67
Gavin Newsom vetoes California gender education bill, hasn't signed other trans protections
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
67 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
11449 readers
95 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm well aware of the lesser-of-two-evils / voting-as-harm-reduction argument. I even accept it in some cases (eg, I'd be willing to vote for Pritzker, even though he's a billionaire nepo baby who used inherited wealth to buy his way into politics)
I'm not willing to extend it to Newsom. he is not "harm reduction". he is promoting harm against trans people.
Newsom said in an interview that he thought trans people should maybe be forced to wait until 25 years old before they're allowed to medically transition
that's rooted in bullshit science about "your brain keeps developing until you're 25"
but Newsom agrees with the Oklahoma Republican Party on that subject
here is the record of the bill Newsom just vetoed. it passed the state assembly with 78% of the vote, and the state senate with 75% of the vote.
he's supposedly a Democrat...and yet he's in opposition to something that other Democrats in California overwhelmingly supported. and meanwhile he's in agreement with the fucking Oklahoma Republican Party?
to quote Black Panther - is this your king? is this your "harm reduction"?
also, separate from my personal dislike of him, if Newsom is the nominee in 2028 he will lose. I don't like making political predictions but I feel pretty confident in that one. so even if you believe that political principles are for suckers and the only thing that matters is having a warm body in the office with a (D) next to their name...you should still oppose Newsom.
When the alternative is literal fascism, then yes, he would be harm reduction.
I do oppose Newsom. In a primary.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
I've somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don't think that's still wrong, per se; and I'd fully expect someone who'd outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
These are the states RCV's been outlawed:
Honestly, that last part is most relevant imo. No Republican is going to vote for a Democrat California governor. Doesn't matter if he's pulling the levers they want him to.