🚨 Cali Gov Gavin Newsom SPLITS with DEMOCRATS on trans issues & says they wrong WRONG for allowing trans athletes in female sports!

[CrimsonTider]

This motherfukker doubled down with Steve Bannon......who's next? Roger Stone? Tucker Carlson?



Forget his alleged stances....this nikka really might be a poor strategist / read the room type cat. And/or gets too easily influenced by the "room",

Soft shoe pedaling that '2020 election was stolen' shyt with Bannon is a sign Newsome is most likely a "the Fugitive Slave Act was great politics" white politician. Going soft and handing out serious consequences for Jan 6, but at the same saying those fukks are a threat to democracy is exactly why we are in the position we are today.





Between his lack of sense & the situation with his wife, buddy is killing his own Presidential viability.

If Buttiegig is the only better candidate (assuming Warren doesn't run again) can put forth in the primaries...................USA is fukked. Well, even moreso.








Appease to bad faith actors, only to show your lack of conviction and spine to your own base brehs

He’s playing this right

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

He’s playing this right

Thing is, all of Newsom’s interviews have shown him able to hold his own. A LOT of democrats can’t do that.

 

[Left.A1]

Democratic Shills with yet ANOTHER L …..SURPRISE!!!




They LIKE TO LOSE, THEY WANT TO LOSE

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

 

[the cac mamba]

Thing is, all of Newsom’s interviews have shown him able to hold his own. A LOT of democrats can’t do that.

most of these far left fakkits can't even comprehend trying to sell their message outside of dark blue areas

i'm not interested in that we have an election to win in 2028. you know who's not gonna get it done? a candidate who thinks men can get pregnant

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You lost the governor of California but you think “republicans made this an issue”

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Kamala’s team admitted the Trump ads saying Kamala supported transgender surgeries for inmates ruined her campaign more than they thought

Listen at 55:30 - 1:02:00





This is devastating…they outright denied it and claimed the polling was sending the wrong signals

Jesus Christ

 

[L. Deezy]

dude positioning himself to run as a independent with Republican ideology speak

 

[bnew]

To all of the "follow the Science" transphobes...

https://archive.is/HFSrb

Spoiler: text

Posted on Mon May 26 14:02:33 2025 UTC

https://i.redd.it/3rwam73tu43f1.jpeg

Charlotte Clymer (@charlotteclymer.bsky.social)

More than two years ago, Utah Republicans commissioned a study on gender-affirming care for youth. It just came back, and the conclusion is unambiguous: full recommendation in support of gender-affirming care. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/05/utah-transgender-youth-affirming-care-ban/

bsky.app

Spoiler: full text & large images

1/27
charlotteclymer.bsky.social
More than two years ago, Utah Republicans commissioned a study on gender-affirming care for youth. It just came back, and the conclusion is unambiguous: full recommendation in support of gender-affirming care.

www.motherjones.com/politics/202...

2/27
cabridges.bsky.social
Flashback to Nixon’s demand for a study on marijuana, which concluded decisively that the most dangerous thing about weed was that you could get arrested for it.

3/27
itsnotathing.bsky.social
I am baffled by the level of control the right wants to exert on the population as a whole. No masks, but women self determination or LGBT+ issues are their decision.

4/27
loudmouthginger.bsky.social
I bet this wasn’t the outcome the Utah GOP thought they were paying for when they kicked this can down the road. Sadly, they will ignore the study because it’s based on science.

5/27
napeungae.bsky.social
It boggles that we need a study to confirm that treating people like human beings is better than not.

6/27
jeffreymkirk.bsky.social
Sadly, with a predictable result: "Rep. Katy Hall, who co-sponsored the 2023 ban, issued a statement that dismissed the study’s findings. 'We intend to keep the moratorium in place.'

Why ignore their own review? Polling, the legislators’ statement suggests."

7/27
carelesswhisperer.bsky.social
Based on my years here in Utah, they ignore a lot of studies, like the studies showing the power and water sustainability of rapid growth in the southern part of the state which are promptly ignored so that the bloated gated communities and subsidized golf courses can go up.

8/27
1stladydi.bsky.social
There you go again.... challenging Republicans with facts.

9/27
patrickkevin.bsky.social
That won’t sit well with the party that wants to cause as much hurt, hate and poverty as they possibly can.

10/27
jkurutz.bsky.social
Al Gore could have predicted the response. Republicans have a history of ignoring Inconvenient Truths dating back to at least 2006.

11/27
monafran11325.bsky.social
Knowledge is power and science is essential.

12/27
dudleypj.bsky.social

13/27
grammykay.bsky.social
I am sick of my state tax dollars being used here in Utah to punish people who don't fit the mold of white, straight,Mormon,republican/maga

14/27
flyingmadman.bsky.social
Wow. Im kinda shocked Republicans would accept this result...did they?

15/27
jacquidesigns.bsky.social
Amazing what you can learn with science!

16/27
kenkiyama.bsky.social
Are they going to be like the national security staff in the White House and tell the study authors to try again?

17/27
clotpoll.bsky.social
sounds like one for the mormon memory hole, sadly

18/27
bjgt.bsky.social
the evidence supports treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, & the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric patients…treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, & cancer

19/27
carelesswhisperer.bsky.social
Well you see in Utah I see them ignore all kinds of studies, like those showing lack of affordable housing and unsustainable water usage but that doesn’t stop them from building the many gated communities and subsidized golf courses and water parks here in southern Utah. This study is no exception.

20/27
larksparking.bsky.social
I think about the kid down the street who fought their parents to wear a non-girly swimsuit and asked us to call them Herb, as the dad was telling us not to. I hope Herb is doing well as Herb now. Over forty years ago.

21/27
fitzgeraldmom.bsky.social
Of course it did!!! They should get all the care they need without the GOP of haters getting in the way!!!!

22/27
momny.bsky.social
THIS IS A FAMILY CHOICE

23/27
dadhyde.bsky.social
"Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it."

24/27
getinformed23.bsky.social
How inconvenient for the haters.

25/27
westernwriter.bsky.social
How is it that Utah is coming up with the goods lately?

26/27
meshaiman.bsky.social
Sheer accident.

27/27
alisonspeaks.bsky.social
They should rejoice because this is speaks to self-determination and lord knows they’re not into people helping one another.

To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196

Spoiler: text

Commented on Mon May 26 14:38:17 2025 UTC

Wait what? Science DOESN’T support mindless hate? Guess they’ll just have to stick to religion.

│
│

Spoiler: text

│ Commented on Mon May 26 15:19:26 2025 UTC
│
│ This is a repost from another comment i responded to:
│
│ My friend Noah (I love him, hes a walking encyclopedia and the most purely kind human ever) always says the problem with these kind of people is that their opinions and beliefs are not founded on a basis of curiosity and trying to see if they are wrong in what they believe
│
│ They create their own opinions and then search for facts to justify them
│
│ He says all opinions should be formed on the basis of null hypothesis
│

│ │
│ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ Commented on Mon May 26 16:14:02 2025 UTC
│ │
│ │ He’s right. These types of people will use anything to justify their beliefs. My mom recently saw someone who she believes was trans and commented on how ‘unhappy they looked. Even after all of those changes, they still looked miserable.’ Like….ok #1 you don’t know if they’re trans. And #2 TRANS PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE UNHAPPY SOMETIMES TOO. They’re allowed to have bad days.
│ │

│ │ │
│ │ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ │ Commented on Mon May 26 17:25:13 2025 UTC
│ │ │
│ │ │ I'd say, given the trash they're forced to deal with that the other 99% of us don't, they are even MORE than allowed to express their unhappiness.
│ │ │

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

To all of the "follow the Science" transphobes...

Facts are there in gender affirming care for youth. The issue is Americans appear not to agree with it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

To all of the "follow the Science" transphobes...

Bad data from trans activists legitimizing nonsense,

It’s cool though. We’ll ban it regardless.

 

[bnew]

Bad data from trans activists legitimizing nonsense,

It’s cool though. We’ll ban it regardless.

trans activists at the **checks notes** ..

"The bill ordered the Utah health department to commission a systematic review of medical evidence around the treatments, with the goal of producing recommendations for the legislature on whether to lift the moratorium."

Utah health department

---

Now, more than two years later, that review is here, and its conclusions unambiguously support gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. “The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data” on gender-affirming pediatric care, the authors wrote. “However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have lead us to the opposite conclusion.”

The medical evidence review, published on Wednesday, was compiled over a two-year period by the Drug Regimen Review Center at the University of Utah. Unlike the federal government’s recent report on the same subject, which was produced in three months and criticized gender-affirming pediatric treatments, the names of the Utah report’s contributors are actually disclosed on the more than thousand-page document.

The authors write:

The consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body
changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric [gender dysphoria] patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer…
It is our expert opinion that policies to prevent access to and use of [gender-affirming hormone therapy] for treatment of [gender dysphoria] in pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.

In a second part of their review, the authors looked specifically at long-term outcomes of patients who started treatment for gender dysphoria as minors:

Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes. While gender affirming treatment showed a possibly protective effect in prostate cancer in transgender men and breast cancer in transgender women, there was an increase in some specific types of benign brain tumors. There were increased mortality risks in both transgender men and women treated with hormonal therapy, but more so in transgender women. Increase risk of mortality was consistently due to increase in suicide, non-natural causes, and HIV/AIDS. Patients that were seen at the gender clinic before the age of 18 had a lower risk of suicide compared to those referred as an adult.

Submitted with the review was a set of recommendations—compiled by advisers from the state’s medical and professional licensing boards, the University of Utah, and a Utah non-profit hospital system—on steps the state legislature could take to ensure proper training among gender-affirming care providers, in the event it decides to lift the moratorium.

But according to the Salt Lake Tribune, legislators behind the ban are already dismissing the findings they asked for. In response to questions from the Tribune, Rep. Katy Hall, who co-sponsored the 2023 ban, issued a joint statement with fellow Republican state Rep. Bridger Bolinder, the chair of the legislature’s Health and Human Services Interim Committee, that dismissed the study’s findings. “We intend to keep the moratorium in place,” they told the Tribune. “Young kids and teenagers should not be making life-altering medical decisions based on weak evidence.”

Why ignore their own review? Polling, the legislators’ statement suggests. “Utah was right to lead on this issue, and the public agrees—polls show clear majority support both statewide and nationally,” Hall and Bolinder added in their statement. “Simply put, the science isn’t there, the risks are real, and the public is with us.”

Others, like former state Rep. Mike Kennedy, a co-sponsor of the 2023 ban who now represents Utah’s 3rd district in Congress, have so far been silent on the state review’s findings—as has Gov. Cox, who did not respond to the Salt Lake Tribune‘s request for comment.

 

[duckbutta]

The 3 women affected by this are devastated

 

[the cac mamba]

trans activists at the **checks notes** ..

"The bill ordered the Utah health department to commission a systematic review of medical evidence around the treatments, with the goal of producing recommendations for the legislature on whether to lift the moratorium."

Utah health department

stop pushing sex changes on children, you sick fukk. jesus christ

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

trans activists at the **checks notes** ..

"The bill ordered the Utah health department to commission a systematic review of medical evidence around the treatments, with the goal of producing recommendations for the legislature on whether to lift the moratorium."

Utah health department

I changed my mind on trans rights – and lost multiple friends

As a human rights lawyer, I never questioned the trans movement. But, after a lightbulb moment, I publicly changed my position

www.telegraph.co.uk

I changed my mind on trans rights – and lost multiple friends
As a human rights lawyer, I never questioned the trans movement. But, after a lightbulb moment, I publicly changed my position

Robert Wintemute 27 May 2025 8:00am BST

King’s College London human rights professor Robert Wintemute believes some members of the transgender-rights movement do not understand that ‘women have human rights too’ Credit: Geoff Pugh
I am a human rights lawyer and professor at King’s College London. Until 2018, I supported all the demands of the transgender-rights movement. But since then, I have changed my mind.

Why? Because I finally understood that some demands conflict with the rights of women and are therefore unreasonable.

I first encountered transgender rights as a University of Oxford PhD student, researching the human rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals and same-sex couples. The claims of transsexual persons, as they were then known, seemed different to me. I did not understand them, so I was reluctant to comment on them.

And when, in the 2002 Christine Goodwin case (Goodwin said that she had faced sexual harassment at work following gender-affirming surgery), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK must amend the sex on the birth certificates of “post-operative transsexuals” to reflect their “new sexual identity”, I thought that this must be progress. At last, the UK would have to catch up with other European countries.

Two years later, when the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 went well beyond that ruling, by not requiring any surgery or other medical treatment (a person with a beard and male genitals could become legally female), it struck me as very generous but I did not question it.

I assumed that whatever the transgender community demanded must be reasonable.

They knew what they needed. It did not occur to me, as a man, to put myself in the shoes of a woman, encountering a “legal woman” with male genitals in a women-only space.

As such, when I joined a group of experts in Indonesia to draft the 2007 Yogyakarta Principles, widely cited as “best practice” on sexual orientation and gender identity, I did not question the proposals of the transgender experts.

Trans rights
The question of a woman’s right to women-only spaces did not immediately occur to Wintemute Credit: Alamy
Everything changed in 2018. My lightbulb moment came at a university summer school. I was asked to explain the “spousal veto” under UK law: a wife must consent, if her husband wishes to change his legal sex to female and in turn make their opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex marriage. I said that the husband’s human right to change his legal sex could be limited to respect “the rights of others” (the wife’s right not to be in a same-sex marriage against her will).

A transgender student could not understand how I could compare the husband’s “fundamental human right” with the wife’s right under “a contract” (their marriage). Feeling frustrated, I said: “Trans rights don’t trump everything else!”

The transgender student became angry and stormed out of the classroom. Finally, it dawned on me that some members of the transgender-rights movement did not seem to understand that women have human rights too.

Over the next two years, I began to speak with women about their concerns about some transgender demands.

One woman asked if I had read Principle 31 of the 2017 Yogyakarta Principles (in which I did not participate). I had not done so and was shocked when I read it.

It boldly claimed that every country in the world must remove sex from birth certificates and, until then, allow change of legal sex based on self-identification (without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria).

In 2021, I publicly changed my position. On April 1 of that year, in an interview published in The Critic, I criticised Principle 31 and suggested for the first time that allowing change of legal sex might not be necessary to protect the rights of transgender people.

Fifteen days later, citing the interview, an LGBT organisation terminated its relationship with me, after more than twenty years.

To an LGBT-rights activist I had known for just as long, I wrote: “I hope that we can still be friends!” He replied that he wanted “to take a break for a bit” (now four years and counting).

A month later, I became a trustee of the charity LGB Alliance (founded in 2019 after Stonewall began to prioritise transgender issues) and went on to speak at its first annual conference.

In that speech, I focused on the legal changes I had witnessed since 2002 and linked the political tensions surrounding transgender rights to an “abuse of sympathy”, which had in turn led to an “escalation of demands”.

I charted how we had shifted from change of legal sex after surgery, to change of legal sex without medical treatment but with safeguards (a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a two-year waiting period), to change of legal sex based on self-identification (with no safeguards) and finally to removing sex from birth certificates (meaning that there is no legal sex to change).

These were ideas I carried forwards to a staff research seminar at King’s in November of 2021 – albeit not without controversy. The Dean of the School of Law rejected calls to cancel the event and showed his support for freedom of expression by attending. Three security guards were posted outside the room (a first in my thirty years at the university), but no protesters appeared.

Two years later, in January 2023, I was scheduled to give the same talk at Montréal’s McGill University Faculty of Law (where I had studied).

But this time I faced a hostile mob of between 100-200 students.

They chanted “shame on you” and “F**k your system. F**k your hate. Trans rights aren’t up for debate”. At one point, I thought that they were going to smash the glass door to the seminar room. Instead, they forced it open, stopped me from speaking, and threw flour on me.

All of which has informed my book, Transgender Rights vs Women’s Rights, in which I reach conclusions that will shock many supporters of the transgender-rights movement.

In writing it, I realised that I had been wrong to assume, for many years, that anything the movement proposed must be reasonable. The escalation of demands I belatedly noticed made me go back to the start and ask myself: was change of legal sex ever justifiable? I concluded that it was not, and that Sweden made a mistake in 1972 when it became the first country in Europe to allow the practice. That mistake has of course been replicated by many other European nations since.

Countries that have yet to follow suit (nearly 60 per cent of the 193 United Nations member states) are right to hold out.

There is no human right to documents that are biologically false. An individual’s birth sex never changes, regardless of any medical treatment they receive.

But transgender people had in 1972, and have today, a human right to legal protection against all forms of violence, harassment or discrimination.

That was the judgment Sweden should have reached in 1972, and everyone else since.

Taking a stand has not been without cost. Since I “came out” as “gender-critical” four years ago, a number of friends have stopped speaking to me, and this year I was dropped from a university’s summer programme.

But I am proud to have made this journey, and of finally speaking out for the rights of women.

Robert Wintemute is Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London and the author of Transgender Rights vs Women’s Rights: From Conflicts to Co-existence, published by Polity Books on May 30