Protection Of Women And Girls In Sports Act

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 199
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
Well, obviously the issue at some point that is debatable brings a 2nd life into play. When that is I guess is up to an individuals beliefs. I fall somewhere in the middle of when that is.
Click to expand...
Exactly, individual beliefs.

So, my opinion, your opinion, trump's opinion, do not matter to pregnant women having to work through the medical issues of pregnancy.
 
ChileG said:
The passports.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to tie the two together (how the passport issue affects protecting or not protecting women). Obviously this falls in line with trump's EO of the official US stance on gender. I might see a tie to national security but it is a bit of a stretch.
 
UNCatTech said:
Exactly, individual beliefs.

So, my opinion, your opinion, trump's opinion, do not matter to pregnant women having to work through the medical issues of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
But it does matter to an unborn child. So if this were about getting a hysterectomy I would agree.
 
Callatoroy said:
But it does matter to an unborn child. So if this were about getting a hysterectomy I would agree.
Click to expand...
If that is the point, then we need to do something about all of the foster children in this country and ensure that women are able to afford to raise the children and make sure the men, who love to donate sperm and leave, are fully financially responsible for every sperm they share.

Another issue is the confusion with these laws, pregnancies are complicated, miscarriages are much more common than trans females playing sports.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Miscarriage rates by week

The chance of a miscarriage, or a pregnancy loss, decreases after the first trimester. In this article, learn more about average miscarriage rates by week.
www.medicalnewstoday.com www.medicalnewstoday.com

The chance of a woman having a miscarriage is between 10% and 25% of known pregnancies. However, the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages happen before a woman knows she's pregnant.

We shouldn't increase the risk to a woman because doctors are unsure, unclear, or simply scared of violating some stupid law put into place by a bunch of old men.

And, it's pretty obvious the real reason behind the laws is control. If they so cared about the children, they would continue to care after birth. Any representative that votes against social safety nets, tax breaks that help pregnant women, insurance policies that help pregnant women, etc., shouldn't have any say in a woman having a child.

Factors that increase the risk of miscarriage
  • Age
    The risk of miscarriage increases after age 30, and is highest after age 40

  • Previous miscarriages
    The risk of miscarriage increases if you've had one or more miscarriages before

  • Health conditions
    Poorly controlled diabetes and conditions that affect the uterus can increase the risk of miscarriage

  • Lifestyle factors
    Smoking, drinking alcohol, or using street drugs can increase the risk of miscarriage

When do miscarriages happen?
  • Most miscarriages happen during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy

  • More than 80% of miscarriages happen during the first trimester or by the end of the 14th week

What is a miscarriage?
  • A miscarriage is the sudden loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week

  • A baby who dies after 28 weeks of pregnancy is considered a stillbirth
 
Lando said:
I always get a kick out of people claiming the majority should determine minority rights. It’s fun when I hear about the tyranny of the majority as a defense of the electoral college.
Click to expand...
I also get a kick out of people acting as if their supported side is the only one who has any rights and that the minority, no matter how small, always should prevail vs finding a solution that satisfies both interests.
 
StrangePackage said:
Except you're not arguing to protect women. That assertion is patently laughable.

If Republicans were serious for even a millisecond about protecting women then they wouldn't be nominating a person to head the largest employer in the federal government (which has a sketchy history of dealing with sexual assault within its own ranks) who had repeatedly been accused of sexual assault and enacted several non-disclosure agreements preventing people from talking about that.

That's not a party that's interested in protecting women. This legislation is not about protecting women. It's about bashing queers. Y'all are the party that likes to bash queers.

Which is the party that likes to bash queers in the eyes of the public?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, bashing queers is a plus to MAGAts, Republicans, “conservatives,” the GQP, Trumplicans, and Christo-Nationalists.
 
UNCatTech said:
Is that really killing it? I'd prefer to work less, much less, not overtime.
Click to expand...
Ask LEO’s eligible for lucrative overtime.

You’re often talking a 40-60% pay jump - and, that’s not including the retirement bump.

Also, the last three years of employment before retirement often determine post-retirement income.

One often doesn’t have to work 20 or 25 or 30 years with a lot of OT to make overtime pay off in a big way.

In the 1990’s, when NY and NJ were trying to implement EZ-PASS on toll roads, a major obstacle were the unionized toll workers. The “urban legend” that a toll worker would go to work 3 years before retirement and not go home and his wife would drop off food and clean clothes for days on end - turns out it wasn’t completely an urban legend.

The unions and their rank-and-file worked out a deal with the Transit Authorities - if you had X amount of seniority (12-15 years), you’d get to work the requisite amount of overtime to secure a MASSIVE pension.

UPS and its unions and rank-and-file worked out a similar deal in the ‘90’s.
 
ChileG said:
Fwiw. The NC high school athletic association has been governing high school sports in this state since before any of us were born. Until this year.
The GOP passed a law so politicians now have control over NC high school sports. Why do you think they did this (Governor didn’t bother to veto because they have enough votes for it to be veto-proof)?
I’ll give you a hint why they did this: it is germane to this thread.

So, again, this should be handled by the governing bodies of each league or association or whatever, not the government be it the state government or federal government.
Click to expand...
I honestly never gave much of a crap about someone’s grade school or high school state championship aspirations……if you miss out on that high school championship because someone was better than you, so what…….if you miss out on that collegiate championship because someone was better than you, so what.

In 40-45 states it likely means you aren’t national-caliber (win a CA, TX, FL high school title and we’re talking).

Let’s take swimming because I swam…….North Carolina was not a bad swimming state; but, it wasn’t California or Florida or Michigan or Texas or NY or Georgia’s DeKalb Dynamos or Maryland’s Silver Springs Stripers.

The Dynamos and Stripers would come to the old Eastern Invitational meet (GREAT meet for NC kids to learn to compete). Those out-of-state teams just killed us on our own turf - or in an outdoor 50-meter pool in Greensboro we considered our backyard.

I usually made Finals (Top 8) in most of my events (400 & 1500 free, 200 & 400 IM, and 200 fly; 200 free and 100 fly were a stretch - not enough speed. I was fortunate to make 1-3 consolation finals at that Eastern Invitational.

I learned there that the North Carolina State Swimming Championships was a rinky-dink meet. That what mattered was the Nationals - JR Nationals to start (make consolation finals 9th-16th place at JR Nationals and you could score points at the ACC’s).

Make JR Nationals….try to make SR Nationals….then, Olympic Trials.

High School Swimming (and high school sports in general) are rinky-dink in most states and locales compared to national competition.

Lia Thomas placed in 2-4 events at the NCAA’s and won one event. Her big win was in 2022 in the 500-yd free. The top female swimmers in the world would have trashed her.

Lia Thomas had been undergoing hormone treatments since at least 2019. Lia started getting much SLOWER in each event.

FINA, the International swimming governing body, had banned trans athletes based on certain criteria; so, Lia Thomas was ineligible for the 2024 Olympics - which meant she couldn’t swim at the 2024 USA Olympic Trials.

Let doctors, parents, AND children decide on their treatment for gender dysphoria. The treatment likely includes puberty blockers - that might preclude a 6’3” player spiking a ball into a cute little blonde girl’s face.
 
uncjhodges said:
Sorry if this has been answered, what do transgender male (female transitioning to male) play? Does a 17 year old that is transitioning and on hormonal therapy but hasn’t had surgery then get to play womens sports? or are they just shit out of luck
Click to expand...
The rule should be “if you’re ever been a male at any point, you play men’s sports. If you were born a woman and still identify as a woman, you play women’s sports”
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
The rule should be “if you’re ever been a male at any point, you play men’s sports. If you were born a woman and still identify as a woman, you play women’s sports”
Click to expand...
As I've said repeatedly, I'm pretty agnostic on this whole issue, but I don't understand the logic here. If it's the biological differences that drive this to being such an important issue, then wouldn't females who now identify as males be FAR more likely to be injured by playing with all men? Help me with that one.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
The rule should be “if you’re ever been a male at any point, you play men’s sports. If you were born a woman and still identify as a woman, you play women’s sports”
Click to expand...
So trans females are at high risk of injury. got it- so you don’t care about protecting females
 
wmheel1287 said:
As I've said repeatedly, I'm pretty agnostic on this whole issue, but I don't understand the logic here. If it's the biological differences that drive this to being such an important issue, then wouldn't females who now identify as males be FAR more likely to be injured by playing with all men? Help me with that one.
Click to expand...
Not all females who identify as males are created equal. I'm sure some percentage of them are still biologically females and just believe in their head they are males. But some of them have received surgeries and other hormone treatments to artificially pump up their testosterone levels, etc, right?

One of my wife's friends has a sibling that was born female and now identifies as male. This person now has a full beard and a deep voice. Anecdotally, this person wouldn't be very successful at all in men's athletics, but might could dominate women's athletics fairly easily.

I think my solution gives everyone an avenue to play sports in some way. But if you were either a) born a male and identify as the opposite, or b) born female and identify as the opposite, you just play men's sports. There would effectively be "women's sports" and "open gender" sports. The only way to qualify for playing women's sports is if you were born a woman and have always known you're a woman. If your situation is anything other than that, you play "open gender" sports against predominately males.

No different really than how there are certain criteria to play "amateur" sports. There would be certain criteria to play "women's" sports.

I still can't believe this is a real conversation.
 
rodoheel said:
Yeah man I love when the government forces my local YMCA youth league to require birth certificates to register. So small government. So important.
Click to expand...
Does the government Force that? I thought it was jackhole parents that wanted to see their 12-year-olds dominate 10-year-olds that led to the birth certificate thing.
 
wmheel1287 said:
As I've said repeatedly, I'm pretty agnostic on this whole issue, but I don't understand the logic here. If it's the biological differences that drive this to being such an important issue, then wouldn't females who now identify as males be FAR more likely to be injured by playing with all men? Help me with that one.
Click to expand...
In this case, the intent is to not create a competitive advantage primarily. Safety becomes a close 2nd in trans men playing women's sports. It follows the youth sports system where there are age brackets. A 12 year old can play up in a 14 yo division if they are good enough but you can't go the other way.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Not all females who identify as males are created equal. I'm sure some percentage of them are still biologically females and just believe in their head they are males. But some of them have received surgeries and other hormone treatments to artificially pump up their testosterone levels, etc, right?

One of my wife's friends has a sibling that was born female and now identifies as male. This person now has a full beard and a deep voice. Anecdotally, this person wouldn't be very successful at all in men's athletics, but might could dominate women's athletics fairly easily.

I think my solution gives everyone an avenue to play sports in some way. But if you were either a) born a male and identify as the opposite, or b) born female and identify as the opposite, you just play men's sports. There would effectively be "women's sports" and "open gender" sports. The only way to qualify for playing women's sports is if you were born a woman and have always known you're a woman. If your situation is anything other than that, you play "open gender" sports against predominately males.

No different really than how there are certain criteria to play "amateur" sports. There would be certain criteria to play "women's" sports.

I still can't believe this is a real conversation.
Click to expand...
It's only a real conversation because yall seem to want it to be. Seems to be a great big nothing burger to me and always has. It MIGHT directly affect one one hundredth of 1% of the population.
 
Callatoroy said:
In this case, the intent is to not create a competitive advantage primarily. Safety becomes a close 2nd in trans men playing women's sports. It follows the youth sports system where there are age brackets. A 12 year old can play up in a 14 yo division if they are good enough but you can't go the other way.
Click to expand...
Trans men are not trying to play female sports- that’s what you are trying to enforce (or just say that trans men can’t play sports)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top