The Gay Week 1: Gavin Newsom, Trans Rights, and LGBTQ Politics

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/10

Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and music. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.

In this inaugural Gay Week discussion with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Bouley reflects on Gavin Newsom’s controversial podcast comments on transgender athletes, arguing for nuanced, case-by-case debate rather than blanket bans or labelling allies as transphobes. He critiques GOP “obsessions” with LGBTQ issues, challenges proposed rollbacks under Project 2025, and highlights threats from Florida laws, cuts to HIV/PrEP funding, and federal executive orders undermining transgender rights.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Because trans issues are all over the news—RFK Jr. even mentioned it yesterday—we can certainly talk about this. Welcome to the inaugural session of this Gay Week with Carole Bouley. We will discuss Gavin Newsom today and may also touch on other topics. This is intended to be a weekly Spitfire chat for the Commem Project; hopefully, they will accept it, and we can make it a regular occurrence. We are starting with fire and brimstone. Gavin Newsom is a well-known political figure in the United States. I am speaking from a Canadian perspective, as you know my roots are Canadian.

Karel Bouley: My mother’s maiden name is Tremblay, and my father’s last name is Bouley. I currently have an application in Canada because my grandfather, Joseph Camille Tremblay, was born in Quebec. There may be a way that under Canadian law, I can apply for citizenship through my grandparents, so I am seeking Canadian citizenship based on my grandparents’ Canadian heritage, as both my paternal and maternal grandparents were Canadian. So we’ll see if I get it.

From my grandparents’ generation backwards, the great-great’s they were born in Canada. Five generations back, the family came from France, with ancestors settling in Quebec (the St. Lawrence River area) and then moving down into Massachusetts and Vermont. My lineage is Canadian, specifically French Canadian, on both sides.

Back to Gavin. Full disclosure: I know Gavin Newsom. We’ve met many timse or been on air together a few as well. I’ve also emceed a campaign event for him. 

I first met Gavin over 20 years ago when we clashed on air. In February 2004, as mayor of San Francisco, he directed the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Roughly 4,000 licenses were issued before the California Supreme Court ordered a halt in March; in August 2004, the court voided those licenses. I told him on air at the time, “It’s all well and good that you wanted to prove a point, but you harmed us,” because eleven states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. We disagreed for a few years on air until he finally asked me one day at an event, “When would it have been a good time to stand up for equality, Karel?” I had to admit he won that argument.

Well, lately, when LGBTQ organizations and commentators have discussed him as a potential presidential contender, there’s also been frustration from queer and especially trans communities. Including several posts on social media this week that got a lot of attention.

JACOBSON:: One flashpoint: his new podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” launched March 6, 2025, with conservative activist Charlie Kirk as the first guest. In that episode, Newsom agreed with Kirk that allowing transgender girls and women to compete in girls’ and women’s sports is “deeply unfair,” a stance that drew sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and many Democrats. GLAAD also faulted the podcast’s early lineup for featuring multiple anti-trans voices without including any trans guests.

Bouley: When I saw this on social media I decided to make it a topic on The Karel Cast. My opinion was look, I happened to agree with him on one of the topics…and when I said that online and in my show I was immediately labeled a transphobe by my own community—a community I’ve spent 40 to 45 years championing. I’m literally on the wall at Harvey Milk Plaza for my contributions, and I’ve suffered discrimination myself, greatly and still do. Yet suddenly I’m being called a transphobe.” The topic of the show that day was: Does it have to be all or nothing? Because I wanted to talk about counting people out because you disagree with one statement or one policy, even though I, myself, find myself guilty of that in some cases.

But when can we have a debate about this? My niece changed my views on trans issues. I used to be the kind of person who said, “You can have whatever surgery you want, but ultimately underneath you’re an XX or XY chromosome, and that’s your biological determination.” I was wrong—dead wrong. First of all, there are variations like XXY or XYY. Second, I realized it’s not up to me to determine what makes a man or a woman. That is not my call. As she pointed out and I fully agreed. Viewpoint changed.

We have radical transphobes like J.K. Rowling saying, “No matter what you do, you’ll never be a woman.” I even have a friends in the gay community that have said to me the same thing—that trans women aren’t “real women.” Now, that is transphobia. However, when it comes to the specific discussion—trans people in sports—it becomes more complex.

First, we’re talking about a small portion of trans people, who themselves are less than 1% to 2% of the population in professional sports. It’s a fraction of a fraction that participates in competitive sports. Now, there are 396k people that identify as trans under the age of 24 in the United States, so while estimates put the number of trans athletes at under a thousand nationally professionally, any blanket ban could bar any of 396k from playing. So Gavin’s stance, at least as it came across in the podcasat—was that male-to-female transgender people should not compete in female sports. Now, I’m not going to speak for Gavin. I didn’t hear the full quote he made with Charlie Kirk, I’d have to go back and listen, but the gist was: if you were born male and then transition to female, you shouldn’t be in female sports. At least that’s what I get from all the comments online. That’s a raging debate right now. Even Trump has jumped into it.

Now I shared  on The Karel Cast partial agreement. Personally, I believe there should be no blanket bans. Take Texas: after 16 tries its legislature is sending a bill to the governor that would ban trans people from using public bathrooms altogether. At all. So, I guess they’re supposed to pee in the bushes? And if you’re caught, they want to fine you $25,000. That’s not only absurd, but I believe it’s unconstitutional. And it is transphobia. So again, it’s nuance. To me, the athlete debate is a different matter.

I saw Martina Navratilova, an out lesbian, on a morning show in Europe saying she would not want to compete in tennis against women who had transitioned from male to female, because of the apparent advantage. She was talking about people who transitioned after puberty—meaning that if you were male, your arms and legs grew longer, and you became taller—so there is an advantage there. Pre-puberty, it’s a different situation…

Transitioning before puberty is entirely different. Because of these nuances, I don’t believe there should be a blanket rule. It should be decided athlete by athlete and sport by sport. For instance, female-to-male transitions: let’s say you’re a five-foot-five female who becomes a man. Why shouldn’t you compete in gymnastics? You’re not going to be any bigger than the other men—you’ll be the same size, the same weight, the same everything. So there’s no unfair advantage there.

In other sports, such as boxing or wrestling, however, if you are female but transitioned from male post puberty, you may have an unfair advantage. South Park actually parodied this a couple of seasons ago, and it was hysterical and I’m sure quite offensive to many as they often are. . That’s why I say it should be case by case. But this morning, I read on LGBTQ Nation about a country that created strict rules, and now they’re even excluding cisgender, heterosexual females from some sports simply because they’re “too big.” That illustrates how complex blanket policies can become.

I think individual sports should make these decisions, and there’s definitely room for dialogue. Shutting Gavin or anyone down and labelling them a transphobe is dangerous. He may have opinions that upset parts of the trans community, but he’s certainly not against transgender people, at least I have never heard him say he doesn’t like the “t” in “lgbbtq.” 

Another thing that was being said that Gavin said was that he believes people shouldn’t transition until they’re 18 or even 25.  I talked this through with some friends, and one of them said something powerful: “Why are you, or Gavin, or anyone even having that conversation?”

I asked what they meant. They said, “You believe in a woman’s right to choose, correct?” I said, of course. They continued: “And if that woman happens to be 13 or 14 years old—a victim of incest or rape, or pregnant at 13—you still support her right to choose?” I said, Yes, of course. They replied, “Then it’s the same thing with trans kids. If a trans child wants to transition pre-puberty, and their doctors support it, their psychologists support it, and their parents support it, why are you even in that conversation?”

That hit me hard. You can have an opinion, Scott. I can have an opinion. People can’t get tattooed until they’re 18—so there is law based on opinions about when people should do certain things. But ultimately, in matters this personal, it’s not up to us, and it shouldn’t be up to the government or the law.

Again, shutting anyone that has been an ally down as a transphobe is dangerous. But I think we all could  use some education about the trans experience, to hear their stories, so we can better understand. We have clear medical evidence that outcomes are better when trans youth transition pre-puberty rather than after. I may not fully understand that, and from my perspective, waiting until 18 doesn’t seem like a problem—after all, you have to wait until 18 for a tattoo like I said—but that’s not my call to make. Why?

I’m not trans, I don’t have a trans family member, and I’m not a doctor. Therefore, I don’t get an opinion on whether or when someone should transition. Neither do you, nor anyone else outside of that process—and indeed not the government. There should be discussions. Trans people themselves should engage people like Gavin, or even myself, educate everyone about transitioning, on if there’s a compromise that all are happy with on sports. 

Again, I don’t believe there should be a blanket ban on trans athletes. I know where I stand: it should be case by case. I hope that doesn’t make me transphobic. If Gavin advocates a complete ban as social media said he did this week, then that is something I hope he does more research on, more networking, meeting more trans athletes and having discussions. And I myself am reading and seeking out more information to see if my case-by-case option may be a wrong idea. And if I find it is, then I’ll change it. That’s what we need to do. If someone is an ally but has a misguided opinion, we need to engage them, educate them, give them a chance to be heard and even change if needed. 

Meanwhile, the political right, especially MAGA Republicans, is obsessed with trans people. They brought it up even in the RFK Jr. hearings about health care and vaccines this week—topics that had nothing to do with trans issues. JD Vance weighed in, too, dragging trans people into the discussion.

Their obsession is bizarre. And honestly, I think it’s sexual. They’re repressing desires. Grindr crashes every time there’s a Republican convention. That’s not an accident. Take an example from just a couple of months ago: Laverne Cox—the trans actress and influencer who rose to prominence on Orange Is The New Black—faced backlash when it came out that she had been dating a MAGA-supporting, New York police officer for three years. Her trans followers couldn’t believe she was “sleeping with the enemy,” someone aligned with people pushing anti-trans policies every day. She was “cancelled” by many in her own community.

I wouldn’t date someone from MAGA. I certainly wouldn’t date someone transphobic. But she did, and she got in trouble for it. And that shows you something: if MAGA people are so dead-set against trans folks, why is a MAGA cop dating one of the most famous trans women in the world? It proves they’re obsessed with trans people.

It’s everywhere. I’m looking at a dozen LGBTQ headlines right now, all focused on trans people and trans rights. They’ve become the new punching bag, maybe because they’re a small portion of the population. I’m here to defend them, and others are too.

But that being said, Google was in the news today for something disturbing: parents of trans kids  searching for resources to support their children were being directed to conversion therapy sites. Conversion therapy is torture. It doesn’t work, and it harms people. Yet people are finding that Google search results are still offering links to it. That’s not what families want; that’s not what they’re asking for. And that’s where we are today.

Google is serving that up to them. 

Jacobsen: Some people I know in different areas will use a VPN and set it to another, more evidence-based country, and then the Google search results adjust accordingly. That’s one more thing.

Bouley: And this week, you had Rand Paul saying about a CDC staff member who was fired that it was “good,” because—this is his quote—“his lifestyle made him unfit to be in government.” The staffer was gay. The only person in that conversation unfit to be in government is Rand Paul. The notion that a caricature of a politician would denounce someone solely for being gay, someone working in public health, takes us back to the 1980s. And that’s the same era they’re dragging us toward by cutting HIV funding.

This week, they announced more cuts to HIV programs, both worldwide and here in the United States. There are even rumours they’re preparing to cut coverage for PrEP therapy. We know PrEP has dramatically reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS. I’ll be honest: I don’t personally take PrEP, and I disagree with it for myself, but I’m glad it exists. My late husband was HIV positive. I never contracted HIV. Safe sex works. But if you want to take a drug that may have side effects, go ahead.

Especially in underdeveloped nations, PrEP is a significant resource, and I fully support its availability there. In the U.S., wear a condom—that’s my view. Ultimately, it’s a matter of freedom of choice. If you want to take PrEP, take it. And yes, it should be covered, because if someone contracts HIV, it costs the healthcare system far more than preventive medication. Covering PrEP is cost-effective and humane. Trump and his allies want to cut it.

That’s in the news this week, too: they’re talking about cutting funding for PrEP under the Affordable Care Act. It was covered under Obamacare, reaffirmed under Biden when it was challenged in court, and the courts ruled it must be covered. Now conservatives are trying to find a way around that, to strip it away. This is part of Project 2025—rolling back rights in every way possible.

We also know that when the Supreme Court reconvenes, there’s a case pending that could challenge same-sex marriage. It stems from Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses even after being ordered to. She’s pushing her case all the way to the Supreme Court. If they rule in her favour, it could effectively undo Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. There’s even talk in some circles of revisiting Loving v. Virginia, which would mean undoing interracial marriage.

So there’s been a lot of bad LGBTQ news this week. On top of that, the gay community is alienating an ally in Gavin Newsom because they perceive him as transphobic. Some of his comments were transphobic, I’ll grant that, but he needs education, not condemnation. Trans athletes in sports is a genuinely complex issue, and the sporting community itself should come up with the solution. Hopefully, it won’t be a blanket ban but a case-by-case approach.

Jacobsen: Then there’s Florida. They’re deeply entrenched in the “war on woke.” They’re even targeting symbolic gestures—like rainbow-colored crosswalks. I believe there’s now a threat to put people in jail for using chalk to recolor a sidewalk outside a memorial where over 50 LGBTQ people were murdered at Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

Bouley: Florida is a hateful state. I was born in Miami, but I left. Remember when we talked about this before? I said I don’t need pride flags flying at government offices; I need equal rights. One of the most hateful things Florida  did this week wasn’t painting a sidewalk but  was planningdf to get rid of vaccine mandates, so children or adults would no longer be required to take vaccines.

That’s a far bigger issue than rainbow sidewalks. Rainbow sidewalks are a distraction from the fact that they’re literally trying to endanger lives. Still, the idea that you could go to jail for chalking a rainbow on a sidewalk is absurd. And let’s be clear: this is not a “war on woke.” Woke is not a bad word. I’d much rather be awake than asleep, coherent than in a coma.

If “woke” means being accepting, loving, diverse, equitable, inclusive—if it means being educated, able to read, able to think critically—I’ll take it. So when they say they’re fighting a war on woke, what they’re really fighting is a war on intelligence, compassion, and empathy—all the qualities that make us decent human beings.

The notion that a rainbow sidewalk is somehow offensive is ridiculous. I don’t need rainbow sidewalks, but I don’t mind them either. They’re a nice way of saying, “We care that you’re in our community.” Personally, I worry more about getting run over on the sidewalk—living in Las Vegas, where the red you see on sidewalks is too often blood.

But this is not a war on “woke.” It’s a war on gay people. To call it anything else is dishonest. They’re literally trying to shove us back into a pink closet, and we’re not going to go. That upsets them, so they’re doing everything they can to erase gay culture from their culture. It’s all part of Project 2025, and Ron DeSantis is more than willing to lead the way.

It’s sad. And it’s happening outside a nightclub where more than 50 LGBTQ people were slaughtered at Pulse in Orlando. That makes it even more insulting. Not that Florida could look much worse, but this makes them look worse still—so petty and bigoted that a painted crosswalk is their “line in the sand.”

Meanwhile, when a school shooter turned out to be trans, everyone on the right rushed to declare, “See? They’re mentally ill.” First of all, if you keep kicking any community hard enough, eventually someone is going to snap. They keep kicking the trans community, and yes, one nut fell out.

But let’s talk numbers. Of the 258 mass shooting deaths in the U.S. so far this year, only two involved a trans shooter. The other 254 were caused overwhelmingly by straight, cisgender white men with guns—many of them extremists or MAGA supporters or right-leaning.

So before anyone talks about the “mental illness of trans people,” they should be talking about the mental illness of straight white men who often cling to a right-wing ideology. They’re the ones committing mass shootings, not the trans or gay community. To center the debate around one trans shooter, while ignoring the hundreds of deaths caused by white cis men, is insulting, ludicrous, and ignorant—which pretty much sums up their party.

Jacobsen: I’m not sure if this is updated or not, but Executive Order 14168, issued January 20, 2025, withdrew federal recognition of transgender identity. It banned gender self-ID on government documents, eliminated federal funding for gender-affirming care, and enshrined a rigid male/female binary across agency materials. Are there any updates you’re aware of?

Bouley: They’re going to tie it up in court. But now, the Department of Justice is also trying to push a “trans gun ban,” to bar trans people from buying guns because of one mass shooting. Out of hundreds of mass shootings, most carried out by straight cisgender men, they’ve never moved to ban them from buying guns. But now, suddenly, they’re targeting trans people. That shows how stupid and ridiculous this party is.

And that executive order you mentioned? It’s unconstitutional. Whether they like it or not, the Constitution covers trans people, gay people, bi people, lesbians, and queer people. We are covered by it. I know they hate that. Trump, MAGA, Republicans—they’ve hated my entire life, the fact that when our founders wrote about “all men are created equal,” it meant me too. They hate that, but it does.

If the courts interpret the law correctly, they will not allow Trump’s bans to stand. Can they cut funding? Sure. We’ve talked about this with Pride festivals. Yes, they can cut funding. Will that hurt the trans community? Absolutely. But they don’t care. They act like trans people aren’t Americans. But they are. I’m an American. Trans people are Americans. They deserve the same rights and privileges as every other American.

If any person can walk in off the street and buy a gun, then trans people should be able to do the same. If any other American can receive government funding for programs, then gay and trans Americans should also be able to receive funding. Singling us out suggests we’re not American. And they’d love for us to just accept that. But we are Americans, and the Constitution covers us.

Right now, that executive order is being picked apart by the courts to see if it can hold up. And Trump keeps losing in the courts—he lost two more cases this week alone. His tariffs were ruled unconstitutional.

Jacobsen: His funding cuts were also found to violate World Trade Organization rules. 

Bouley: He’s losing over and over. So whether this stands or falls will depend on the judges. Meanwhile, there’s a transgender competitor on American Ninja Warrior. And he’s fantastic. You’d never even know he was trans unless he told you. 

Jacobsen: Honestly, some of the hottest guys on dating apps are trans.

Bouley: It’s true. I’ve cruised more than a few guys and later found out they were trans. And you know what? I don’t care. But the right is so preoccupied that yesterday Tucker Carlson was in the news, saying Pete Buttigieg is a “fake gay” and that he wants to ask him specific questions about gay sex. Tucker needs to just rent some porn.

Tucker Carlson sounds like Stanley Kubrick directing Eyes Wide Shut. He wants to sit there like an audience member asking Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman about their sex life—except now it’s Pete Buttigieg he’s fixated on. What does he want to ask? If  Pete is a top or a bottom, or if he “rims Chasten.” What? What is a “fake gay,” anyway? By the way, you can be gay and celibate. Gay is not about sex; it’s about orientation. The fact that Tucker keeps tying homosexuality purely to sex proves how little he knows—and how much of a perv he is.

Jacobsen: What’s the other item? Oh, right—Senate Bill 8 in Texas, the one banning trans people from using bathrooms. 

Bouley: Here’s what I say: they should just start going in front of the bathrooms. Literally, take a dump outside the door. Make the point. By the way, I couldn’t find any documented case of a woman being molested in a bathroom by a trans woman. None. I also couldn’t find any documented case of a man being harassed in a male bathroom by a female-to-male trans person. What I did find were plenty of cases of women being assaulted in bathrooms by cisgender men.

And I found many, many cases of straight men being arrested in bathrooms for having gay sex. In fact, statistics show that a large percentage of men arrested for bathroom sex identify as heterosexual. So what exactly are they afraid of when it comes to trans people in bathrooms? I can’t find any evidence of danger—other than, at worst, a smelly poop.

Jacobsen: Last item: the Trump administration is demanding that 40 states, D.C., and five territories strip so-called “gender ideology” from sex ed curricula. Canada has reasonably evidence-based sex ed. But when American politicians talk about “gender ideology,” what do they mean? 

Bouley: Basically, “gay.” They collapse everything into one: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer. They don’t understand nuance.

Even here in Nevada, parents can opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive curricula for their kids. When I was in school, I had sex ed. In college, sure, people even came in to talk about things like bondage. In high school, we just got the basics—straight, gay, fetishes, all of it. And you know what? We survived. All my classmates survived.

But conservatives use “gender ideology” as a dog whistle. To them, it just means “gay,” and they want it erased. They don’t want Stonewall taught, they don’t want the history of the gay rights movement taught, and they don’t want any acknowledgment of LGBTQ people in the classroom. They want us erased, as if we don’t exist.

We all know Republicans control what’s in schools. Do you know where most of our textbooks are printed? Texas. A majority of school textbooks come from Texas. Essentially, what the Texas school boards decide ultimately determines the curriculum for the rest of the country. That’s why it’s so easy to erase LGBTQ people from classrooms—because publishers in Texas aren’t going to fight to keep it in.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts for this week?

Bouley: Other than this, we’ve seen all of this before. We’ve seen rollbacks in gay rights before—under Reagan, under Bush. But I do know that the current opinion polls in the U.S., taken just last week, show 64% approval of same-sex marriage. And 71% of people surveyed said they don’t care about gay or trans issues; they have bigger things to worry about.

So why is the administration pushing a trans gun ban, bathroom bans, and other wedge issues? Because they’re distractions from the fact that the Epstein files haven’t been released, and the president, a known sexual predator, is probably in them. It’s a distraction from the fact that last week, six billion people were represented in a meeting—India, Russia, China, North Korea, and others. Modi was there, Kim Jong-un was there. The United States was not.

And if you want to talk about a crisis, that’s one. Every one of those countries punishes LGBTQ people and makes it illegal to be gay. That meeting should have alarmed everyone, including gay people, because we won’t win that trade war—and if it ever comes to a real war, we won’t win that either. Yet no one covered that meeting. It was a terrible meeting for gay rights and for human rights in general. We’ve seen this pendulum before. It swung toward love, peace, acceptance—Lady Gaga and rainbows—and now it’s swinging back the other way. We’ll see where it lands.

Jacobsen: Karel, thank you very much for your time today. I’ll see you next week.

Bouley: Thank you, Scott. I’m going to get that clock away from you sooner or later. Cheers—though I still think it makes a fabulous headdress for you.

Jacobsen: I prefer the clock.

Bouley: What a headdress it would make..

Jacobsen: Thank you. All right, we’ll talk to you next week.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.