Pete Buttigieg acknowledges 'fairness issues' with trans athletes in women's sports
During an interview with NPR, Buttigieg acknowledged "fairness issues" in the debate.
"Around sports, … I think most reasonable people would recognize that there are serious fairness issues if you just treat this as not mattering when a trans athlete wants to compete in women's sports," Buttigieg said.
The Democrat then agreed that parents who have complained about trans athletes competing against their daughters "have a case." However, Buttigieg also argued that politicians shouldn't be dictating policy to determine whether males can compete in women's and girls sports.
"And that's why I think these decisions should be in the hands of sports leagues and school boards and not politicians … in Washington trying to use this as a political pawn," Buttigieg said.
"Chess is different from weightlifting, and weightlifting is different from volleyball and middle school is different from the Olympics. So, that's exactly why I think that we shouldn't be grandstanding on this as politicians. We should be empowering communities and organizations and schools to make the right decisions."
Democrats, including former President Joe Biden, have advocated for policy changes that would allow trans athletes to compete in women's and girls sports. Biden passed an executive order on his first day in office in January 2021 that said "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."
Democrats in Congress also tried to pass the Transgender Bill of Rights and the Equality Act, both of which would have allowed trans athletes to compete in girls and women's sports.
President Donald Trump signed the "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" executive order Feb. 5, and 27 states have passed their own laws to ensure similar restrictions.
Buttigieg joins several other prominent Democrats and media pundits who have spoken out against allowing males to compete with females, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom; Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass.; and HBO host Bill Maher.
An April report by The New York Times claims that Biden did not agree with trans athletes participating in women's and girls sports.
"According to a number of former Biden-administration officials, there remained a simmering debate inside the administration about whether those Title IX protections should extend to sports," the Times reported,. "One side …maintained that there was no legal difference between letting trans students use bathrooms that align with their gender identity and letting trans student athletes play on sports teams that align with their gender identity."
However, Biden was "on the other side … who believed that the competitive, zero-sum nature of sports made them different from bathrooms — that some transgender athletes would enjoy unfair physical advantages over women. Most important, one of the officials holding this view was Biden himself."
A 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.
Other data suggests the issue affected the outcome of the 2024 election.
A national exit poll conducted by the Concerned Women for America (CWA) legislative action committee found that 70% of moderate voters saw the issue of "Donald Trump's opposition to transgender boys and men playing girls' and women's sports and of transgender boys and men using girls' and women's bathrooms" as important to them.
And 6% said it was the most important issue of all, while 44% said it was "very important."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis. 'We're going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' when Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election. 'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we're going to engage in this,' he continued. Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year. Stirewalt asked Martin about questions arising from the party's 2024 postmortem, specifically about the decision to heed former President Biden's request to shift the primary calendar to favor South Carolina and Michigan — states in which Biden was expected to perform well. Stirewalt noted the primary calendar changes 'probably insulated the incumbent president to an unhelpful degree,' pointing to the fact that Biden waited until July to end his campaign. But Martin, who was elected chair in February, said he is committed to making the process fair and said any state that wants an early primary date should be permitted to bid for one and be considered. 'The process of having states come in to bid for this has to be fair and open,' he said. 'Any state that wants to be part of the early states window will be considered by the DNC.' Martin also said he anticipates a crowded primary field in 2028 and said he wants to make sure the process for setting the calendar is guided by three principles: 'One, it has to be rigorous. Two, it has to be efficient. Three, it has to be fair.' 'It has to be rigorous, in the sense that it battle tests our nominee and prepares them for the general election,' he said, expanding on the first principle. Martin said it has to be 'efficient' in a way that 'we don't bankrupt our candidates in the early part of this process,' adding, 'We want them to have resources for the general election because the only prize that matters is November.' 'And the third thing is that it has to be fair,' he added. 'It has to allow all of our candidates, which God knows how many candidates we're going to have, to actually compete in those early states.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
CBS News
24 minutes ago
- CBS News
David Jolly, leading Democratic candidate for 2026 governor, shares views on abortion and Alligator Alcatraz
Jim devotes the entire half-hour to a sit-down with David Jolly, the leading Democratic candidate for governor in 2026. Jolly is facing his strongest criticism, not from Republicans, but from his fellow Democrats, especially on the issue of abortion. That's because 10 years ago, when he was in Congress, Jolly was a Republican who made it clear he believed life began at conception. Now, as a Democrat, Jolly says his views on abortion have evolved, and he now supports a woman's right to have one. Jim and Jolly also discuss the controversial Alligator Alcatraz detention center, the affordability crisis, and other issues he would have to address as governor. Guest: David Jolly/(D) Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Jolly, who as a Republican represented Florida's 13th District from 2014 to 2017, is officially running for Florida governor as a Democrat. Jolly, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, joins a growing and diverse field in the 2026 race, which includes Republican Congressman Byron Donalds and former Democrat-turned-Independent Jason Pizzo. In an interview with CBS News Miami's Joan Murray, Jolly explained his decision to run under the Democratic banner, despite the significant voter registration gap favoring Republicans.
