In the wake of heated political debates and shifting societal attitudes, the question of transgender inclusion in sports and political representation has come to the forefront on both sides of the Atlantic. Over the past week, two major developments—one in the United States and one in the United Kingdom—have reignited discussions about the balance between trans rights, women’s rights, and the strategies political parties use to navigate these sensitive issues.
Kamala Harris, former vice president and a central figure in the Democratic Party, is preparing to release her much-anticipated memoir, 107 Days. According to excerpts obtained by Politico and The Atlantic, Harris candidly addresses her campaign’s handling of transgender issues, especially the controversy surrounding trans athletes. In her book, Harris admits, “I agree with the concerns expressed by parents and players that we have to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays on which teams, especially in contact sports.” She adds, however, that these concerns must be tackled “with goodwill and common sense,” emphasizing, “I believe we can come up with ways to do this, without vilifying and demonizing children.”
This nuanced position stands in stark contrast to the tone of the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, which saw Republicans pour an estimated $215 million into anti-trans television ads. These ads, according to LGBTQ Nation, frequently targeted Harris, often pairing her image with drag queens, trans women, and nonbinary people. One widely aired spot concluded: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The ad campaign was strategically timed, running during football games to reach both male voters and suburban women—audiences seen as pivotal in the election outcome.
Despite the barrage, Democrats largely sidestepped direct engagement with the issue. The Democratic National Convention, for example, included only a single mention of trans issues, delivered by Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, and did not feature a transgender speaker. Harris herself made just a brief reference to the constitutional requirement for medically necessary care for inmates, which she clarified included gender-affirming care.
Following Donald Trump’s victory, the Democratic Party faced internal criticism for what some saw as a failure to confront anti-trans attacks head-on. In the aftermath, party officials openly debated whether their approach to trans rights had cost them the election. Notably, Representatives Tom Suozzi of New York and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts publicly argued that Democrats should not be defending “biological boys… playing in girls’ sports.” California Governor Gavin Newsom, once a strong supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, also shifted his rhetoric on the matter earlier this year.
Harris, for her part, remains steadfast in her support for trans and LGBTQ+ people. She defended her earlier, much-criticized 2019 statement that trans inmates have a legal right to gender-affirming care, writing, “There was no way I was going to go against my very nature and turn on transgender people.” Yet, she also acknowledges in her memoir that more could have been done to counteract Trump’s messaging, describing the anti-trans ads as “a winning message” but not, in her view, a “knockout punch.”
Beyond the campaign, Harris’s reflections offer a glimpse into the complex calculations behind political decisions involving identity. In another excerpt published by The Atlantic on September 23, she discusses her consideration of Pete Buttigieg as a running mate, noting, “But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man… Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.”
Across the ocean, a parallel debate unfolded within the UK’s Liberal Democrats. On September 22, at their annual conference in Bournemouth, party members voted to block a proposed debate on whether trans women should be excluded from diversity quotas reserved for women. The motion, introduced by Dr. Zoe Hollowood of the campaign group Liberal Democrat Voice for Women, sought to update party policy in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that clarified the legal definition of “woman” as biological sex under the Equality Act 2010.
Dr. Hollowood argued that including trans women in quotas for women’s representation was both unlawful and detrimental to efforts to address the underrepresentation of biological women in party roles. Her proposal was dismissed before it could be debated or voted on, following a procedural intervention led by Lucas North, treasurer of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats. North called the motion a “sham” and urged members to reject the premise that “trans identities are up for debate.” According to LGBTQ Nation, North stated, “The motion misrepresents the legal position, runs contrary to our values, and seeks to put us at odds with our longstanding support for LGBT+ people.” North further argued that removing the motion entirely was preferable to voting it down, to avoid “platforming transphobic views” and legitimizing what they described as “bigotry in the name of a small and extremist faction.”
The procedural move to block the debate was supported by a two-to-one majority. In response, Dr. Hollowood accused the party of suppressing free speech and warned that censorship of dissenting views could lead to “violence and tyranny.” She referenced the recent arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, a vocal critic of trans rights, as evidence of what she described as a growing intolerance for opposing views. Hollowood’s group had even commissioned a King’s Counsel to argue that the party’s inclusion of self-identified gender in quotas could constitute unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey reiterated his stance that “a trans woman is a woman,” reaffirming the party’s official support for trans rights. Lisa Smart, the party’s spokeswoman on women and equalities, declined to comment directly on the procedural motion, remarking only, “Party members will do what party members will do.”
The debates in both the U.S. and UK underscore the challenges political parties face in reconciling diverse views on gender identity, fairness, and representation. As Harris’s memoir reveals, even the most seasoned politicians wrestle with the complexities of these issues—balancing personal convictions, party unity, and the unpredictable winds of public opinion. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats’ internal struggle highlights how legal developments and grassroots activism can collide, forcing parties to make tough calls about inclusivity, free speech, and the boundaries of acceptable debate.
As both countries move forward, the conversations sparked by these recent events are likely to shape not only party policies but also the broader cultural landscape for years to come.
