Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) told CNN’s Pamela Brown that Democrats are missing “nuance” in debates over transgender athletes in girls’ sports, arguing that voters’ concerns often center on scholarships, college costs, and practical access—not “love ver
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez didn’t sound like she was trying to win an argument on television. She sounded like she was trying to keep a room from setting itself on fire.
Speaking Wednesday to CNN anchor Pamela Brown. the Washington Democrat said Democrats are missing “nuance” in what she described as a “rush to moralize” the conversation about transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports. Her point wasn’t that the issue isn’t serious—it was that the way it’s being framed has become counterproductive. especially after the Supreme Court’s latest decision.
The court upheld a ban on transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia. Perez said the ruling has implications for the 25 states that currently have similar laws. She also noted that 23 states in the U.S. do not have any laws on the inclusion of transgender athletes.
Her critique sharpened when Brown asked about her own votes. Gluesenkamp Perez said she faced a backlash after voting against a bill that would have allowed for genital inspection of student athletes. “I got a lot of people angry at me when I voted against the bill that would have allowed for genital inspection of student athletes. ” she said.
At town halls. she told Brown. the reaction she saw from the most upset residents didn’t come from a single slogan. “And at those town halls. what I saw was that the people who were most upset. a lot of them had spent the last 12 years driving their girls to sports practice. ” she said. “And they view their best shot of their student getting a college education as an athletic scholarship.”.
From there, she returned to what she sees as the central flaw in the public debate. “And so when we rush to moralize and be like. this is all about love versus hate. I think we miss some of the nuance that people are seeing in this. ” she said. “And I think we can put up walls where there don’t necessarily need to be them.”.
Perez also pointed to language in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion. In it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that states “may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. ” but they cannot completely exclude transgender athletes. Kavanaugh added that “No student-athlete on either side of the issue. whether a biological female or transgender. deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”.
The conversation then widened beyond eligibility rules and courtroom language. Perez questioned whether college—and athletics as a pipeline into it—should be treated as the default route for young people. “I’m a big supporter of the trades,” she said. She added that the bigger issue is the question of “Why does everyone need to get into college?” and raised what she described as the “paper ceiling of a degree.” She also pointed to rising costs. asking. “[There’s] also the question of why has college tuition increased?”.
Taken together, Perez’s remarks tie the Supreme Court’s decision to the everyday concerns she says she hears on the ground: how families think about scholarships, what they fear about intrusion into student athletes’ bodies, and whether college is the only ladder worth building.
For now, the Supreme Court’s ruling stands, and it could shape how states with existing transgender-athlete laws respond—especially in the 25 states that already have similar restrictions, and the 23 states that still have none.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez transgender athletes girls sports Supreme Court Idaho ban West Virginia ban Brett Kavanaugh genital inspection bill athletic scholarships college tuition trades