Anonymous wrote:Conservatives are so triggered by this. The last thing you need to worry about in a women's restroom is a trans woman.

These are not just conservatives. This is a big issue with feminists which last I checked were not conservative/republican.

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.

Biologically they are men and as such have a definite advantage over women in most sports.
So we should let these people with an advantage because of their biological sex compete at the expense of women?
What good is Title IX then?

+1
The posters denying the sports aspect of this Bill are problematic sound ridiculous. Of course it’s a problem when you have a biological male competing against (and constantly winning) biological females. How does this help women’s sports in any way?

What is needed is a trans-league in which transgender athletes can compete - fairly - against one another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A concern troll definitely started this thread.

And no, gender discrimination doesn't protect LGBTQ-based discrimination. They are not refusing to hire a "woman" - they are refusing to hire a "gay woman." And that should be illegal by law.

That's the whole point. It's not gender-based.

And what if said “gay woman” is a troublesome employee? She can’t be fired because she happens to be gay??

DP here, and what? I'm not a lawyer, but I've actually had to deal with wrongful termination in my career. What I understand is that depending on the labor laws in a given state and the employment contract, it may or may not be legal to fire any person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to fire someone simply for being "troublesome". If it is legal to do so, then in some cases there may be a higher burden of proof required to demonstrate that a woman is "troublesome" than to demonstrate that a man is "troublesome" if the employer gets sued for firing the person. In no cases am I aware of federal law that cares if an employee is gay.

Anonymous wrote:Trans women are women! Deal with it.

Not when competing against biological women and girls in sports. Deal with it.

I don't really understand the concern in this debate. I think that in most places right now, it's not illegal for a transgirl to play on a girl's sports team. Is this a correct understanding? If so, is it currently a problem in those places that cis-boys are pretending to be transgirls in order to play on the girls' soccer team?

Anonymous wrote:A concern troll definitely started this thread.

And no, gender discrimination doesn't protect LGBTQ-based discrimination. They are not refusing to hire a "woman" - they are refusing to hire a "gay woman." And that should be illegal by law.

That's the whole point. It's not gender-based.

And what if said “gay woman” is a troublesome employee? She can’t be fired because she happens to be gay??

Anonymous wrote:I am 5’9” and my sister is 5’6”.
My brothers are 6’3 and 6’4.
I’m sorry but no amount of hormone therapy is going to take away the advantage they would have over me in a sport like swimming. Unless, of course, it killed them.

That's also true of a cis woman who is 6'3" should she be banned from competing with you?

Conservatives are so triggered by this. The last thing you need to worry about in a women's restroom is a trans woman.

I am 5’9” and my sister is 5’6”.
My brothers are 6’3 and 6’4.
I’m sorry but no amount of hormone therapy is going to take away the advantage they would have over me in a sport like swimming. Unless, of course, it killed them.

There are some on this thread who seem to acknowledge that trans women might have a biological edge in sports but it doesn’t matter because it’s not a large number of cis women who will be edged out in sorts.

I would like to know what number of negatively impacted cis women athletes is acceptable to you.

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.

Biologically they are men and as such have a definite advantage over women in most sports.
So we should let these people with an advantage because of their biological sex compete at the expense of women?
What good is Title IX then?

Are they really biological males if they are on hormone suppressants or on estrogen? Shouldn't the definition of being a biological male require a certain level of testosterone after puberty?

But really the numbers here are miniscule. There will continue to be opportunities for women regardless.

DP. So you’re acknowledging that it’s an outrageous expectation for men to compete with women if the man has already gone through puberty and we’re just debating the actual time for the cutoff before he decides to live as a woman?

But we are talking about youth/high school athletes, right. That's what everybody is concerned with. And at that point, have they even gone through puberty? Sure if LeBron James decides tomorrow that he is a trans woman, he'd dominate in the WNBA. But he probably would just stay in the NBA cause he could. Title IX wasn't put in place because women weren't good enough to play on mens teams, it was because there were no teams open for women period (BTW Title IX is so much more than athletics). Money was being spent on boys and girls did not have any opportunity.

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.

OP, the equality act is DOA once it gets to the Supreme Court. The only reason the dems are trying to get it through is to show how “compassionate” they are but the Constitutional protections for religion are going to crush this like the testosterone level of a teenage boy going through hormone replacement therapy.

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.

Biologically they are men and as such have a definite advantage over women in most sports.
So we should let these people with an advantage because of their biological sex compete at the expense of women?
What good is Title IX then?

Are they really biological males if they are on hormone suppressants or on estrogen? Shouldn't the definition of being a biological male require a certain level of testosterone after puberty?

But really the numbers here are miniscule. There will continue to be opportunities for women regardless.

DP. So you’re acknowledging that it’s an outrageous expectation for men to compete with women if the man has already gone through puberty and we’re just debating the actual time for the cutoff before he decides to live as a woman?

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.

Biologically they are men and as such have a definite advantage over women in most sports.
So we should let these people with an advantage because of their biological sex compete at the expense of women?
What good is Title IX then?

DP. Far more women get to participate in sports due to Title IX than just the very small number who happen to be transgender.

And as more and more transgender women compete, fewer biological women will.
This is the unintended consequence of this type of bill.

We are talking about approximately .4% of the population that identifies as transgender. That is not nearly a large enough population to edge cisgender women out of women's sports.

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.

Biologically they are men and as such have a definite advantage over women in most sports.
So we should let these people with an advantage because of their biological sex compete at the expense of women?
What good is Title IX then?

Are they really biological males if they are on hormone suppressants or on estrogen? Shouldn't the definition of being a biological male require a certain level of testosterone after puberty?

But really the numbers here are miniscule. There will continue to be opportunities for women regardless.