Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports

[SB Shock]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/17/house-equality-act-transgender-womens-sports/

The Democratically controlled House of Representatives voted Friday 236-173 in favor of the Equality Act, which would require schools to include male athletes who identify as transgender girls on female sports teams.

Eight Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the bill, which had unanimous Democratic support.

Martina Navaratilova understands the stupidity of this.

"Simply reducing hormone levels -- the prescription most sports have adopted -- does not solve the problem. A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood," Navratilova wrote. "Training increases the discrepancy.

The 62-year-old came out in 1981 and has been a gay rights activist. Navratilova said she just wants "fairness" in sports.

"I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her," Navratilova said. "It would not be fair."

[wufan]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/17/h...womens-sports/




Martina Navaratilova understands the stupidity of this.

I could have played for the Shocker ladies if I was 25 years younger. Maybe my son is a D-I athlete?...Er daughter.

[ShockerDropOut]

Smh. What is this poor country coming to.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Bring on China... we need a proper moral cleansing...


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

This whole line of argument is one of the stranger things I've heard in recent memory, and it is just catching on like wildfire. There are certainly some folks out there making the typical religious freedom arguments, but so many are making it about the sports issue. The title of this thread is "Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports." The title of the article you linked states that it will force "schools to let male athletes compete in girls' sports." It's just such a strange argument.

For those that stopped at the headline, the bill amends the Civil Rights Act and adds a prohibition on discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity. This would apply to employment, housing, banking, etc. These are wildly popular measures. Anecdotally, my experience has been that people are shocked when they hear that you can still fire someone for being gay in most states. At least one study found support for similar protections in employment at 92% to 6%. Again, these are just incredibly popular protections.

So, rather than say "we don't want to protect gay people," people are making it about the youth sports situation. Which, as a side note, is already happening. Just because it's not currently illegal to discriminate on these grounds, doesn't mean that every school, youth sports organization, etc. is choosing to discriminate. Many, many schools and youth leagues are already handling these situations. But if you read headlines from Breitbart and the Daily Caller (and apparently Shockernet), you'd think the purpose of the bill was to "allow boys to play girl sports" rather than sweeping protection in most facets of the economy. Given the fervor appears limited to youth sports, I assume that you all would be on board if we simply amended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and sexual identity protections, but we had a convenient carve-out which says it doesn't apply to athletics?

[wufan]

We shouldn’t discriminate based on whatever orientation/identity people have. Private clubs/churches might be an exception.

I don’t believe that being gay/trans should be a protected class (necessarily). I am open to the argument, but fundamentally, we shouldn’t be placing people into protected classes, because everyone belongs to some group, and splitting people up based on characteristics or ideas is a bad idea.

I’m very much against the idea of having trans individuals compete based on gender identity. Here are a few of the reasons why:

A former male is likely to have 10 times as much testosterone, resulting in an athletic advantage on average.

A former female (that is taking hormones) will have an athletic advantage on average.

Some intersectional proponents that are pushing this issue believe that gender is fluid, so even gender isn’t a marker for group inclusion/exclusion.

Hormonally altering individuals before their mid-20s might have negative effects.

The whole idea of men’s and women’s sports is that there is a difference in competitive athleticism. If you start placing biological individuals in a different class, then you are contrary to the purpose of the distinction. Once you go down that road, then individuals should compete based on their ability alone...D-I, D-II, D-III. This will decrease the number of women that can compete across the board.

[Kung Wu]

Handicap people are allowed to park in preferred parking spaces that non-handicap people are not allowed to park in. That's discrimination.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I am so sick and tired of all these time-wasting, "WILDLY" popular initiatives regarding unlimited protections for classes that make up less than 5% of our population (1% if you count transtesticles), that I am about to lose my mind. People are seriously considering destroying the competitive balance in gender separated sports because of a few thousand mental cases?

I'm starting to wonder if Sharia Law isn't a better way. I mean, ten years ago I wouldn't even consider making this statement with a straight face. But if all I have to do is wash my feet a few times a day and kneel down on a carpet facing to the west in order to stifle these entitled, maldeveloped, characterless, insecure, morally bereft people... That's right, the baby's goin' right out the window with the bathwater.

Let the Muslims take over and interest payments go away, the woman shuts up and gets back in the kitchen, and the gays... well, the gays pine for the days when the mean old Republicans were in charge... the party that fights for EQUALITY for all, not exceptions for a few (lazies/weaklings).


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

This ^^^ was when America was truly great. We've been spiraling down ever since.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

This ^^^ was when America was truly great. We've been spiraling down ever since.


T


...:cool:

Radical expansion of women's and minority rights, landing on the moon, invention of the internet, substantial increases in worldwide standard of living... all part of a six decade decline!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Radical expansion of women's and minority rights, landing on the moon, invention of the internet, substantial increases in worldwide standard of living... all part of a six decade decline!

I don't think the radical expansion of women's rights has done anything for the families of America to be brutally honest.

I'm happy we are not firehosing blacks any longer and they can eat, work, live, and commute the same way as whites but I do not appreciate the ungrateful attitudes of the progressive African-American (or progressive anything for that matter).

I don't believe landing on the moon has provided anything of substance to the lives of man other than novelty.

The Internet (social media in particular) has led to the breakdown of human interaction and the health of the family unit (Facebook was listed as the #2 reason for divorce at one time in the UK).

I believe the endangerment of the traditional nuclear family is the basis of nearly everything bad currently happening in America irrespective of religious affiliation. A strong male leader, a strong female supporter, and well disciplined/adjusted children (MALES OR ***** FEMALES) are the keys to generational success.

I stand by my opinions of Leave it to Beaver as the model of the apex of American society. That trailer needs to go into a time capsule so those that follow us (after the war) will have a model on how to rebuild society.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

I don't think the radical expansion of women's rights has done anything for the families of America to be brutally honest.

I'm happy we are not firehosing blacks any longer and they can eat, work, live, and commute the same way as whites but I do not appreciate the ungrateful attitudes of the progressive African-American (or progressive anything for that matter).

I don't believe landing on the moon has provided anything of substance to the lives of man other than novelty.

The Internet (social media in particular) has led to the breakdown of human interaction and the health of the family unit (Facebook was listed as the #2 reason for divorce at one time in the UK).

I believe the endangerment of the traditional nuclear family is the basis of nearly everything bad currently happening in America irrespective of religious affiliation. A strong male leader, a strong female supporter, and well disciplined/adjusted children (MALES OR ***** FEMALES) are the keys to generational success.

I stand by my opinions of Leave it to Beaver as the model of the apex of American society. That trailer needs to go into a time capsule so those that follow us (after the war) will have a model on how to rebuild society.


T


...:cool:

I believe everyone has the right to eff up their life. I don’t think it’s our responsibility to bail them out.

[Kung Wu]

Why must I employ someone who has decided to eff up their life?

[wufan]

I don’t think you do.

[C0|dB|00ded]

By the way, my upbringing is about as close to a Leave it to Beaver scenario as it gets. Just look how I turned out............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............


T


...:cool:

[Teddy Graham]

This whole line of argument is one of the stranger things I've heard in recent memory, and it is just catching on like wildfire. There are certainly some folks out there making the typical religious freedom arguments, but so many are making it about the sports issue. The title of this thread is "Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports." The title of the article you linked states that it will force "schools to let male athletes compete in girls' sports." It's just such a strange argument.

For those that stopped at the headline, the bill amends the Civil Rights Act and adds a prohibition on discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity. This would apply to employment, housing, banking, etc. These are wildly popular measures. Anecdotally, my experience has been that people are shocked when they hear that you can still fire someone for being gay in most states. At least one study found support for similar protections in employment at 92% to 6%. Again, these are just incredibly popular protections.

So, rather than say "we don't want to protect gay people," people are making it about the youth sports situation. Which, as a side note, is already happening. Just because it's not currently illegal to discriminate on these grounds, doesn't mean that every school, youth sports organization, etc. is choosing to discriminate. Many, many schools and youth leagues are already handling these situations. But if you read headlines from Breitbart and the Daily Caller (and apparently Shockernet), you'd think the purpose of the bill was to "allow boys to play girl sports" rather than sweeping protection in most facets of the economy. Given the fervor appears limited to youth sports, I assume that you all would be on board if we simply amended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and sexual identity protections, but we had a convenient carve-out which says it doesn't apply to athletics?

Wow, where to start. Maybe with a few questions...A "strange argument"?
- Do you think people being concerned that allowing boys to compete against girls in track and field is "strange"?
- Do you think that allowing boys to compete in girls sports is not going to reduce the number of girls that play sports and enjoy all that comes with it?
- Do you think that feeding a poor kid's delusion that he is actually a girl, and making him think that the entire world needs to flip upside down because of it, is a good thing? Before you answer that on, let me know if you think that people suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder should be accommodated in the same manner.
- Can you imagine what it would have been like if Ricky Ross decided to play volleyball instead of basketball? Football helmets would have become standard volleyball gear.
- Do you see the irony that the Left claims to give a s--t about women but once again drops a deuce right on them?
- Is Bruce Jenner a woman? Before you answer that, let me know if you think Rachel Dolezal is black.

[jdshock]

Reread my post. I'm literally just saying it's strange that people are focused on youth sports (again, something that is changing regardless) when we're talking about new protections in literally every facet of the economy.

But since it's clearly about youth sports, I'll ask what I asked earlier: if the same protections are put in place, but we make a youth sports exception, you'd support it?

[Teddy Graham]

jdshock - I reread your post 3 times because I couldn't understand why you would be surprised that people would be angry about allowing boys to play girls sports, or that you would be surprised that pointing out the obvious negative impact that would have on girls sports would be a reason to oppose a bill. If people don't like the ramifications of a bill they oppose it. Crazy idea, I know. You consider that "strange"?

I'll answer your question. My understanding is that another ridiculous as well as dangerous result of a bill like this passing is that men that say their women can use a ladies restroom, or shower in a women's locker room. We've already seen the dangerous aspects of this play out where this has been allowed. That is enough for me to say this is a BS bill.

Your turn to answer my questions so I can understand why you think opposition to mandating a school to allow a boy that says he thinks he's a girl to participate on a girls' athletic team is "strange".

[C0|dB|00ded]

I believe jdshock to be a massive troll whose mission is just to stir up stimulating conversation by playing devil's advocate. I would like to thank him for that.

The only flaw in his delivery is his very grasp of logic itself. No way does a logical, cerebral person live as a true liberal. You'll see jd develop a cogent argument but then take a major leap in his conclusion. That "leap of logic" is what is required to articulate the progressive ideology effectively. It's almost a religious maneuver.

True liberals are life-long victims. The liberal politicians are merely wearing the label to obtain power. They learned early on that becoming a "leader of the liberals" is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's all about money in the end right? Who cares if you are on the left or the right. Although those that seek power from the left are more reprobate in my opinion.


T


...:cool: