Outkick - 'Tucker Carlson Completely Misses Point On Transgender Athletes In Women's Sports'

[UtopiaPlanitia]

I saw this article linked to on TwiX and thought I’d post it here. The writer argues that all politicians should pay attention to the strength of feeling in society about men and boys being allowed to play in female sports. It’s an interesting argument from the centre-right perspective about the importance of fairness for women and girls:

https://www.outkick.com/sports/tucker-carlson-misses-point-transgender-athletes-womens-sports

Tucker Carlson Completely Misses Point On Transgender Athletes In Women's Sports

The conservative political pundit says the issue is unimportant in light of bigger problems facing the country

…The problem isn't just that some males compete in women's sports. Yes, it's terrible that women are forced to share locker rooms and bathrooms with men in the name of gender ideology. Or have to sacrifice their athletic opportunities. But it's the root of why that's happening that underscores the insidiousness of the issue.

Republicans focusing on this issue, and having the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with them, is an extremely important cultural victory that has already started to change the narrative.

Many Americans look the other way while Democrat-run cities fall into complete disarray thanks to drugs, mental illness, homelessness and general mismanagement. But when Democrats say that boys can be girls and that they can use whatever bathroom they choose and compete against whomever they want, Americans are standing up and saying, "Enough!"

Adults Acting Like Adults
This is about much more than just keeping men out of women's sports. It's a signal that the adults in the room are finally starting to act like adults. The days of letting your kid eat ice cream, play video games and contribute nothing are over. It's time to teach them personal responsibility and, sometimes, that means being the bad guy – at least at the moment….

Its not "centre right" to quote approvingly someone complaining about the "smell" of halal food.

There is nothing about halal meat that smells different to other meat - its a pretty obvious dog whistle.

As for punishing the homeless for the crime of being homeless....well.....

In my reading of the article, the writer described Carlson’s words as a rant and stated that Carlson is ignoring the fact that Genderism is a far deeper cultural issue.

What did you think about the argument in favour of politicians supporting women and girls in keeping their sports free of males?

I agree with the author.

But i dont think carlson catches the depth of many issues. Unless he's more focused on engagement than anything else?

I do think its easy to underestimate the impact of trans ideology on the US public. Its more far reaching than sport.

To be fair, from what I've seen of Turning Point events, the speaker going off on a bit of a rant is built into the format.

Carlson's podcast, where he does long interviews with people who know things that he doesn't, is where you catch him in a more thoughtful and listening mode. He interviewed Riley Gaines when he was an anchor - if Riley's people could get her an hour on his pod instead of five minutes on a news show, then you'd probably see a step change in his understanding, as well as the value of getting Riley in front of his audience.

Carlson is such a strange man, he can swing between seeming as thick as champ and seeming moderately intelligent. He came across as more understanding of the issues facing women when he interviewed Kara Dansky too.

I was very pleased to see a commentator from the US political right pointing out that female sport being colonised by men and boys is not just a fringe issue.

Oliver Brown in The Telegraph is very good in writing about the issue and I’m pleased to see this sort of article being published in the US.

I suspose the worry for people who voted Trump on a number of issues, is that gender is the only issue thats going to be soved.

Critics are going to say tackling trans ideology is not going to solve homelessness or immigration, or a variety of other issues.

This could be the case. There are a host of things that people on the right are concerned about, and lots of them are serious. But not always as easy, conceptually, as tans issues.

I don't think it's unusual for people on the political right in the US to be concerned about women's sports though. Right wing people play sports as much as anyone else.

I tend to agree that Carlson isn't a particularly nuanced thinker on most ideology, but his main point on this is, I think, the same as Starmers in many ways i.e. -

Winning on Gender Ideology isn't going to make people big supporters. Other issues in politics are what will really swing people. If your streets are full of homeless people, you have less money in your pocket, and crime soars, no one's going to care enough that their daughter won sports day.

Starmer's basically the same - he may have an opinion on what's right or wrong on gender ideology (though god know what it is) but he doesn't see it as a vote winner. He's sees it as peripheral and distracting from what he does want to focus on.

And I think they're both mainly correct in that power is not going to swing to the party that says the right thing about gender ideology. Wins on that front will be temporary and fleeting and the vast majority of people aren't going to vote for it if they think they'll get more money/stability voting the other way. It isn't a priority for most voters even if it is for me.

Not sure what happened to him. Once upon a time he was quite sweet but then he became unhinged.

You're not wrong, but the Democrats are likely to need every vote they can get to gain control of the Senate in 2026 (and it's hardly a foregone conclusion that they'll gain control of the House of Representatives). The Republicans have nothing to lose from making gender ideology an issue in the mid-term elections, as in the last presidential elections, and in fact they plan to:

https://www.them.us/story/trump-trans-rights-2026-midterm-elections-wedge-issue

And the problem is that elected Democrats live in terror of what they call the Groups.

This isn't just a case of Democrats in deep blue states going off the deep end, while their candidates in swing states can tack closer to the centre ground. Even in states like Iowa and Arizona, elected Democrats are afraid of breaking from the party line on trans.

There's 13 House Democrats running in districts that Trump won last year. Boys in girls' sports is a golden opportunity for them to have a Sister Souljah moment, but none seem willing to take it. They're all too scared of being monstered by the activists.

I think the main chance for a return to sanity is if one or preferably several aspiring 2028 presidential candidates - Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer - looks at the polling and figures they're on a hiding to nothing supporting the Chase Strangio position.

I think, for voters, the Democrats’ and Labour’s whole political 'vibe' can be summed up in the policies and attitudes of both parties with regards to the rights of women and girls to have single sex spaces and sport, and also with regards to their support for the medical transition of children. These issues are seen by voters as a shorthand for extreme wokeness.

And this wokeness also affects the stance of the parties on other issues in a way that voters don’t like such as illegal immigration, policing, drug policy etc.

So I think the writer of this article has a good point in that publicly supporting women and girls to protect their rights is a way of demonstrating to voters that you see the fundamental division in cultural attitudes and you can be in tune with their thinking in terms of policy on these issues.

But you aren't capturing swing voters by messaging on social liberalism. You're only pandering to your core supporters. You may stop them heading off to support a more extreme party but you aren't going to cement your place in politics that way.

What American voters want is a sound economy and decent job opportunities. That is what will win them votes. Despite how well Trump's "Kamal Harris is for Them/They, Trump is for You" messaging went over, he won because of the economy.

I’ve read media accounts of voters who usually vote Democrat but who abstained or voted for Trump based on the Democratic Party’s embrace of Genderism.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in highlighting economics as being important to many voters. I’m saying that the Democrats are leaving votes on the table by embracing an extreme critical social justice position on a lot of issues both social and economic.

And in recent elections in Europe we’ve seen that political parties can lose elections when enough of their typical supporters refuse to vote because of disaffection.

I agree that Democrats are leaving votes on the table, mine is amoung them. Their push towards extremes and playing to their activist base hurts them badly.

But Carlson’s point is that the Republicans won’t win over many votes by spending time and money on it. And he sees other policies as more fundamental to (his idea of) Republicanism and more fundamental to developing a stable successful country. He sees it as a distraction from what they really should be doing. (I think he’s totally wrong about what will develop a stable successful country but I agree with him that GI is not going to gain them a significant number of votes from the centre).

Perhaps campaigns like Trump’s 'Kamala’s for they/them' ads will be like the straw on a camel’s back for a lot of voters i.e. enough to convince them that the Democrats are OTT on many issues which serves as enough of a push for them to support the Republicans or it will serve as a push to disaffected Democrats to cause them to abstain.

I think it’s an issue that voters are increasingly interested in and concerned about, I think the Republicans should definitely keep the issue alive in their quiver of potential attacks on the Democrats.

Say what now? Are you referring to Tucker Carlson?

I think it's more of a vote-winner in the US than it is in the UK.

Out of curiosity, do you think that likelihood is owing to cultural differences, political differences, or because the US political system is more polarised than the UK these days?

Mostly because 'college sport' is massive in the US in a way that doesn't really have an equivalent here, the 'soccer Moms', etc. Maybe Americans are more likely than Brits to get their news from local State or city newspapers, most of which are pretty conservative. All of that on top of the polarisation you mention.

The college sports angle is something I keep forgetting about. Capitalism runs through so many aspects of US society that are state funded in the UK. Sporting scholarships are a huge deal in the US so I can rightly understand the anger of young women denied these opportunities by males competing in their sports.

I really only ever see nationwide US news media so I’m unaware as to the more conservative leanings of local media, so that’s an interesting point you make.

To be clear, I don't claim to be an expert on the US! I've never been there, and almost certainly never will. But I think the point about college sports is pretty uncontroversial.

The famous soccer moms of Bill Clinton era campaigns. That demographic isn't as fashionable in today's Democratic Party, but they're still around, there are lots of them and they vote. One of the classic swing constituencies.

They're not very keen on Trump personally, for multiple reasons that will be obvious.

On the other hand: they worry about the economy like everyone else; they worry about crime (lots of them are gun owners); they don't like ideological nonsense being taught in schools; they definitely don't want boys in their daughters' locker rooms.

Which is more likely: that the Republicans find a successor to Trump with less glaring character flaws, or that the Democrats find a candidate willing to face down their insane activists?

I think several posters are missing the point here about transgenderism - it is not about a boys winning in girls sports but is about a much bigger picture that does affect all other issues - TRUTH.

The politicians supporting transgenderism are telling the public that they must ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ignore clear basic truths, ignore science, and believe what they are told to believe - or be punished - even though everyone knows it is not true. It is the clearest example of politicians manipulating the public, trying to hide what is actually going on, imposing a harmful doctrine. So when it comes to voting who do they trust? The politician who is trying to get you to believe in absurdities?

According to the Democratic research organization Blueprint, "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was the top reason swing voters didn't choose Harris in 2024 (though high rates of inflation and illegal immigration under Biden were very close behind). I've seen other polls that rate transgender issues more as of middling importance - a lot depends on the wording of the question, and at the end of the day what people say is important to them is only a rough guide to the complex of perceptions and opinions that determine how, or whether, they vote.

All the same, the Republicans have been concentrating their attacks on policies, like that of allowing men in women's sports, that not even many Democratic voters support, let alone swing voters. They're not "pandering to core supporters"; they're picking low-hanging fruit. The time and money spent on this is negligible compared to the time and money spent on trying to curb illegal immigration, and if it were in politicians' power to fix the economy to everyone's satisfaction, every administration would make sure it did. You and Carlson are right of course that the Republicans won't get away with doing nothing else, but they'd be daft to stop.