After decades of being a loyal Democrat and voting a straight Democratic ticket in every election — including the most recent one — I have left the Democratic Party.
I’ve been concerned about the direction of the party for a while now, but I was hoping it would correct itself. I was certain it would do so after getting completely hammered in the last election.
But I was wrong. The Democratic Party seems determined to continue its headlong march into the oblivion of identity politics.
The straw that made the camel leave the party came in the form of the Democratic reaction to H.R. 28, Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025.
This bill prohibits recipients of federal funds from including males in athletic programs that are designated for females. It’s intended to ensure the safety of and fairness for women and girls in sports.
President Joe Biden was all in on the matter of transgender rights, declaring it the “civil rights issue of our time.” Indeed, Biden quite remarkably invited Dylan Mulvaney, an adult male who identifies as a woman and sometimes as a prepubescent girl, to the White House to discuss transgender rights.
Polls indicated during the campaign that swing voters were turning away from Kamala Harris and toward Donald Trump as a result of the latter’s ads focused on Harris’ past support for transgender rights and her backing of taxpayer-funded gender-transition surgery for inmates. Harris decided to stay largely silent for the most part though her campaign did note the inmate gender-transition-surgery policy existed when Trump was president.
Although I was puzzled about Harris’ silence, I was encouraged she did not take to the campaign soapbox to express the level of support Biden had. That was a marked contrast.
I was cautiously optimistic that in light of the growing consensus about how “gender-affirming medicine” harms children perhaps we were starting to see the back of this rather peculiar phenomenon. I thought her failure to be explicit about any light between her and Biden on the issue was just not wanting to alienate those who took her boss’ position given it was predicted to be a close election.
But the Dems lost and the transgender issue played a role in that loss. I was then certain the Democrats would see the need to be explicit in reassuring people they were at least backing off the Biden level of support for trans rights and people would not be cast into reactionary hell for not using preferred pronouns.
Boy, was I wrong.
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act offered the Dems an excellent opportunity to take a baby step away from Biden’s support. Who could doubt that it’s unfair and unsafe for women and girls to have to play competitive sports with men and boys?
The answer: The Democrats could. Their reaction to the bill demonstrated they’re as stuck as ever in the thrall of gender ideology, which holds a man can self-identify as a woman based simply on a feeling that requires the rest of us to ignore his biological sex as recognized — not “assigned” — at birth.
Democrat after Democrat got up and attacked H.R. 28 as a blatant attack on trans-identified persons. And it wasn’t just members of the Squad; it was people like Hakeem Jeffries and Jerry Nadler.
The Dems’ main claim: H.R. 28 is a “predator empowerment” act. Keeping boys off girls’ sports teams would require that children and adolescents have predatory genital inspections.
We have had separate teams for boys and for girls for ages, and I do not recall anyone ever claiming that required any predatory inspections to see if those who claimed to be boys are boys and those who claimed to be girls are girls.
But now, keeping boys off girls’ teams is going to require genital inspections and “empower predators”? This is absurd. No one is going to have a problem distinguishing boys from girls, and if there is any issue, school records on sex or birth certificates can be consulted.
When I first saw video clips of Dems’ making these accusations on the House floor, I thought they must have been generated by artificial intelligence because they appeared so real. But they appeared real because they were real.
And these accusations reflected a point the trans community makes often: Anyone who opposes trans ideology has an unhealthy obsession with genitals. In any event, the Democratic position on H.R. 28 is obscenely unfair to women and girls in addition to being unhinged — and required a response. I gave mine.
I have discussed my views on transgender rights at length in academic journals. My bottom line is that of a liberal pluralist. We should not discriminate against trans-identified individuals in matters of housing, education, employment, etc. An employee who is a good employee and deserves a promotion should not be denied that promotion because he believes he is a woman any more than an employee who is Catholic should be denied the promotion because he believes priests engage in transubstantiation and turn bread and wine into the body of Jesus.
Both the Catholic and the trans-identified person can choose to believe as they wish. Both can present themselves in a way that reflects their beliefs. But neither can compel us to accept their metaphysical beliefs.
The Catholic cannot require that we accept transubstantiation, and the trans-identified person cannot require that we accept that sex exists on a spectrum, sex is not binary or sex can be changed. The Catholic cannot cause the ceremony of transubstantiation to be celebrated in my home over my objection, and trans-identified males cannot demand to use woman’s toilets, changing rooms, shower facilities, rape crisis centers, etc. and should not be placed in women’s prisons or play on women’s/girls’ sports teams.
The argument we ought not to discriminate against trans-identified persons but cannot be compelled to act as though we accept as true their metaphysical beliefs reflects the liberal pluralism that is the foundation of Western political thought.
But as far as the Democrats are concerned, anything less than the full and unquestioning acceptance of those beliefs — which is analogous to being forced to accept religious or spiritual beliefs — makes us “transphobic” and “bigots” and opens us to the accusation we “empower predators.”
Author J.K. Rowling said in 2019 that people should live, look and love as they chose, but a woman should not lose her job because she refused to recognize that a man who identifies as a woman is a woman. The attacks on Rowling, and accusations of “transphobia,” have been nonstop and serious. Rowling, who had been a supporter of the UK Labour Party, withdrew her backing because Labour has a position on this issue similar to Democrats’.
This is where “progressive” parties are driving their supporters.
So I am no longer a Democrat. But I am not a Republican either. I sincerely applaud President Trump’s signing of an executive order critical of gender ideology as I do Rep. Nancy Mace’s efforts leading the charge to keep males out of Capitol toilets.
But I am concerned about any response that represents a general rejection of gender nonconformity and is not focused on women’s rights exclusively. I believe men and women should look, live, and love as they choose as long as others are not required to participate. I don’t want to see gay marriage undone.
But I don’t want males — however they identify — in women’s private/intimate spaces. I don’t want people to be compelled to use “preferred pronouns” or otherwise forced to speak as though they agree with trans ideology. And I think “gender-affirming treatment” for children should be prohibited.
The Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, and choice is, in my view, essential to women’s rights. I clerked for the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor back in 1982-83, the term she, a Republican appointed by Ronald Reagan, formulated her approach to abortion regulation in a concurrence and dissent the court eventually adopted in 1992. O’Connor’s approach allowed states to regulate abortion as long as they did not impose an “undue burden” on choice. That test provided a workable framework for dealing with abortion. That’s all gone now. Choice is no longer a woman’s constitutional right.
I am not sure where I fit. But I certainly do not think I am alone.
Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor emeritus at Rutgers University Law School. His latest book is “Why Veganism Matters: The Moral Value of Animals.”
