Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports

[Kel Varnsen]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

Here's the bill.

[ShockingButTrue]

So, rather than say "we don't want to protect gay people," people are making it about the youth sports situation. Whic 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 arth, 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?

Little surprising that you fall into the category of -ahem- "mind reader" (see above); Against protecting the rights of anyone, anywhere? How presumptuous. I'll bet you do wonder how Trump won. That's okay, keep telling yourself it was the russians.

I'll speak for myself, with no assist needed from FoxNews, just the same as millions of Americans: It seems that equal rights and boys playing girls sports are two different things.

Yeah, like cnn and msnbc play it down the middle. Blame FoxNews my a**.

[wufan]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...se-bill/5/text


Here's the bill.

Here’s the part that bothers me:

“The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”

[C0|dB|00ded]

Perversion.

Man I grew up in the wrong decade. I could have never imagined that "peep holes" would become legal.

Can you imagine ol' CB running around the girl's locker room with his willy out?


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Choosing to live as a gay is an alternative lifestyle. Living alternative lifestyles carries with it certain challenges - as it should. To promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual realities is to court extinction; it goes against the very biological rules of our planet. For centuries there have been men with homosexual tendencies marry, raise children, and live a productive life. The difference between then and now is we endorse if not promote the action of responding to every individual desire in life as a right instead of celebrating sacrifice and discipline. Impulse control has always been one of the foundations of having a successful life. Living and behaving any way you please is not a "god given" right and never has been.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

Here’s the part that bothers me:

“The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”

This is absolutely part of the reason I'm so shocked that youth sports is what has really caught on as the rallying cry. The bathroom issue has been talked about ad nauseam, but the headlines are making it sound like youth sports are the only thing that will be affected by this bill. Bathrooms and bakeries have been like the two talking points historically on this subject, and now it's all about athletics.

As to CB's point that he can't wait to run around the girl's lock room with his willy out - well, I suspect the man who would do such a thing is probably not deterred by the fact that it might be against a particular establishment's rules for a man to enter the women's restroom. And if they are somehow both (i) fully interested in acting in an indecent manner, but (ii) deterred by such rules, then I suspect the risk of assault, battery, etc. charges will likely continue to act as a sufficient deterrent. But to each their own. It's probably a difficult concept for me to grasp because this is not a temptation that has regularly vexed me.

[C0|dB|00ded]

A man shouldn't enter the women's restroom. What a novel thought!

And what is ONE definition of assault: if the victim perceives a threat to be real.

I suspect there's more than one female in the female's restroom that would perceive those with penises as a threat while they are naked.

Again, developing the basis for a cogent argument then taking a massive leap to overlook something so simple. The answer is written over and over and over in our DNA.


T


...:cool:

[Shockm]

This is absolutely part of the reason I'm so shocked that youth sports is what has really caught on as the rallying cry. The bathroom issue has been talked about ad nauseam, but the headlines are making it sound like youth sports are the only thing that will be affected by this bill. Bathrooms and bakeries have been like the two talking points historically on this subject, and now it's all about athletics.

As to CB's point that he can't wait to run around the girl's lock room with his willy out - well, I suspect the man who would do such a thing is probably not deterred by the fact that it might be against a particular establishment's rules for a man to enter the women's restroom. And if they are somehow both (i) fully interested in acting in an indecent manner, but (ii) deterred by such rules, then I suspect the risk of assault, battery, etc. charges will likely continue to act as a sufficient deterrent. But to each their own. It's probably a difficult concept for me to grasp because this is not a temptation that has regularly vexed me.

CB’s example has already happened in locker rooms. Not at the extreme he described but in a voyeurist fashion to get reactions from uncomfortable women. What woman wants to see a naked woman with breasts and a wiener?

They need to provide an accommodation in separate changing rooms/restrooms for the transgender person. That is the less invasive option than requiring women and children to have to change their privacy, comfort, and moral views.

As to the the reason that sports has caught on as a rallying cry, Martina points out that SCIENCE doesn’t back the idea of a man becoming a woman even if testosterone levels are regulated. Muscle and bone mass is still greater in men than women. The athletic man turned oman will win every time. This is a good example of social engineering.

[ShockingButTrue]

Basically we're supposed to ignore reality itself.

Sort of like the type of people who've believed, and still do, cnn and msnbc for the last 2.5 years over an obvious unproven russian connection to President Trump winning the presidency. Talk about dividing the country.

[ShockingButTrue]

This is absolutely part of the reason I'm so shocked that youth sports is what has really caught on as the rallying cry*. The bathroom issue has been talked about ad nauseam, but the headlines are making it sound like youth sports are the only thing that will be affected by this bill. Bathrooms and bakeries have been like the two talking points historically on this subject, and now it's all about athletics.

*Rallying cry? Indignant,eh?

Are you so ignorant to the other side's opinion that you believe they're equating a legitimate concern about boys/men going into their daughters/wives/mothers locker rooms/bathrooms with equal rights? Oh, wait...

[wufan]

This is absolutely part of the reason I'm so shocked that youth sports is what has really caught on as the rallying cry. The bathroom issue has been talked about ad nauseam, but the headlines are making it sound like youth sports are the only thing that will be affected by this bill. Bathrooms and bakeries have been like the two talking points historically on this subject, and now it's all about athletics.

As to CB's point that he can't wait to run around the girl's lock room with his willy out - well, I suspect the man who would do such a thing is probably not deterred by the fact that it might be against a particular establishment's rules for a man to enter the women's restroom. And if they are somehow both (i) fully interested in acting in an indecent manner, but (ii) deterred by such rules, then I suspect the risk of assault, battery, etc. charges will likely continue to act as a sufficient deterrent. But to each their own. It's probably a difficult concept for me to grasp because this is not a temptation that has regularly vexed me.

I think the reason there is a focus on sports is because it forces people to take sides in the philosophical discussion that men either are or are not equal to women biologically. This is beyond the primary and secondary sex characteristics, and goes into strengths and weaknesses. This forces one to either accept or deny science in their debate.

[jdshock]

I think the reason there is a focus on sports is because it forces people to take sides in the philosophical discussion that men either are or are not equal to women biologically. This is beyond the primary and secondary sex characteristics, and goes into strengths and weaknesses. This forces one to either accept or deny science in their debate.

You think if Shockernet had been around in 1945 that no one would've been saying black people are different biologically from white people and athletics should be segregated? You don't "accept" or "deny" science based on how you feel about youth sports. That's just silly. You could side with scientists who think there are biological influences in gender identity. You could side with scientists who talk about hormone therapy and how it nullifies biological differences of sex in terms of athletic performance. You could totally side with the "science" that is on your side of the debate, but then still say (i) "eh, youth sports is small potatoes...;" or (ii) still believe that we are talking about roughly 0.0000000000001% of the population in terms of biological males who would be willing to change their gender identity because they believe they'd get some sweet trophy; or (iii) still believe it doesn't matter at all since the vast majority of youth sports organizations probably aren't going to discriminate against transgender people even if the federal government doesn't make it illegal.

It's not about science. It's because this is a neat little story to tell and the polling is way better on this point than it is on other aspects of the law. This discussion has proven that people didn't appreciate that it was a broader issue than sports. Your first response to me was almost entirely about athletics. Once the bill text got posted, you said you had a problem with the bathroom language. Once you quoted the bathroom language, everyone started talking about men who are going to start using the women's restroom. That's literally the entire point I'm trying to make. People on here get worked up about the bathroom language. People on here get worked up about bakeries being forced to sell cakes to gay people. I'm shocked that conservative news sites and legislators are making this about athletics, and it's got to be because the athletics argument plays better across the country than the rest of it.

Can you honestly tell me that when you made your first post (the joke about playing D1 sports) that you understood it was a bill to amend the Civil Rights Act and that it was substantially broader than athletics?

[ShockTalk]

Just for clarification on your baker comparison, I believe the baker had no problem baking them a cake. He had no interest in "having to participate" in/at the ceremony as was requested. I believe there is a big difference.

[jdshock]

What woman wants to see a naked woman with breasts and a wiener?

Give me the name of your gym if you never have to see something you don't wanna see in the locker room. I don't see myself ever hanging out in the locker room just because I enjoy the views, but I wouldn't mind getting a recommendation for a gym that has no naked men with "breasts and a wiener."

Unfortunately, I may not be eligible for membership, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

[Kung Wu]

There is no larger debate discussion necessary at all. This debate is clear enough on it's own merit: Should sports leagues across America be compelled to allow men -- who choose to identify as a woman -- to compete in said leagues' sporting events that are specifically created for women?

[jdshock]

There is no larger debate necessary because athletics is your only issue with the proposed amendment to the Civil Rights Act? As I stated in my very first post, my surprise is based entirely around how few rumblings there have been about the religious freedom, bathroom, etc. issues.

If a sentence is added which states "the foregoing shall not apply to athletics," are you all of a sudden on board with the bill? If not, then it seems disingenuous to say no larger debate is necessary.

[ShockingButTrue]

Why do you presume we think it's a "sports" issue? Wishful thinking? Out of touch with those whom you're debating?

Morally superior? Oh, wait...

[ShockingButTrue]

Can you honestly tell me that when you made your first post (the joke about playing D1 sports) that you understood it was a bill to amend the Civil Rights Act and that it was substantially broader than athletics?

You don't reply to most, if not all of my posts, and I thank you for it. Here's another one.

The blind ignorance of you to not understand that we concretely don't see it as an "athletic" issue, is, well, not surprising. You yourself pointed out recently that this is a SPORTS CHAT SITE when someone claimed you're full of it. Lighten up indeed.

You have an obvious blind spot, or even bias, when it comes to other's opinions and beliefs. Just the fact that you would bring up 1945 America (almost 75 years) as a point of reference for how you think American's think today is exactly what is referred to when people marvel at progressive's ability to read minds. It is the very heighth of what-about-ism's.

Thank God that thieving, conniving, lying, cheating, dipsomaniac of a she-demon, the Hildabeast, didn't win. Take Deplorable and shove it up your a**.

2016 II.jpg

What next? Let's do away with the electoral college? Oh, wait...

[jdshock]

You don't reply to most, if not all of my posts, and I thank you for it. Here's another one.

I'm a sucker for bait, so sign me up on this one.

we concretely don't see it as an "athletic" issue,

This is surprising to me as the title of this thread is that "Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports." Again, this is a bill that would almost certainly make it illegal to deny baking a cake for a gay couple, that would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay, etc. But I have seen substantially more headlines relating to the sports issue. Maybe you don't see it as an athletics issue, and I find it strange that you would view it as an athletics issue (hence my posts). If you knew the bill affected more than just sports, well color me surprised.

You yourself pointed out recently that this is a SPORTS CHAT SITE when someone claimed you're full of it. Lighten up indeed.

I made a fat guy joke earlier, does that count?

You have an obvious blind spot, or even bias, when it comes to other's opinions and beliefs. Just the fact that you would bring up 1945 America (almost 75 years) as a point of reference for how you think American's think today is exactly what is referred to when people marvel at progressive's ability to read minds. It is the very heighth of what-about-ism's.

I mean... to be clear, this very thread included defenses of the notion that 1950s America was as good as it gets.

[wufan]

You think if Shockernet had been around in 1945 that no one would've been saying black people are different biologically from white people and athletics should be segregated? You don't "accept" or "deny" science based on how you feel about youth sports. That's just silly. You could side with scientists who think there are biological influences in gender identity. You could side with scientists who talk about hormone therapy and how it nullifies biological differences of sex in terms of athletic performance. You could totally side with the "science" that is on your side of the debate, but then still say (i) "eh, youth sports is small potatoes...;" or (ii) still believe that we are talking about roughly 0.0000000000001% of the population in terms of biological males who would be willing to change their gender identity because they believe they'd get some sweet trophy; or (iii) still believe it doesn't matter at all since the vast majority of youth sports organizations probably aren't going to discriminate against transgender people even if the federal government doesn't make it illegal.

It's not about science. It's because this is a neat little story to tell and the polling is way better on this point than it is on other aspects of the law. This discussion has proven that people didn't appreciate that it was a broader issue than sports. Your first response to me was almost entirely about athletics. Once the bill text got posted, you said you had a problem with the bathroom language. Once you quoted the bathroom language, everyone started talking about men who are going to start using the women's restroom. That's literally the entire point I'm trying to make. People on here get worked up about the bathroom language. People on here get worked up about bakeries being forced to sell cakes to gay people. I'm shocked that conservative news sites and legislators are making this about athletics, and it's got to be because the athletics argument plays better across the country than the rest of it.

Can you honestly tell me that when you made your first post (the joke about playing D1 sports) that you understood it was a bill to amend the Civil Rights Act and that it was substantially broader than athletics?

It is about science and liberty. The liberties of some over others based on the denial of science.

If you deny the science that on average men have 5-10 times the testosterone than women, then there is NO reason for gender segregated sports. If you get rid of gender segregated sports, women are going to be disproportionately hurt by this measure.

I’m very surprised that you don’t care about women’s rights.

[jdshock]

When you made your first post (the joke about playing D1 sports), did you know it was a bill to amend the Civil RIghts Act and that it was substantially broader than just being limited to athletics?

[wufan]

No, I did not know the full text of the bill...still don’t, only the summary. Click bait title to the thread...true. The debate is still legitimate as to where one person’s liberties infringe on another’s. You can either discriminate against one individual or discriminate against another. That’s why I’m more libertarian on it.