level, leagues should decide the rules. He says it’s up to them, the leagues, and we should all accept that. He’s not fully conceding male advantage in total but conceding that perhaps there is male advantage at the high level and elite league’s have the right to decide what their own rules are.

This makes no sense. Why would male advantage exist at the highest levels of sports but not at the high school level? It’s an illogical and incoherent position.

He cited a case of a “trans woman” in her forties who immediately lifted two hundred pounds more than the biological women in the competition. Without much training at all.

He’s close on the facts. But it’s even worse.

He is referring to Canadian male powerlifter Anne Andres. Here is Andres disparaging women because apparently he doesn’t understand inherent upper body strength differences between men and women. Nice fella. He’s basically like: why are women so weak and pathetic?

Here’s the clip of Andres posted by Sey on Twitter:

At the Canadian Powerlifting Union’s 2023 Western Canadian Championship, Andres won the female masters category with a total combined score that was over 200 kilograms (more than 400 pounds!) higher than the closest competitor, drawing significant public debate and media coverage regarding athletic fairness

Then Uygur pivoted.

At the high school level, he said, it becomes a “balancing act.” He called the entire issue “the tiniest” in America and a “wedge issue” designed to distract from corporate power. That’s what he thinks everything is about. Well that, and Israel.

His solution: let deluded males who “identify as female” compete against girls in high school and, I guess, middle school, though he doesn’t mention that age group.

Because it doesn’t matter that much or something, for high school girls.

“I would rather have my daughter come in second, third, or eighth . . . than traumatize those kids [“trans”],” he declared. “I’m not checking your genitalia and I’m not traumatizing you when you’re a kid.” He completely ignores any trauma to the girls in having to share a locker room with boys or give up their own hard won triumphs to boys.

This is not a serious or coherent position. Truth cannot be negotiated. There is no balancing act when it comes to biological reality. Men are not women. Male puberty produces irreversible advantages in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity and strength that no amount of hormone suppression erases. And there are advantages even before puberty!

That’s true.  As a rough cutoff, I’d say that when men and women begin puberty (roughly at eleven years old, though of course there’s a lot of variation), they should no longer be put together on any sports team, whether trans-identified or not. That would be at the fifth grade: in elementary school. After fifth grade, we can think about a cutoff mandating sports segregation by biological sex, with either an “other” team for trans-identified people, or allowing all trans-identified people to compete on men’s teams. A bit more:

High school sports are not recreational playdates. It is so demeaning to women and girls and their hard work to suggest that they are. High school sports determine scholarships, national rankings, roster spots and the formative experience of fair competition. Some of the top girls will go on to compete in college and then vie for Olympic berths.

Telling girls that they must simply accept displacement so that males with “gender dysphoria” are not “otherized” (his words, not mine) subordinates female achievement and safety to male feelings. It makes girls and women second class citizens.

The genital-check talking point is a deliberate distraction. No one is proposing invasive inspections of children. Schools already require physicals and medical documentation. A doctor’s note confirming biological sex is straightforward and already standard practice for other eligibility questions.

Yes, Cenk’s focus on “genital inspection” is ridiculous. If there’s any question that arises about someone’s sex, a cheek swab can reveal the presence of the SRY gene (on the Y) with substantial accuracy.  There are other tests as well, and people like Anne Andres admit that they’re biological males. But if a person shows up in a women’s locker room with big muscles and a penis, there’s not much of a question.  More:

The most damning part of Uygur’s remarks is the personal one. He is willing to have his own daughter lose opportunities, titles and privacy so that a male competitor is not made to feel uncomfortable or sad. He says that this is the compassionate thing to do. And if she doesn’t get into her first choice college because of it, so be it.

But where is the compassion in lying to a confused boy and telling him his delusion is reality and that he can, in fact, become a girl? It’s cruel.

This is also a profound abdication of a father’s duty to protect his daughter’s rights. It is difficult to imagine him telling a son, “Just take the L; that other athlete is vulnerable, so your hard work and fair play come second. Just be nice.” Head pat.

We do not tolerate even one athlete using performance-enhancing drugs because it destroys the integrity of the contest. Why would we accept even one male taking medals, scholarships or team spots from female athletes? We would only do that if we thought girls’ experiences just didn’t matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.

The numbers already exceed a handful of isolated cases; and each one is one too many. Thousands of girls and women have already been impacted.

The last link goes to a website where you can see that, contrary to what Cenk says, it’s not just a tiny handful of women who have lost out to trans-identified men playing on women’s sports teams.  And if this is a matter of “rights,” which I think it is, then there is no number of unfair cases that must be exceeded before women’s rights are violated. One case will do. But look at the link.  And, as trans identities increase, so will the number of cases of unfairness.

h/t: Ginger K.

World Cup: Brazil vs. Morocco (highlights)

June 14, 2026 • 9:30 am

I’ll put up some videos of the World Cup games or highlights that interest me. Here are 20 minutes of highlights between Brazil and Morocco, which was tied 1-1 at the end.

Summary from the BBC:

Vinicius Jr spared Brazil the embarrassment of defeat in an opening World Cup match for the first since 1934 as his spectacular solo goal earned a draw for the five-time winners against Morocco at the New York New Jersey Stadium.

Brazil fell behind in the 21st minute when Ismael Saibari lifted the ball over the onrushing Alisson Becker from outside the area following a lapse in communication between the Liverpool goalkeeper and his defenders, Gabriel and Marquinhos.

It was the first time the African champions had scored against South American opposition at the World Cup, having failed to do so against Peru in 1970 and Brazil in 1998.

Morocco continued to dominate and, by the 30th minute, had registered 12 shots – the most Brazil have faced in a World Cup match since their encounter with Mexico in 2018.

But as Mohamed Ouahbi’s side failed to capitalise on their advantage, Brazil drew level 13 minutes before the break through Vinicius.

Making his 50th appearance for the Selecao, he collected a ball from Bruno Guimaraes inside the area, cut inside, and unleashed a fierce strike past Yassine Bounou.

Former West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta almost put Brazil ahead in first-half stoppage time, but his acrobatic effort was tipped behind for a corner.

With several members of Brazil’s triumphant 2002 squad watching on in New Jersey – including Ronaldo, Kaka and Roberto Carlos – Carlo Ancelotti’s side began to move through the gears after the break.

And although chances were at a premium for both sides, Raphinha came closest to finding an elusive second when he narrowly failed to connect with Guimaraes’ low-driven cross across the face of goal.

The draw means Morocco’s wait to win their opening game at a World Cup goes on, while Brazil’s remarkable 92‑year unbeaten first-match record remains intact.

Brazil’s tying goal begins at 6:41.

The best baseball performance of all time? Shohei Ohtani cleans up on the mound and at the plate as the LA Dodgers sweep the pennant

October 18, 2025 • 11:00 am

Last night the Los Angeles Dodgers won the National League pennant against the Milwaukee Brewers (the best team in baseball), guaranteeing the Dodgers a spot in the World Series. They won the Series last year, too, but the performance of the team’s star player last night, the inimitable Shohei Ohtani, may have been the greatest single-game performance of any individual player in history.  For Ohtani didn’t just hit three home runs (the game was won 5-0, with Ohtani’s second home run being the longest ever hit in Dogers Stadium), but also pitched six shutout innings and struck out out ten batters, so the pitching win went to him. I’ve never seen anything to match this. The Dodgers won four straight games in the 7-game series, shutting the Brewers out completely. (The American league championship has yet to be decided.)

If you know baseball, you know that pitchers are almost invariably poor hitters (you can’t practice both), but Ohtani is a huge exception: he excels at both. (So did Babe Ruth, but he gave up pitching and never turned in a performance anything like that Ohtani last night. Ohtani has been been Rookie of the Year, as well as Most Valuable Player three times.  Last year an arm injury kept him from pitching (he’s often been plagued by injuries), but he nevertheless excelled in hitting and in base stealing (he’s also fast on the basepaths), hitting 54 homes runs and stealing 59 bases, making him the only player in major league history to reach that 50:50 mark in one season.

Ohtani was born in Japan, excelled there, and then decided to come to the Big Show in the U.S.  He’s only 31 and so has at least 6 or 7 superb years in him.  I’ll put a summary video below (watch quickly before MLB takes it down), and here’s the NYT’s summary of his performance last night:

It isn’t supposed to be easy. It is designed at its most fundamental level to humble and to abase—to constantly remind even its greatest practitioners that this game is ultimately an exercise in failure.

But the things Shohei Ohtani does on the field are so astonishing that they make you wonder if everything you thought you knew about baseball for the last century and a half was wrong. He has redefined what was thought possible in a sport that appeared to have no more secrets.

Ohtani isn’t just the most talented player on the planet. He is likely the most talented player in history. And on Friday, Shohei Ohtani delivered the performance that will define him.

The Los Angeles Dodgers are going to the World Series for the second consecutive season because Ohtani carried them there with a box score that defies belief. On the mound, he dominated the Milwaukee Brewers over six shutout innings, allowing only two hits and striking out 10. At the plate, he blasted three home runs that traveled a combined 1,342 feet, transforming Dodger Stadium into his own personal launchpad.

By the time the final out had been recorded, the fact that the Dodgers had clinched yet another pennant was practically an afterthought. Everyone was still too dumbstruck by what they had witnessed from Ohtani: perhaps the single greatest individual game ever played.

“No one’s ever seen something like this,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said. “I’m still in awe right now of Shohei.”

Have a look at the highlights:

How much does Ohtani make? Well, right now he’s getting only $2 million per year, but his contact was for $700 million, and of course he makes a ton off the field: (bolding is the site’s):

In 2025, Ohtani isn’t just rewriting baseball’s record books. He’s redefining what it means to be a global sports icon. Shohei Ohtani is expected to earn $102 million this year, but only $2 million of that will come from his actual MLB salary. The other $100 million? All from endorsements.

Whyt Shohei Ohtani’s salary is so low–and what it means. 

Ohtani signed a groundbreaking $700 million deal with the Dodgers, but its unique structure defers the vast majority of his salary. He’ll receive just $2 million annually during the 10-year contract, with $68 million per year kicking in after that.

What does his earnings amount to on an hourly basis? This is from one source (their bolding):

Currently, Ohtani makes an estimated $65 million a year in endorsement deals. That figure can rise or fall, but you have to think that it will do a bit of both. Rise for the next few years, and then fall off as his career winds up toward retirement.

For the sake of argument, let’s take the current figures as the baseline for the next ten years. In fact, these numbers will not likely vary too much, because when his endorsements will presumably fall off after retirement, that $68 million back end payment will make up for it. So in broad strokes, this is a decent guide for Shohei’s earnings for the rest of his working career.

In that case, Ohtani will have an income of $67 million per year all total.

If he were to be paid per game, that would be $413,580 per game in the regular season. Spring training and post season would not be included in this figure.

In our own lives, we tend to get paid weekly or monthly, so for comparison, Ohtani will take home $1,288,461 per week, or $5,583,333 per calendar month.

A fantastic performance of rhythmic gymnastics

October 16, 2025 • 12:45 pm

Here’s a video I found trawling YouTube, and it stunned me. I had never watched rhythmic gymnastics before, and sort of made fun of it as a “non-sport”. But I was wrong. This kind of stuff is more than just art: it shows amazing agility, timing, flexibility and athleticism. The YouTube notes say this:

PARIS 2024 OLYMPICS – A Work of Art: Raffaeli’s Sublime Rhythmic Gymnastics Choreography

“Raffaeli” is the performer: Italian gymnast Sofia Raffaeli, who also works with hoops and ribbons. From Wikipedia:

Sofia Raffaeli (born 19 January 2004) is an Italian individual rhythmic gymnast. She is the 2024 Olympic bronze medalist, the 2022 World all-around, hoop, ball, ribbon and team champion, the 2023 World all-around, hoop and ball silver medalist, the 2025 World all-around bronze medalist and a two-time (2023, 2024) European silver all-around medalist. She is the first Italian individual rhythmic gymnast to win a gold medal at the World Championships, European Championships and World Games, and she has won seven all-around gold medals in the FIG World Cup circuit. She is the first Italian individual rhythmic gymnast to win a medal at the Olympic Games.

The narration is in French, but you don’t need to understand it. The performance speaks for itself.

Oh hell, it’s almost Friday, so let’s have two more: one with clubs and another with a hoop:

Videos: Dawkins on sex differences; Neil deGrasse Tyson on sport and sex

October 13, 2025 • 9:30 am

The first article in the new anthology The War on Science (compiled, edited, and with an introduction by Lawrence Krauss) is a piece by Richard Dawkins called “Scientific truth stands above human feelings and politics.”  It’s basically a two-part essay on how ideology has distorted science, with the first part being about Trofim Lysenko’s distortion of Russian genetics under Stalin, and the second bit being about sex and gender, concentrating on the biological nature of sex. In the UnHerd interview below, Richard dilates on the part about sex and gender, but concentrating on the evolutionary biology of sex.  As I’ve said, the book has been attacked by miscreants—many of whom hadn’t read it, but damned it nonetheless because some of the authors were deemed politically unpalatable and because the topic was how the left has damaged science. (“We should”, say these miscreants, “have written only about the damage that Trump and his minions have done to science.”)

Dawkins is one of the people who has brought opprobrium down on the book, because, after all, he’s an “old white man”, a member of the most oppressive group at all. But his age, sex, and race are irrelevant to his essay, which is one of the very best in the anthology.  In his characteristically clear and eloquent writing, he explains what he calls the “universal biological definition of sex” (“UBD”): the now-familiar claim that biological sex is based on relative gamete size. This definition leads ineluctably to the view that sex is binary: there are two and only two forms of gametes in a given species. He underlines something that I’ve also emphasized: the UBD is not only ubiquitous, applying in binary form in all animals and vascular plants, but is also explanatory: the sex binary is the only concept of sex that can explain, usually via sexual selection, a number of phenomena that puzzled biologists before Darwin proposed this form of selection in 1871.

In the UnHerd video discussion with Freddie Sayers shown below, Richard runs through 14 of these phenomena, making an airtight case for the utility of the UBD.  He also takes up issues raised by the Miscreants to try to show that sex is a spectrum: the sequential switching of sex by clownfish and wrasses (they’re still male or female), the presence of intersex individuals, whose frequency is very low and no damaging to a binary view, and the fact that male seahorses can get “pregnant,” holding fertilized eggs in a pouch until they hatch (notice I say “male seahorses”, for these individual still produce only small, mobile gametes).

Because advocates of the “spectrum of sex” view are ideologues, who hold their position simply because they think the sex spectrum buttresses transsexual and nonbinary individuals, Richard’s talk here, or his essay in the book, won’t convince these opponents. (By the way, these people never tell us how we can define the sexes given that “sex is complicated.)  But if you’re open minded, have a listen, or better yet, buy the book, as the essay has a lot more than does the interview below. The universal and explanatory advantages of the UBD make it far superior to any other concept of biological sex.

h/t: Luke

In the short (4-minute) clip below from The Rubin Report, astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson takes another point of view. Interviewed by Michael Shermer, Tyson gets all worked up on the topic of sports, finding it deeply weird that we split males and females when it comes to athletic competition. Two women, broadcaster Sage Steele and former swimmer Riley Gaines, weigh in on Tyson’s confusion.

Finally, below is the full interview of Tyson by Shermer. It’s on sex and race, and I’ve started it when they begin discussing sex (31:15).  You can see that Tyson apparently thinks from his astrophysical background that nature is structured against binaries, which he sees to consider an argument for the continuum of sex. He seems to deny, in fact, that there’s any value in discussing biological sex, and that gender is what’s important. (Remember Tyson’s famous “today I feel 80% female and 20% male” statement?)  As far as sports is concerned, Tyson suggest dividing sports up in to “hormone categories”, so people compete against others having with similar hormone ratios. (That’s problematic for several reasons, not the least being that people who take hormone supplements, like trans-identified males, may still have a strength advantage over biological women having a similar hormone titer, because the advantage is already there at puberty,  before most takes testosterone).

Then, pressed by Shermer, Tyson says that maybe we should use a combination of body weight and hormone titer. It’s a mess, which becomes simplified if you have three categories: “bioloigcal [natal] female,” “biological [natal] male,” and “other”. Alternatively, you might stipulate that anyone who is not clearly a biological female compete in the men’s class. (That too has problems, like a higher risk of injury for trans-identified females in competitive sports.)

At any rate, this discussion is really an add-on to the Dawkins video above, so listen if you have the time.

U.S. Olympics bars trans-identified men (“trans women”) from competing athletically against biological women

July 23, 2025 • 1:00 pm

This is apparently a done deal, though probablydone for the wrong reasons. The NYT headline gives the important result; click on it below or read the archived version here:

A summary:

The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee quietly changed its eligibility rules on Monday to bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women’s sports, and now will comply with President Trump’s executive order on the issue, according to a post on the organization’s website.

The new policy, expressed in a short, vaguely worded paragraph, is tucked under the category of “USOPC Athlete Safety Policy” on the site, and does not include details of how the ban will work. Nor does the new policy include the word “transgender” or the title of Mr. Trump’s executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” referring to it instead as “Executive Order 14201.”

Mr. Trump signed the executive order on Feb. 5.

The committee’s new policy means that the national governing bodies of sports federations in the United States now must follow the U.S.O.P.C.’s lead, according to several chief executives of sports within the Olympic movement. Those national governing bodies oversee many, but not all, events in Olympic sports for all ages, from youth to masters’ competitions.

In a letter sent by email to the “Team USA Community,” the U.S.O.P.C. acknowledged on Tuesday that its policy had changed. The letter, from Sarah Hirshland, the U.S.O.P.C.’s chief executive, and Gene Sykes, the president, said the committee had held “a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials” since the executive order was signed.

“As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,” the letter said, adding that the committee would work with the national governing bodies to implement the new policy.

. . .Those new rules still allow trans women to compete, but only in the men’s category.

All others who aren’t eligible for the women’s category, including nonbinary athletes, transgender men and intersex athletes, will also be limited to competing in the men’s category, the policy says.

The right reason for such a ruling is because it because it’s fair to women, and because trans-identified men, especially but not exclusively those who have gone through male puberty, have on average an athletic advantage over biological women.

But fairness doesn’t seem to undergird this ruling was made. After all, the Olympics has had years to ponder this issue, and basically punted on it, saying that each sport had to make its own rules.  The clue: the USOPC explicitly cited Trump’s Executive Order when announcing its decision, and without federal support, Los Angeles would be unable to host its scheduled Summer Olympics in 2028. In other words, the decision was likely made not out of fairness, but out of fearfulness. It’s sad when bullying and fear replaces fairness in this way.

But I’ll still take it, because regardless of the reasons, this is what I’ve always thought was the right thing to do. It is not transphobic, nor does it “erase” trans people.  Trans people or those who aren’t biological women can nevertheless still  compete in athletics if they wish, but in men’s divisions. Alternatively, and perhaps more fairly than that, there could be an “other” division for those who aren’t either biological males or biological females. (I can’t deal with all other exceptions now, as they will take careful consideration.)

Most Americans agree with me on this issue.  A recent Pew survey shows that:

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that majorities of U.S. adults favor or strongly favor laws and policies that:

  • Require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth (66%)
  • Ban health care professionals from providing care related to gender transitions for minors (56%)

The first issue is the one at hand, and two-thirds of American adults favor what the USOPC just did.  But you can bet that this doesn’t settle the issue for the distant future. After all, Trump won’t be President forever (despite what some readers think!), and a “progressive” President could easily change things back. On the other hand, I think the moral arc of athletic fairness is bending towards justice, especially with the data increasingly showing general athletic advantages of trans-identified males over biological women.

Gavin Newsom breaks with “progressive” Democrats, proclaims that trans-identified men competing in women’s sports is “unfair”

March 6, 2025 • 12:34 pm

It’s not only unconscionable for “progressive” Democrats to cheer on trans-identified males (“transwomen”) who compete in women’s sports, but that behavior certainly hurt the Democrats, especially because most Americans, including Democrats, think that this kind of participation should be forbidden:

A recent New York Times/Ipsos survey found the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don’t think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women’s sports.

“Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female — do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?” the survey asked.

Of the 2,128 people who participated, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports.

Of the 1,025 people who identified as Democrats or leaning Democrat, 67% said transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete with women.

Among 1,022 Republicans, that number was 94%.

You can find the poll results here.

While at first it seems empathic to allow trans-identified males to compete against women, it’s really unfair to women, and to most of us the total fairness is increased by forbidding that competition. (I still think trans-identified males who want to do sports should compete somewhere, either in an “other” league, or perhaps in men’s sports.)  People recognize this, and Democrats who favor this cross-sex competition simply look clueless. (I am exempting any sports in which men and women perform about equally, though I’m not sure which ones.)

As the reader who sent me this new article from the NYT said, “Perhaps the fever has finally broken.” I think it has, for California governor Gavin Newsom, a diehard and largely “progressive” Democrat, is now going along with most Americans. Click below to read the article, or find it archived here.

An excerpt:

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, embarking on a personal post-mortem of the failures of his Democratic Party, suggested this week that the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports was “deeply unfair.”

The comments by Mr. Newsom, who has backed L.G.B.T.Q. causes for decades and was one of the first American elected officials to officiate same-sex weddings, represented a remarkable break from other top Democrats on the issue, and signaled a newly defensive position on transgender rights among many in his party.

Just as surprising as Mr. Newsom’s remarks was the person to whom he made them: Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old right-wing influencer best known for starting Turning Point USA, the pro-Trump organization that is active on college campuses.

Mr. Newsom invited Mr. Kirk, who has a long history of inflammatory and conspiratorial remarks, onto the debut episode of his new podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” for an 81-minute discussion because, the governor said, “people need to understand your success, your influence, what you’ve been up to.” Mr. Newsom spent much of the conversation reflecting on the myriad ways that former Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign failed to reach key voters during the 2024 election, losing ground with young people, men and Hispanic voters.

Mr. Newsom is widely seen as having presidential ambitions in 2028 — something he joked about on the podcast — and until recent months, he had often sought to project an image as one of the leaders of the Democratic Party’s opposition to President Trump. In December, he cursed Mr. Trump’s name in an interview with The New York Times, but shortly after the president’s inauguration, Mr. Newsom traveled to Washington for a meeting with Mr. Trump to discuss funding for wildfire relief.

I hope, but not sure I exspect, other Democrats to follow his lead. Certainly lost causes like AOC will now follow.

And yes, this is not a huge issue compared to, say, Ukraine, but one’s stand on it is indicative of both one’s moral compass and of one’s sympathy to real feminism.  I’ll surely be called a transphobe for applauding Newsom, but so be it. I don’t of course think that most legal and moral rights of trans people should be abrogated, but there are a few cases where they do conflict with rights of other groups (jails, changing rooms, etc.), and one should adjudicate these things sensibly.  What one shouldn’t do is hurl slurs at people like Newsom who have a rational approach to the issue.