You Go Girl, I Guess

[BackInTex]

Who the hell are these people that decided this 'policy'? What gave them the power to do this and how can we get it set back to sanity?

These people are the Ivy League and the NCAA. They have the power because they conduct the events and championships.

Thank you for your support of women's sports.

And if they decided black couldn't compete with whites, or couldn't compete at all, your response would be the same?

[silverscreenselect]

Who the hell are these people that decided this 'policy'? What gave them the power to do this and how can we get it set back to sanity?

These people are the Ivy League and the NCAA. They have the power because they conduct the events and championships.

Thank you for your support of women's sports.

And if they decided black couldn't compete with whites, or couldn't compete at all, your response would be the same?

The NCAA (and I'm assuming the Ivy League) has guidelines on which team a trans athlete is allowed to compete on. Nobody is banned from competing. You can argue about whether they need more specific guidelines, but that's like arguing about the number of teams in the NCAA tournament.

[flockofseagulls104]

Who the hell are these people that decided this 'policy'? What gave them the power to do this and how can we get it set back to sanity?

These people are the Ivy League and the NCAA. They have the power because they conduct the events and championships.

Thank you for your support of women's sports.

And if they decided black couldn't compete with whites, or couldn't compete at all, your response would be the same?

Hey guys, don't quote him. Just respond. We all know what he will say. Just not the exact words. I'd rather not even know.

[Estonut]

Who the hell are these people that decided this 'policy'? What gave them the power to do this and how can we get it set back to sanity?

These people are the Ivy League and the NCAA. They have the power because they conduct the events and championships.

Thank you for your support of women's sports.

Thomas is a transgender athlete who previously competed for three years as a member of the Quakers’ men’s program. Thomas was an average male swimmer before transitioning but is now ranked No. 1 in the NCAA in the 200 freestyle and 500 freestyle among female swimmers.

It is people like you who think this is OK who are ruining women's sports. Do you think it's OK for this ringer to deprive biological women of all that winning brings?

[silverscreenselect]

Do you think it's OK for this ringer to deprive biological women of all that winning brings?

Do you think it was OK for Usain Bolt to deprive all those other athletes of all that winning brings?

The vast majority of trans female athletes are not dominating their sports.

[Estonut]

Do you think it's OK for this ringer to deprive biological women of all that winning brings?

Do you think it was OK for Usain Bolt to deprive all those other athletes of all that winning brings?

No. Not any he won while doping.

The vast majority of trans female athletes are not dominating their sports.

So fucking what? Because most of these people were below average athletes as men, that makes it OK for a minority of people who were average athletes as men to obliterate women's records? Name 3 who were exceptional athletes when competing as men.

[silverscreenselect]

The vast majority of trans female athletes are not dominating their sports.

So fucking what? Because most of these people were below average athletes as men, that makes it OK for a minority of people who were average athletes as men to obliterate women's records? Name 3 who were exceptional athletes when competing as men.

The vast majority of trans athletes, just like the vast majority of cis athletes, are unexceptional. They don't win events, and they certainly don't become dominant in their sport. And they have to endure enormous amounts of hostility, ridicule, and discrimination in their lives, both on and off the field (or in this case, the pool). That certainly has an effect on their athletic performance. Since Thomas goes to an Ivy League school that tends to be rather expensive (with no athletic scholarships), it's a fair bet that she's competing against women who have tremendous amounts of private coaching and training. That's going to give those athletes big advantages. But people like you, in the supposed name of women's sports, want to ban all of them because a few do well. That's not what the NCAA stands for. Certainly, the rules aren't perfect and subject to change (the NCAA has been criticized for requiring only one year of testoserone-suppressant treatment before allowing female trans athletes to compete). But banning trans women because a handful do exceptionally well (and get inordinate amounts of publicity for doing so), is an unnecessarily harsh measure.

[BackInTex]

The vast majority of trans female athletes are not dominating their sports.

So fucking what? Because most of these people were below average athletes as men, that makes it OK for a minority of people who were average athletes as men to obliterate women's records? Name 3 who were exceptional athletes when competing as men.

The vast majority of trans athletes, just like the vast majority of cis athletes, are unexceptional. They don't win events, and they certainly don't become dominant in their sport. And they have to endure enormous amounts of hostility, ridicule, and discrimination in their lives, both on and off the field (or in this case, the pool). That certainly has an effect on their athletic performance. Since Thomas goes to an Ivy League school that tends to be rather expensive (with no athletic scholarships), it's a fair bet that she's competing against women who have tremendous amounts of private coaching and training. That's going to give those athletes big advantages. But people like you, in the supposed name of women's sports, want to ban all of them because a few do well. That's not what the NCAA stands for. Certainly, the rules aren't perfect and subject to change (the NCAA has been criticized for requiring only one year of testoserone-suppressant treatment before allowing female trans athletes to compete). But banning trans women because a handful do exceptionally well (and get inordinate amounts of publicity for doing so), is an unnecessarily harsh measure.

Yep, you don't get it. Or you deep down hate women. I can't make that call. Thomas is not a woman. Never was. Never will be. That's not hostility or ridicule. Just a fact.

[tlynn78]

So fucking what? Because most of these people were below average athletes as men, that makes it OK for a minority of people who were average athletes as men to obliterate women's records? Name 3 who were exceptional athletes when competing as men.

The vast majority of trans athletes, just like the vast majority of cis athletes, are unexceptional. They don't win events, and they certainly don't become dominant in their sport. And they have to endure enormous amounts of hostility, ridicule, and discrimination in their lives, both on and off the field (or in this case, the pool). That certainly has an effect on their athletic performance. Since Thomas goes to an Ivy League school that tends to be rather expensive (with no athletic scholarships), it's a fair bet that she's competing against women who have tremendous amounts of private coaching and training. That's going to give those athletes big advantages. But people like you, in the supposed name of women's sports, want to ban all of them because a few do well. That's not what the NCAA stands for. Certainly, the rules aren't perfect and subject to change (the NCAA has been criticized for requiring only one year of testoserone-suppressant treatment before allowing female trans athletes to compete). But banning trans women because a handful do exceptionally well (and get inordinate amounts of publicity for doing so), is an unnecessarily harsh measure.

Yep, you don't get it. Or you deep down hate women. I can't make that call. Thomas is not a woman. Never was. Never will be. That's not hostility or ridicule. Just a fact.

I think what they really hate is facts they don't agree with.

[Beebs52]

Speaking as a women, nay bitch, who used to swim, tho not in any sort of serious way...
And reiterating what has been said during other discussions, genetic males have certain built-in advantages-larger hands, longer, more muscular arms, diff center of gravity, diff lung capacity, etc. That does make a difference.

[BackInTex]

Speaking as a women, nay bitch, who used to swim, tho not in any sort of serious way...
And reiterating what has been said during other discussions, genetic males have certain built-in advantages-larger hands, longer, more muscular arms, diff center of gravity, diff lung capacity, etc. That does make a difference.

Fixed it for you. I dislike pleonasms.

[Bob Juch]

Speaking as a women, nay bitch, who used to swim, tho not in any sort of serious way...
And reiterating what has been said during other discussions, genetic males have certain built-in advantages-larger hands, longer, more muscular arms, diff center of gravity, diff lung capacity, etc. That does make a difference.

So are you saying biological women who have large hands, long muscular arms, and a different center of gravity and lung capacity shouldn't be allowed to compete against other women?

Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut?

[BackInTex]

Speaking as a women, nay bitch, who used to swim, tho not in any sort of serious way...
And reiterating what has been said during other discussions, genetic males have certain built-in advantages-larger hands, longer, more muscular arms, diff center of gravity, diff lung capacity, etc. That does make a difference.

So are you saying biological women who have large hands, long muscular arms, and a different center of gravity and lung capacity shouldn't be allowed to compete against other women?

Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut?

She was pretty clear in what she said, and it wasn't what you wrote.

[Bob78164]

Yep, you don't get it. Or you deep down hate women. I can't make that call. Thomas is not a woman. Never was. Never will be. That's not hostility or ridicule. Just a fact.

You're simply wrong. But you're undoubtedly on board with Governor Abbott's position that the government of Texas knows better than parents what's good for their kids, and is willing to enforce that prejudice by using the state government to take kids away from their parents over the objections of both kids and parents.

Which reveals the utter hypocrisy of the complaints about public education. What the complaining parents are really trying to do is prevent ANYONE's kids from being exposed at school to ideas they disagree with. Their issue isn't that they're losing control over what their kids are learning. It's that they're losing control over what other parents' kids are learning. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Yep, you don't get it. Or you deep down hate women. I can't make that call. Thomas is not a woman. Never was. Never will be. That's not hostility or ridicule. Just a fact.

You're simply wrong. But you're undoubtedly on board with Governor Abbott's position that the government of Texas knows better than parents what's good for their kids, and is willing to enforce that prejudice by using the state government to take kids away from their parents over the objections of both kids and parents.

Which reveals the utter hypocrisy of the complaints about public education. What the complaining parents are really trying to do is prevent ANYONE's kids from being exposed at school to ideas they disagree with. Their issue isn't that they're losing control over what their kids are learning. It's that they're losing control over what other parents' kids are learning. --Bob

Um, the public schools don't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.
the state government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids,
and most importantly the federal government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

See: Loudoun County VA.

[Beebs52]

Speaking as a women, nay bitch, who used to swim, tho not in any sort of serious way...
And reiterating what has been said during other discussions, genetic males have certain built-in advantages-larger hands, longer, more muscular arms, diff center of gravity, diff lung capacity, etc. That does make a difference.

So are you saying biological women who have large hands, long muscular arms, and a different center of gravity and lung capacity shouldn't be allowed to compete against other women?

Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut?

Not at all. What a stupid statement.

[tlynn78]

Yep, you don't get it. Or you deep down hate women. I can't make that call. Thomas is not a woman. Never was. Never will be. That's not hostility or ridicule. Just a fact.

You're simply wrong. But you're undoubtedly on board with Governor Abbott's position that the government of Texas knows better than parents what's good for their kids, and is willing to enforce that prejudice by using the state government to take kids away from their parents over the objections of both kids and parents.

Which reveals the utter hypocrisy of the complaints about public education. What the complaining parents are really trying to do is prevent ANYONE's kids from being exposed at school to ideas they disagree with. Their issue isn't that they're losing control over what their kids are learning. It's that they're losing control over what other parents' kids are learning. --Bob

Um, the public schools don't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.
the state government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids,
and most importantly the federal government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

See: Loudoun County VA.

Except, of course, when the State must step in to protect children from abusive parents.

[Bob78164]

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

You've apparently missed the news. Abbott has told Texas's Child Welfare Department (or whatever name they use) to investigate parents who obtain gender-confirmation treatment for their kids, with an eye toward charging them with child abuse. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

See: Loudoun County VA.

Once Virginians saw what Youngkin actually was doing as opposed to the campaign rhetoric, they haven't been all that keen.

Youngkin’s approval ratings, and respondents’ opinions on the direction of the commonwealth, are a muddle: 41% of respondents said they approve of the job Youngkin is doing, while 43% disapprove, and 16% said they don’t know. The differences were pretty well split among partisan lines, with 80% of Republican voters saying Virginia is heading in the right direction, compared to 22% of Democrats and 45% of independents.

“In this highly polarized environment, we see partisans running to their corners on how they view the direction of the Commonwealth and the job of the governor,” said Quentin Kidd, academic director of the Wason Center, in a statement accompanying the poll. “Youngkin’s approval numbers are certainly lower than those of recent governors in Wason Center polling early in their term.”

Youngkin’s first two executive orders – both issued on his first day in office – involved the banning of what he called “divisive” concepts, including critical race theory, in Virginia’s schools, as well as banning mask mandates by locally elected school boards. (The latter is tied up in the courts, but meanwhile the General Assembly enshrined the ban in a bill, which Youngkin signed into law last week.) Solid majorities of Virginians in the Wason Center poll oppose both initiatives.

While critical race theory is not taught in Virginia’s K-12 schools, conservatives have seized on the term to describe teachings about race that they contend makes white children and parents uncomfortable. In the Wason Center poll, Virginia voters support “teaching how racism continues to impact American society today” by 63% (36% strongly supporting it, 27% supporting it) to 33% (18% strongly opposing, 15% opposing). Even when questioners adopted the phrase “critical race theory,” 57% of respondents opposed banning the theory (including 36% strong opposition) versus 35% who supported doing so (21% strongly).

While Youngkin pitched the ban on face coverings in schools as a victory for parents’ rights, 56% or Virginians polled said school mask decisions should be determined by “health data and information from health experts,” rather than parents, by a margin of 56% to 41%.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/02/poll- ... unpopular/

[Bob78164]

You're simply wrong. But you're undoubtedly on board with Governor Abbott's position that the government of Texas knows better than parents what's good for their kids, and is willing to enforce that prejudice by using the state government to take kids away from their parents over the objections of both kids and parents.

Which reveals the utter hypocrisy of the complaints about public education. What the complaining parents are really trying to do is prevent ANYONE's kids from being exposed at school to ideas they disagree with. Their issue isn't that they're losing control over what their kids are learning. It's that they're losing control over what other parents' kids are learning. --Bob

Um, the public schools don't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.
the state government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids,
and most importantly the federal government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

See: Loudoun County VA.

Except, of course, when the State must step in to protect children from abusive parents.

You want to be real careful about what you're terming "abuse." Because your side may not always be in control of the government that decides what actions constitute "abuse." Or are you okay with the State stepping in because parents are "abusing" kids by inculcating them with bigotry? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Um, the public schools don't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.
the state government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids,
and most importantly the federal government doesn't know better than the parents what's good for their kids.

Actually their parents know what's best for their kids. And they don't want any of those entities taking over that role and indoctrinating them.

See: Loudoun County VA.

Except, of course, when the State must step in to protect children from abusive parents.

You want to be real careful about what you're terming "abuse." Because your side may not always be in control of the government that decides what actions constitute "abuse." Or are you okay with the State stepping in because parents are "abusing" kids by inculcating them with bigotry? --Bob

If course one must define which actual definition of bigotry is correct. Which newspeak is acceptable.

[Bob78164]

Except, of course, when the State must step in to protect children from abusive parents.

You want to be real careful about what you're terming "abuse." Because your side may not always be in control of the government that decides what actions constitute "abuse." Or are you okay with the State stepping in because parents are "abusing" kids by inculcating them with bigotry? --Bob

If course one must define which actual definition of bigotry is correct. Which newspeak is acceptable.

My point exactly. Abbott is preparing to use the power of Texas state government to take kids away from their parents because he thinks he knows better than the parents what's good for the kids. You really don't want to give that power to state government in that circumstance, because if you do, then when the pendulum of government swings the other way (as it inevitably will), you really won't like how that power gets used. --Bob

[Beebs52]

You want to be real careful about what you're terming "abuse." Because your side may not always be in control of the government that decides what actions constitute "abuse." Or are you okay with the State stepping in because parents are "abusing" kids by inculcating them with bigotry? --Bob

If course one must define which actual definition of bigotry is correct. Which newspeak is acceptable.

My point exactly. Abbott is preparing to use the power of Texas state government to take kids away from their parents because he thinks he knows better than the parents what's good for the kids. You really don't want to give that power to state government in that circumstance, because if you do, then when the pendulum of government swings the other way (as it inevitably will), you really won't like how that power gets used. --Bob

No. Not actually.

[tlynn78]

If course one must define which actual definition of bigotry is correct. Which newspeak is acceptable.

My point exactly. Abbott is preparing to use the power of Texas state government to take kids away from their parents because he thinks he knows better than the parents what's good for the kids. You really don't want to give that power to state government in that circumstance, because if you do, then when the pendulum of government swings the other way (as it inevitably will), you really won't like how that power gets used. --Bob

No. Not actually.

Teaching bigotry is wrong, but not quite to the level of lopping off offending appendages of minors.

[Bob78164]

My point exactly. Abbott is preparing to use the power of Texas state government to take kids away from their parents because he thinks he knows better than the parents what's good for the kids. You really don't want to give that power to state government in that circumstance, because if you do, then when the pendulum of government swings the other way (as it inevitably will), you really won't like how that power gets used. --Bob

No. Not actually.

Teaching bigotry is wrong, but not quite to the level of lopping off offending appendages of minors.

Says you. And when a government is elected that sees things the other way (with better factual support, given the number of suicides and other diseases of depression caused by untreated gender dysphoria), this will set the precedent necessary to act on that judgment.

We've been here before, where government literally takes over lives because it doesn't like the way people are living those lives. It's not pretty. You really don't want to go there.

And by the way, my understanding is that surgery generally is not performed until after the age of majority. --Bob