Dissecting The Young Turk's Problematic Stance on Trans Issues

In a recent debate, Cenk Uygur once again reveals TYT's problematic relationship with advocating for the trans community.

Last week, in an Olympic women’s boxing match, Imane Khelif of Algeria defeated Angela Carini of Italy. That should’ve been the end of the story but of course, given a chance to fabricate a controversy, right-wing pundits and social media grifters jumped into action. So what was the issue? During the match, the Italian fighter abandoned the match after just 46 seconds due to what she described as a strong pain in her nose. Afterward, she stated that it was her own decision to abandon the match because she couldn’t fight anymore. She allegedly said that she ‘has never been hit so hard in her life’ but this was never directly quoted or proven that she ever said this word for word. Although there was quite literally no video or substantial proof this is what she said, conservative media propagated this headline, spinning the story that her opponent was an undercover husky man beating up on her. The allegations were that Imane Khelif was actually trans. Many disingenuous publications made the gross assertion that she was a man, misgendering her without acknowledging basic facts. The only direct quote that even partially supported this claim is one where Carini said it was the hardest punch she has ever taken, but right after said it wasn’t up to her to call the fight unfair, and never called Kheif a man. The post-fight interview showed her in tears over the loss, understandably so being such a big fight, but it contained nothing about the fight’s unfairness. Carini vaguely suggested in a later interview, that it could’ve been unfair as people have been telling her it was unfair. The next day, Carini made an apology to Khelif for the controversy that so obviously damaged her reputation.

Here’s the twist though: Imane Khelif has always been a woman. She has competed as a woman her entire life and was assigned female at birth. In 2023, she was barred from competing with the IBA because she failed a gender test that supposedly determined she had XY chromosomes. The problem is that they never substantiated their claim with documentation or methodology in their testing. The Olympic committee subsequently rejected their claim as illegitimate and severed its ties with the organization because of corruption. There is zero evidence of her having a competitive advantage outside of her genetics the same way Katie Ledecky, Lebron James, Ilona Maher, or Michael Phelps have gifted genetics that help them excel in their sport. Khelif may have intersex characteristics or have been born with naturally higher testosterone, but this has never given her an overwhelming advantage when fighting. She has lost 9 of her 51 total fights and made it to the quarterfinals in the previous Olympics without controversy. This is an obvious rehashing of previous disgusting attacks against masculine women. In track, middle-distance runner Caster Semenya, an intersex woman, was a victim of this same type of controversy a few years ago, being effectively pushed out of the sport due to her naturally higher testosterone and masculine appearance. Often, this targeted harassment is exacerbated with women of color, prime examples being Michelle Obama and Serena Williams who were accused of being men merely for their appearance. The irony of the issue too is that conservatives, in pursuit of harassing transgender athletes, end up harming literal women while they invent controversy. The effort to concern troll about transgender athletes has luckily been a losing issue for conservatives, as it seems most people simply do not care about this issue. Almost 90% of Americans either support or are indifferent to protecting trans people from discrimination. There is nuance to how we balance competitive sports and trans athletes that may have an advantage, but that conversation must be based in science and come from a place of understanding. The reality is that the scale in which conservatives battle this issue is completely skewed; the number of trans women athletes in this country is less than a hundred. These are extremely niche and unique cases anyway as each person transitions differently and at different times in their life. But whichever way we decide to keep records, hand out medals, or organize teams, one thing should be clear; trans people should be able to play sports and have dignity doing so.

That brings us to the Young Turk’s commentary on the issue, more specifically Cenk Uygur. He, along with his co-host Ana Kasparian, are veterans of center-left media, appealing to liberals and socialists alike. They are responsible for elevating many excellent left commentators today like Mike Figueredo and Emma Vigeland. In recent years, viewers and contributors of the network have expressed concern over their handling of trans issues. Both Ana and Cenk have unapologetically made odd statements rejecting trans inclusivity in tweets and show segments. Just last year, trans contributor Bennie Corollo, quit the network because of their stubborn refusal to correct course on their rhetoric regarding trans people. In Bennie’s statement, she lays out multiple instances of transphobic behavior by the hosts which led to her decision to leave. 

In a recent segment, Young Turks once again demonstrated their lack of consistency on the trans issue which ultimately reflects a broader shift by the network. This segment includes Cenk Uygur, contributor Francesca Fiorentini, and commentary from co-host John Iadarola (Ana Kasparian mentioned prior is not present in the clip).

The video I will reference in the next section is shown here:

Cenk’s main argument is that the left is taking what he calls “an extreme position” on the issue of trans people in sports and that they should let the Republicans look radical on the issue. He begins by calling it “so dumb”... but the thing is– Cenk doesn’t believe that, right? He relentlessly defends this position after literally losing an employee over it. It’s difficult to determine Cenk’s actual position because he seems to vaguely consider whatever ‘the left’ is doing to be ‘radical’ without articulating what exactly that is. This year, during a different debate with laughing stock right-wing pundit Piers Morgan, Cenk said he agreed that trans women should not be in sports but ranted that he simply did not care about the issue. Therein lies half of the problem; that Cenk is not willing to care enough to defend trans athletes. It is more convenient for him to plug his ears and not listen to valid criticism of his stance and how he can improve his stance to be a better ally. Coming back to the clip, Franchesca articulates pointedly that suggesting trans women should be excluded is a slippery slope into broader bigotry if we are not willing to stand up for them. Cenk then states that he “totally disagrees” and claims that it is radical that we “don’t ever ask anyone [what their assigned sex is]” and finds the Olympics policy regarding gender is absurd. Then he says that quote “So you could, since they don’t do any testing at all, walk in [and] call yourself a female” which displays the root of his thinking. Part of his original gripe is that this only affects an infinitesimal number of people but also, contradictory to that; this policy will be exploited, making it unfair for women. And this is the reactionary position of Cenk. His argument is the same tired conservative talking point– that accepting a group of people will harm the rest of the group. Not only is Cenk accepting the right-wing framing but he is falling into it head first. Then, in his next sentence, he covers this reactionary position by retreating, blaming transphobes by saying that accepting trans people in sports will enrage the right-wing bigots and turn away moderates, thus doing more harm when Democrats lose. There is no evidence that moderates even know about this issue in depth, let alone care enough to vote on it.

Franchesca does not let him get away with that, assertively countering this by saying “It’s not an extreme position, it comes from a position of human rights” and that her position is not in the majority but it is worth fighting on an unpopular hill. She’s right, we should be basing our principles and positions in a place of empathy first. Thinking of trans people as your brothers and sisters will dictate how you think of each issue. How would your views change if a person you loved were excluded because they were trans? Confronted with this, Cenk begins flailing. He equates Francesca's position as equally as radical as the bigoted right-wing position, which is generally that trans people should be closeted. Later, he retreats to ‘having an honest disagreement’ but reiterates that he thinks it is a ‘bad political strategy’ to defend her position. This point is a shallow one; where Cenk suggests that the left cede this position to the right in order to seem more reasonable or something. The idea to begin with, that this is a liberal strategy, is not true. Democrats do not run on this issue, and when they do talk about it, they are playing defense. It’s a classic cowardly move to suggest that someone else’s liberation be put on hold for the perceived greater good. But why should we cede this ground? The reactionary right never plays defense and they are never satisfied. If, as Francesca said, we back away from defending trans athletes, the right will not stop attacking, they’ll only go further. Cenk won’t accept that we can both stand firm on our defense of trans athletes and watch the right defeat itself with their regressive rhetoric. Trans people deserve to be in sports, end of discussion. Any debate over how we organize record books and make each sport fair for women, trans people, non-binary people, or cisgender people, happens after. 

Cenk and Ana are reactionaries. It isn’t quite obvious because reactionaries are typically associated with right-wing beliefs but as time goes on, anyone, even leftists are susceptible to this. It is paramount for leftists to have solid principles that can be applied to history as it happens to us. Cenk and Ana, once were at the forefront of defending the underclass of working people, attacking capitalist elites, and defending queer people with their growing media network. As society has moved on to be more inclusive, their lack of principles has been exposed. They are not able to unquestionably defend all queer people including trans people because they do not believe in the principle of solidarity. In 2020, Cenk even fought to prevent his media organization from unionizing. When we have solidarity, we understand that we don’t get to dictate the terms for someone else’s liberation. When Cenk implies that trans liberation can only come when it is politically convenient, he is setting the terms for which he is an ally. That is not what a good ally does. It is not up to us, as allies, to put defending a community on hold because it might trigger a transphobe in a swing state. Whether it be for the queer community, black community, Palestinian community, labor unionists, or anyone else seeking liberation, solidarity is not conditional.

---

★ Source Archive