Can we talk about the equality act?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please go back to the topic? The lack of response makes me think a lot of people don’t have enough understanding about this.

Because trans women are women, they should play women’s sports. Basic human rights here. Not much to debate. Sorry not sorry.

How do you know they are women?

That’s the big question. Did Caitlin Jenner only become a transgender woman once other people knew she was one? Or was she a transgender woman even back when she won a gold medal at the Olympics in the decathlon under the name Bruce Jenner? Back then, when she had all of the physical advantages of having the male physiology, would it have been a-okay for her to complete against women? Where do we draw the line?

The existential questions of her identity then aside, high level athletic competitions like Olympics have rules about hormone levels, so the answer is no.

For high school sports, I think it's worth asking what the purpose of the competition is, and whether that changes how we feel about trans athletes. I think the answer there is that high school sports should not be centered around strict competition like that Olympics and should err on the side of encouraging participation without those kinds of requirements.

High school teams that cut people are focused more on being competitive than on encouraging participation. If someone is biologically male, then you’re not excluding them from participating in sports by having them compete against other biological males. They don’t have to be on the women’s teams to participate. Putting them on the women’s team is about recognizing their gender, but we don’t organize sports by gender. We organize them by the two most dominant biological sexes.

+1

I can't even believe that some people are arguing that the purpose of high school sports and all that transgender people want is to "participate". If that were true, then those people should just "participate" and do the training and fun parts but not actually compete in the competitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No society in history has prospered by elevating trans people. It’s bad for the group.

Non-western societies have allowed there to be a third gender, which is sort of catchall for all the gender nonconforming, but seems the most fair. Still a challenge for sports, but in most cases it would work out.

Non-western failed states.

These were successful societies for thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No society in history has prospered by elevating trans people. It’s bad for the group.

Non-western societies have allowed there to be a third gender, which is sort of catchall for all the gender nonconforming, but seems the most fair. Still a challenge for sports, but in most cases it would work out.

Non-western failed states.

These were successful societies for thousands of years.

Give me a break. Go live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please go back to the topic? The lack of response makes me think a lot of people don’t have enough understanding about this.

Because trans women are women, they should play women’s sports. Basic human rights here. Not much to debate. Sorry not sorry.

How do you know they are women?

That’s the big question. Did Caitlin Jenner only become a transgender woman once other people knew she was one? Or was she a transgender woman even back when she won a gold medal at the Olympics in the decathlon under the name Bruce Jenner? Back then, when she had all of the physical advantages of having the male physiology, would it have been a-okay for her to complete against women? Where do we draw the line?

The existential questions of her identity then aside, high level athletic competitions like Olympics have rules about hormone levels, so the answer is no.

For high school sports, I think it's worth asking what the purpose of the competition is, and whether that changes how we feel about trans athletes. I think the answer there is that high school sports should not be centered around strict competition like that Olympics and should err on the side of encouraging participation without those kinds of requirements.

High school teams that cut people are focused more on being competitive than on encouraging participation. If someone is biologically male, then you’re not excluding them from participating in sports by having them compete against other biological males. They don’t have to be on the women’s teams to participate. Putting them on the women’s team is about recognizing their gender, but we don’t organize sports by gender. We organize them by the two most dominant biological sexes.

Yes. I'm sure there are plenty of students who play sports for fun in high school, but most of the people on my high school's varsity teams were trying to be recruited. We had students go on to play at Ivies, Middlebury, Amherst, etc.

And I do know someone who is involved in a niche sport that only sends two females players to the international competition. A mediocre male athlete suddenly identified as a female (without visibly transitioning or changing appearance or anything) and got one of those slots, resulting in my acquaintance losing her chance. And as a PP mentioned, that's not even taking into account the physical danger of biological males playing a contact sport against women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No society in history has prospered by elevating trans people. It’s bad for the group.

Non-western societies have allowed there to be a third gender, which is sort of catchall for all the gender nonconforming, but seems the most fair. Still a challenge for sports, but in most cases it would work out.

Non-western failed states.

These were successful societies for thousands of years.

Those “third gender” people were typically gay men. That’s a bit different than the current trend of people starting out as heterosexual men and transitioning into lesbian transwomen. I’m not aware of any non-western society with people of that orientation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

I totally agree. Title IX is history if this is passed.

That would be a lie.

Predictions about the future can't be lies. Lies have to do with facts, not predictions or opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No society in history has prospered by elevating trans people. It’s bad for the group.

Non-western societies have allowed there to be a third gender, which is sort of catchall for all the gender nonconforming, but seems the most fair. Still a challenge for sports, but in most cases it would work out.

Non-western failed states.

These were successful societies for thousands of years.

Those “third gender” people were typically gay men. That’s a bit different than the current trend of people starting out as heterosexual men and transitioning into lesbian transwomen. I’m not aware of any non-western society with people of that orientation.

It included transgender. And transgender people existed in the Ancient Near East too. We know this because the Bible has a
prohibition against cross dressing. Why would they have such a prohibition if people weren't doing it?

[Anonymous]

It included transgender. And transgender people existed in the Ancient Near East too. We know this because the Bible has a
prohibition against cross dressing. Why would they have such a prohibition if people weren't doing it?

How many took hormones and had genital surgery? I know there were eunochs. Did they wish to be that way? I think I've read that young choir boys also underwent some procedures to increase the length of time they would be sopranos. Was that a good thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear both views/arguments on this. I see what they are trying to do but it seems like this bill will also have a negative impact on women, as it seems like the bill will allow anyone who identify as women to use the restroom or join womens sports/leagues for example. Am I misuderstanding this? I saw the bill and it seems like it will lead to this in some cases. I don't have anything against LGBTQ, I believe everyone needs to be treated with respect but I think this is a huge gray area that needs to be discussed further as other people who may not be LGBTQ could abuse,I can imagine perverys/pedos abusing this act.

Yes. Unintended consequences. Just because something has a fine sounding name, does not mean that it is a fine bill.

I totally agree. Title IX is history if this is passed.

That would be a lie.

Predictions about the future can't be lies. Lies have to do with facts, not predictions or opinions.

We’re going to need a new title ix to protect girls sports—from boys who think they’re girls—you can’t make this up 🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It included transgender. And transgender people existed in the Ancient Near East too. We know this because the Bible has a
prohibition against cross dressing. Why would they have such a prohibition if people weren't doing it?

How many took hormones and had genital surgery? I know there were eunochs. Did they wish to be that way? I think I've read that young choir boys also underwent some procedures to increase the length of time they would be sopranos. Was that a good thing?

Well the people that did these things apparently thought it was good, but unfortunately, there is nobody around left to ask. In all times and places, some people did strange things to their bodies. If you tell them they can't they often do it anyway. Sometimes they kill themselves if you don't let them. If they are that desparate for whatever crazy reason, it's better to let them do it rather than kill themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please go back to the topic? The lack of response makes me think a lot of people don’t have enough understanding about this.

Because trans women are women, they should play women’s sports. Basic human rights here. Not much to debate. Sorry not sorry.

Stop saying that trans women are women - they are not the same. Context matters in this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is it not telling that the people who tend to be the most vocal and act so entitled about these things are transwomen and not transmen? Is it just coincidence that men, particularly white men, are accustomed to being heard and getting their way? Is it just a coincidence that a much higher percentage of transwomen identify as “lesbian” than typically found among cis women?

Kind of lost me here. Not sure this is correct. And, what does color have to do with it? There are lots of transwomen of color.

Yes, there are. But by and large it is not transwomen of color making outrageous demands. They just want to not get killed.

[Anonymous]

Well the people that did these things apparently thought it was good, but unfortunately, there is nobody around left to ask. In all times and places, some people did strange things to their bodies. If you tell them they can't they often do it anyway. Sometimes they kill themselves if you don't let them. If they are that desparate for whatever crazy reason, it's better to let them do it rather than kill themselves.

Do you think those eunuchs and the choir boys chose to be castrated? Somehow, I don't think so. But, if an adult wants this, then that's for them to decide. But, adolescents? Not such a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well the people that did these things apparently thought it was good, but unfortunately, there is nobody around left to ask. In all times and places, some people did strange things to their bodies. If you tell them they can't they often do it anyway. Sometimes they kill themselves if you don't let them. If they are that desparate for whatever crazy reason, it's better to let them do it rather than kill themselves.

Do you think those eunuchs and the choir boys chose to be castrated? Somehow, I don't think so. But, if an adult wants this, then that's for them to decide. But, adolescents? Not such a good idea.

You don't know what life was like for a poor kid in the 18th century who could no longer sing and had no other skills. And those eunuchs? Who do you think actually ran the Ottoman Empire? People lined up for those jobs, despite the drawbacks. Do a deep dive into a history. Learn why some thought a little snipping was better than a life of misery and poverty.

[Anonymous]

You don't know what life was like for a poor kid in the 18th century who could no longer sing and had no other skills. And those eunuchs? Who do you think actually ran the Ottoman Empire? People lined up for those jobs, despite the drawbacks. Do a deep dive into a history. Learn why some thought a little snipping was better than a life of misery and poverty.

Well, I never gave it much thought, but it sounds pretty awful to me. Do you think it is okay for parents to allow their kids to have this done?