Littwin: You’re not a sore loser if you reject that Colorado voted in anti-trans laws. You’re right.

If you’re a progressive— or anyone else — upset that Colorado voters narrowly passed two propositions opposed by the LGBTQ+ community, does that make you a sore loser? 

Does it mean that the governor and the legislature would be wrong — going against the will of the people, as Prop. 134 and 135 proponents say — if they make some tweaks, and maybe major tweaks, to the controversial new laws that many see as anti-transgender?

Democrats — and just about everyone else who’s anti-MAGA — were thrilled by the election results last week. Not just in Colorado but across the nation.

But here’s the heart of the question: Does all that winning mean you should just ignore what is basically a civil rights issue?

Here’s a brief Colorado scorecard:

When Eileen Laubacher’s presumed victory over Lauren Boebert in the 4th Congressional District becomes official — probably on Friday — that will turn the Colorado delegation bright blue, with Democrats holding seven of eight seats. If you can still remember the dark days before Nov. 3, the delegation was split 4-4.

I know I’m old enough to remember when Dems wanted to gerrymander the state to counter Donald Trump’s ugly gerrymandering scheme. But voters across the nation rejected Trump’s gerrymander, and voters in Colorado did the job of rewriting the districts themselves.

Want early access to
Mike’s columns?

Subscribe to get an
exclusive first look at
his columns twice a week.

Meanwhile, Dems got a big win on taxes, despite opposition from Democratic luminaries like Phil Weiser, Jared Polis, John Hickenlooper and Ken Salazar. The vote, which was much closer than it should have been, changes the flat income tax to a graduated system, where most voters get a cut and the rich — those making more than $500,000 — get hit the hardest. It’s a major shot at TABOR that’s worth more than $2 billion annually for the state’s coffers.

Taxes are tough anytime. California, where Dems had another big victory, defeated a wealth tax. The divide, I guess, is more than just red v. blue.

And if you’re looking for the real measure of the wipeout in Colorado, Democrats now own supermajorities, for the first time, in both houses of the legislature.

And yet, you’re not satisfied?

Well, neither am I.

Neither is much of the LGBTQ+ community and its many allies.

This is a human rights question on an issue that is far less about science than it is about politics. It’s wedge-issue politics, a continuation of the anti-gay battles of not so long ago. The anti-gay group lost when the Supreme Court — way back in 2015, before the Trump-McConnell court was thrust upon us — approved the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

And since same-sex marriage has become widely accepted, the culture warriors have needed to move the battle lines. 

When they were not busy demonizing DEI protections and vaccines and nongendered school bathrooms and, of course, immigrants, the culture warriors went after drag queens in libraries, which didn’t really catch on. And then came the emphasis on the trans issue, which became central to Donald Trump’s closing argument against Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

So, let’s look at the propositions.

Prop 135 addresses “any surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.” It did not mention particular kinds of surgery, meaning the law really does need to be tweaked.

The debate is mostly about gender-affirming surgeries, although the law could also apply to cisgender patients.

Why do we need this law? Yes, the science on transitioning for minors is not entirely settled, but what doesn’t happen, despite the ads you might have seen, is that your kid goes to school one day as John and comes home as Jane.

First of all, most schools I know of don’t seem to have ORs. They’re lucky if they have fulltime school nurses. And secondly, the debate is about an issue that barely exists.

According to the state’s hospitals, none of them perform transgender surgery on minors. According to a 2024 study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, relying on 2019 statistics, there were no gender-affirming surgeries to minors 12 or under. That’s as in none.

For teens 15 to 17, the number of such surgeries was 2.1 surgeries out of a population of 100,000, meaning that in a city of one million, there would be two such surgeries.

And gender-affirming surgeries are even more rare than that. Again, according to the Harvard study, most of those surgeries counted were chest surgeries and were overwhelmingly performed on cisgender male teens.

Why do we need this law, other than to scapegoat kids struggling mightily with their sexual identity and the costs, mentally and physically, of that struggle? These are not decisions made lightly by students or their parents or their doctors. But shouldn’t this be a decision made among those actually involved and not by government fiat, even when the laws are voted on by the people?

We need it even less than we need Prop 134, which solves the problem that isn’t a problem, by barring transgender students — from kindergarten to college — from playing on teams that don’t match up with their biological reproductive organs. Wait until parents do a Boebert — remember when she identified a female as a male in a congressional bathroom— and cause some kids to suffer unnecessarily.

I mean, do you know of any transgender athletes playing on girls’ teams? The usual number I hear is less than 10. That’s less than 10 out of the million students who attend either public K-12 schools in Colorado or state-supported (if hardly supported enough) colleges and universities.

This is not exactly an issue that requires a state law. School officials could resolve the problem where, and if, it becomes one. They take the issues case by case, which seems, I don’t know, fair?

I can understand the issue. Renée Richards, who played professional women’s tennis in the 1970s as a male who transitioned to female, eventually went on to wonder if what she was doing was fair.

But is it a real issue — or is it simply another made-up front in the culture wars?

Jefferson County schools are now fighting a Trump executive order that bans transgender athletes from playing on girls’ teams. JeffCo is one of the few districts in the country being investigated — we know how Trump loves Colorado — and could lose as much as $50 million in federal funding if found not to be in compliance.

If 134 is in place, of course, then JeffCo’s suit, which relies on previous state law, would be moot.

But I expect the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature to make changes to 134 and 135 and that Weiser will sign them into law. 

And for those who say that would mean sore-loser Democrats are circumventing the will of the people, they may be right. But it’s legal to do so. These are not constitutional amendments, they’re statutes. And legislatures can, and will, pass new statutes all the time. In Colorado, I’m guessing the propositions will come up for changes this January.

And they should make changes, especially, when the people — responding to propaganda or, in some cases, just plain bias — have voted against truth, justice and, most of all, equal rights under the law.

Isn’t that what Colorado voters’ overwhelming rejection of Trump was all about?

Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow. Sign up for Mike’s newsletter.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at [email protected].

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.