Paxton: Why Are Dems So Determined to Force Women to Compete Against Males?

“This is an agenda I don’t understand,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tells Sandra Smith this morning. It’s that lack of understanding that is itself difficult to understand. The source of this radical push to obliterate sexual identity has a clear pedigree and a clear purpose. And the reluctance of even the more pugilistic Republicans to directly address the agenda driving it remains even more inexplicable, given the political momentum against it.

Smith asked Paxton, who just launched a primary challenge to Senator John Cornyn in Texas, about the efforts in blue states to resist the Trump administration’s moves to protect females in competitive sports. Maine’s AG recently defied Donald Trump and pledged to go to court to protect Maine’s federal funding, and other Democrat-run jurisdictions have made similar threats. They wish to go to the mattresses to prevent defunding while allowing males to occupy female spaces, both literal and in competitions, even while female athletes become more outspoken in defending their right to fair competition and safe spaces. 

Perhaps Paxton was just being rhetorically vague about the agenda behind this, but the time has passed for pussyfooting around it:

SMITH: What is in it for them, keeping biological males in women’s sports?

PAXTON: Wrll, it’s really hard for me to — this is an agenda I don’t understand. I don’t know why any parent, any grandparent would want their daughter, their granddaughter to have to compete against men. It’s completely unfair, and there are clearly laws, federal laws that say it’s wrong, and clearly most people as your poll suggests don’t think this is a very good idea.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m happy that Paxton is addressing this at all, but at this point, it’s not exactly a Profile in Courage to do so, either. Fox’s poll is hardly the first to show how unpopular male intrusions in female spaces have become, after all. The Harvard-Harris CAPS poll put that at 69/31 in February, and at 65/35 in their poll for April. That gets the fourth-strongest support for Trump policies in the poll, although all but the Gulf of America policy get 50% support or more. This latest poll also shows that 59% of Americans support biological sex as the basis for official government policies as well. That policy also got 63/37 support in a Marquette poll from February, as well as polling from Monmouth, YouGov, and other pollsters. 

With that kind of consensus, it’s time to take off the gloves and put the agenda and its ideology under full public scrutiny. Transgender activism is a main ideological product of Queer Theory, a vehicle for Marxist rejection of reality in favor of the New Paradigm Of The Moment. James Lindsay has spoken at length about this corrosive movement. In August 2022, Lindsay offered a relatively brief podcast explaining “Queer Marxism,” and why it separates LGB from the (T) and (Q) that its proponents have grafted onto it.

Listen to the whole podcast, and especially to the true aim of Queer Theory — to break down stability and foster the revolution through the cultural chaos that results:

Simply put, Queer Theory is Queer Marxism, which is a Marxist Theory about a form of sociocultural “property” called “normalcy,” “normality,” or “normativity,” that it believes to have been unjustly created and in need of destruction and total abolition. As such, it’s incredibly dangerous and destructive, particularly on the formative and impressionable psychologies of children, whom it targets in particular, often directly through our schools and children’s entertainment programming. On this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay breaks down what Queer Theory is, partly in its own foundational words, and illustrates succinctly why it is a form of Queer Marxism that must be stopped.

The Democrats rallying to force women to compete against biological males are part of a movement to destroy objective reality while using the language of liberation. One can question just how intentional this may be with individual Democrat politicians, who might be just bandwagoners or benighted fools. Gavin Newsom may be the poster child for both, now looking at the polls and offering critiques of this Queer Theory issue while doing literally nothing to oppose or reverse it in the state he governs.

However, in the end, the level of intent is not particularly important, politically or culturally. What matters is that Democrats are rejecting the broad consensus of Americans on Queer Theory and transgender policies and instead siding with the chaos agents of the Marxist revolutionary front. It is, as Lindsay explains, an attack on private property of the most private possible: the identities coded into our very DNA that make us who we are in objective reality.

We need to stop claiming not to understand this agenda. This agenda has a clear purpose, with a clear outcome in mind: the radical transformation of the United States via a Marxist revolution by any and all means necessary. Queer Theory isn’t the only means by which the radical Left will attempt to accomplish that; at the moment, some are engaging in domestic terrorism against those who oppose their agenda, while others get Che Fever over the domestic terrorists and gutless assassins working for The Revolution. But Queer Theory has been driving public policy for a decade or more, putting girls and women at risk of getting erased for the same ambition. 

My friend Adam Baldwin and I discussed this often during the two years of our VIP podcast The Amiable Skeptics. For just one example, here’s an episode from November 2023 that delved deeply into the issue, thanks to the eruption of the “Queers for Palestine” demonstrations after the October 7 massacres one month earlier. This episode starts on that topic but moves into a full-blown discussion of the dangers of Queer Theory and its end goals:

As for Paxton, let’s hope he’s better prepared to discuss the real dangers of Queer Theory and the Democrats’ total buy-in on it. I do wonder why Paxton wants to challenge Cornyn for a Senate seat when he can do more to battle this as state Attorney General here in Texas, or perhaps run for governor instead. Otherwise, I’m happy to let Paxton and Cornyn debate the issues and offer Texas Republicans a choice for the 2026 midterms.