GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender & other LGBTQ Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
LosPollosHermanos said:
I know most of the board probably won't agree with me but the competitive advantage gained by trans people who are not fully converted is really no different than steroids. It's fundamentally unfair, regardless of the fact that it rarely makes any difference in "meaningful" outcomes. This is one of those things where legit swing voters look at the left and say they're just crazy.
Click to expand...
Which major national and international sports organizations allow “trans people who are not fully converted” to compete in national championships and major international competitions?

How many trans athletes are in the US?

Do you see value in letting a trans person be open about who they are?

Is there value in a trans person being part of a team?
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
I know most of the board probably won't agree with me but the competitive advantage gained by trans people who are not fully converted is really no different than steroids. It's fundamentally unfair, regardless of the fact that it rarely makes any difference in "meaningful" outcomes. This is one of those things where legit swing voters look at the left and say they're just crazy.
Click to expand...
As zoo noted, the problem with your statement is that “the left” hasn’t ever advocated for all non-transitioned individuals to compete in women’s sports.

The right has sufficiently distorted the narrative such that allowing ANY trans person—including those who’ve transitioned—to compete is seen as allowing hulking aliens to win competitions by smashing the poor dainty little ladies.

The left, meanwhile, has steadily said that (a) this is a non-issue on the state and national level, given the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of trans athletes; and (b) as such, this is an issue better left to individual governing bodies of sports, who can determine rules at a community, regional, state, national, or international level.

I don’t think lefties on the whole are against regulating competition based on testosterone levels or other measures—but it makes a much better emotional argument to pretend (as the right does) that there are black-and-white lines that should never be crossed under any circumstance, and that trans people are disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed to use the bathroom or participate in sports.

This works to the right’s advantage, because most “swing voters” really don’t know what transgenderism is, and are scared by it. So they’re comforted by the right’s black-and-white approach, instead of the gray areas proposed by the left.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

It does raise the interesting question of whether Title IX requires that sports be divided by gender.

You cannot discriminate against women in education, and you need to offer an equal number of male and female scholarships, but I am not sure there is any requirement (maybe there is, haven't researched the issue) a school must offer female only sports teams. Curling is co-ed. So is equestrian. Must all teams be limited to a specific gender in order to comply with Title IX?

If the answer to that question is yes, then I could see a decent argument that trans athletes would violate Title IX. I am just not sure of the foundational question.
 
Calheel said:
It does raise the interesting question of whether Title IX requires that sports be divided by gender.

You cannot discriminate against women in education, and you need to offer an equal number of male and female scholarships, but I am not sure there is any requirement (maybe there is, haven't researched the issue) a school must offer female only sports teams. Curling is co-ed. So is equestrian. Must all teams be limited to a specific gender in order to comply with Title IX?
Click to expand...
It is inconceivable to me that any court or administrative body would consider it OK for a school to have a men's basketball program and not a women's basketball program. I don't care if they offer 100 curling and equestrian scholarships -- it's just not OK for the male athletes to have the opportunity to be the next Tyrese Halliburton while the female athletes can't dream of being Caitlin Clark.

Same with soccer. No way anyone would let UNC get away with cutting women's soccer and replacing it with pickleball.
 
superrific said:
It is inconceivable to me that any court or administrative body would consider it OK for a school to have a men's basketball program and not a women's basketball program. I don't care if they offer 100 curling and equestrian scholarships -- it's just not OK for the male athletes to have the opportunity to be the next Tyrese Halliburton while the female athletes can't dream of being Caitlin Clark.

Same with soccer. No way anyone would let UNC get away with cutting women's soccer and replacing it with pickleball.
Click to expand...
Well there are lots of schools that don’t have a female version of a male sport and even more that don’t have a male version of a female sport (and of course, Title IX applies to both men and women) so obviously the law cannot be that you have to have two of every sport.

But if the proper interpretation of the law is that you must have a female-only team to preserve equality in education, then it seems to me that a colorable argument could be made that an assigned male at birth athlete could not play on that team under Title IX
 
Calheel said:
Well there are lots of schools that don’t have a female version of a male sport and even more that don’t have a male version of a female sport (and of course, Title IX applies to both men and women) so obviously the law cannot be that you have to have two of every sport.

But if the proper interpretation of the law is that you must have a female-only team to preserve equality in education, then it seems to me that a colorable argument could be made that an assigned male at birth athlete could not play on that team under Title IX
Click to expand...
You know very well what I mean. There's no way anyone is going to let a school give soccer, football, basketball and hockey to men; rowing, softball, lacrosse and cheerleading to women; and co-ed everywhere else. Just not a chance that men would be given all the big revenue sports and women getting nothing.
 
superrific said:
You know very well what I mean. There's no way anyone is going to let a school give soccer, football, basketball and hockey to men; rowing, softball, lacrosse and cheerleading to women; and co-ed everywhere else. Just not a chance that men would be given all the big revenue sports and women getting nothing.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that’s right but it has been nearly 30 years since I seriously researched Title IX.

But if I accept your argument that a school must offer female only teams, and not just female scholarships and an opportunity to compete, then I think the administration’s Title IX argument is a lot stronger.

If Title IX truly requires schools to offer non-male teams to assure equality of opportunity for female athletes, then one could make a very credible argument that allowing AMB athletes on the team violates Title IX.
 
LosPollosHermanos said:
I know most of the board probably won't agree with me but the competitive advantage gained by trans people who are not fully converted is really no different than steroids. It's fundamentally unfair, regardless of the fact that it rarely makes any difference in "meaningful" outcomes. This is one of those things where legit swing voters look at the left and say they're just crazy.
Click to expand...
The argument from Democrats is often "Well, it's only a very small number of athletes." This is true, but it doesn't make the situation any less unfair for the female athletes. Every biological male that makes a starting lineup is pushing a female to the bench. Every male that finishes first, second, third, etc is keeping a female from finishing in one of those spots. Every male that goes to the state finals or a postseason tournament is taking the spot of what should have been a female in that position.

Even in low numbers, it is simply not fair. People recognize that and push back against it, rightfully so.

There's a reason that males and females are separated into different sports after a certain age.

Follow the science, right?
 
Last edited:
EyeballKid said:
As zoo noted, the problem with your statement is that “the left” hasn’t ever advocated for all non-transitioned individuals to compete in women’s sports.

The right has sufficiently distorted the narrative such that allowing ANY trans person—including those who’ve transitioned—to compete is seen as allowing hulking aliens to win competitions by smashing the poor dainty little ladies.

The left, meanwhile, has steadily said that (a) this is a non-issue on the state and national level, given the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of trans athletes; and (b) as such, this is an issue better left to individual governing bodies of sports, who can determine rules at a community, regional, state, national, or international level.

I don’t think lefties on the whole are against regulating competition based on testosterone levels or other measures—but it makes a much better emotional argument to pretend (as the right does) that there are black-and-white lines that should never be crossed under any circumstance, and that trans people are disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed to use the bathroom or participate in sports.

This works to the right’s advantage, because most “swing voters” really don’t know what transgenderism is, and are scared by it. So they’re comforted by the right’s black-and-white approach, instead of the gray areas proposed by the left.
Click to expand...
Your last statement is the main point, most will not take the time to understand the process, the numbers, or the psychology of being accepted. It's so much bigger that a trophy in a sport.

You know it's also interesting that the "No Participation Trophies" party is solidly behind the woman that tied for fifth place. I thought that second place was first lose in their book??
 
UNCatTech said:
Your last statement is the main point, most will not take the time to understand the process, the numbers, or the psychology of being accepted. It's so much bigger that a trophy in a sport.

You know it's also interesting that the "No Participation Trophies" party is solidly behind the woman that tied for fifth place. I thought that second place was first lose in their book??
Click to expand...
What about the psychology of coming in 2nd in a race you otherwise would have won or the spot in the starting lineup that would have been your spot if not for the male who took your place? How about the psychology of losing a state championship two years in a row because you're a girl being forced to wrestle against a guy?
 
ZenMode said:
What about the psychology of coming in 2nd in a race you otherwise would have won or the spot in the starting lineup that would have been your spot if not for the male who took your place? How about the psychology of losing a state championship two years in a row because you're a girl being forced to wrestle against a guy?
Click to expand...
By the standards you apply, you are consciously telling an outright lie in the last sentence. The person was born a girl and wants to be wrestling guys. Pick a side and stick to it. It's your laws and the principles you claim to espouse doing the damage in the last case.
 
finesse said:
By the standards you apply, you are consciously telling an outright lie in the last sentence. The person was born a girl and wants to be wrestling guys. Pick a side and stick to it. It's your laws and the principles you claim to espouse doing the damage in the last case.
Click to expand...
My point is unchanged even if the example was bad.

There's no concern for the psychology of the actual females.
 
ZenMode said:
My point is unchanged even if the example was bad.

There's no concern for the psychology of the actual females.
Click to expand...
How do you square your concern for the psychology of this group with your apathy about the psychology of other groups? What makes this injustice so much more important to you? It is clearly more important to you and those you politically align yourself with than other wrongs in our society. Why is that?

By the way, I don't disagree that I have problems with those born as male participating at high levels in women's athletics, but I also don't pretend to know everything and I certainly don't flaunt "science" as the basis for my opinion in that regard.
 
wmheel1287 said:
How do you square your concern for the psychology of this group with your apathy about the psychology of other groups? What makes this injustice so much more important to you? It is clearly more important to you and those you politically align yourself with than other wrongs in our society. Why is that?

By the way, I don't disagree that I have problems with those born as male participating at high levels in women's athletics, but I also don't pretend to know everything and I certainly don't flaunt "science" as the basis for my opinion in that regard.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned above, life isn't always fair, but compounding the issue by adding more unfairness isn't the solution.

The science I'm referring to isn't complex. It's the basic biological differences between males and females as it relates to, among other things, upper and lower body muscles mass, where males, without stepping foot in the gym, have a clear advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top