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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
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...
I have problems as well. My anticipation is that, in the long run , either there won't be a lot of satisfaction to winning if it's clear that there is a big advantage or that contests will become men, women and open categories with winning the open events holding the real prestige. It's a mental game, so not exactly the same although the attitudes were similar about who could do what, but that's what happened in bridge 20 or 30 years ago.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
So I suppose then that you support the elimination of Title IX altogether? It is very demonstrable that Title IX has eliminated exponentially more collegiate opportunities for young men than the transgender issue will over the next 100 years or so.

For the record, I do NOT support the removal of Title IX because I think the issue is complex and I think the creation of those opportunities for females was and is overall worth the tradeoff of that elimination for some males.
 
wmheel1287 said:
So I suppose then that you support the elimination of Title IX altogether? It is very demonstrable that Title IX has eliminated exponentially more collegiate opportunities for young men than the transgender issue will over the next 100 years or so.

For the record, I do NOT support the removal of Title IX because I think the issue is complex and I think the creation of those opportunities for females was and is overall worth the tradeoff of that elimination for some males.
Click to expand...
Without getting into details and derailing the thread, I'm not a huge fan of Title IX, but I get, to a point, why it's good that it exists.
 
ZenMode said:
Without getting into details and derailing the thread, I'm not a huge fan of Title IX, but I get, to a point, why it's good that it exists.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't be having the discussion about taking opportunities from women AT ALL if Title IX didn't exist. Those opportunities would have never come into existence. Young girls grow up playing sports now because of Title IX.
 
UNCatTech said:
Because they don't understand the love component, they become fixated on the sexual aspect.

Just look at the arguments they make about how the body "isn't designed" for certain kinds of intimacy.

Yet, I doubt they object when their own partner is open to exploring those same experiences.

If they could simply accept that love transcends the arbitrary limits they impose, they might become more open-minded and compassionate.
Click to expand...
i genuinely feel sorry for people like this. sex is about so much more than penetration.
 
wmheel1287 said:
We wouldn't be having the discussion about taking opportunities from women AT ALL if Title IX didn't exist. Those opportunities would have never come into existence. Young girls grow up playing sports now because of Title IX.
Click to expand...
My wife and I involved our kids in youth sports knowing there was a 90+% chance they wouldn't ever play beyond high school but, again, I understand, especially in public universities, that there should be a requirement to offer girls sports. I don't think there should be a 1:1 requirement, but anything less would likely be viewed as discriminatory, so it is what it is.
 
ZenMode said:
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?
Click to expand...
Should we regularly test for steroid use among all athletes? I mean, if your’re concerned about a perceived unfair advantage that boys have over girls because of size and strength, shouldn’t you be concerned that some people within a sex are cheating? Maybe we should have tiers of sports based on physical size the same way we do for HS based on enrollment.

Hurray! Our team made the class A, average height, bantamweight football playoffs!
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Should we regularly test for steroid use among all athletes? I mean, if your’re concerned about a perceived unfair advantage that boys have over girls because of size and strength, shouldn’t you be concerned that some people within a sex are cheating? Maybe we should have tiers of sports based on physical size the same way we do for HS based on enrollment.

Hurray! Our team made the class A, average height, bantamweight football playoffs!
Click to expand...
So true, I mean look at Brittney Griner, her height was a clear advantage, who should that small group of tall girls have an advantage in sports that favor tall people?

If we're going to police every possible advantage, no matter how minute, then sports themselves are done.

These people need to realize how much more to sports there is besides winning.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Should we regularly test for steroid use among all athletes? I mean, if your’re concerned about a perceived unfair advantage that boys have over girls because of size and strength, shouldn’t you be concerned that some people within a sex are cheating? Maybe we should have tiers of sports based on physical size the same way we do for HS based on enrollment.

Hurray! Our team made the class A, average height, bantamweight football playoffs!
Click to expand...
I think we should take reasonable steps to keep males out of female sports because males have an unfair physical advantage.
 
UNCatTech said:
So true, I mean look at Brittney Griner, her height was a clear advantage, who should that small group of tall girls have an advantage in sports that favor tall people?

If we're going to police every possible advantage, no matter how minute, then sports themselves are done.

These people need to realize how much more to sports there is besides winning.
Click to expand...
I remember a few ZZL threads about holding boys back in Kindergarten so they would be a year older than most of the kids in their class and the primary rationale was about having an advantage in sports a decade later.
New rule: if you’re held back a grade for any reason, you’re banned from school sports.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
I remember a few ZZL threads about holding boys back in Kindergarten so they would be a year older than most of the kids in their class and the primary rationale was about having an advantage in sports a decade later.
New rule: if you’re held back a grade for any reason, you’re banned from school sports.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was popular in Texas from what I've read.
 
ZenMode said:
My wife and I involved our kids in youth sports knowing there was a 90+% chance they wouldn't ever play beyond high school but, again, I understand, especially in public universities, that there should be a requirement to offer girls sports. I don't think there should be a 1:1 requirement, but anything less would likely be viewed as discriminatory, so it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Those youth sports opportunities only existed for boys 50 years ago. The fact that you have youth sports opportunities for girls now is directly attributable to the opportunities existing at the next level leading to growth in interest at the lower levels.
 
ZenMode said:
I think we should take reasonable steps to keep males out of female sports because males have an unfair physical advantage.
Click to expand...
So a relatively rare unfair physical advantage is a concern, but widespread use of performance enhancing substances conferring an obvious benefit is a trivial matter?
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Should we regularly test for steroid use among all athletes? I mean, if your’re concerned about a perceived unfair advantage that boys have over girls because of size and strength, shouldn’t you be concerned that some people within a sex are cheating? Maybe we should have tiers of sports based on physical size the same way we do for HS based on enrollment.

Hurray! Our team made the class A, average height, bantamweight football playoffs!
Click to expand...
Probably ought to outlaw all private coaching, weight lifting classes and such as well. It's not fair to those who can't afford time. And if RFK, Jr doesn't regulate food for everybody, who's going to make sure athletes get the same nutrients so everything is fair.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
So a relatively rare unfair physical advantage is a concern, but widespread use of performance enhancing substances conferring an obvious benefit is a trivial matter?
Click to expand...
No strawmanning allowed.

It's not either/or. This current discussion is about males and females.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
So a relatively rare unfair physical advantage is a concern, but widespread use of performance enhancing substances conferring an obvious benefit is a trivial matter?
Click to expand...
This touches on another reason these issues should be handled by the governing bodies of the sport.
It may not be worth the resources or effort or whatever to make sure every junior high female volleyball player was born female.
The Olympics or pro sports may come to different conclusions.
 
ZenMode said:
No strawmanning allowed.

It's not either/or. This current discussion is about males and females.
Click to expand...
No, your premis is that there is an unfair advantage. So why would it be limited to the unfair advantage you claim and not all unfair advantages?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top