Democrats pass bill to allow boys to play girl sports

[Kung Wu]

jdshock, why do you need to make this about the entire proposal in order to answer the question? Should or should not American leagues be coerced into allowing men that identify as a woman to compete in their women's divisions?

Why are we not allowed to debate one facet of a proposed law, in and of itself? There is no need what-so-ever to discuss the entire proposal in order to debate this particular issue.

Are you capable of honestly answering that question with a yes or no, or are you in some "not sure" camp for some reason?

[jdshock]

jdshock, why do you need to make this about the entire proposal in order to answer the question?

I'm making it about the entire proposal because adding two new protected classes to the Civil Rights Act seems like a pretty major legislative proposal that passed the House, and yet we're seeing articles that act like the purpose of the bill was to allow boys to play girl sports. That's my entire point. Literally. The entire point I am trying to make is that I'm shocked that everyone is making this about athletics when it's a much, much broader bill. And so the options are: (i) I'm a dummy and totally ignorant of how many people actually know what the underlying bill is trying to do; (ii) people actually don't realize the bill is much broader than athletics; or (iii) people realize the bill is much broader than athletics, but athletics is such a huge issue that it warrants a disproportionately large share of the coverage. In terms of (i), it's tough to know what you don't know, so I'd have to wait for additional correction from someone on here. In terms of (iii), that would just be shocking to me if people were focusing on sports over constitutional religious freedom arguments or safety in bathrooms.

Should or should not American leagues be coerced into allowing men that identify as a woman to compete in their women's divisions?

Why are we not allowed to debate one facet of a proposed law, in and of itself? There is no need what-so-ever to discuss the entire proposal in order to debate this particular issue.

Are you capable of honestly answering that question with a yes or no, or are you in some "not sure" camp for some reason?

I do not have an answer to your question. I have many thoughts that all feel insignificant compared to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, etc. In no particular order:

• I am not an expert in this field, I suspect few on here are experts in this field, and I just don't know how it works. An employer already can't discriminate based on sex, right? But, I'm sure, the WNBA can legally say no men are allowed in the league. This is not an argument one way or the other, but it's an example of my ignorance as to how this works. And the same thing is almost certainly true at the collegiate level. I am 100% certain this is not a profound or new argument, and I am certain a seasoned attorney in this area could answer this question easily.
• I have never understood why sexual orientation and gender identity were not classified as sex discrimination. If a woman can be married to a man, but the employer would fire a man fore being married to a man, that sure seems like sex discrimination to me.
• In light of my ignorance, and in light of the fact that nothing in the bill talks about athletics, I find it hard to believe that there couldn't be some further refinement of gender identity either federally or on an organization-by-organization basis. I am not going to make that argument because I don't know. But my gut instinct is that a burly, bearded man that is overflowing with testosterone probably isn't going to be allowed to waltz in and smash every women's record of all time.
• I don't know what percentage of males are even tempted by such an opportunity.
• I am not a scientist. I don't know if hormone therapy is or is not sufficient for purposes of rectifying any differences between males and females. Navaratilova seems to think it's not sufficient. I suspect she is also not a scientist.
• I do not know how you reconcile hormone therapy rules with biological females who have unusually high levels of testosterone.
• I don't know what the ramifications would be if we just said, at elite levels, there is the NBA which will allow anyone to play so long as they are talented enough. There is the WNBA which has separate qualifications that depend on hormone levels, etc.
• I know less than zero about youth sports.
• It would not surprise me if girls are better than boys until about age 14.
• I don't know that I think there are any major impacts from just saying boys and girls are forced to play together in amateur and junior sports.
• I don't know that I think that is what would happen under the new law.

I do know that I think all of that seems like small potatoes and can probably be resolved with a pretty quick "the foregoing doesn't apply to sports..." and so I am personally more interested in the larger bill.

[ShockTalk]

1) I'm assuming others here are not interested in other parts of the bill or they are not opposed to it, except for the sports issue. Not that unusual given this forum is within a sport fan board.
2) If others are not wanting to discuss other parts of the bill (on this thread anyway), why try to force that issue on this thread (make a different one) and not continue "your" discussion here when you seem to be saying you don't know enough about potential sports ramifications of the bill to discuss "their" interest in that part of the bill.
3) "But my gut instinct is that a burly, bearded man that is overflowing with testosterone probably isn't going to be allowed to waltz in and smash every women's record of all time." Are you telling me there is absolutely no young "Bruce Jenner" in the wings who just might want to first capture a male record, then go for the women's. As a note, the last I read, Jenner still has "his" tallywacker and had no intention of adjustment.

[jdshock]

ShockTalk - Feel free to ignore my comments. I stated from the beginning that I just find it strange that the reaction has been about sports. I was looking for clarity.

Once the bathroom topic came up, basically everyone got worked up about that. I do not agree with your assumption that others "are not interested in other parts of the bill or they are not opposed to it." In fact, I explicitly asked that question, and got feedback about things that were wrong with other parts of the bill...

Who is forcing what? I would love it if someone had more knowledge than I do about the sports ramifications of the bill than I do. If that's you, please answer my questions. If no one has that expertise, I suspect it will just be a collection of people jumping to conclusions without really knowing what impact the law will have.

[ShockTalk]

I read your comments because I like reading them more than some others, even if their political leaning is more in line with mine.
I thought the "bathroom" topic was just part of the sport issue. You know, bathrooms/locker rooms/showers and pro/college/high school/ the Ys.
Nope, that expertise is not me, by a long shot. However, I certainly don't want someone not voicing concerns simply because their not an expert and wanting to know more if someone else can shed more light as to whether they are right or wrong in those assumptions.

[Kung Wu]

Bruce Jenner is 69.

In 1972, Bruce Jenner threw a javelin his personal best of 68.52m. That was an 800g javelin and he was in his prime.

The women's Olympic gold medal winner in 2016 was Sara Kolak, who won with a distance of 66.18m. Her personal best is 4th in history for women at 68.43m. She achieved that with a javelin that is 75% lighter than what Jenner threw -- and Jenner is nowhere near the best male tosser in history ( teed that up for ya WstateU ).

Currently when you reach the age of 60-69 you would throw a 600g javelin. At age 70, it drops to 500g. Women in the Olympics are throwing a 600g javelin, just like men between the ages of 60-69.

If Bruce Jenner decided to train intensely, he would be throwing a 600g javelin and it is not out of the realm of possibility that he could win a gold medal if he competed in the women's javelin throw -- at the age of 70. And he's not even that good of a javelin thrower for a man.

How is this fair to women competitors who are actually women?

[WstateU]

Thanks man!

https://media.giphy.com/media/11nwF0R9wAYZos/giphy.gif

It's all in the wrists...

https://media.giphy.com/media/YouQqAt3pSSyI/giphy.gif

[wufan]

I'm making it about the entire proposal because adding two new protected classes to the Civil Rights Act seems like a pretty major legislative proposal that passed the House, and yet we're seeing articles that act like the purpose of the bill was to allow boys to play girl sports. That's my entire point. Literally. The entire point I am trying to make is that I'm shocked that everyone is making this about athletics when it's a much, much broader bill. And so the options are: (i) I'm a dummy and totally ignorant of how many people actually know what the underlying bill is trying to do; (ii) people actually don't realize the bill is much broader than athletics; or (iii) people realize the bill is much broader than athletics, but athletics is such a huge issue that it warrants a disproportionately large share of the coverage. In terms of (i), it's tough to know what you don't know, so I'd have to wait for additional correction from someone on here. In terms of (iii), that would just be shocking to me if people were focusing on sports over constitutional religious freedom arguments or safety in bathrooms.



I do not have an answer to your question. I have many thoughts that all feel insignificant compared to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, etc. In no particular order:

• I am not an expert in this field, I suspect few on here are experts in this field, and I just don't know how it works. An employer already can't discriminate based on sex, right? But, I'm sure, the WNBA can legally say no men are allowed in the league. This is not an argument one way or the other, but it's an example of my ignorance as to how this works. And the same thing is almost certainly true at the collegiate level. I am 100% certain this is not a profound or new argument, and I am certain a seasoned attorney in this area could answer this question easily.
• I have never understood why sexual orientation and gender identity were not classified as sex discrimination. If a woman can be married to a man, but the employer would fire a man fore being married to a man, that sure seems like sex discrimination to me.
• In light of my ignorance, and in light of the fact that nothing in the bill talks about athletics, I find it hard to believe that there couldn't be some further refinement of gender identity either federally or on an organization-by-organization basis. I am not going to make that argument because I don't know. But my gut instinct is that a burly, bearded man that is overflowing with testosterone probably isn't going to be allowed to waltz in and smash every women's record of all time.
• I don't know what percentage of males are even tempted by such an opportunity.
• I am not a scientist. I don't know if hormone therapy is or is not sufficient for purposes of rectifying any differences between males and females. Navaratilova seems to think it's not sufficient. I suspect she is also not a scientist.
• I do not know how you reconcile hormone therapy rules with biological females who have unusually high levels of testosterone.
• I don't know what the ramifications would be if we just said, at elite levels, there is the NBA which will allow anyone to play so long as they are talented enough. There is the WNBA which has separate qualifications that depend on hormone levels, etc.
• I know less than zero about youth sports.
• It would not surprise me if girls are better than boys until about age 14.
• I don't know that I think there are any major impacts from just saying boys and girls are forced to play together in amateur and junior sports.
• I don't know that I think that is what would happen under the new law.

I do know that I think all of that seems like small potatoes and can probably be resolved with a pretty quick "the foregoing doesn't apply to sports..." and so I am personally more interested in the larger bill.

I am a scientist...biochemist actually, and once you get into puberty, the hormonal effects on aggression, muscle mass, limberness, and bone density are profound!

[ShockingButTrue]

Here's the results of a study done at Penn U. It's fodder for this debate according to jd, who can't get racism off of his brain:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3378076 (it has a PDF link for anyone interested)

[Shockm]

I'm making it about the entire proposal because adding two new protected classes to the Civil Rights Act seems like a pretty major legislative proposal that passed the House, and yet we're seeing articles that act like the purpose of the bill was to allow boys to play girl sports. That's my entire point. Literally. The entire point I am trying to make is that I'm shocked that everyone is making this about athletics when it's a much, much broader bill. And so the options are: (i) I'm a dummy and totally ignorant of how many people actually know what the underlying bill is trying to do; (ii) people actually don't realize the bill is much broader than athletics; or (iii) people realize the bill is much broader than athletics, but athletics is such a huge issue that it warrants a disproportionately large share of the coverage. In terms of (i), it's tough to know what you don't know, so I'd have to wait for additional correction from someone on here. In terms of (iii), that would just be shocking to me if people were focusing on sports over constitutional religious freedom arguments or safety in bathrooms.



I do not have an answer to your question. I have many thoughts that all feel insignificant compared to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, etc. In no particular order:

• I am not an expert in this field, I suspect few on here are experts in this field, and I just don't know how it works. An employer already can't discriminate based on sex, right? But, I'm sure, the WNBA can legally say no men are allowed in the league. This is not an argument one way or the other, but it's an example of my ignorance as to how this works. And the same thing is almost certainly true at the collegiate level. I am 100% certain this is not a profound or new argument, and I am certain a seasoned attorney in this area could answer this question easily.
• I have never understood why sexual orientation and gender identity were not classified as sex discrimination. If a woman can be married to a man, but the employer would fire a man fore being married to a man, that sure seems like sex discrimination to me.
• In light of my ignorance, and in light of the fact that nothing in the bill talks about athletics, I find it hard to believe that there couldn't be some further refinement of gender identity either federally or on an organization-by-organization basis. I am not going to make that argument because I don't know. But my gut instinct is that a burly, bearded man that is overflowing with testosterone probably isn't going to be allowed to waltz in and smash every women's record of all time.
• I don't know what percentage of males are even tempted by such an opportunity.
• I am not a scientist. I don't know if hormone therapy is or is not sufficient for purposes of rectifying any differences between males and females. Navaratilova seems to think it's not sufficient. I suspect she is also not a scientist.
• I do not know how you reconcile hormone therapy rules with biological females who have unusually high levels of testosterone.
• I don't know what the ramifications would be if we just said, at elite levels, there is the NBA which will allow anyone to play so long as they are talented enough. There is the WNBA which has separate qualifications that depend on hormone levels, etc.
• I know less than zero about youth sports.
• It would not surprise me if girls are better than boys until about age 14.
• I don't know that I think there are any major impacts from just saying boys and girls are forced to play together in amateur and junior sports.
• I don't know that I think that is what would happen under the new law.

I do know that I think all of that seems like small potatoes and can probably be resolved with a pretty quick "the foregoing doesn't apply to sports..." and so I am personally more interested in the larger bill.

One of the parts of this bill that you ignore and one of the reasons I am most disgusted by the sports portion of the bill is that one of the Florida Dem Congressmen amended the bill to not include sports and the entire Democrat conference voted it down. So not all of your fellow democrats (including Martina Navratilova whether she is a dem or not) agree with you that sports unfairness for girls who are born biologically as girls (not who FEEL like they are a girl) isn't important.

[ShockingButTrue]

You're talking over his head.

[C0|dB|00ded]

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?

They are biologically different than white people and the advantages are quite clear for all to see in all three major sports. I don't think it merits segregation as the races have just settled into their own specialties. But black vs. white would pale in comparison to male vs. female... LOL.

You could side with scientists who talk about hormone therapy and how it nullifies biological differences of sex in terms of athletic performance.

That's total bullshit.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

Transgender high school sophomores Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood came in first and second place, respectively, in the 100-meter race at the State Open Finals June 4, angering some parents who complained they had a competitive advantage over non-transgender students.

"Homegirl" got a stash and a chin squarer than my own... I don't even want to compare peckers *starts shivering*


JD's got scientists... ROFL!


After Trump wins his second term, I'm hoping he issues an executive order firmly defining a male and a woman at birth and bans any attempt by public institutions to in ANY WAY integrate a natural-born male into the lives of natural-born females. This has been hilarious for a while but now the bullshit needs to stop and Trump is just the guy to do it. The gays are behind Trump kicking the transgender's to the curb as well.


P.S. Where are all the girl-to-boy transgenders clamoring to join the football team and surround themselves in the locker room by a sea of excitable male adolescents? Oh... that's why.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

That's total bullshit.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

"Homegirl" got a stash and a chin squarer than my own... I don't even want to compare peckers *starts shivering*

JD's got scientists... ROFL!

After Trump wins his second term, I'm hoping he issues an executive order firmly defining a male and a woman at birth and bans any attempt by public institutions to in ANY WAY integrate a natural-born male into the lives of natural-born females. This has been hilarious for a while but now the bullshit needs to stop and Trump is just the guy to do it. The gays are behind Trump kicking the transgender's to the curb as well.


P.S. Where are all the girl-to-boy transgenders clamoring to join the football team and surround themselves in the locker room by a sea of excitable male adolescents? Oh... that's why.


T


...:cool:

Alright, so I got one response from a scientist who just says there are biological differences post-puberty (not a scientist, but I definitely feel like that doesn't take a PhD to know) and another one from you where you highlight two transgender teenagers. Neither actually says anything about hormone therapy.

Now, I am not an expert on Terry Miller or Andraya Yearwood, so correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems to me that neither used hormone therapy. If you google them, most articles explicitly talk about why hormone therapy rules would make it harder for them to compete in the girls division. That makes me think that they have not used hormone therapy. Again, someone correct me if that's incorrect.

From what I have read on the subject, many scientists believe hormone therapy resolves huge portions of the competitive differences. wufan said he's a scientist and said the hormonal effects are huge during puberty. I certainly never said anything to the contrary. Now, if you flip the situation we are discussing, and you have a biological female who undergoes hormone therapy to transition to become a man, she would be forced to compete against girls despite having undergone hormone therapy which could drastically increase the person's performance in athletics.

All that to say, I don't know--from a legal standpoint--if a high school athletics organization could implement hormone restrictions if the Equality Act were to pass. Right now, it's just politicians pandering to their bases. I have been unable to find a good explanation anywhere.

[C0|dB|00ded]

They are biologically different than white people and the advantages are quite clear for all to see in all three major sports. I don't think it merits segregation as the races have just settled into their own specialties. But black vs. white would pale in comparison to male vs. female... LOL.



That's total bullshit.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

"Homegirl" got a stash and a chin squarer than my own... I don't even want to compare peckers *starts shivering*


JD's got scientists... ROFL!


After Trump wins his second term, I'm hoping he issues an executive order firmly defining a male and a woman at birth and bans any attempt by public institutions to in ANY WAY integrate a natural-born male into the lives of natural-born females. This has been hilarious for a while but now the bullshit needs to stop and Trump is just the guy to do it. The gays are behind Trump kicking the transgender's to the curb as well.


P.S. Where are all the girl-to-boy transgenders clamoring to join the football team and surround themselves in the locker room by a sea of excitable male adolescents? Oh... that's why.


T


...:cool:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/donald-trump-transgender-protections.html

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has formally proposed to revise Obama-era civil rights for transgender people in the nation’s health care system, eliminating “gender identity” as a factor in health care and leaning government policy toward recognizing only characteristics of sex at birth.

And hereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we go!

I honest to God did not read anything on the subject for days before I made the above post. Someone better check my IP really quickly and make sure it's not emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

Alright, so I got one response from a scientist who just says there are biological differences post-puberty (not a scientist, but I definitely feel like that doesn't take a PhD to know) and another one from you where you highlight two transgender teenagers. Neither actually says anything about hormone therapy.

Now, I am not an expert on Terry Miller or Andraya Yearwood, so correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems to me that neither used hormone therapy. If you google them, most articles explicitly talk about why hormone therapy rules would make it harder for them to compete in the girls division. That makes me think that they have not used hormone therapy. Again, someone correct me if that's incorrect.

From what I have read on the subject, many scientists believe hormone therapy resolves huge portions of the competitive differences. wufan said he's a scientist and said the hormonal effects are huge during puberty. I certainly never said anything to the contrary. Now, if you flip the situation we are discussing, and you have a biological female who undergoes hormone therapy to transition to become a man, she would be forced to compete against girls despite having undergone hormone therapy which could drastically increase the person's performance in athletics.

All that to say, I don't know--from a legal standpoint--if a high school athletics organization could implement hormone restrictions if the Equality Act were to pass. Right now, it's just politicians pandering to their bases. I have been unable to find a good explanation anywhere.

If you are a biological male that identifies as a female, you should compete against males. If said transgender takes hormone blockers, they should still compete against males. While hormone blockers will impede their advantage, it won’t remove previous gains completely. It’s just a bad training platform for competing against men.

Bio females that ID male, but don’t take hormones should compete against other females. If they take hormones, then they have an unfair advantage over bio females. They should then compete against males...they just won’t get the full advantage.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Transgender males attempting to compete against real males in contact sports would suffer the same fate as the prototypical 115 lb. nerd with a congenital spine condition... maybe even worse.

And then when the trans' became crippled, his Libtard-SJW parents would helicopter to the local DA's office and file gender hate crime charges. They will say their Franken-child was targeted. And maybe "it" was. That's how a society polices itself in order to survive.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Alright, so I got one response from a scientist who just says there are biological differences post-puberty (not a scientist, but I definitely feel like that doesn't take a PhD to know) and another one from you where you highlight two transgender teenagers. Neither actually says anything about hormone therapy.

Now, I am not an expert on Terry Miller or Andraya Yearwood, so correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems to me that neither used hormone therapy. If you google them, most articles explicitly talk about why hormone therapy rules would make it harder for them to compete in the girls division. That makes me think that they have not used hormone therapy. Again, someone correct me if that's incorrect.

From what I have read on the subject, many scientists believe hormone therapy resolves huge portions of the competitive differences. wufan said he's a scientist and said the hormonal effects are huge during puberty. I certainly never said anything to the contrary. Now, if you flip the situation we are discussing, and you have a biological female who undergoes hormone therapy to transition to become a man, she would be forced to compete against girls despite having undergone hormone therapy which could drastically increase the person's performance in athletics.

All that to say, I don't know--from a legal standpoint--if a high school athletics organization could implement hormone restrictions if the Equality Act were to pass. Right now, it's just politicians pandering to their bases. I have been unable to find a good explanation anywhere.

I've seen transgenders up close (waitstaff at restaurants and such). Here's the bottom line: male transgenders are essentially a chic with a butch cut, wrapped chest, fine facial hair, and a voice and physical stature like a 14 yr. old boy. Typical female transgenders look like grotesque, masculine women; they have broad shoulders, large hands, and are seriously creepy to interact with. It's a natural law violation like no other. Now... you can search the internet and find incredible examples of men who have transitioned to women with LOADS of plastic surgery but that's far from typical. With today's technology in modern medicine, I'm quite certain a person could turn themselves into whatever they wanted with enough funding.

CB's bottom line:

If you are a person that wants to pervert natural laws and simulate mating with your own sex (it happens with animals too), then have at it as long as you don't violate the rights of others to not participate in ANY way with your deviant behavior. If you want to transform your physical body in such a way as to camouflage your original gender, that's fine too under the aforementioned stipulations; but... you will have just as much civil protections as the guy that files his teeth to look like Dracula or the dude that tattoos his entire head attaching earrings from his eyelids to his testicles. You are a freak and you will be looked at as such by most "normal" people. These discriminatory controls are in place to manage society in such a way that it does not "extinct itself".


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/28/c...-championship/

yea but.jpg

[Kung Wu]

Well it didn't take long for a man to ruin the dream of winning a college championship for many senior college women athletes at the pinnacle of their career.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/28/c...-championship/

Telfer’s victory came less than two hours after taking fifth place in the 100-meter hurdles. OutSports, a pro-LGBT sports website, touted Telfer as “a trans athlete who doesn’t win every time.”

Yeah, only when he forgets to untape his schmutz before the race.

Look at the expression on the faces of the females standing next to him. If there's ever been a clearer illustration of the phrase FML, I don't think I've seen it.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/top-ranked-ncaa-womens-runner-competed-as-man-last-year/

It gets even better... I was going to see if this dude ran track in high school. I thought it would be hilarious to find out that after zero prior experience he just lets his nuts hang and proceeds to clean up in womens' collegiate nationals. But this bloke did one better; he was a college male track athlete who simply decided to switch...

This guy is a lot smarter than I thought. He gets to hang championship banners, attend college for free, AND enjoy a legal peep at all the hot female athletes while they are changing.

T


...:cool: