Why the Democratic Party Struggles with Internal Divisions on Gender Issues

The Ongoing Struggle Within the Democratic Party

Editor’s note: This analysis first appeared in City Journal.

In a striking move, California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom recently described the participation of transgender-identified male athletes in women’s sports as “deeply unfair.” This remark, made during a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, caught many off guard and highlighted the complexities within the current Democratic dialogue regarding gender issues.

However, this statement reflects a deeper trend within the Democratic Party. Leaders are beginning to express public skepticism about gender ideology while still finding themselves unable to take substantial action against it.

The Balancing Act of Modern Politics

This discrepancy between rhetoric and action in the Democratic Party is not merely a matter of political expedience; it illustrates a structural issue. The party is caught in a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it acknowledges the unpopularity of its more radical activists, while on the other, it remains dependent on those very activists for funding, organizing efforts, and electoral mobilization. Until Democrats are able to distance themselves from their extreme elements, Republicans will continue to utilize gender issues as a means to critique Democrats as incapable of effective governance.

The Public Opinion Divide

It is important to recognize that the Democratic base does not universally subscribe to the liberal stance on transgender matters. A January poll from the New York Times indicated that over two-thirds of Democrats—and an impressive 79 percent of the general American public—oppose allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. This presents a clear political risk for Democratic leaders who either ignore or contradict this widespread sentiment.

Despite this risk, when Republicans called for a Senate vote to ban biological males from competing in female athletics, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Even figures like Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, known for his blue-collar appeal, did not diverge from party lines. He maintains his support for trans athletes, framing the issue as one that unfairly places these individuals in a “political maelstrom.”

Rhetoric Versus Action

Similar sentiments were echoed by Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin during her appearance on “Meet the Press,” where she suggested that decisions related to such matters should reside with local communities. Both Fetterman and Slotkin aimed for rhetorical balance while adhering strictly to party votes, adopting language suggesting that parents should dictate medical interventions, and communities should guide decisions in sports.

The apparent refusal to shift positions reveals the underlying dynamics of power within the Democratic Party. While elected officials must secure voter support every few years, they continuously depend on the activist class for party organization, funding, and primary elections. These progressive organizations exert considerable influence over policymaking and maintain a zero-tolerance approach to compromise on gender ideology. As a result, Democratic leaders find themselves incentivized to ignore majority opinions in favor of maintaining ideological purity.

The Impact on Voter Relationships

Analysts Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argue in their book titled “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” that the Democratic Party’s reliance on highly educated, activist-oriented elites has alienated working-class and nonwhite voters. However, for these activists, adopting extreme positions is part of their strategy to generate funds, galvanize supporters, and strengthen their influence over the party’s policy framework.

Why, then, do Democratic politicians yield to this pressure? As Frances Lee documents in her book “Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign,” the hyper-competitive nature of contemporary elections keeps both parties in perpetual campaign mode, amplifying the sway of activist factions. With control of Congress frequently up for grabs, parties often prioritize immediate mobilization over long-term coalition-building. This has led to an increasing debt to the most ideological supporters within both parties.

Voter Priorities Versus Activist Influence

While Democratic voters largely oppose allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports, most do not regard this as a top priority. Many individuals may hold differing views from the activists on this issue; yet, they do not penalize the party in elections when it aligns with those extreme viewpoints. This creates a scenario where a relatively unmotivated public yields to a highly energized single-issue lobby.

Even if concern for women’s sports does not rank as a top national issue, the unwavering alignment among Democrats on gender-related matters highlights a more profound problem: the party appears unable to detach from its activist fringe. Governor Newsom’s case exemplifies this notion, where his articulations of fairness starkly contrast his legislative actions.

Legislative Inconsistencies

In 2020, Newsom enacted California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, which permits male inmates identifying as female to be housed in women’s prisons. Additionally, California supports policies that allow biological males to compete in female athletics and vigorously continues its battles against federal directives on this matter, despite Newsom’s public discourse advocating for fairness.

Furthermore, during his podcast conversation, Newsom stated that nobody in his office utilized the term