Why I Departed from the Democratic Party After Supporting Kamala Harris—and Why Others Might Do the Same

After many years of being a steadfast Democrat and casting a straight Democratic ticket in every election — including the most recent one — I have decided to part ways with the Democratic Party.

I have been worried about the party’s trajectory for some time, but I held out hope for a correction. I was convinced it would adjust after suffering a significant defeat in the last election.

However, I was mistaken. The Democratic Party appears resolute in its relentless pursuit of identity politics, seemingly heading towards the abyss.

The tipping point for my departure was the Democratic response to H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025.

This legislation aims to prohibit recipients of federal funds from allowing males to participate in athletic programs designated for females, ensuring the safety and fairness for women and girls in sports.

President Joe Biden fully endorsed the issue of transgender rights, claiming it to be the “civil rights issue of our time.” Notably, he invited Dylan Mulvaney, an adult male identifying as a woman and at times as a prepubescent girl, to the White House to discuss transgender rights.

Polls during the campaign showed swing voters shifting away from Kamala Harris to Donald Trump due to advertisements focused on Harris’ support for transgender rights and her endorsement of taxpayer-funded gender-transition surgeries for inmates. Despite this, Harris largely remained silent, even though her campaign did acknowledge the existence of the inmate gender-transition-surgery policy under Trump.

Although I was puzzled by Harris’ reticence, I was somewhat relieved that she did not passionately express the kind of support Biden had. That was a clear distinction.

I was tentatively optimistic that the growing consensus on how “gender-affirming medicine” adversely affects children signalled an end to this odd phenomenon. I thought her reluctance to distance herself from Biden on the issue was merely a strategy to avoid alienating those who shared her boss’ views in light of a closely predicted election.

But the Democrats lost, and the issue of transgender rights played a part in that defeat. I assumed the Democrats would recognize the need to reassure the public that they were moving away from Biden’s position on trans rights, allowing those who might not use preferred pronouns to avoid being branded as reactionaries.

How wrong I was.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act provided an ideal opportunity for Democrats to make a modest retreat from Biden’s endorsement. Who could possibly argue that it is fair or safe for women and girls to compete in sports against men and boys?

Apparently, the Democrats could. Their response to the bill showcased their continued allegiance to gender ideology, which insists that a man can declare himself a woman based solely on a feeling, compelling others to disregard his biological sex as recognized at birth.

One after another, Democrats criticized H.R. 28 as a blatant assault on trans-identified individuals. It wasn’t just members of the Squad; prominent figures like Hakeem Jeffries and Jerry Nadler voiced their opposition as well.

The primary argument from the Democrats was that H.R. 28 is a “predator empowerment” act. Preventing boys from joining girls’ sports teams would necessitate intrusive genital inspections of children and adolescents.

We have maintained separate teams for boys and girls for years, and I don’t recall anyone claiming that this required predatory inspections to verify if those presenting as boys are indeed boys and those presenting as girls are girls.

Now, keeping boys off girls’ teams supposedly necessitates genital inspections and somehow “empowers predators”? This is ridiculous. Distinguishing boys from girls poses no significant challenge, and should any questions arise, school records regarding sex or birth certificates can be reviewed.

Upon initially viewing video clips of Democrats making these claims on the House floor, I thought they must have been generated by artificial intelligence, so surreal they seemed. But they were real and reflect a troubling sentiment: opposing trans ideology is portrayed as an unhealthy fixation with genitalia. The Democratic stance on H.R. 28 is not only outrageously unjust to women and girls but also appears completely detached from reality — a response was essential. I provided mine.

I have expressed my thoughts on transgender rights extensively in academic publications. My stance aligns with liberal pluralism, such that we should not discriminate against trans-identified individuals regarding housing, education, employment, etc. An employee, regardless of their gender identity, should not be denied a promotion for reasons unrelated to their performance, just as a Catholic employee should not be denied a promotion based on their religious beliefs.

Individuals, irrespective of their beliefs, can express themselves as they choose. However, they cannot enforce acceptance of their metaphysical beliefs upon others.

A Catholic cannot demand that we accept transubstantiation, just as a trans-identified individual cannot insist that we recognize that sex exists on a spectrum, is not binary, or can be altered. Neither can impose their beliefs within my home or in public spaces like women’s toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, etc., nor should they be housed in women’s prisons or allowed to compete in females’ sports.

This perspective, advocating against discrimination toward trans-identified individuals while refraining from being compelled to accept unfounded beliefs, embodies the liberal pluralism foundational to Western political thought.

However, the Democratic view equates any stance less than complete and unquestioning acceptance of such beliefs — which mirrors the imposition of religious or spiritual beliefs — with being “transphobic” or “bigoted,” opening us up to accusations of “empowering predators.”

As author J.K. Rowling stated in 2019, individuals should have the freedom to live, love, and express themselves as they choose, yet no one should lose their job for refusing to acknowledge a self-identified gender contrary to their beliefs. The backlash and serious accusations of “transphobia” against Rowling have been relentless. After previously supporting the UK Labour Party, she withdrew her backing due to their stance mirroring that of the Democrats on this issue.

This is the trajectory that “progressive” parties are leading their supporters down.

I am no longer a Democrat. However, I do not identify as a Republican either. I genuinely commend President Trump for signing an executive order criticizing gender ideology, as well as Rep. Nancy Mace’s efforts to keep males out of the Capitol’s restrooms.

Nevertheless, I am worried about any response that generally rejects gender nonconformity without a sole focus on women’s rights. I believe individuals should be free to look, live, and love as they please, provided they do not necessitate participation from others. I do not wish to see the repeal of gay marriage.

However, I oppose the presence of males — irrespective of their identifications — in women’s personal and intimate spaces. I resist the notion of compelling individuals to use “preferred pronouns” or to conform to language that aligns with trans ideology. Furthermore, I advocate for the prohibition of “gender-affirming treatments” for children.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade means that choice, in my view, is essential for women’s rights. I had the privilege of clerking for the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1982-83, during which she articulated her approach to abortion regulation in a concurrence and dissent that became the standard in 1992. O’Connor’s framework allowed states to regulate abortion without imposing an “undue burden” on choice — a principle that has since vanished. Choice is no longer a constitutional right for women.

I am uncertain about where I belong now. However, I am confident that I am not alone in this sentiment.

Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor emeritus at Rutgers University Law School. His latest book is “Why Veganism Matters: The Moral Value of Animals.”