Letters we answer: Pelosi, Newsom, trans athletes …

Speak out, loudly

Re: Where was Nancy Pelosi: I agree with you—and I don’t agree with James Carville’s response last night on MSNBC that we Dems should just sit back and watch Trump’s cabinet and other minions tear one another apart, i.e., enjoy it as what he called “political porn.” THAT’S NOT ENOUGH—WE NEED TO HECKLE, VISUALLY OPPOSE ON A DAILY BASIS. That also means not just relying on your current favorite friendly organizer but going out, ON YOUR OWN OR NOT, DAILY, to public demonstrations at other places, talking to new people, making up new signs, gesturing and speaking boldly.

Robin A Larsen

Newsom could never be trusted

Why do you say “we can never trust Newsom again?” Why did you ever trust him in the first place ? He is the worst of the neoliberal opportunists; he’ll come out with a progressive stance when it costs him absolutely nothing. But when it really counts, e.g. the current issue of trans rights, or affordable, locally sourced clean power, it’s under the bus you go.  His political ambitions are strongly tied to funding by big investor-owned corporate utilities (e.g. PG&E). He continually thwarts any effort at clean, local, affordable power generation. Even when a related measure makes so much sense that it makes it out of PG&E controlled committees and is passed by the Assembly and Senate, he’s there to veto it.

Karl Young

Newsom and trans women athletes

Re: “Dear Gavin, you are all wrong about trans women athletes:” No, he’s not wrong—he’s correct. There was a problem with an Olympic boxer in the last Olympics—the trans woman injured the actual woman. It is injurious when there is a contact sport and no trans women should be allowed to injure women, period.

The other issue is whether it’s an unfair advantage. I think so. Men may be stronger than women. 

So by allowing trans women their civil rights, this is cancelling the rights of women to fairly compete. When a person’s civil right injures others, it should not be allowed.  I think the only fair solution is to allow transwomen to compete against other transwomen, since that means competing against the same original sex body.

Robin K

Tim Redmond responds: This argument is factually inaccurate and part of the problem with the right-wing politics around trans women in sports. Algerian boxer and Olympic Gold Medal winner Imane Khelif is not a transwoman; she was born female and has identified female her entire life. Let’s be real: Boxing is a dangerous contact sport, and people of all genders who participate often get injured. It’s also not unusual in the Olympics, where both amateurs and professionals can compete, for some matches to be one-sided. In the case that sparked all the controversy, and spurred J.D. Vance to complain about a “man beating a woman,” an Italian amateur, Angela Carini, was facing the very experienced professional Khelif. After taking a hard punch early in the fight, she decided not to continue; again, if you follow boxing, it’s not unusual for boxing matches to end early with what is known as a TKO.

According to the Associated Press, Khelif “was decidedly not known as a dominant champion, an overpowering force or even a particularly hard puncher at her weight.” Watch her in the final against China’s Yang Liu; Khelif won, but Liu put up a great fight.

Also: It’s (sadly) very common for the likes of Vance and others to denigrate talented women athletes (particularly women of color) who don’t fit the stereotypical “feminine” profile.

Meanwhile, there are very, very few trans women who compete at the college or Olympic level, so it would be impossible to have a trans women only division. Trans women are women.

Are taxes too high in SF?

Re: Maybe San Francisco needs a luxury tax: NO, San Francisco does not need another tax. The problem is wasteful spending, not insufficient taxes. San Francisco is already high tax.
John Navas

Tim Redmond responds: As the president of the group Patriotic Millionaires points out, the problem with San Francisco taxes, as with the national tax code, is not just how much tax we levy, but who and what gets taxed. In San Francisco, I would argue, small businesses and low-income individuals pay too much tax, since we rely on regressive sales taxes and often unfair business taxes. Big corporations and the very wealthy pay far too little in taxes. Real tax reform, which would require state legislation, would allow the city to cut taxes on those who pay too much, and raise taxes on those who pay too little. A luxury tax would be a step in that direction.

Pick a side, David Chiu

Regarding the city’s latest win at Trump’s SCOTUS:

City Attorney David Chiu needs to pick a side. On February 28, he was on the front page of the Examiner for “leading the city’s fight against Trump.” Less than a week later, Chiu was “very pleased” that Trump’s Supreme Court sided with his case that will allow municipalities to dump more pollutants into waterways. This was Chiu’s second win under Trump’s SCOTUS in less than a year.

So which is it, Mr. City Attorney? Are you fighting Trump or are you fighting the people of San Francisco?

Allyson Eddy Bravmann