James Talarico: Electable Is Not the Same as Convincing
James Talarico: Electable Is Not the Same as Convincing
I can't vote in the Texas Senate election on November 3. If I could, James Talarico would get my vote. Given his Republican opponent, Ken Paxton, the choice would be clear to me. I still wouldn't be happy about it.
I want to be able to rely on people who promise to stand up for our rights. As a trans woman, I listen closely when a clear commitment suddenly turns into an answer with plenty of escape hatches. With Talarico, I now have exactly that uneasy feeling.
What speaks in his favor
There are good reasons to trust him to support us. His platform promises to protect the legality of same-sex marriage and to defend LGBTQ+ people from government overreach. He grounds his politics in the commandment to love your neighbor and openly opposes using religion as a weapon against other people. That deserves recognition. [1]
His record in the Texas House also speaks for him. In 2021, he voted against the bills that barred trans students from playing on sports teams matching their gender. At the time, he accused supporters of wanting the government to police children's bodies and made clear that fair competition is not the highest value of all. [2] He also voted against SB 14, the 2023 law that largely banned gender-affirming care for minors in Texas. [4]
But that very contrast is what makes his current statements stand out. When it comes to concrete questions about trans people, things get murky.
Sports: A caveat without criteria
On September 9, Talarico told Fox News in an interview that he opposes trans athletes playing in girls' sports if it risks safety or fairness. The Texas Tribune described this as a reversal of his earlier positions. It appeared to be the first time he had said this so plainly himself, and he did it in front of the conservative audience of a network he is using to win over right-leaning voters. [2]
The caveat is part of his statement. Dropping it and turning his words into a blanket ban would be unfair. It is equally part of the record that on September 24, at the Texas Tribune Festival, he denied having changed his position. He said he still opposes blanket statewide bans. Local school and sports officials should decide sport by sport and athlete by athlete. He called protecting children and ensuring fair competition compatible goals. [3]
This line isn't new. Back in January, he said on a podcast that there would be rules under which participation is sometimes not allowed. [2]
Still, the decisive questions remain open for me. Which criteria should apply? Who has to prove a risk? What protection do trans girls have when the local decision-makers reject them on principle? In Texas, that is not a theoretical concern. Passing responsibility down the line does not answer what rights these children have against such decisions.
Trans journalist Erin Reed made a sharp observation about this: pointing to local decisions sidesteps the question of what role the federal government should play in protecting people from discrimination. And federal law is exactly what Talarico would be voting on as a senator. [3] Equality Texas, the state's leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group, also responded with disappointment and said fairness in school sports must include trans kids. [2]
I don't expect identical rules for every sport. I expect transparent criteria and effective protection against discrimination. Anyone who promises support should explain how the two are supposed to work together.
Medical care: The real commitment
My unease grows even stronger when it comes to medical care. In the same Fox interview, Talarico said that as a senator he would "absolutely" vote for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming surgery for minors. He explained his vote against SB 14 by saying the bill was overly broad. He said he had supported an amendment that would have limited it to surgeries. SB 14, however, prohibits not only surgery but also puberty blockers and hormone treatment. [4]
If you take his explanation at face value, you could conclude that he opposes banning those treatments. But he did not say so explicitly in this context. Erin Reed points out that a federal bill marketed as a surgery ban could easily be worded to cover hormone therapy as well. [3]
What gets lost in this debate: gender-affirming surgery on trans minors is rare. A study published in JAMA Network Open in 2024 analyzed 2019 claims data from nearly 23 million insured minors and about 47 million insured adults. It found 85 such procedures among minors and 2,664 among adults. That means nearly 97 percent of the procedures recorded were performed on adults. Among minors, 82 of the 85 procedures, or 96.4 percent, were chest-related. Among children aged 12 and younger, the study found not a single procedure. [5]
One figure from the same study strikes me as particularly revealing. Of 151 breast reductions among cisgender boys and trans minors, 146, or 97 percent, were performed on cisgender boys. The same kind of procedure is far more common among cis teenagers, yet it barely registers politically. [5]
The numbers have limits. They come from a large sample of insured patients, not a complete count of every surgery in the United States. Self-paid procedures are not included, and the classification relies on diagnosis and billing codes. [5] None of that changes the order of magnitude.
The Endocrine Society's guideline also distinguishes between types of procedures. For genital surgery involving removal of the gonads or uterus, it recommends waiting until at least age 18 or the legal age of majority in the respective country. For chest surgery, timing should depend on the individual's physical and mental health. The guideline finds insufficient evidence for a fixed age requirement here. [6] The guideline dates from 2017, and the society has announced an update. [12]
The rare cases involving adolescents deserve careful medical assessment. I expect Talarico to acknowledge this order of magnitude and to keep the different procedures apart when he talks about a nationwide ban. He wants to rule out certain medical decisions by law. That is a concrete political commitment, and he should face tough questions about it, even as he emphasizes that he wants to protect trans kids.
The missing answer
I find his answer to the Texas Tribune, published on October 13, especially telling. The paper asked whether the federal government should pass a law, like Texas has, that prevents doctors from prescribing or authorizing medical gender transition care for people under 18. Talarico replied that he does not support gender reassignment surgery for minors. He then pledged to always stand up for children bullied by powerful politicians and moved on to gas prices, groceries, health care costs and corruption. [7]
The question was about care as a whole, including puberty blockers and hormones. On that, he said nothing.
In moments like these, I feel like he slips through uncomfortable questions like an eel. In the end, there's a lot of text. The answer that matters is missing.
I understand that a candidate in Texas has to reach people with very different beliefs. The race is considered close, and a win would be the Democrats' first statewide victory in Texas since 1994. [7] I also know that politics requires compromise. But when it comes to decisions about medical care, I want to know how much room he would actually leave to parents, adolescents and their doctors. A general promise of compassion is not enough for me.
Equality Act: A commitment on call
The Equality Act shows a similar pattern. The bill would enshrine protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in federal law. In a 2025 questionnaire for the Stonewall Democrats of Austin, Talarico pledged in writing to sponsor the bill in the Senate. When The Washington Post asked about it, his campaign initially said only that he would review every bill and do what's best for Texas. Only after the report was published did a spokesperson say Talarico stands by his support. [8]
It would be wrong to read this as opposition to the bill. The earlier hesitation still needs explaining. Why should an existing commitment to protect people from discrimination need public pressure before it becomes clear again?
Six sexes, two sexes, "genetic abnormalities"
His statements about biological sex don't give me much confidence in his grasp of the subject either. At a 2021 committee hearing, he claimed there were six biological sexes and listed various chromosome combinations such as XXY and XYY. [9] That claim did not hold up as stated, because chromosomes alone do not determine sex, and differences of sex development cannot be sorted into six categories.
In the September 9 Fox interview, he took it back. There are two sexes, he said, and a small percentage of people with "genetic abnormalities." [9]
Correcting an inaccurate statement is the right thing to do. I still find the new wording insensitive. It frames intersex people as a deviation from a norm rather than as part of human diversity. I also miss the care to distinguish between physical sex characteristics and gender identity. For trans rights, the number of chromosome combinations isn't the decisive point anyway. Anyone who wants to make policy for other people should be expected to offer more than a catchy explanation.
My impression
On this issue, Talarico now strikes me as very much a career politician. He may have a position of his own. But as soon as its concrete consequences might scare off potential voters, his answers become remarkably flexible.
That is my impression, not a provable claim about his inner motives. Perhaps he believes this kind of messaging is necessary to win at all. Paxton and the Republicans are campaigning against him with his past statements anyway, accusing him of flip-flopping despite his corrections. [2] Moving toward the center is not automatically rewarded. For the people whose rights are left hanging, this strategy creates uncertainty either way.
And yet I would vote for him
The comparison with Ken Paxton is unambiguous. As early as February 2022, Paxton, as attorney general, issued a formal legal opinion classifying certain gender-affirming treatments for minors, explicitly including puberty blockers, as child abuse under Texas family law. At the same time, he called on the state's child protective services agency to act accordingly. His own office documents this. [10]
In March 2026, he argued in another opinion that the Texas treatment ban also applies to state-licensed mental health providers. [11] Such opinions are not legally binding in themselves. On top of that, Paxton secured a settlement with Texas Children's Hospital compelling the creation of a detransition clinic. According to the Texas Tribune, he opposes any gender-affirming care for minors. [7] That shows clearly where he intends to direct the power of the state.
Talarico leaves questions open. Paxton answered them long ago, and he answered them against us.
Given all this, my decision would be clear. I would want Talarico to win. I would still keep stating my expectations of his commitment to trans people publicly.
Because to me, a vote is also a mandate. Anyone who runs on the promise of protecting LGBTQ+ people has to be held to it when the questions get uncomfortable. That is exactly when I want to know which rights he will defend and which restrictions he supports himself.
If I could vote there, Talarico would have my vote. My trust he would still have to earn with clear answers and reliable decisions.
Sources
Talarico for Texas: Freedom, Family & Faith. Campaign platform, accessed October 14, 2026.
Kayla Guo and Ayden Runnels, The Texas Tribune, September 9, 2026: In reversal, James Talarico says he opposes trans athletes in girls' sports "if it risks safety or fairness". Also covers his 2021 votes and statements, his January 2026 podcast remarks and the response from Equality Texas.
Molly Sprayregen, LGBTQ Nation, September 28, 2026: James Talarico says he still opposes blanket trans sports ban despite controversial take on fairness. Report on his remarks at the Texas Tribune Festival on September 24, 2026, with analysis by Erin Reed.
Natalia Mittelstadt, The National News Desk/WCIV, September 10, 2026: Talarico backtracks controversial gender comments, pushes for Supreme Court overhaul.
Dannie Dai et al., JAMA Network Open, June 27, 2024: Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18814. Analysis of 2019 US insurance claims data.
Endocrine Society: Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: Clinical Practice Guideline. 2017 guideline, especially recommendations 5.5 and 5.6.
Gabby Birenbaum, María Méndez and Kayla Guo, The Texas Tribune, October 13, 2026: On the issues: A Q&A with U.S. Senate candidates James Talarico, Ken Paxton and Ted Brown.
Jacob Ogles, The Advocate, October 9, 2026: James Talarico promised to co-sponsor the Equality Act, but now only says he will 'review' the bill. Covers the original pledge, The Washington Post's report and the subsequent confirmation of his support.
D'Angelo Gore, FactCheck.org, September 15, 2026: Paxton's AI-Heavy Ad Leaves Out Context of Talarico Remarks About Christianity. Includes his original remarks on chromosomes and his later correction.
Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 21, 2022: AG Paxton Declares So-Called Sex-Change Procedures on Children and Prescription of Puberty Blockers to be "Child Abuse" Under Texas Law. Press release on legal opinion KP-0401.
Stephen Simpson and Aidan Johnstone, The Texas Tribune, March 2, 2026, updated March 3: Texas law bans state-licensed mental health providers from giving gender-transitioning care to minors, AG Ken Paxton says.
Endocrine Society: Guidelines in Development. Announced update to the 2017 guideline, accessed October 14, 2026.
Comments