Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 28K
  • Politics 
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!
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.
 
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!
I think we should take reasonable steps to keep males out of female sports because males have an unfair physical advantage.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Yes, that was popular in Texas from what I've read.
 
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.

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.
 
I think we should take reasonable steps to keep males out of female sports because males have an unfair physical advantage.
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?
 
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!
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.
 
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?
No strawmanning allowed.

It's not either/or. This current discussion is about males and females.
 
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?
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.
 
No strawmanning allowed.

It's not either/or. This current discussion is about males and females.
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?
 
And your inability to grasp that isn't either/or at birth.
He refuses to grasp it. For some reason he has an unnatural dislike for trans people and their mental wellbeing. He likes to play gotcha where the numbers will never support his promises. For every 1 trans female there will be multiple other "unfair advantage", but he doesn't want to talk about those.
 
Yes, because there is.

I never said there should be a limit. I said the current topic is male athletes competing in female sports.
What is this shit: This current discussion is about males and females.

This is setting a limit. YOU set the limit of your discussion to be about males and females, which you do because you know you are basically bitching about one tree when ignoring the rest of the forest.

Please never respond to me. I only took you off of ignore so I could see other's responses.
 
What is this shit: This current discussion is about males and females.

This is setting a limit. YOU set the limit of your discussion to be about males and females, which you do because you know you are basically bitching about one tree when ignoring the rest of the forest.

Please never respond to me. I only took you off of ignore so I could see other's responses.
Don’t reply to him.

Write your post but not as a reply to him. Then, don’t reply to him ever.
 
What is this shit: This current discussion is about males and females.
Specifically trans females, but yes.
This is setting a limit.
Correct. I'm limiting it to not only the current discussion, but the thread topic. This is something that most posters seem to appreciate, if not request.
YOU set the limit of your discussion to be about males and females, which you do because you know you are basically bitching about one tree when ignoring the rest of the forest.
Or I'm literally sticking to the topic of the thread/discussion.
Please never respond to me. I only took you off of ignore so I could see other's responses.
Sorry, but you don't get to make accusations and then tell the accused that they can't respond.
 
During early development, the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are pheno-typically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes.

Looks like God created females first
 
Back
Top