An Open Letter To Pete Buttigieg

Dear Mr. Buttigieg, I'm writing to you about your comments on Steve Inskeep's NPR Morning Edition regarding the transgender sports debate. I am a trans woman, a lifelong active Democrat, and an advocate for the LGBTQIA+ community. I was raised with the ideals of civic responsibility and engaging in the great experiment that is the United States. I've followed your career for some time now. I have found you to be a person of honesty and integrity. As such, I have no joy in writing to you today.

Mr. Inskeep asked you about transgender support by the party. You spoke first about compassion for trans people, and as a trans woman, I agree wholeheartedly. Then you spoke about holding empathy for those who may be unsure how to handle the situation; again, I agree that empathy is needed. When you pivoted to "all reasonable people would recognize there are serious fairness issues if you treat this as not mattering." I felt my blood run cold as you brought up trans participation in sports. You pivoted to saying, in effect, that the government should play no role in adjudicating trans athletes' participation.

I disagree with some of your answers to the question. Please hear me out.

Certainly, I would love for government officials and pundits to leave trans people alone. I advocate for fairness in sport as a former athlete. I also had the pleasure of speaking with Senator Warner's team to help him understand how to prep for anti-trans sports bills in the Senate earlier this year. I would personally love it if trans people were not one of the most targeted groups over the last several years, and a group who has seen our limited progress all but vanish. I feel sure that you do empathize and hold compassion for this situation.

My disagreement stems from your phrasing that implies trans women (not trans men) competing against cis women is inherently unfair. You did offer a few quick comparisons to make your point. I know you aimed for reason, nuance, and middle ground. However, what you accomplished isn't a reasonable middle ground. It was feeding anti-trans talking points to Democrats despite a decade of trans competition with no problems. That is, until a collegiate swimmer won a Division 1 championship race with a time that wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics.

One win was too many it seems.

You've engaged in one of the most successful right-wing wedge issues to date. You took the bait. The reality is that not fielding an answer to this question would have done less damage than your reasoned answer did. I recognize you speak with nuance and consideration. However, that did not make it onto the table within the 89 seconds that this issue was discussed. There are vanishingly few trans athletes, but there are 10 times more laws on the books than trans athletes in total at every level of sport, from Little League to Olympic competition. A more affirmative statement would have worked. Or perhaps even using this to illustrate we’ve lost the plot when we don’t talk about the fascist regime in tones that are direct. Instead, you highlighted Maga’s favorite talking point.

The issue is not a question of fairness. When trans athletes make up .00002% of athletes, how can it be? Do we need to study more trans athletes? Absolutely! Does this focus move the needle on fairness in sport? No! Mr. Buttigieg, more cis athletes are cheating at sports in a single hour of the day than there are trans athletes in total. Ask women athletes if they get fair coverage and pay, and then ask them if they feel safe with the men who work for their organizations. If you did, maybe then we would tackle fairness in sport for real.

These comments and interviews on the topic of trans athletes have always been an exercise in amplifying fearmongering. Your comments only inflamed that fear, no matter your intention. I feel certain you were aware the question was coming, that your team vetted it. You had the opportunity to say that you would not discuss this item before the cameras were rolling.

I still wonder what you were hoping to achieve. What comes next? Because Maga uses this argument to move people in to supporting bathroom bans, then health care bans, then identification bans, and then to indecency laws they plan to use to arrest trans people for drawing breath. This is the entry point of the wedge issue they socially engineered.

Tuesday, July 29th, trans voices made it clear how we felt about this interview. Our reward for not being silent, for exercising our role in this great democracy, for calling you in … was being dogpiled relentlessly. In my years as an out trans person, even MAGA has not managed to be as relentlessly insulting and degrading as my fellow Democrats for daring to offer a critique of your words. Let there be no doubt that harm has been done, a review of any trans person’s post replies will point to some truly vile comments from the Democrat base.

Is this conversation that trans people want to have with you a call for cancellation as many on the left have asserted? In unequivocal terms, no it is not. Not for me at least, and I think more than a few trans people. It’s an ask to think through how this was handled, and ask yourself if this was the outcome you aimed for.

I'm a bit older than you, but I know you are aware of the phrase Silence = Death. It still applies.

My hope is that you will consider these words and address the Trans community's concerns.

Erica Vogel