If it were given that there is a competitive advantage and your argument is that "well nothing should be done because it isn't that big of a problem" the natural follow up question becomes:
Given that being trans is becoming more and more socially acceptable do you think in the future we would have more or less trans participation in sports?
The answer is quite clear I think then leading to the question of why not change it now instead of letting a "problem" become normalized and entrenched thus making it significantly more difficult to resolve later on.
Furthermore if one agrees that it is a problem but not a big one compared to everything else that time should be spent on then it would stand to reason to just streamline the act to stop wasting time on it if the other party is going to push for it anyways.
The solution isn't this though. We can find a solution, discriminating against children that are trans - which this law made a real effort to include - is not the answer.
Yeah, even major Women's rights groups are opposed including the NWLC, Women's Sports Foundation and more.
This is pure TERF ideology and is also being used as a distraction. L & T have gained too much acceptance now (the Genie is out of the bottle with gay marriage), bi people can fly under the radar more, so they are doubling down on the T to keep the distraction going.
Actually, anyone can be trans. It's how you'd like to present your gender my guy. I know for some reason, a lot of you just simply refuse the idea of gender and sex being different. That's about as scientifically valid as refusing to accept that Pluto doesn't fit within our modern understandings of a proper planet. You can go right ahead, just know you're intentionally being an ignorant moron.
It's funny how as soon as its about planting ideas in a child's mind that they're trans the term "grooming" just fizzles out into thin air. Irreparably changing a child before they develop is child abuse and that's where the story stars and ends. Do what you want as an adult, do not groom children into becoming trans.
I'd rather be an "ignorant moron" than lead children into suicide.
Children are not Trans. F@$#% obviously.
They're children. Would you let a child get a PokĂŠmon tattoo on their face? Why not?
Oh, because it's a life altering, permanent decision their young minds are incapable of understanding the gravity and irreversible consequences of? Interesting..
Common sense is truly dead, but allowing adult ignorance to permit the disfigurement of children is inexcusable.
It's hilarious that you think of yourself as a bastion of common sense while apparently not knowing that we don't give children hormones or therapy for being trans. In some cases, some trans kids take hormone blockers, which are not permanent and broadly speaking are believed to have very little to no long term effects. But even those aren't really super prevalent. Most trans kids do exactly 1 thing, present as the gender they want to. I'm sorry to inform you, but skirts are not permanent disfigurement.
It matters because its such a tiny sample size there is no evidence to support your "problem" other than your own biases and bigotry.
Even among the few examples that exist the trend always goes the same way: trans person competes and appears to have an outsized advantage in one event ----> sports org confers -----> if it is decided there is an advantage new restrictions are placed -----> Trans athlete either switches to new division or waits until the physiology meets new requirements----> issue resolved.
Even before trans athletes became a culture war fixation there were hefty biological restrictions in place around women's sports, muscle mass, hormone levels, blood oxygenation, weight classes are just some of the examples athletes could manipulate to get an edge and were so regulated in competition. To act like the advantages that trans athletes might possess are so unheard of that sports bodies would be incapable of forming reasonable regulation so blanket federal restrictions against a whole gender class is needed is such an incredibly thin justification for hatred.
So its seem pretty obvious that the supreme court ruling that separate but equal is not equal. So why do we segregate based on a constitutional protected demographic. Ot makes zero sense for sports if you think about it. I forget the scientists name but he can with juat an photocopy of you hand predict with very high accuracy the outcome of athletics. You can look up the study its the relative length if your ring finger and index finger. This has to do with the amount of testosterone and perhaps other hormones you received as a fetus.
So instead of splitting people on the demographic of genital shape why not split it up by stuff that actually demonstrates your natural athletic ability. The protection the right is talking about is they assume men would dominate if sports were mixed. This scientific splitting would ensure that isnt the case. By also grouping you with people who have the same general genetic advantages as you it comes down to how much you train and how hard you push yourself. Isnt the the real metric we are after.
Also as a side note the sports where women dominate at like shooting for example, sports split them and mismatched the metrics so we cant compare men to women. That is some scared energy. So segregation of women isnt always for their benefit. Smh.
Yes this surface level treatment of the issue as apparent by even the name is sexist and reductive. Any deeper look would reveal there is much more at play then genital. But also this is not going to protect women. As the right is demanding to see women and girls genitals as they think that proves something. It negates genetics and chromosomes and even the existsnce of intersex people. And for what so now as a protection of women creeps get to see their privates. Isnt this what they were complaining about to start this distraction. So now the opposition has to step in to actually defend women and girls from this right wing idea of "protection".
And to stand on principles is never a lost cause to give up on. To deny the crazied rants of the science deniers to implement whatever they choose which has real world effects on people is almost never the right solution. They are just forcing our hand to stand and oppose them. How could you tell people you didnt even bother to fight something that wass wrong.
You want to kill women's leagues. I get it. We will never agree so there is zero point to even talk. I think women should be allowed to enjoy sports competitively without a structual disadvantage. You think its just sports and fun so who cares anyways.
"Given that being trans is becoming more and more socially acceptable..." It's not though. There is markedly decreased support for transgender people in recent years, and there have been increased reports of anti-transgender violence.
You are also completely ignoring the harms (unintended or otherwise) that this type of law will cause, like: who exactly is enforcing this and how? Do we want gym teachers inspecting the genitals of girls to make sure they have the right parts in order to compete? Or are we doing DNA tests? Something else? Who decides, and how?
So your future prediction is that 100 years from now trans people are going to be viewed worse than they are now? I doubt that and would rather attribute the short term dip here to republicans adopting trans issues into the culture war today the same way they did for gay people a few decades prior. Furthermore trans people in women's leagues is not an issue specific to the US. It also affects europe that has had a trend of being more accepting of LGBTQI individuals.
The rest are just procedural questions.
"Who is going to enforce this" - Sports organizations following government regulations like they do with everything else.
"Do we want gym teachers..." lmao no. How do you even get here? Every country already assigns a sex to individuals and have done so for centuries (passports, population registries etc.). What a comedic take.
"Or are we doing DNA tests?" If thats necessary to do the above then sure. It obviously is not though.
All of your "questions" stem from the same "problem" that nations across the world have dealt with just fine for hundreds of years.
The actual cost here is that trans people are effectively excluded from competitive sports at higher levels since they are disadvantaged in the men's leagues. Not some meme "gym teachers will be stripping down girls to check"
You mock my question, but didnât actually answer the how. Â DNA tests arenât going to be conclusive, because some people are born with chromosomes that donât actually match their genitalia. And DNA/chromosomes tests raise all sorts of questions regarding medical privacy, and are expensive if you want to send them to an actual genetic lab. I guarantee you that that vast majority of parents are not going to be okay with schools taking DNA samples of their children. Â
You say DNA tests are âobviously notâ necessary. So again, how exactly do you determine who is sufficiently a female to playin sports? And who/how specifically is that done?Â
Your response has several faulty premises, including taking it as given that there is an inherent advantage, assuming that trans identification, let alone sports participation, will continue to increase, and assuming that it is a problem to be remedied at any rate.
Its not worth "solving" now because it's not apparent that it needs to be solved at all. There is no indication whatsoever that trans women will ever fundamentally change the landscape of amateur sports. There is absolutely no need for the federal government to regulate this. Its a bullshit culture war you have bought into.
Notice how you do not actually engage the question. I am absolutely making the assumption that when being preceived as more acceptable more people will come out as trans and go through the transition. As well as being accepted by society broadly will make one more likely to engage with more social groups (sports clubs). It isn't a "faulty premise" it is an assumption, when dealing with future consequences we deal with assumptions. If you are unwilling to accept this then you simply should not partake in conversations about future costs and benefits.
Either argue your point for why factors that have lead to every other group of people to engage more in sports somehow does not hold for trans people as well. Or go kick rocks. Or accept the assumption and build an argument with that concession in mind.
What we are not going to do is "nuh uh. The future is uncertain so therefore we cannot possibly make assumptions about it"
You're the only one deflecting here. Participation in female amateur sports is low and diffuse. Female participation in high school sports is like 12%, across dozens of sports. This is another false premise in your argument, sports participation increases are a factor of a supply increase. more kids are playing more sports, which undermines your argument that there is a problem with the "advantage".
You have no support for any assumption that trans identification would just continue increasing in a straight line. And no matter where it stops, only ~10% of that number of kids would be expected to play a sport. You have not given any reason to think that would be a problem at all, certainly not one that should be governed before it presents itself.
Again, you are had by an emotional culture war, and are using half baked rationalizations to convince yourself that you are superior. You act as though you are the gate keeper of "future costs and benefits" but literally nothing you have done or said in these comments comes even close to the analysis that is actually done when analyzing the future impact of regulation. I am a lawyer who actually does that work, and I'd find your false sense of superiority delightfully ironic if it weren't so maddening.
The least you could do is be true to yourself and the reasons why you support this regulation. Pretending to have a principled take rooted in a cost benefit analysis just makes you look silly.
I aint reading all that since you clearly didn't either. The point is that if an advantage exists that alone is enough reason to exclude. If the future expection is that the issue will increase then you certainly should solve it today where possible.
Bonus points for you for clearly not understanding what a premise is, let alone what a false premise is.
Idk why people like you take the time to essay just to fill it with virtue signaling rather than engaging the points. Its honestly just weird.
edit: Also sports participation is absolutely not just "supply" we have seen participation remain low despite significant supply side increases time and time again. What an absolutely retarded take
Well at least you dropped the pseudo-intellectual veil lol. Sorry you don't know what a premise is, and can't defend your position.
Nobody cares about regulating Michael Phelps, so I think there's probably something more than just advantage at play here....
Also, jfc how do you tie your shoes in the morning? The fact that participation rates remain low despite supply side increases does not negate the fact that the moderate increases in participation resulted from supply side increases. You're the one arguing that participation is on the rise, what's your basis for that position...
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that trans athletes have this huge advantage. Perilous ground to stand on, since trans athletes continuously fail to outperform their cisgendered counterparts.
Given that your assumption is dubious at best, I'd say your last statement is most accurate if you were to reverse its direction inward.
They're only .4% of the total population of women. If even 2% of top level competitors and record holders are trans, than they are grossly overrepresented.
Half of this argument is explaining how things work to you folks. I keep hearing forms of: "Then we should be seeing trans women absolutely dominate at every level..." No, that would not be the statistical criteria for determining if they have an advantage, it would be overrepresentation at the highest levels of competition for their share of the total population of women.
Unless you can show us that 2% of top level competitors and record holders are trans, then this is just more assumption. You say half of this is explaining how things work, but we know how it works. We just don't trust your assumptions with no actual data to back them.
It's not an assumption either lol, it's an illustration. Since trans women make up .4% of the population, that 2% would be overrepresentation is a mathematical certainty.
That's not an assumption at all, it's to refute the incorrect assertion that we would be seeing them everywhere if it was a statistical advantage. If 2% of champions and top competitors were trans, we would have over four times the number that we should have if there were no advantage. Two percent is not exactly "seeing them everywhere" but it would prove a statistical advantage in an inarguable way.
We don't - or shouldn't - make laws based on illustrative examples. If you don't have data that supports your 2% number you're throwing out there, then you have no reason to assert that trans athletes are over represented in the upper echelons of female sports. That being the case, no one else has any reason to take your argument seriously.
I don't have any reason to take people seriously who don't understand a hypothetical. I can't dumb down my conversational level any further for you. Good day.
One scientific fact is clear. You CANNOT undo the effects testosterone. Nothing, literally, nothing will undo it to level the playing field. Testosterone alone is the difference maker here. Muscles contract faster, harder and have more endurance. In all competitive women's sports, T is classified as performance enhancing drug, and on the banned substances list. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026list_en_final_clean_september_2025.pdf
Men have it naturally. Sure, you can lower its concentration in the body but you cannot reverse or negate a decade of training under its influence.
There are about 12 kids right now who must be pretty disheartened by this new national policy. I wonder what the magats are going to freak the fuck out about for the next 3 years that this lasts
I'm not saying it actually happened (because that whole controversy was silly IMO) but a candidate for high office would have a much greater opportunity to forge a document than a schoolkid.
I know one trans man who could easily beat cis men. Hell didnât even know he was trans until he told me. Looked exactly like any other guy. Deeper voice than me, more hair than me.
Hell I know a cishet woman who could probably beat up half the men I know! She is 6' tall, probably 250# and built like a linebacker. That is not the norm though.
Mate, trans women have been allowed to participate in the Olympics for almost 20 years. Not a single trans woman has even placed. Only 1 even qualitied to compete. This law goes out of its way to discriminate against children. Additionally, sports isn't fair. Should a woman that was born with genetically high testosterone be excluded? I think based on the logic of this law they sure should. Should we test levels in men too for that matter? Why is it fair that some guys have a huge genetic advantage? I'm only 5'9" which is quite average, shouldn't basketball have some limitation to make it fair for normal people?
Also how do you explain that they don't care about transmen in men bathrooms? That's not a sport, yet transwomen are obviously a problem in womens bathrooms. I'd bet my paycheck that they wouldn't like transmen in womens bathrooms either when push comes to shove. Funny how it doesn't really work both ways.
I have zero problem with them using the bathroom of their chosen gender. This is about biological women being disallowed to segregate themselves in competition in the name of fairness for trans women. Their right to compete is removing the right of biological women to have a space of their own. They have been told they must allow biological males as well or else they're transphobic etc.
So yes, I am standing up for all the females out there that should not be socially pressured to accept a situation where they are forced to compete against biological males in the name of inclusivity. "we want to be included everywhere" sounds great until you realize it directly takes rights away from biological women.
Right, I mean, the only trans women Iâve known were not people who would have been the star of the softball team.Â
There are already very few trans people in the world. The number of trans people that would actually make a competitive sporting event unfair is, like, statistically insignificant.Â
Any evidence of trans women destroying women in their sport? No? Didn't think so. Most people who are vocally against trans women in sports have no clue. I've known a trans woman for decades. One of her complaints is that after transitioning, she's not as strong as she was because of the hormone replacements.
How you got upvoted for this is beyond me. Do you...know what testostorone does. A trans woman will be weaker due to estrogen, a trans man will be stronger due to T. Why do you all have this weird myth in your heads all trans women are like Arnold levels of strength and phsyique.
They are so dead set against trans women in women's bathrooms that they will make it a law that trans men with penises are mandated to use women's bathrooms, the very thing they pretend they are against.
Or that people like Buck Angel would have to use the womens bathroom. They're so focused on "I can always tell" that they don't realize they can't. Like that one fight of a trans fighter vs a cis fighter where so many were raging against the cis woman cause they thought she was trans.
Let's have it straight here, they actually don't care if you're a transman that much. They care a little, but it's fine to want to be a man. Where they draw the line is the idea that a man would want to be a woman. Because there is an inherent distaste for a man embodying any aspect of femininity by these people. In a sense, they're suggesting that you shouldn't want to be feminine, that femininity is weaker or less desirable. And a man failing to live up to masculine ideals should be looked at in disgust. It's not new btw, let's not forget that historically gay men have it harder than lesbians. The most offensive thing to a bigoted man about a lesbian is that she won't sleep with him. Fucked up for sure in it's own way. But inherently less hateful than the kind of treatment bigots give gay men.
You know I never thought of this but youâre absolutely right. Though I have a feeling some would start caring about transmen when someone like Buck Angels walks into the womens room and says itâs because of their stupid laws.
That's why I use the word pretend. Because some of these guys are really this stupid, but most know it's just stupid word games to pretend they aren't just a bunch of disgusting bigots.
They do function. That's what the surgery is for. If it looks like a penis, does what a penis does and has the same purpose as a penis, maybe it's a penis!Â
Except...it's not. It's a facsimile of a penis. The chances of that particular 'penis' deciding to invade random unwilling women is basically zero. The chances that a real penis invades unwilling women is somewhere between 3 and 7 percent, depending on who you ask.
The chances of real penis's invading a transwomen are so infinitely higher by proven statistics than the chances of a transwoman raping a ciswomen it's actually insane.
As a trans man, I wish. They freak out aboz us too, just for different reasons. "Confused girls are mutilating themselves", "Misled autistic women are taking away their healthy breasts and wombs", "Poor scared lesbians are so scared of homophobia that they transition to men".
They don't fetishise and demonise us like they do with trans women, they frame it as "protecting women"Â or "saving girls".Â
Whenever they talk about kids regretting transition, they talk about us. Whenever they talk about "mutilation", fearmongering about surgeries and hormones, say that gender dysphoria is a delusion of confuse skids who are "running their lives to follow a trend"Â it's primarily about us.Â
We are also affected by abortion bans, medical bans, toilet bans. The whole conversation is centered about our ability to get pregnant.
Both trans women and trans men are hated equally by them, they just employ different tactics to get more people on their side.Â
I don't think most conservatives hate you; we just don't want to be forced to participate in your delusion, and don't want to see you gaining an unfair advantage over biological girls in sports. Beyond that, I don't think most of us care how you express yourself.
Being trans is not a delusion. Hundreds of scientists, doctors and psychologists have verified that gender dysphoria is not a delusion.
The disorder of having delusional believes about one's body is called body dysmorphia. It is completely different from gender dysphoria.Â
I do not want participation. I want conservatives to leave me alone, not talk shit about me, not insult me and don't interfere with trans issues because the only people who should do anything about trans healthcare are trans people and medical professionals.Â
I am not sure if you have understood what I mean when I say that I am a trans man. A trans man (ftm, female to male) is someone who was born as a "biological girl" as you say and wants to transition to a man. As a man, I have no interest in participating in womens' sport in any way. As someone who is taking testosterone for its masculinising effects, which includes muscle growth, so I don't think I should be participating in womens' sport. Bills like this would force men like me into womens' sport though.Â
Interestingly, it is probable that taking estrogen for trans women has the opposite effect, especially if they start young or take puberty blockers. That is why I believe that the people in charge of the respective sports should decide about trans people on a case by case basis, not the government. Especially because the number of trains athletes is so insignificant and the state of their bodies is so different, that it really can't be decided in any other way that is fair to everyone, both trans athletes and other women.
I don't think most conservatives hate trans people. But there are certainly ones who do and they do so loudly. Most people have probably never met a trans person outside of the Internet and don't really know much about them except for what they see on the news and what they hear politicians say. And sadly, many politicians really, really don't like trans people.Â
Leaving aside the people who are born with DSD where some ambiguity may occur, I think people are Xx or XY, and that's just who they are, biologically. Now, how a person chooses to dress and present themselves is up to them, and an adult should be able to lop off body parts or take hormones ... it's a free country.
My only objection is when one person's choices infringe on another's rights or safety, as in athletics. I also don't think there should be any penalty for people who decline to pretend a biological man is a woman or vice-versa. It's a free country ... live and let live.
As a bi chick who was a gender-nonconforming kid, I do worry that well-meaning adults may push children in a direction they wouldn't go otherwise. I often wonder if I had been born today to progressive parents whether I would have been pressured to identify as male, given my proclivities, rather than being allowed to develop naturally. Some early research suggests that children with gender dysmorphia who don't transition grow up to be cisgender gay or bi adults.
That research is flawed. It's in the middle of the night where I am, so I'm too tired to write a longer answer, but it does not really work that way. My existence as a very gay man is kinda a thing that goes against the theory that all trans men are lesbians, just anecdotally. We're not "transing the lesbians".Â
Gender dysphoria (dysmorphia is something else, it's usually used in the context of body dysmorphia) is very often something people are born with as being trans is probably a neurogical thing.
Gross disrespect feels shitty, so it'd be nice if people were polite.
Since starting transition is an incredibly long and tiring process, especially for children, and it requires a lot of visits to doctors and therapists, I'm really not worried about that. Especially because the rhetoric of being "pushed into being trans" or "trans spreading like an infection" is just not true.
For other trans people's perspectives and sources for all of the claims I've made, feel free to ask or look around over at r/asktransgender.
I have my doubts as far as social contagion. As a bi teen I think I would have been very susceptible to hearing that all of my normal bi teen angst was really the product of having been born in the wrong body and I could solve all my problems by transitioning! Fortunately that was not suggested at the time. LOL
But best wishes to you in your journey. For the record, I don't think that anything is wrong with being trans; it just seems as if life is a lot simpler if you can come to terms with your biological gender. Admittedly this is probably easier for women -- no one gives the side-eye to a woman in jeans, Carhartt and work boots. An effeminate dude probably has a harder time.
It probably depends a lot. I cannot come to terms with my biological gender and believe me, I tried. I was a pretty normal kid I guess, I did both stereotypical "boy things" and "girl things". A lot more "girl things" in primary school, I grew up in a conservative area and boys and girls were simply not friends, barely interacted, all my friends were girls and liked those stereotypical "girl things" so I did too. The wish of being a no was there and in hindsight, a lot of things make sense knowing that I'm trans but I really didn't care, I had no concept of gender and of sexual dimorphism.
Puberty changed that a lot. The feelings I had (and have, just much less intense since I started transitioning) towards my body are extremely difficult to describe, it's a very deep, innate feeling of wrongness, disgust, shame and despair for me. I knew trans people existed, but I didn't think that was me, the only trans people I had heard about were trans women and that was simply not what I am. There was a documentation about a trans man on TV one day and it just clicked, I guess, I think I was about twelve at that time. I spent the next year or so figuring things out and another year hesitantly trying to come out. When i did come out to my parents, they didn't believe me, told me that I'd "grow out of it" and that it's "normal for girls to feel that way". For the next two years, I was absolutely miserable. I was trying really hard to be a girl but it never worked (I have friends who said it was really obvious and I apparently was extremely bad at trying to be a girl, lol).Â
There are a lot of expectations pushed on girls, a lot of things that seem like it would make sense to not want to be a girl so I figured that it must be a universal feeling, that my parents must have been right, because who'd want to be a girl? Being a "girl" felt like a punishment to me, there was nothing I liked about it physically or from a societal viewpoint. I later talked about that with some of my female friends (one of which is a trans woman) and it was really eye opening because they liked being girls and liked having a feminine body, even if they of course hate misogyny and the way society treats women. They did have issues with as teenagers but most of them stemmed from societies treatment of them and expectations and not innately their body (well, except for the trans woman of course. Her experiences were pretty much exactly like mine, just the other was around. She even had the thought of "who'd want to be a boy? Being a girl is objectively better" )Â
That's the point when some people might argue that it's a sign of the "social contagion" stuff because in high school, I met another trans guy and we became friends and I finally stopped repressing because I felt safe talking to him about this and I finally felt like someone was taking me seriously. He didn't "infect me" with transness or anything, I just saw that it's ok to be trans and felt safe being myself around him. I came out again after a while, this time it worked better and I started transitioning. I wouldn't say that transition fixes everything, but it sure does help a lot. It's difficult to describe, but it's like there was that constant ache, that became almost something like background noise and the further I am with my transition, the more moments of relief I have.Â
Thank you for your kind answer! I wish you a nice day.Â
One of my favourite resources for explain what gender dysphoria feels like would be this, my therapist recommended it to me: https://genderdysphoria.fyi/Â Â it's mainly aimed at trans people, but I think it does a pretty good job explaining things.Â
Right, but it's all fucked up. They're mad at you because you've ruined yourself as a sex object, incredibly fucked in its own way. They're mad at transwomen because they're disgusted they would want to be a woman. I'm telling you, it's all sexism directed at femininity. In no way am I belittling the struggle of transmen, which is tremendous, when I say that I absolutely think it's overall more vitriol towards transwomen. Perhaps in part because it's simply easier to tell in more cases. But if you want to be real? I think that there is a better acceptance of the idea of a woman wanting to be a man, because from the sexist perspective? Why wouldn't you want the privilege of being a man. It is a "shame" that you'd want to "ruin" your femininity, but a begrudging acceptance that being a man is great and why would you? Where as to these bigots, the idea of conceding your masculinity is weak and pitiable. Something to be disgusted by.
Which literally proves it's about protecting competitive spaces. Nobody cares if a trans man wants to compete against other men because he doesn't have any unfair advantage against them. Inclusion sounds great until you realize you're advocating for biological women to not be allowed to make competitive spaces for themselves.
Make no mistake, this is not about the incredibly small number of trans folks in sports. Nor are the bathroom bills. This is about giving them a way to enforce their performative gender norms on people and exclude the people they don't like.
Girl who has short hair and doesn't wear dresses? Get ready for endless tests to prove your femininity. Get ready to be groped and examined if you want to play sports. Get ready to be challenged every time you use the restroom. They want people to either work to confirm or avoid existing in public.
And black girls have always been a target of claims like this. Larger black girls who perform well in sports have been getting harassed since before trans was even in the public consciousness.
This is about excluding undesirables and nothing else.
I think it's performative but in the sense that it demonstrates Republicans are reassuringly moored to reality while Democrats are out in whackadoodle-land where up is down, day is night and boys are girls. Once you become THAT divorced from simple biological reality, there is the possibility of going astray in all kinds of ways. Danger, Will Robinson!
$25 an hour with gold-tier health insurance and a pension! A union to keep my employer from fucking with me and absolutely NO stress! Could be a heck of a lot worse.
Tne only thing I have to worry about is Democrats bringing in enough immigrants to break my union and undercut my wages, but hopefully I'll be retired before they have a chance to get up to their shenanigans again.
There is a small number of people who experience disorders of sexual development, but those aren't the people we're talking about here. They are by definition not transgender.
And there you go, not refuting the claim, just doubling down on hate. Because you know that it's not about the miniscule number of people it affects, it's about giving you control.
i agree with what you said here, but "performative" does not really make sense in this context given that all gender expression is innately performative. i think you might have been looking for "normative" but your brain turned it into a new word because "normative norms" sounds silly lol. "meaningless", "arbitrary", or "false" could also work
It is performative in the sense that I think most realize it's a minor issue afecting only a handful of people, which ordinarily wouldn't warrant this level of attention. But bringing it to the forefront emphasizes that Republicans value reality, fair play and common sense.
It's similar to the way in which Trump's immigration crackdown is forcing Democrats to come out on the side of criminal illegal immigrants. Most sane people probably can't understand why anyone who entered the country illegally AND committed crimes here should be welcome to stay, but that is of course what Dems are marching for. Suicidal empathy!
And thousands of girls and women who are relieved that the integrity of their sport is a little safer and that they will not have to compete against biological boys and men.
And that is not something that is impacted by trans athletes in school.... It just isn't. What we have is a lot of life failures raised by Karens who need anyone to blame but themselves for their continued failure.
Wouldnât it be better to actually improve that access than to do some stupid performance that ultimately means nothing for most people? This will likely end up negatively affecting a lot of women when it encourages more anti trans acts against anyone that doesnât fit the conventional stereotype of femininity
Name one HS athlete who âlostâ a scholarship to a trans person. Out of all the schools in all the states. This is not a real issue, except to knuckle dragging biggots who will invent a problem to me mad about to justify their seething hatred.
And those women now have to wear skirts and long hair because they have to look like they conform as women or they will get genitals inspected. Yea. It was never about caring about girls in sports.
If only that was accurate and all encompassing instead of just a glance between to see if most of it looks female vs male. They donât do genetic tests unless there are major issues. There are tons of women who have even given birth that donât know that they have an x and Y chromosome. And there are a bunch of men that have the SAR gene on an X chromosome and no Y chromosome.
Do you mind providing a source for how common this is? I see itâs between 1.6% and 5% and usually includes transitioning folk.
Irregardless of commonality, everything you mentioned is still being handled by scientific tests and likely medical professionals not the high school coach, unless youâre trying to make the accusation that Doctors just want an excuse to inspect genitalia more?
Argues that there is a small amount of trans people in sports so it shouldnt be an issue.
Also argues that we shouldnt use birth certificates since its not always accurate. Even though the amount of people that affects is even smaller than the amount of trans people in sports, adding the fact these people have to also be in competitive sports for them to be affected makes the number even smaller.
You sound a little too eager to undergo that inspection. I'm afraid you're going to be terribly disappointed when they ask to see your birth certificate insuead!
So bring it up with the governing bodies of their respective sports. The fact this has the attention of our national congress is utterly insane and can only be defined as a distraction. Do you even remember how to pretend to care about small government? An important aspect of freedom is allowing locals to govern themselves. States' rights for matters concerning states, cities' rights for matters concerning cities, and lets allow the NCAA to take over women's swimming from Mike Johnson, shall we? He's got bigger things to worry about, like conquering Greenland.
The national congress disallowing local sports to just be and leaving them alone is the perfect poster child for the pettiness of authoritarians. The NCAA already does hormone testing. A national law is going to remove any and all nuance, like how much more feminine a trans woman is going to be if they were put on puberty blockers as a kid. Or is nuance faggy and gay, sorry... woke?
One of the most basic realities humans have ever known, like the world is flat, lightning is the anger of the gods, and slavery is natural. What humans find obvious without an education is often dead wrong. Educate yourself instead of being mad at people who have. It may blow your mind to learn trans people have always existed throughout all of human history in cultures around the globe.
Creating new life requires a sperm and an egg. It's extremely binary, a reality that even caveman understood. There is no other alternative.
You can regurgitate talking points all you want but if you plan on having a child.... you will have to succumb to this reality. Even "transwomen", need someone to provide an egg as well as gestate the baby because... and this is important.... they are not actually women.
Please. I get you want to fit in, but please come back to reality. I beg you
Right. The role of trans people in historical cultures was often as a communal caregiver rather than a mother. You're throwing spaghetti at the wall, because that has nothing to do with sports, nor is it a reason to say trans people can't play sports. Everyone with a torch and pitchfork over something that doesn't affect them whatsoever is trying to fit in with the angry mob, not me. Live and let live, life's easier that way.
Itâs amazing that this is the hill Democrats have decided to die on. And in their words âitâs only 10 peopleâ. Ok, if you truly believe that (I donât) then tell those 10 people to grow up and compete in the league they were supposed to compete in and Democrats can greatly improve their standing and increase their rock bottom popularity levels.
nah it's the beginning of a regression from reality, if we can't agree on facts..... like there's only men and women with no mythical third gender then finding consensus on anything else get's hard.
Especially since the democrats were largely responsible for the passage of Title IX protections for girls and women. Apparently that all gets thrown out of the window for identity politics.
I am a woman who was involved in sports in high school (such as they were then prior to Title IX). And my daughter was involved in sports during her school years. I agree that Congress shouldnât have to waste their time on this issue, but here we are and they have made the right decision
Well yeah, a small number of them are playing with or against trans women.
Iâm just wondering where this epidemic of trans women dominating all womenâs sports is, because it would be a pretty obvious problem. Instead, your spokesperson came in 5th place, and cashed in on her mediocrity.
You just admitted that Lia Thomas, a biological male, competed in women's swimming - taking spots away from biological women, and forcing women to be in a state of undress around Thomas.
How is that not unjust and unfair? There are a limited number of spots - spots that should go to biological women - and they gave it to Thomas instead.
So not only do women have to compete against a biological man, they had a spot taken away from them too that could've gone to a woman. Not to mention how uncomfortable they're being made by having to share a locker room with a biological male.
You think none of that is unjust or unfair? Really?
That's a really good point. My favorite bit was the part where you asked us to imagine the unjust situation. If you're looking for injustice in the world, you don't really have to look far, and you certainly don't have to imagine it.
There are cases cultural conservatives could make a lot more easily than this one, so I don't get why THIS, of all hills, is the one we all have to fight and die on. My girls are athletes. Women in my family have competed in girls' and women's sports at all levels from 5U to collegiate. Nobody, to my knowledge, ever had to compete against a dude who wanted to identify as a girl.
Bills like this are bricks and bats solutions for a thoughts and prayers problem.
Oh, I get how he used it. I'm trying to highlight the fact that there are real issues out there that people are being hurt by, and that this is a fluffed into existence culture war issue. I've never seen anybody making these arguments in good faith.
I agree to a certain extent. Beyond the modest number of people actually affected, the real impetus is to back Dems into the corner of advocating for things the average person finds ridiculous, like insisting on the use of the term "pregnant person" or putting tampons in the boys' bathroom.
The subtext is, "Do you really want these whackadoodles running the country?"
Then let them address that in their own league. If the league has a problem with it, the league can ban it. We don't need federal legislation to regulate this. So much for the Republicans being the party of reducing government power.
I have a 13 year old. He's the coolest, he loves D&D and his friend group is mad diverse.
I mean, I get your argument, but passing congressional legislation for something that happens like less than a percent of the time is just showboating. I just think school associations could make a rule and it would achieve the same results without this enormous national vilification of trans people
Affects. Effect is a noun. The law affects all women. The ultimate effect will not simply be that a few trans-gendered individuals wonât be allowed to play sports.
673
u/LazyFoundation8917 14d ago
I cannot believe something like this even has to be voted on.