I am a liberal Democrat, but I am increasingly frustrated by the “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” vibe of so many invocations of “the science” in the liberal media, especially as regards trans women in sports.
Everyone has observed that men are almost always significantly stronger, larger, and faster than women. As just one example, last summer my college-age niece stayed with us for a week. She is a college gymnast who also runs track, and so she is very fit. She had a giant suitcase that she could barely lift. But her cab driver, a small man in his sixties, could pick up the suitcase with one hand and sling it into the trunk with no effort at all.
So when the NYTimes et al. tell us we are wrong about phenomena we observe every day all around us, it is maddening.
“I am a liberal Democrat, but I am increasingly frustrated by the “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” vibe of so many invocations of “the science” in the liberal media, especially as regards trans women in sports.”
Same here — it’s absurd what people are expected to believe. No woman has ever run a sub 4-minute mile — apparently we’re supposed to shrug and say that no woman has ever tried hard enough, or no woman has ever gotten sufficient training, and if they did, they would?
They’re claiming that trans women chemically debilitate themselves with testosterone suppression and estrogen to the point of being weak enough to compete in women’s sports. Which is not dehumanizing to women and girls in the slightest /s.
These people are going to claim that ‘trans women are nothing like cis males’ or some other nonsense.
Four times the risk of heart attack and stroke compared to cis males, vaginal atrophy and organ atrophy requiring hysterectomy in 5-10 years, receding hairline, and hypertrophy of the clitoris (do NOT look up pictures of this).
Is your prediction that a female (i.e. born with two X chromosomes and a full complement of female reproductive organs) will run a sub-four-minute mile soon? If so, how soon is soon?
The single best postmortem analysis of the Dems came via text from my friend Sean three years before this happened:
"When the Democrats run off a couple of commie, pinko fags like you and me, who the fuck is left?" - Sean, 2021
I'm done listening to cries of "TrUmP is DaNgErOus tO DeMoCrAcY" from people who want to eliminate the 1st Amendment and put us in death camps for saying that women are female.
The party cares about two things: your money and your vote. The only reason we're seeing ANY self-reflection from them is because "traitors" like me denied them both. Mad that I voted for Trump? Blame a so-called "progressive". (Does that god-awful Trump Dance out of spite.) The liberals who have defected are WAY more fun than the people who keep making excuses for them. The Democratic Party is a sinking ship; don't drown in the engine room shoveling coal.
It was the status quo until they got their asses kicked. That's why we have had men in women's sports and male rapists in women's prisons as long as we have while "good" democrats ignored the screams and lookedat their shoes while these travesties were happening. . Everybody knew, and the moderates allowed it continue until they were threatened with losing (or in this case actually lost to) Republicans.
If you keep voting blue no matter who (or what), they can ignore you. If Kamala wins we're not even having this conversation and "good liberals" like you stay in hiding until the coast is clear. They lost, decisively and deservedly and now people feel free to speak up. Honestly,I'm RELIEVED Trump won; let's hope the party gets the message.
I see it in baseball terms. If you took Bobby Witt Jr, Aaron Judge and Shoei Otani, put them in AA baseball somewhere, on the same team even, and played a season, there would be a game where all three of them went 0-3. |
That doesnt mean they are equal to the AA ballers they would be competing with. Its sports after all. The rare events are why they play the games. Trans activists use the existence of that one single 0-9 game as their QED that this is all just fine and just sports. But baseball fans know all about averages of large data sets. In this case, we would all expect that the one fluke game aside, those three would curb stomp everyone else they batted against. You would then conclude the team that had those three was missing the point. Sure they might be listed as a AA baseball squad, but they are clearly going against the spirit of the sport.
I think there’s another point to be made about the type of people that make the “trans girls are girls” argument being the same exact type that tell people of differing ethnicities that they are not allowed to cook food inspired by a different culture/geographic location because of cultural appropriation.
I’ll have to game this theory out a little. There seems to be an obvious point to be made about how they view reality. 🤔
There is no doubt the majority and likely a very lopsided majority of liberal Democrats think like this, they just are weaselly in the face of a slash and burn self-righteous minority.
And I apologize to weasels for my use of the word weaselly, as they are tenacious creatures that kill anything that moves, as long as it is not bigger than them.
I mean, it's true that "telling obvious lies about transgender issues and other topics is wrong, because it provides Trump and other populists with ammunition with which they can credibly attack mainstream institutions".
But sometimes I wish more progressives were willing to finish the sentence above before the "because".
Telling lies isn't just PRAGMATICALLY wrong, in that when you get caught telling lies, it compromises your credibility and makes it harder for your preferred candidates to win elections and in turn makes it harder to get your preferred policies in place. It's also just flat out morally wrong. You shouldn't deceive people. You shouldn't tell people things you know to be untrue. You shouldn't tell people things which are TECHNICALLY true, but phrased in such a knowingly misleading way that any reasonable person would come away from them with a misapprehension of how the world works.
Jeff, I understand that you, personally, recognise that telling lies is morally wrong, but you're playing up the pragmatic angle in hopes of persuading your fellow-travellers that telling lies isn't in their best interests.
But I worry that focusing too much on the pragmatic angle might in itself be counterproductive - that some people might come away with the message: "so you're saying we shouldn't tell lies if they'll come back to bite us in the ass, but telling lies that WON'T come back to bite us in the ass is A-OK? Sweet!"
It’s also because moral arguments are hard for me to make on this blog because they involve assumptions about values. Practical arguments have a more epistemic basis. I can lay out arguments that may lead to moral conclusions, but each of us has to take that last step on our own.
For the record, I am morally opposed to lying unless it’s really, really lucrative.
"Lying is always wrong, but sometimes can be funny when you appreciate it" could be one of the honorable mention mission statements for this substack. And a key reason why I keep hanging around.
Very astute post, and I agree with every word. But the larger point strikes me as follows, which is: as we begin sifting through the detritus of a staggering defeat which may or not cause irreparable damage to the nation and the principles on which it’s grounded, one the most widely unpalatable positions imaginable (trans in sports) is still be being amplified and defended by “The Left”. I’m floored. If, as Oliver claims, there so few trans athletes, why choose that as a hill on which to sacrifice so pivotal an election?? I’m a registered Dem and a realist which means acknowledging (perhaps regretfully) that this is a demonstrably center to center-right country: being fervent or even squishy on issues where a strong if not overwhelming consensus exists (open borders and crime surges bad, biological sex real, Palestinian terrorism unacceptable) will forever doom the Dems to electoral defeat . I recently read a commenter describe the Dem Party as once standing up for three issues: poverty, labor and civil rights. Let’s reclaim them and drop the social activism shit. It’s poison on so many levels. BTW, I’m still receiving e-mail solicitations from the Harris-Waltz campaign. JFC.
Excellent point. "THERE ARE SO FEW CASES SO WHY ARE YOU MAKING A BIG DEAL!" screams the pundit choosing to spend time amplifying this topic to his audience. The Left really has learned nothing from this election (so far) and that's just so sad.
I'm glad you made this point because I wanted to but didn't want to spend the whole article recounting every inane aspect of his argument. I'll probably riff on it a bit on the podcast.
Liberal pundits doubling down right now is so disheartening. Instead of trying to learn from the decisive election results, the far left is still screaming self-fulfilling prophecies into existence:
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Wait, what now?
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Oh wow, didn't see you there. You're right. I'll be more mindful next time
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Like I said, you were right. I'm revisiting the way I think about
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Ok ok. I hear you. I truly just want to be kind to everyo
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Can you just stop for a minute? Maybe we should focus on how Trump won and
(INSERT TOPIC)-PHOBIA!!! SEE I TOLD YOU WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED!
It's our little daughters mini leagues, our teen daughters in shopping centre changing rooms, our elderly mothers in care homes and hospitals, rape survivors seeking treatment.... and it's not ordinary decent trans people trying to navigate their life.
It's the massive loopholes left open for the wolves in sheep's clothing and the utter utter refusal on the part of progressives to even acknowledge there's a downside, or more to the point, a doenside to anyone who matters. The contempt for the wrong sort of victim.
And to boot it's based on an obvious untruth that in many cases you must publicly affirm!
Not my metaphor but: you say you’re allergic to peanuts? It makes the food unpalatable to you? Listen, we included a few at the factory. It’s a tiny number! Why are you so upset?! Lots of people accept them, what’s your problem?
Mike, great point and I agree that it’s not “fair” that the Dems need to tread so delicately while MAGA runs riot, but the end goal in politics is to win and hard left trans activistism is a third rail.
I really hate this "there are so few it's not a big deal" bullshit. It's a big deal to every girl and woman! When a boy is put on a girls' team it affects not only the girl he displaced but *every girl* on his team AND *every girl* on *every team* his team plays. Not to mention the demoralizing effect on girls even thinking of trying for the team. One male in the female category affects EVERY female! One male in the women's bathroom affects ALL WOMEN.
The biggest evidence that everyone knows "trans girls/women" are not girls and women is that those who defend this nonsense (including women), only ever think about the male. The females disappear out of the conversation entirely.
"The fact that society believes a man who says he's a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman." —Jen Izaakson
Plus it's not like anyone would ever accept that argument for a position they disagree with. "Why do you care that this abortion ban doesn't make an exception for incest? 99.9% of pregnancies are non-incestuous!"
In his defense, there was no way that Oliver was ever going to have a flash of insight on this issue. He's passed off the same assertions from the same 2 flawed studies that used to dominate my Twitter timeline (before I finally left a few years ago). And there is nothing you can say, no updates science you can show, that will change their minds. Merely offering up a different opinion is absolute proof that you personally "want trans kids to die".
They are as stuck in this echo chamber as the pro-life crowd, or my fellow gun owners. And I don't think anything will bring them back to reality.
It reminds me a lot of the post breakup emails and letters (!) I sent in my youth. I still wake up sweating with my heart racing from nightmares of embarrassment because of those...
Joe Klein just weighed in on post-debacle fund raising:
Don’t get me started on the Dems right now—especially the constant fund-begging in my inbox from Harris and Walz after they tap-danced through more than a billion dollars faster than the speed of light. Memo to Kamala and Tim: I’d rather not hear from you for a while.
A friend in the media business points out: The “big” three cable news services have an aggregate of 4-5 million viewers per night. Donald Trump’s podcast with Joe Rogan drew an audience of 40 million…and Kamala Harris couldn’t nudge herself to take that challenge? It didn’t fit into her schedule? Some of her staffers, according to Jennifer Palmieri, thought it would be politically incorrect? Lemme outta here.
I am not going to sacrifice whatever credibility I may still have in knee-jerk obeisance to a party so relentlessly soft and stupid.
In the alternative universe where Kamala went on Rogan and served an all you can eat Word Salad Buffet, people are saying that was the Huge Mistake that cost her the election. She does not speak well extemporaneously.
There's been a lot of verbiage now about how Harris made this or that mistake, but I think fundamentally, Harris herself was the mistake.
Personally if I'd been a California prosecutor who locked people up for weed, smoked some myself, and then laughed about it on national TV, I also would not want to go on the Joe Rogan podcast.
You're right it would have been a disaster. And people realized why.
It's the same reason that Biden waited so long to do any interviews or press conferences after his debate performance. It was the *obvious* thing to do, to show that you're not mentally deficient. But they didn't do it, because they knew that going through with it would've been so much worse.
One word I barely - if ever - heard during this campaign and one that I never heard at all:
freedom
poverty
Not that somebody somewhere didn't utter them under their breath at some time. But not loudly enough to be heard by more than a handful of people.
The left for years now talks of justice but not freedom. The right is now preaching, in essence, conformity and its concomitant lack of liberty as rebellion against elites.
And neither dare speak of poverty. Which says more about the American electorate and its lack of certain values than it does about the candidates who in the end are merely a general reflection of those voting for them.
Freedom was brought up often at the Democratic convention. It did seem to me like it was talked about less as the campaign went on, though that could just be because I was watching less political content in October than in September. I thought it was a clever piece of messaging, to try and seize an issue that has been associated with republicans for at least the last decade.
Anyway, not trying to deny your perceptions. If you didn’t perceive any talk about freedom then clearly that piece of the messaging wasn’t used in a way which broke through to you. (Of course, the campaign really only targeted its message very narrowly towards people in swing states.)
I agree with you that the Dems smartly attempted to tack to the center but obviously many voters were skeptical that the move was genuine given Harris’s prior comments and her refusal to directly disavow them. Way too little, way, way too late.
I live in Michigan and so was one of those "targeted" as you put it. But I'm a now long-lived lifelong Independent who, having voted many split tickets at different levels of office pre-2016, held his nose and voted for Clinton and the entire Democratic ticket as a vote more *against* Trump and the GOP than *for* the Ds in many instances that time around. And having watched the ascendance of MAGA and the complete acquiescence of the GOP and its obeisance to Trump and to the forces of this current iteration of American populism and proto fascism, I've been voting (and expect to do so now for the remainder of my life) straight D ever since, in Biden's case in 2020 actually casting my vote as a *for* every bit as much as an *against*. And if age and ability had not been a factor, I'd have much preferred and been comfortable seeing Biden do four more years as a moderate left of center president. But that not being the choice I was given, I unhesitatingly voted for Harris.
I'm technically not a "Never Trumper", since the actual definition of that is related to being, or once having been, a Republican. The best I can perhaps describe myself at this point is as being an anti-anti-American American, to use the overhyped and desperately hyperbolic political vernacular of our times. Which means my vote for Harris and the rest of the Ds straight down the ticket to the local college boards of trustees was, as they say, baked in. Like concrete. So, I didn't watch or listen to much in the way of any campaign speeches, the convention(s) or anything else other than regularly reading many news reports and Substack newsletters from a large and diverse variety of sources.
I'm not particularly proud of having become a one issue voter as so many people are, and against whom I've spent more than enough time railing in the past. But I make no apologies for the fact that when the issue is the welfare and safety of the entirety of the country, the Constitution and the rule of law - which all amount to one big ball-of-wax issue to me - you don't get to fuck with that the way Trump and the GOP have done and get to have any expectation that I'll support that or anyone connected with it in any way shape or form, even if in "party name only", only that I will do what I can do to keep any and all of the sons of bitches from ever getting their hands on the levers of political power again.
So, it's no surprise I didn't see or hear the instances you cite. But still, my perception stands, if indeed slightly modified by your facts, as a long-held observation of the *general* political climate and discourse of this time in the country's political history.
But it's a sad fact that however much or little these two subjects got aired by the Ds, their overall message didn't "break through" to nearly enough people. People whom we now know are not open to persuasion through good faith efforts at presenting a view of our country as a diverse, secular, pluralistic but law-respecting-and-abiding country at least attempting - however imperfectly - to provide freedom, liberty, opportunity and justice for all. And how the fuck we actually fix that I have absolutely no idea.
Thanks for sharing your perspective! I think part of what made the talk about ‘freedom’ so notable (among a particular set of weird people like me who are way too tapped into politics) is that it has not traditionally been a part of the Democratic Party branding. As Ben notes above, it was probably too little too late. A presidential campaign is the best opportunity a party has to shift its national brand/image, but even then there’s only so much that can be done to change people’s baked in perceptions in a short period of time. Harris could only do so much in a short period of time, and it didn’t help that her campaign was viewed (fairly, in my opinion) as being vibes-based and lacking real substance.
As a fellow voter who prioritizes those little things like ‘accepting peaceful transfer of power’ over almost anything else, I feel your pain. I think American democracy, warts and all, is an incredible gift we’ve been given, and I’d rather have bad policy outcomes for a few years than place that at risk. But that’s clearly not an issue which moves enough voters. And in politics you need to focus on the things that people care about. But it’s really depressing that so many people who are deeply patriotic are able to rationalize voting for a candidate who pretty clearly broke his oath to obey the constitution.
The wealth gap is as staggering as it is unsustainable for a Democracy. We’re basically talking plutocracy, which is ascendant in the US as never before. But trans in sports!!!!
Counterpoint: People don't actually seem to care about this. The wealth gap closed more under the Biden admin than any other in my voting lifetime, and nobody cares.
The wealth gap has narrowed since about 2012 and plutocracy was much more ascendant in the mid-to-late 19th century than now. Plus tbh as I watch Netflix in my climate controlled apartment it’s kind of hard for me to get angry that some people have amassed a ton of power through wealth instead of lying to voters.
The right left dichotomy makes no sense here. Bernie would have easily won in 2016. It’s not right left it’s populism vs elitism and totalitarianism vs leave us alone.
They are arresting people in the UK for factually accurate social media posts that most people agree with. Is that right wing or left wing? That’s what Harris Walz stood for.
I find it amusing that nobody in the press / activist class mentions track and field as a measuring stick for female versus male abilities. It is about as standardized as it gets.
The world record in the 100m is Usain Bolt with a 9:58. The women's record is FloJo's 10:49.
World class Olympic female track and field athletes are roughly on par with good high school boys. Female gold medal winners from the Tokyo 2020 Olympics would not qualify for the high school state championships in any major US state.
There are certainly rumors to that regard (although they’d probably apply to her contemporaries as well). The WR run in particular seems to be traceable to a faulty wind sensor ( the reading from another device in the same stadium was way above the allowed limit for world records). If you plot the women’s world record over time, it’s definitely an outlier from the curve.
I wish you would address the "weird" part of the LWT clip. It's really fucking disingenuous to accuse people of being weird for focusing on an issue, when you're the one who is trying to change the status quo and present it as a fair acompli! There is a simple rubric here that has gone for quite a long time, 1. when you have sex segregation in sports, males can't play on the female team; and 2. You can't change your gender.
Even if you think sex segregation is akin to racial segregation, it's not "weird" for people to push back on changes to the longstanding tradition. When Jackie Robinson, famously played by Ben Stiller, broke the colour barrier in baseball, there was lots of good arguments for why he should. None of those were "everyone against this is a bunch of weirdos".
This never ceases to drive me up a wall. Critics are to be made odd fools for paying attention to their cause they champion, punished for listening to their rhetoric intently. It is the calling card of, “we don’t have/need any other arguments, you dangerous creep.”
I'm very relieved that the John Olivers of the world are being exposed. It's one thing to misrepresent reality in favor of your warped viewpoint, but another to do it in such a smug and self-satisfied way to a likely young and impressionable audience. The claims made on this show are, and have been for a long time, very disputable. I just can't respect anyone that is so compelled, but also so wrong and totally hostile to having their mind changed.
A more cynical view is that he is simply continuing to create high engagement content. he is after all primarily an entertainer. still morally reprehensible given that he positioned himself as a truth teller.
All it takes is one Google search to see that the 100m track record for American high school boys is 8/10ths of a second faster than the women's world record. In other words, the fastest teenage boy in the U.S. could outrun the fastest female track runner *in the world* by a wide margin.
IMO, the issue is that many of the academics, activists, and lefties pushing this issue don't have much- if any- background in competitive sports. It's impossible to sell anyone with that experience on the idea there's no biological differences. Sometimes it won't matter- I was a bad enough ski racer that many of the women could whoop me- but for top level athletes, it does. 8/10ths of a second in the 100m is a heck of a time difference!
Lefty activists also need to realize that there are parents who have genuine concerns about their daughters playing a contact sport (eg field hockey) and having their safety compromised under these rules. Writing them off as bigots won't allay their concerns or change their minds.
I’m not sure I understand the first half of your statement but the second was the law of the land for schools that only had one field hockey team for literally like, 3 decades before trans activists were involved in anything. Was it wicked common? No. But it happened. It still happens now.
I don’t watch John Oliver here in London (loved The Bugle!) so only see him in clips, but has he ever admitted to changing his mind about anything? Is he one of those people who insists he’s right all the time?
I hear you, although anyone who takes college students seriously doesn't remember how little you know about the world at 19. But I'll grant that the administrations that enable their BS are a huge problem.
I think seeing the pro-Hamas, "down with the US" chanting coupled with violent antisemitism - while Dem lawmakers pal around with them - did untold damage to the campaign. And rightfully so.
Getting kicked out of high school debate seems like a blessing. Hard to think of any activity that is more counterproductive than that... Stop trying to "own" people and go find somebody to flirt with, kids!
1. Women should compete with men if they're good enough to do so- true according to lefties, and I agree (though I think the circumstances it happens are very rare).
2. Trans women are women- true according to lefties, and I agree.
So, if you believe trans women are women AND you believe women can compete with men, you should therefore have no issue with a trans woman competing against men. They never really address this flawed logic.
But surely this implies that a male person who isn't competitive in male sporting events should ergo be permitted to compete in female, provided they identify as women. Which hardly seems fair to me either. Women's sporting events were traditionally ringfenced for "women", not "women (and any men who don't want to git gud)".
Good take, Jeff. Always a good mix of comedy and relevant politics. The point that obvious physical differences is the foundational basis for women’s sports pretty much sums it up.
I'm trying to imagine a world where Oliver could do an episode going "we got a lot of pushback on this clip, so we took another look and it's a lot more nuanced than we made it seem and the preponderance of evidence is against the position we took."
But I'm not sure how to make it a funny skit.
Even if they were to do that, though, I'd suspect they'd try to hedge it by arguing that inclusion is more important than fairness and end up pissing off everyone.
Really great post, thank you! As a lifelong skeptic, I appreciate those who go out of their way to seek the truth rather than toe the line of whatever causes they are a part of. I never watcher Bill Maher until recently and like it more than Last Week Tonight now, even though I disagree with a lot of his views. I find his skepticism appealing and his willingness to bring opposing viewpoints on his show refreshing. I feel like I spend the hour thinking instead of being preached at. We need more of that.
First, I believe there is plenty of of evidence that trans women have athletic advantages in general.
Second, as a researcher, I want you to draw attention to the use of the phrase “there is no evidence for X”. People interpret this as “there is no reason to believe X”, but that isn’t quite what it means. It’s more like saying “I’ve never been convicted of murder” to imply that you’ve never committed murder. Maybe you weren’t caught, or had a hung jury. It can be true that there is no evidence for X and also no evidence against X. Maybe no one has done a study, or maybe the speaker thinks the studies that are available are too weak/ poorly constructed to constitute evidence.
Anyway, I just wanted to draw attention to this commonly-used weasel phrase. It should make your antenna tingle.
I am a liberal Democrat, but I am increasingly frustrated by the “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” vibe of so many invocations of “the science” in the liberal media, especially as regards trans women in sports.
Everyone has observed that men are almost always significantly stronger, larger, and faster than women. As just one example, last summer my college-age niece stayed with us for a week. She is a college gymnast who also runs track, and so she is very fit. She had a giant suitcase that she could barely lift. But her cab driver, a small man in his sixties, could pick up the suitcase with one hand and sling it into the trunk with no effort at all.
So when the NYTimes et al. tell us we are wrong about phenomena we observe every day all around us, it is maddening.
“I am a liberal Democrat, but I am increasingly frustrated by the “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” vibe of so many invocations of “the science” in the liberal media, especially as regards trans women in sports.”
Same here — it’s absurd what people are expected to believe. No woman has ever run a sub 4-minute mile — apparently we’re supposed to shrug and say that no woman has ever tried hard enough, or no woman has ever gotten sufficient training, and if they did, they would?
They’re claiming that trans women chemically debilitate themselves with testosterone suppression and estrogen to the point of being weak enough to compete in women’s sports. Which is not dehumanizing to women and girls in the slightest /s.
These people are going to claim that ‘trans women are nothing like cis males’ or some other nonsense.
Edit: This is simply not true for many, many reasons outlined here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331831/
I've got a friend who is very pro-trans-in-everything and that basically was his argument the one time it came up.
I love the guy, but this is a topic I have learned to steer clear of around him.
Man as a woman I should really just take testosterone huh? I don’t want facial hair but being stronger would be fun
Four times the risk of heart attack and stroke compared to cis males, vaginal atrophy and organ atrophy requiring hysterectomy in 5-10 years, receding hairline, and hypertrophy of the clitoris (do NOT look up pictures of this).
Yep, totally not dehumanizing at all…🙄
But also, this is the dastardly truscum position, and I hear those people are just as awful as TERFs! /s
I predict that very soon, one will.
Is your prediction that a female (i.e. born with two X chromosomes and a full complement of female reproductive organs) will run a sub-four-minute mile soon? If so, how soon is soon?
No, that is not what I'm predicting.
So your prediction is that a trans woman will run a sub-four-minute mile soon?
I'm expecting to see "another record broken in women's sports!" type stories becoming commonplace.
The single best postmortem analysis of the Dems came via text from my friend Sean three years before this happened:
"When the Democrats run off a couple of commie, pinko fags like you and me, who the fuck is left?" - Sean, 2021
I'm done listening to cries of "TrUmP is DaNgErOus tO DeMoCrAcY" from people who want to eliminate the 1st Amendment and put us in death camps for saying that women are female.
The party cares about two things: your money and your vote. The only reason we're seeing ANY self-reflection from them is because "traitors" like me denied them both. Mad that I voted for Trump? Blame a so-called "progressive". (Does that god-awful Trump Dance out of spite.) The liberals who have defected are WAY more fun than the people who keep making excuses for them. The Democratic Party is a sinking ship; don't drown in the engine room shoveling coal.
Voting for Trump is still pretty fucking stupid lol but your point about alienating reasonable people is 100% valid.
It was the status quo until they got their asses kicked. That's why we have had men in women's sports and male rapists in women's prisons as long as we have while "good" democrats ignored the screams and lookedat their shoes while these travesties were happening. . Everybody knew, and the moderates allowed it continue until they were threatened with losing (or in this case actually lost to) Republicans.
If you keep voting blue no matter who (or what), they can ignore you. If Kamala wins we're not even having this conversation and "good liberals" like you stay in hiding until the coast is clear. They lost, decisively and deservedly and now people feel free to speak up. Honestly,I'm RELIEVED Trump won; let's hope the party gets the message.
“GOD I AM SO TIRED OF ALL THE INSANE BULLSHIT COMING OUT OF THE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE STEP UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!?!?”
*Trump exists*
“Ew, no not him.”
Trump’s “jerking off two guys at once” dance is now, ironically, being performed on him in reverse by Elon and Vivek 😁
Huh?
I see it in baseball terms. If you took Bobby Witt Jr, Aaron Judge and Shoei Otani, put them in AA baseball somewhere, on the same team even, and played a season, there would be a game where all three of them went 0-3. |
That doesnt mean they are equal to the AA ballers they would be competing with. Its sports after all. The rare events are why they play the games. Trans activists use the existence of that one single 0-9 game as their QED that this is all just fine and just sports. But baseball fans know all about averages of large data sets. In this case, we would all expect that the one fluke game aside, those three would curb stomp everyone else they batted against. You would then conclude the team that had those three was missing the point. Sure they might be listed as a AA baseball squad, but they are clearly going against the spirit of the sport.
This is a very good analogy.
I think there’s another point to be made about the type of people that make the “trans girls are girls” argument being the same exact type that tell people of differing ethnicities that they are not allowed to cook food inspired by a different culture/geographic location because of cultural appropriation.
I’ll have to game this theory out a little. There seems to be an obvious point to be made about how they view reality. 🤔
If all of the liberal Democrats thought like you the country would be in a far better place
They do. They just aren't the ones doing the politics.
There is no doubt the majority and likely a very lopsided majority of liberal Democrats think like this, they just are weaselly in the face of a slash and burn self-righteous minority.
And I apologize to weasels for my use of the word weaselly, as they are tenacious creatures that kill anything that moves, as long as it is not bigger than them.
Aww shucks! Thanks!
Bigot
I mean, it's true that "telling obvious lies about transgender issues and other topics is wrong, because it provides Trump and other populists with ammunition with which they can credibly attack mainstream institutions".
But sometimes I wish more progressives were willing to finish the sentence above before the "because".
Telling lies isn't just PRAGMATICALLY wrong, in that when you get caught telling lies, it compromises your credibility and makes it harder for your preferred candidates to win elections and in turn makes it harder to get your preferred policies in place. It's also just flat out morally wrong. You shouldn't deceive people. You shouldn't tell people things you know to be untrue. You shouldn't tell people things which are TECHNICALLY true, but phrased in such a knowingly misleading way that any reasonable person would come away from them with a misapprehension of how the world works.
Jeff, I understand that you, personally, recognise that telling lies is morally wrong, but you're playing up the pragmatic angle in hopes of persuading your fellow-travellers that telling lies isn't in their best interests.
But I worry that focusing too much on the pragmatic angle might in itself be counterproductive - that some people might come away with the message: "so you're saying we shouldn't tell lies if they'll come back to bite us in the ass, but telling lies that WON'T come back to bite us in the ass is A-OK? Sweet!"
It’s also because moral arguments are hard for me to make on this blog because they involve assumptions about values. Practical arguments have a more epistemic basis. I can lay out arguments that may lead to moral conclusions, but each of us has to take that last step on our own.
For the record, I am morally opposed to lying unless it’s really, really lucrative.
Well yea! DUH!
"Lying is always wrong, but sometimes can be funny when you appreciate it" could be one of the honorable mention mission statements for this substack. And a key reason why I keep hanging around.
100 percent.
John Oliver clips I need to run at 0.75x speed. Was he always like this, or is he getting some "help" more recently?
Very astute post, and I agree with every word. But the larger point strikes me as follows, which is: as we begin sifting through the detritus of a staggering defeat which may or not cause irreparable damage to the nation and the principles on which it’s grounded, one the most widely unpalatable positions imaginable (trans in sports) is still be being amplified and defended by “The Left”. I’m floored. If, as Oliver claims, there so few trans athletes, why choose that as a hill on which to sacrifice so pivotal an election?? I’m a registered Dem and a realist which means acknowledging (perhaps regretfully) that this is a demonstrably center to center-right country: being fervent or even squishy on issues where a strong if not overwhelming consensus exists (open borders and crime surges bad, biological sex real, Palestinian terrorism unacceptable) will forever doom the Dems to electoral defeat . I recently read a commenter describe the Dem Party as once standing up for three issues: poverty, labor and civil rights. Let’s reclaim them and drop the social activism shit. It’s poison on so many levels. BTW, I’m still receiving e-mail solicitations from the Harris-Waltz campaign. JFC.
Excellent point. "THERE ARE SO FEW CASES SO WHY ARE YOU MAKING A BIG DEAL!" screams the pundit choosing to spend time amplifying this topic to his audience. The Left really has learned nothing from this election (so far) and that's just so sad.
I'm glad you made this point because I wanted to but didn't want to spend the whole article recounting every inane aspect of his argument. I'll probably riff on it a bit on the podcast.
Liberal pundits doubling down right now is so disheartening. Instead of trying to learn from the decisive election results, the far left is still screaming self-fulfilling prophecies into existence:
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Wait, what now?
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Oh wow, didn't see you there. You're right. I'll be more mindful next time
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Like I said, you were right. I'm revisiting the way I think about
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Ok ok. I hear you. I truly just want to be kind to everyo
STOP PERSECUTING ME!
- Can you just stop for a minute? Maybe we should focus on how Trump won and
(INSERT TOPIC)-PHOBIA!!! SEE I TOLD YOU WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED!
I think the right could stand to stop fixating on an issue that arises maybe 0.0000001% of the time if that, but the same goes for the left too.
It's not just that though.
It's our little daughters mini leagues, our teen daughters in shopping centre changing rooms, our elderly mothers in care homes and hospitals, rape survivors seeking treatment.... and it's not ordinary decent trans people trying to navigate their life.
It's the massive loopholes left open for the wolves in sheep's clothing and the utter utter refusal on the part of progressives to even acknowledge there's a downside, or more to the point, a doenside to anyone who matters. The contempt for the wrong sort of victim.
And to boot it's based on an obvious untruth that in many cases you must publicly affirm!
I don’t disagree with you at all: it’s insane and because it’s so insane it’s politically radioactive
Not my metaphor but: you say you’re allergic to peanuts? It makes the food unpalatable to you? Listen, we included a few at the factory. It’s a tiny number! Why are you so upset?! Lots of people accept them, what’s your problem?
Mike, great point and I agree that it’s not “fair” that the Dems need to tread so delicately while MAGA runs riot, but the end goal in politics is to win and hard left trans activistism is a third rail.
Why don’t we just stop prosecuting rape, too?
The frequency of an obvious injustice occurring doesn’t make it less obviously unjust.
I really hate this "there are so few it's not a big deal" bullshit. It's a big deal to every girl and woman! When a boy is put on a girls' team it affects not only the girl he displaced but *every girl* on his team AND *every girl* on *every team* his team plays. Not to mention the demoralizing effect on girls even thinking of trying for the team. One male in the female category affects EVERY female! One male in the women's bathroom affects ALL WOMEN.
The biggest evidence that everyone knows "trans girls/women" are not girls and women is that those who defend this nonsense (including women), only ever think about the male. The females disappear out of the conversation entirely.
"The fact that society believes a man who says he's a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman." —Jen Izaakson
Plus it's not like anyone would ever accept that argument for a position they disagree with. "Why do you care that this abortion ban doesn't make an exception for incest? 99.9% of pregnancies are non-incestuous!"
In his defense, there was no way that Oliver was ever going to have a flash of insight on this issue. He's passed off the same assertions from the same 2 flawed studies that used to dominate my Twitter timeline (before I finally left a few years ago). And there is nothing you can say, no updates science you can show, that will change their minds. Merely offering up a different opinion is absolute proof that you personally "want trans kids to die".
They are as stuck in this echo chamber as the pro-life crowd, or my fellow gun owners. And I don't think anything will bring them back to reality.
I think we are all still getting those emails from Harris-Walz. Seriously? They should be giving us our money back.
"Is there anything I can say?"
No! Probably not!
It reminds me a lot of the post breakup emails and letters (!) I sent in my youth. I still wake up sweating with my heart racing from nightmares of embarrassment because of those...
Don’t we all!
lol!! It’s beyond parody.
Joe Klein just weighed in on post-debacle fund raising:
Don’t get me started on the Dems right now—especially the constant fund-begging in my inbox from Harris and Walz after they tap-danced through more than a billion dollars faster than the speed of light. Memo to Kamala and Tim: I’d rather not hear from you for a while.
A friend in the media business points out: The “big” three cable news services have an aggregate of 4-5 million viewers per night. Donald Trump’s podcast with Joe Rogan drew an audience of 40 million…and Kamala Harris couldn’t nudge herself to take that challenge? It didn’t fit into her schedule? Some of her staffers, according to Jennifer Palmieri, thought it would be politically incorrect? Lemme outta here.
I am not going to sacrifice whatever credibility I may still have in knee-jerk obeisance to a party so relentlessly soft and stupid.
In the alternative universe where Kamala went on Rogan and served an all you can eat Word Salad Buffet, people are saying that was the Huge Mistake that cost her the election. She does not speak well extemporaneously.
There's been a lot of verbiage now about how Harris made this or that mistake, but I think fundamentally, Harris herself was the mistake.
Personally if I'd been a California prosecutor who locked people up for weed, smoked some myself, and then laughed about it on national TV, I also would not want to go on the Joe Rogan podcast.
You're right it would have been a disaster. And people realized why.
It's the same reason that Biden waited so long to do any interviews or press conferences after his debate performance. It was the *obvious* thing to do, to show that you're not mentally deficient. But they didn't do it, because they knew that going through with it would've been so much worse.
Agreed
One word I barely - if ever - heard during this campaign and one that I never heard at all:
freedom
poverty
Not that somebody somewhere didn't utter them under their breath at some time. But not loudly enough to be heard by more than a handful of people.
The left for years now talks of justice but not freedom. The right is now preaching, in essence, conformity and its concomitant lack of liberty as rebellion against elites.
And neither dare speak of poverty. Which says more about the American electorate and its lack of certain values than it does about the candidates who in the end are merely a general reflection of those voting for them.
Harris actually made ‘freedom’ a major motif early in her campaign. Just watch her launch video: https://youtu.be/sHky_Xopyrw?si=2hzsyYYpSRGoaLzV
(Poverty also comes up once in the video.)
Freedom was brought up often at the Democratic convention. It did seem to me like it was talked about less as the campaign went on, though that could just be because I was watching less political content in October than in September. I thought it was a clever piece of messaging, to try and seize an issue that has been associated with republicans for at least the last decade.
Anyway, not trying to deny your perceptions. If you didn’t perceive any talk about freedom then clearly that piece of the messaging wasn’t used in a way which broke through to you. (Of course, the campaign really only targeted its message very narrowly towards people in swing states.)
I agree with you that the Dems smartly attempted to tack to the center but obviously many voters were skeptical that the move was genuine given Harris’s prior comments and her refusal to directly disavow them. Way too little, way, way too late.
I live in Michigan and so was one of those "targeted" as you put it. But I'm a now long-lived lifelong Independent who, having voted many split tickets at different levels of office pre-2016, held his nose and voted for Clinton and the entire Democratic ticket as a vote more *against* Trump and the GOP than *for* the Ds in many instances that time around. And having watched the ascendance of MAGA and the complete acquiescence of the GOP and its obeisance to Trump and to the forces of this current iteration of American populism and proto fascism, I've been voting (and expect to do so now for the remainder of my life) straight D ever since, in Biden's case in 2020 actually casting my vote as a *for* every bit as much as an *against*. And if age and ability had not been a factor, I'd have much preferred and been comfortable seeing Biden do four more years as a moderate left of center president. But that not being the choice I was given, I unhesitatingly voted for Harris.
I'm technically not a "Never Trumper", since the actual definition of that is related to being, or once having been, a Republican. The best I can perhaps describe myself at this point is as being an anti-anti-American American, to use the overhyped and desperately hyperbolic political vernacular of our times. Which means my vote for Harris and the rest of the Ds straight down the ticket to the local college boards of trustees was, as they say, baked in. Like concrete. So, I didn't watch or listen to much in the way of any campaign speeches, the convention(s) or anything else other than regularly reading many news reports and Substack newsletters from a large and diverse variety of sources.
I'm not particularly proud of having become a one issue voter as so many people are, and against whom I've spent more than enough time railing in the past. But I make no apologies for the fact that when the issue is the welfare and safety of the entirety of the country, the Constitution and the rule of law - which all amount to one big ball-of-wax issue to me - you don't get to fuck with that the way Trump and the GOP have done and get to have any expectation that I'll support that or anyone connected with it in any way shape or form, even if in "party name only", only that I will do what I can do to keep any and all of the sons of bitches from ever getting their hands on the levers of political power again.
So, it's no surprise I didn't see or hear the instances you cite. But still, my perception stands, if indeed slightly modified by your facts, as a long-held observation of the *general* political climate and discourse of this time in the country's political history.
But it's a sad fact that however much or little these two subjects got aired by the Ds, their overall message didn't "break through" to nearly enough people. People whom we now know are not open to persuasion through good faith efforts at presenting a view of our country as a diverse, secular, pluralistic but law-respecting-and-abiding country at least attempting - however imperfectly - to provide freedom, liberty, opportunity and justice for all. And how the fuck we actually fix that I have absolutely no idea.
Thanks for sharing your perspective! I think part of what made the talk about ‘freedom’ so notable (among a particular set of weird people like me who are way too tapped into politics) is that it has not traditionally been a part of the Democratic Party branding. As Ben notes above, it was probably too little too late. A presidential campaign is the best opportunity a party has to shift its national brand/image, but even then there’s only so much that can be done to change people’s baked in perceptions in a short period of time. Harris could only do so much in a short period of time, and it didn’t help that her campaign was viewed (fairly, in my opinion) as being vibes-based and lacking real substance.
As a fellow voter who prioritizes those little things like ‘accepting peaceful transfer of power’ over almost anything else, I feel your pain. I think American democracy, warts and all, is an incredible gift we’ve been given, and I’d rather have bad policy outcomes for a few years than place that at risk. But that’s clearly not an issue which moves enough voters. And in politics you need to focus on the things that people care about. But it’s really depressing that so many people who are deeply patriotic are able to rationalize voting for a candidate who pretty clearly broke his oath to obey the constitution.
Yeah, the "freedom" line didn't resonate well, especially when so many Democrat commenters had spent 4 years typing it "freedumb."
The wealth gap is as staggering as it is unsustainable for a Democracy. We’re basically talking plutocracy, which is ascendant in the US as never before. But trans in sports!!!!
Counterpoint: People don't actually seem to care about this. The wealth gap closed more under the Biden admin than any other in my voting lifetime, and nobody cares.
The wealth gap has narrowed since about 2012 and plutocracy was much more ascendant in the mid-to-late 19th century than now. Plus tbh as I watch Netflix in my climate controlled apartment it’s kind of hard for me to get angry that some people have amassed a ton of power through wealth instead of lying to voters.
Americans aren’t motivated by envy. Americans admire achievement.
I have a big pile of "freedom" buttons with Kamala Harris's face on them.
Were they free, or did you have to pay for them? :-)
Ha, what? The "freedom" thing was Kamala's whole opening pitch.
Maybe M was blissfully on a news break around the time of the convention. Jealous!
Not a break so much as eclectic and selective self-torture, which did not include much if any convention news other than headline scanning.
See 2nd comment (a reply) above...
The right left dichotomy makes no sense here. Bernie would have easily won in 2016. It’s not right left it’s populism vs elitism and totalitarianism vs leave us alone.
They are arresting people in the UK for factually accurate social media posts that most people agree with. Is that right wing or left wing? That’s what Harris Walz stood for.
I find it amusing that nobody in the press / activist class mentions track and field as a measuring stick for female versus male abilities. It is about as standardized as it gets.
The world record in the 100m is Usain Bolt with a 9:58. The women's record is FloJo's 10:49.
World class Olympic female track and field athletes are roughly on par with good high school boys. Female gold medal winners from the Tokyo 2020 Olympics would not qualify for the high school state championships in any major US state.
And athletic events like track and field are probably where the gap in performance is narrowest, except maybe swimming.
The deadlift world record is 500 kg. The female deadlift world record is 318 kg.
Another way to put it, the current women’s world record was matched by men in *1911*.
And FloJos record is probably invalid (due to wind).
It’s also interesting that FloJo retired at approximately the same time that better drug testing came into use.
There are certainly rumors to that regard (although they’d probably apply to her contemporaries as well). The WR run in particular seems to be traceable to a faulty wind sensor ( the reading from another device in the same stadium was way above the allowed limit for world records). If you plot the women’s world record over time, it’s definitely an outlier from the curve.
Good not great high school boys. No female could medal at the state championships in Texas or California.
I wish you would address the "weird" part of the LWT clip. It's really fucking disingenuous to accuse people of being weird for focusing on an issue, when you're the one who is trying to change the status quo and present it as a fair acompli! There is a simple rubric here that has gone for quite a long time, 1. when you have sex segregation in sports, males can't play on the female team; and 2. You can't change your gender.
Even if you think sex segregation is akin to racial segregation, it's not "weird" for people to push back on changes to the longstanding tradition. When Jackie Robinson, famously played by Ben Stiller, broke the colour barrier in baseball, there was lots of good arguments for why he should. None of those were "everyone against this is a bunch of weirdos".
This never ceases to drive me up a wall. Critics are to be made odd fools for paying attention to their cause they champion, punished for listening to their rhetoric intently. It is the calling card of, “we don’t have/need any other arguments, you dangerous creep.”
My only solace is that I think many people are wise to this rhetoric trap and response (generally) accordingly.
I don't know. The JD Vance "couch fucker", which is effectively the same thing, seemed to resonate with a lot of people.
Ok… I’ll downgrade to “several”
I'm very relieved that the John Olivers of the world are being exposed. It's one thing to misrepresent reality in favor of your warped viewpoint, but another to do it in such a smug and self-satisfied way to a likely young and impressionable audience. The claims made on this show are, and have been for a long time, very disputable. I just can't respect anyone that is so compelled, but also so wrong and totally hostile to having their mind changed.
A more cynical view is that he is simply continuing to create high engagement content. he is after all primarily an entertainer. still morally reprehensible given that he positioned himself as a truth teller.
All it takes is one Google search to see that the 100m track record for American high school boys is 8/10ths of a second faster than the women's world record. In other words, the fastest teenage boy in the U.S. could outrun the fastest female track runner *in the world* by a wide margin.
IMO, the issue is that many of the academics, activists, and lefties pushing this issue don't have much- if any- background in competitive sports. It's impossible to sell anyone with that experience on the idea there's no biological differences. Sometimes it won't matter- I was a bad enough ski racer that many of the women could whoop me- but for top level athletes, it does. 8/10ths of a second in the 100m is a heck of a time difference!
Lefty activists also need to realize that there are parents who have genuine concerns about their daughters playing a contact sport (eg field hockey) and having their safety compromised under these rules. Writing them off as bigots won't allay their concerns or change their minds.
Just want to note - title IX as is requires schools to let straight dudes compete in women’s field hockey if they wish and there isn’t a mens team.
Okay, volleyball, then. It is fucking dangerous to have natal males playing with girls.
maryland schools have had co-ed volleyball since the 80s. it’s ok to not know about sports, we still get your point lol
I’m not sure I understand the first half of your statement but the second was the law of the land for schools that only had one field hockey team for literally like, 3 decades before trans activists were involved in anything. Was it wicked common? No. But it happened. It still happens now.
I don’t watch John Oliver here in London (loved The Bugle!) so only see him in clips, but has he ever admitted to changing his mind about anything? Is he one of those people who insists he’s right all the time?
Fellow Bugler here — honestly, I think John is one of those comics who really needs an Andy.
In retrospect, I think Andy was de-fusing a lot of the sanctimonious smugness that John has struggled with in the US.
Andy is still funny without John, probably because he’s less in love with his own opinions, or seems to be.
Not really.
Did anyone do more to get Trump reelected than trans activists? I say no.
The ACLU gets a gold medal on this front.
COTD!
Ibram X Kendi and similar race pornographers have done a ton of damage, from what I can tell.
The trust fund leftists rioting on liberal arts campuses would like a word.
I hear you, although anyone who takes college students seriously doesn't remember how little you know about the world at 19. But I'll grant that the administrations that enable their BS are a huge problem.
I think seeing the pro-Hamas, "down with the US" chanting coupled with violent antisemitism - while Dem lawmakers pal around with them - did untold damage to the campaign. And rightfully so.
Totally fair. It was a debacle.
According to this https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-critical-theory-is-radicalizing, admitting men and women are different will get you kicked out of high school debate these days.
Getting kicked out of high school debate seems like a blessing. Hard to think of any activity that is more counterproductive than that... Stop trying to "own" people and go find somebody to flirt with, kids!
Ahem, we were definitely hooking up at debate tournaments, good sir (or madam).
I mean, I knew debaters were big liars, but this just defies credulity!
:) Ok, fair enough, carry on then.
Their own logic also works against them:
1. Women should compete with men if they're good enough to do so- true according to lefties, and I agree (though I think the circumstances it happens are very rare).
2. Trans women are women- true according to lefties, and I agree.
So, if you believe trans women are women AND you believe women can compete with men, you should therefore have no issue with a trans woman competing against men. They never really address this flawed logic.
But surely this implies that a male person who isn't competitive in male sporting events should ergo be permitted to compete in female, provided they identify as women. Which hardly seems fair to me either. Women's sporting events were traditionally ringfenced for "women", not "women (and any men who don't want to git gud)".
Oh man - I was apoplectic when I read that. P***ed me off almost more than anything else I’ve read in the last few years.
Scott Alexander has an excellent Covid-era post about how the phrase “no evidence” should be a double-plus enormous red flag:
https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag?r=12ylq&utm_medium=ios
Good take, Jeff. Always a good mix of comedy and relevant politics. The point that obvious physical differences is the foundational basis for women’s sports pretty much sums it up.
I'm trying to imagine a world where Oliver could do an episode going "we got a lot of pushback on this clip, so we took another look and it's a lot more nuanced than we made it seem and the preponderance of evidence is against the position we took."
But I'm not sure how to make it a funny skit.
Even if they were to do that, though, I'd suspect they'd try to hedge it by arguing that inclusion is more important than fairness and end up pissing off everyone.
Has he commented at all?
Really great post, thank you! As a lifelong skeptic, I appreciate those who go out of their way to seek the truth rather than toe the line of whatever causes they are a part of. I never watcher Bill Maher until recently and like it more than Last Week Tonight now, even though I disagree with a lot of his views. I find his skepticism appealing and his willingness to bring opposing viewpoints on his show refreshing. I feel like I spend the hour thinking instead of being preached at. We need more of that.
Bill Maher deserves a dang medal for being one of the only smart chat shows on TV.
My condolences for your having worked for that dipshit.
Great column, and thanks for actual research facts...cut and pasted for future reference.
First, I believe there is plenty of of evidence that trans women have athletic advantages in general.
Second, as a researcher, I want you to draw attention to the use of the phrase “there is no evidence for X”. People interpret this as “there is no reason to believe X”, but that isn’t quite what it means. It’s more like saying “I’ve never been convicted of murder” to imply that you’ve never committed murder. Maybe you weren’t caught, or had a hung jury. It can be true that there is no evidence for X and also no evidence against X. Maybe no one has done a study, or maybe the speaker thinks the studies that are available are too weak/ poorly constructed to constitute evidence.
Anyway, I just wanted to draw attention to this commonly-used weasel phrase. It should make your antenna tingle.
"There's no evidence that I did it" is only slightly better than "You can't prove I did it."