No announcement yet.

Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports

First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Right, "Maybe there are performance differences, and that is a compelling reason ...", is quite different than "There are performance differences, and this is a compelling reason ...".

    What data did you put forth to show that a male has become a female? There is no such data in existence, because there is no such medical technique known to convert a male into a female. It doesn't exist. The only medical techniques that exist are body modifications to make a male LOOK like a female, and drugs to make your hormone levels somewhat look like a females. Neither of which make you female.

    THAT's the data that needs to exist.

    Saying there is data to show that a man's body can be modified enough to compete with a female is obvious. We could simply remove some muscle tissue and slow him down or make him weaker, but I can just as easily show we can do the same thing to an adult and make him about the same strength as a 10 year old. We dont find that argument compelling for obvious reasons -- yet its practically the argument you are making.

    It is okay for someone to claim to be what they are not.

    It is okay for someone to modify their body to look like something they are not.

    It is okay for someone to modify their body to reduce performance in sports.

    It is not okay for someone to claim to be what they are not, modify their body to look like something they are not, take drugs to reduce performance to make it appear as though they are something they are not, and then assert the original _provably false_ claim to infringe on others.

    Falsely competing in a fair competition by claiming you are something you are not, is infringing on others.

    CeCe is a male, not a female.
    The Greek pronunciation for 'Gregg Marshall' is Zeus.


    • WstateU
      WstateU commented
      Editing a comment
      You guys are like watching a tennis match...

      Oops, wrong tennis gif! :)

    • Kung Wu
      Kung Wu commented
      Editing a comment
      I don't care if a guy lobs his weiner off. I dont agree with it, but its definitely his decision. I don't care if he believes he is a female and shouts it to the world. He's dead wrong, but that is definitely okay.

      He is not a female though, and there is no scenario where he should be allowed to compete in female sports -- especially based only on his asserted falsehood attempts to look like a female.

    • jdshock
      jdshock commented
      Editing a comment
      Kung Wu - "He is not a female though, and there is no scenario where he should be allowed to compete in female sports."

      But why? That's literally the entire debate. You're just stating the conclusion as fact. What is the basis for your statement? If it's performance related, that is literally the entire discussion that is going on.

  • #62
    Am I wrong in saying jdshock 's stance on this can not be congruent with Title 9 defense? You can't have your testes and claim ovaries too, can you?


    • jdshock
      jdshock commented
      Editing a comment
      I suspect we are going to have significant, interesting, and often poorly-interpreted, litigation on these subjects in the next five years.

      As I said earlier, I have no idea if a hormone restriction would fly under the newly proposed law. Without doing any additional research, it does not appear the NCAA's rule has been successfully challenged to date, so at least some people must think it passes muster under Title IX.

      To be clear, my stance has primarily been that sports are a less important aspect of the newly proposed law. My only arguments have been that I am shocked sports is the subject of debate, that sports might not be that big of a deal, that the schools have already been implementing these rules regardless of federal law, and that there might not be any major effect on outcomes within sports under the new law. If you have interpreted that I am outright proposing new legislation or rules regarding sports, I have been unclear. It seems to me that the Olympic model looks like a good middle ground. I am certainly not ready to say we have to have that.

    • wufan
      wufan commented
      Editing a comment
      The Olympic model is a HORRIBLE model.

  • #63
    Performance is not the only issue I have. I am also not OK with an unmodified male individual who is less athletic than other males and can not compete with them competing in a woman's sport just because performance wise he is more inline with a female athlete.


    • #64
      Common sense...…...she gone.


      • #65
        Originally posted by jdshock View Post

        (I) Male to female advantage - I just don't think that's true. I get that you said you're a scientist and just stated "yep, there are advantages," but that's not really a data-heavy analysis. A lot of what I have seen (for example: seems to suggest there is not an unfair advantage. It seems incredibly likely that there is going to be a relatively small amount of rigorous data out there. Especially when you have conflicting standards (some states having no rules, NCAA having unclear rules, and Olympics with really specific rules), you're just not going to have great data. I get that you think that the common sense logic is that there is an advantage. I have not seen the data backing that up.

        (II) Bad Training - Sure, I guess. I don't really know what that means or why it's a compelling argument, though. Yes, a biological male undergoing hormone suppression therapy would perform worse after the therapy than prior to the therapy. That is my point.

        (III) Dysphoria -- Again, I'm not really sure how this is an independent argument at all. This relies fully on your first point that there is an unfair advantage. It seems to me that the only argument is that there is an unfair advantage. I am not sure I agree with that or that I have seen data to support that argument.
        For #2 and 3, those were reasonable arguments framed appropriately against your straw man arguments. That’s all. If one not is the crux of your argument, why try to poorly frame these sentiments??? Which you agree with. Why not just state what you believe?

        For number 1, okay, you don’t believe it. What evidence would make you believe it? I read that ridiculous personal narrative you posted, and I even went to the trouble of finding the original journal article. It’s a joke. If the data set were remotely close to significant, it would have MAJOR flaws. To point out one, the best post transition time was called an outlier and thrown out, while two participants weren’t able to train for races after transitioning. They had huge drop offs, yet their data set was kept. That’s 3 of the 8 self-reporting participants that were called out as questionable. Half of the six that weren’t anonymous. Even with keeping the ones that quit training in, and dismissing the improved transgender time (without statistical analysis) their age adjusted score improved slightly after transition. If you remove the injured quitters, the average post transition score improves 2.5%, or 25% of the difference between men and women. Too bad the sample size wasn't statistically significant, or this study may have demonstrated that trans women have a significant advantage in distance running over cisgendered women.

        If you like narrative stories, here’s one from the WSJ that features the same author from the article you sighted. She states the following, “But with strength, they go from typical men to somewhere in between typical men and typical women, and ‘somewhere in between’ isn’t very precise. I’ve been on hormone therapy for 15 years, and I carry more muscle mass than a woman my size, absolutely.”
        Last edited by wufan; June 6th, 2019, 10:02 PM.
        Livin the dream


        • #66
          Originally posted by jdshock View Post

          But why must there be different divisions aside from performance reasons? Maybe there are performance differences, and that is a compelling reason to require anyone who was born biologically male to compete with everyone else born biologically a male.

          You have put forth no such argument, though. I suspect the reasoning for many people is that people think it is unnatural or icky or whatever. The terminology of "mutilated to look more male" certainly suggests at least some level of discomfort with the concept. I'm not sure ickiness is a compelling factor, and your argument adds little to the debate without an explanation of why there should be separate divisions.
          Just put everyone in the category where they are competitive. Divisions, if you will. Then we will have D-I, all male. D-II, 98% male, and D-III, 60% male.

          That seems unfair to women, no?
          Livin the dream


          • #67
            Why are we talking about sports, when there are other more important aspects of the legislation?

            Because athletic ability is an EASY and OBVIOUS way to distinguish that men and women are different.

            Why is it important to to make the distinction that men and women are different?

            Because there are a growing number of activists that are lobbying for positive rights for women. If women get special treatment, because they are women, then we need to know who is a women and who is not. If people are protected because of their inalienable characteristics, then those characteristics need to be inalienable. If the reason that women are oppressed is because they are women, then we can’t have folks claiming to be an oppressed woman when they have suffered none of the oppression that a woman has faced. We cannot say life is unfair to a transgendered female, therefore they can take the place of a cisgendered female.

            The concept of equality for other attributes between males, females, and other are much more difficult to distinguish, but athleticism is simple.
            Livin the dream


            • #68
              This madness needs to stop:

              Now we are going to let men begin stealing OLYMPIC medals from women that have trained all their lives for the pinnacle achievement in their sport. Yes, I know he hasn't won yet, but it's just a matter of time if we let men compete against women: AND YOU KNOW IT.

              The party that _claims_ to be for women's rights -- the Democrats -- _unanimously_ supported the misogynistic bill in the House back in May. Strange.

              Born with a penis, race against men.
              Born without, race against women.
              The Greek pronunciation for 'Gregg Marshall' is Zeus.


              • #69
                But what if it is a very small penis? Just asking for a friend.


                • #70
                  I think it would be funny if the U.S. Women's Soccer team suddenly became a team of transgenders.

                  Or better yet, was beaten by a team of transgender women from some small country. Transgender women with beards.

                  I just wanna see it.

                  I wanna see them tolerate it I want them to lead the way of tolerance.

                  C'mon world. I know one of you piss ant places wants to show up the U.S. This is your pathway. You have 3 years to field the team.

                  Do it. I dare you!
                  "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!


                  • #71
                    Originally posted by pogo View Post
                    But what if it is a very small penis? Just asking for a friend.
                    "You Just Want to Slap The #### Outta Some People"