|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones?
I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports.
|
United States44247 Posts
On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports.
That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without.
|
On July 02 2026 17:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports. That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without.
I am not aware hormones test are done at every sport at every level?
|
United States44247 Posts
On July 02 2026 17:16 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:11 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports. That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without. I am not aware hormones test are done at every sport at every level?
Would you exclude a biological woman with biologically natural hormones produced by her body?
|
On July 02 2026 17:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:16 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:11 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports. That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without. I am not aware hormones test are done at every sport at every level? Would you exclude a biological woman with biologically natural hormones produced by her body?
That's upto : the level of competition. the governing body and the players themselves.
|
United States44247 Posts
On July 02 2026 17:26 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:25 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:16 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:11 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports. That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without. I am not aware hormones test are done at every sport at every level? Would you exclude a biological woman with biologically natural hormones produced by her body? That's upto : the level of competition. the governing body and the players themselves.
Hold up. You started by saying you had the easiest solution. So the easiest solution according to you is that you don’t have a solution?
|
On July 02 2026 17:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 17:26 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:25 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:16 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:11 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:08 ETisME wrote:On July 02 2026 17:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 17:05 ETisME wrote:
The easiest solution is just to do hormones check and only biological women and men at birth can join the respective event.
Call them the CIS male and CIS female tournaments. Not discrimination, it is as is.
They can start their own tournament and sport events. You've made two conflicting arguments here. Is it decided by biological sex at birth or is it hormones? I actually think biological sex at birth is enough. Hormones is for certain sport only, which I wouldn't want it standardised across all sports. That seems profoundly unfair and unsafe. You're putting women with natural hyperandrogenism in the same competition as women without. I am not aware hormones test are done at every sport at every level? Would you exclude a biological woman with biologically natural hormones produced by her body? That's upto : the level of competition. the governing body and the players themselves. Hold up. You started by saying you had the easiest solution. So the easiest solution according to you is that you don’t have a solution?
I literally said the easiest is to have born men and born women only. That would get rid of trans joining women or men is fair or unfair.
I didn't say every single sports and competition level wouldn't have any other rule, including what they already have in place such as your concern over hormone.
Don't tell me you have a secret sauce that can be applied to every sport at every level ?
|
I think Kwark nailed it in the sense that all sports, whether amateur or pro, rely on completely arbitrary rule sets.
Some might argue that the objective of an open-division professional league is to find the absolute peak of human performance for a particular activity. But even that isn't true, given the strict regulations against doping. Where does doping even begin? Is spending a two-week vacation training at high altitude to naturally boost your red blood cell count considered doping? Maybe, maybe not. We celebrate a wealthy athlete who can afford specialized mountain camps to alter their blood profile, but we ban someone who takes synthetic substances to achieve the exact same result. Ultimately, the line is arbitrarily drawn by a committee of people with their own complex motives. For professional sports, it almost always boils down to viewership numbers and, ultimately, money.
The women's division itself is an arbitrary boundary, created as a commercially protected asset to shield half the population from the open distribution curve. Where that leaves us on the trans issue is a pragmatic clash of corporate interests. The general public mostly does not want to see trans women in women's sports, so decision-makers incline toward exclusion to protect their viewership and marketability. On the flip side, trans-rights activists flag this as outright discrimination, which generates bad press.
Lately, executives have realized that the financial risk of a public boycott from the mainstream fan base is significantly higher than the reputational risk of being called discriminatory by activists. When major federations choose to exclude, it is a calculated business decision. In the end, as always, the group with the most institutional power and the strongest will to fight will dictate the rules.
|
There has been a recent surge in the number of immigrant arrests by ICE:
Federal immigration officials have detained more than 10,000 people in the last five days, a major surge that has stemmed from a push within Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase arrest rates.
Agency leaders in recent days ordered top ICE officials to focus more of their officers’ efforts on picking up immigrants they want to deport, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with federal officials. ICE officers have arrested people at check-ins with immigration authorities, during traffic stops and on the street. The push has apparently yielded results, with recent arrest numbers roughly doubling from the 1,000 picked up each day earlier this year.
ICE officials were told that the White House wanted an increase in arrests, according to three officials with knowledge of the conversations. One of the officials said that it was unclear how long the pace could continue, but that ICE officials had been told that 2,000 arrests a day was the new standard for enforcement. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/ice-immigrant-arrests-surge.html
Obviously, arresting a lot of people doesn't necessarily mean that all those arrested are here illegally, or that the arrests are ethical or lawful.
|
On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line.
The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation.
On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women"
If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in.
|
On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in.
In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ?
|
The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.) https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/30/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On July 02 2026 22:58 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ?
If sexism wasn't a thing, women would run the 100 meter just as fast as men.
|
On July 02 2026 22:58 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ?
It could just be separated into weight tiers or some other gender-nondescript classification.
|
I wonder how does the "Biden crime family" and "Biden is a worse criminal then Trump" crowd feel about incredibly obvious and clear case of insider trading that anyone a brain can see has happened since he came back in to power:
https://www.today.com/video/trump-made-327-stock-trades-1-day-before-tariff-pause-filings-266063941615
I mean, given that Trump is gleefully bragging to anyone who will hear that he has Immunity (thank you SCOTUS!) and that there is a "Pardon radius" around the Oval office, they would probably go with the good old conservative credo of "Anyone would do it in his position", but I'd still love to hear from our resident centrists.
And all of this is just "legitimate" stock activity, the insane bribery, market manipulation and rug pulling his crime family did with Crypto is even crazier, plus, that is only the shit he disclosed, and it amounts to almost $3 billion since he took office, almost doubling his net worth, completely normal, right?
Again, this is just the things that are disclosed, all the deals that his, Lutnick's and Witkoff's spawn are making around the world in shady deals is much more then this.
But I guess that is all good with our centrist friends, as long as the libs get owned and the brown people get put in cages or have bombs dropped on their heads.
|
On July 02 2026 23:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:58 Geiko wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ? It could just be separated into weight tiers or some other gender-nondescript classification.
Also, just skill levels. If i were to box against any top-tier boxer in my weight class, i'd lose horrificly completely independent of their sex or gender, because i don't have the skills that JJR has.
But i might still be interested in boxing. I'd just compete in some other format with other people of a similar skill level. And if i am good enough there, i'd probably advance to some bigger league, until i finally box against the best boxers.
This is good for everyone, because the top-tier competitors can compete against other top-tier competitors, and the lower tier competitors can still compete against people of similar capabilities.
|
On July 02 2026 23:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2026 22:58 Geiko wrote:On July 02 2026 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:On July 02 2026 09:26 Billyboy wrote:
Some of why men and women are different is cultural and some is societal, but some is also biological. It is OK that men and women are different. And it’s OK that we don’t know exactly where that line is, but we do there is a line. The entire point of this discussion is that you can't simultaneously argue "trans women have an unfair advantage against AFAB women that's so vast that they must be banned" but also "the advantage from biological sex is unquantifiable". At that point you're using the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation. On July 02 2026 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2026 09:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly really don't care about trans women in sports. A vast majority of trans women don't really care about competing in sports, they just want to live their lives without being attacked or harassed for being who they are, and the focus on sports is, largely, used as a cudgel to attack them in a way that is more acceptable, because more people will agree that it's unreasonable that someone who is biologically male can compete in women's sports than that it's unreasonable that people can choose to identify as another gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.
But I think the best way to drop that point of attack is actually to just go like, yeah. If you were born male and you experienced a male puberty and you as a consequence have certain biological advantages - then maybe you can't compete in professional women's sports. I mean, I think you can just evaluate on a case to case basis whether the person in question had any real advantage, but I feel like, for example, Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete as a woman. It sucks for her and there's no resentment from me towards her when I say this - I just think she's likely to have gotten certain benefits (like being 1.85 tall) from undergoing male puberty which have translated to other advantages later on. But like, there are so few of these situations that this can all be done on a case to case basis, and I have 0 issues with trans women competing on an amateur level.
Like Simberto alluded to, I almost feel like this is, to some leftists, an equivalent of gun rights to NRA. Oppose even sensible restrictions because those sensible restrictions are a slippery slope to removing the right to bear arms be trans. But I think in both instances, this is unreasonable - especially because we're talking about like, a literal handful of people. I also think it'd be good if gun nuts went like 'well obviously we should have background checks before people get to buy guns'. Way more than 99% of trans people currently exist without being professional athletes, this isn't a big deal. And honestly - while I'm uncertain on just to what degree biological differences steming from undergoing a male puberty will continue to manifest later in life after you undergo hormonal therapy - (and this is why I'm saying, let's this decision to some medically qualified panel of experts on a case to case basis) - you seem to be arguing that the reason why men are better than women at sports (not involving trans people into this) is societal rather than biological in nature. This, I believe is absolutely bonkers nonsense, even when accepting - as always - that societal factors are also factors. If a sporting org already has rules against hormone disorder competitors competing as women then logically it wouldn’t need a specific trans policy. Whereas if it had a trans exclusion policy it would still need a second policy for the genetic outliers. It stands to reason that trans women aren’t the issue, competitors with bone density/strength/musculature outside normal bounds are the issue. To return to my reply to Falling’s rugby safety concern, if a participant is making the game unsafe it really doesn’t matter what sex they were assigned at birth. Trans status isn’t relevant, they wouldn’t feel somehow safer if assured that the person hospitalizing them was cis female and produced in a Chinese lab. We can see this in action with a lot of the trans sporting hysteria being incorrectly directed at cis women. There can be literally no trans women in a tournament and JK Rowling will still lose her mind over their participation. At a certain point you have to recognize that this really isn’t about fairness or safety etc., even if they’re excluded they’ll still be blamed. You can’t satisfy the transphobes on this issue. That's a totally fair counterpoint. The thing is that setting up such a fairness cutoff is always going to be necessarily inaccurate. I'm glad you and lightspectra have seemingly dropped your arguments for coed sports and have realized that there should be a separate league for "women" If you re-read my posts you'll see that my argument is that a) women's leagues exist for social reasons, not pure athletic measurement, and b) all sports would be co-ed in an (immeasurably distant) Star Trek-esque future where sexism has been completely abolished, which isn't the world we currently live in. In your future where sexism has been abolished, how do you envision co-ed boxing or co-ed 100m dash for example ? It could just be separated into weight tiers or some other gender-nondescript classification.
Why would the 100m dash need to be tiered when it isn't now?
|
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they?
|
On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they?
That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra.
|
On July 03 2026 00:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
It certainly is already tiered. Adult Olympians aren't allowed in public school junior varsity sprints, are they? That's the exact same logic that was used to justify racial segregation, LightSpectra.
Age isn't the same as race o.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
