It is a tiny percentage. Each state has several divisions and t&f has many events. We’re talking a tiny fraction of participants and state winners are trans.
Get over it.
We're talking only a tiny fraction of crimes are murders. Get over it!!!
It is a tiny percentage. Each state has several divisions and t&f has many events. We’re talking a tiny fraction of participants and state winners are trans.
Get over it.
We're talking only a tiny fraction of crimes are murders. Get over it!!!
Look, I'm a democrat and I don't support biological males in women's sport, BUT I'm certainly not going to vote for folks who support the MAGr agenda and our current president, over this issue. Part of the problem we're dealing with is folks using culture war issues to help to sway elections, with far greater things at stake. Like your health care.
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
I agree. But you have a large number of elected Democrats fighting for allowing trans women in men's sports. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill to ban biological males from women's sports. This is a huge issue for some people so they are willing to elect a maniac if it means getting this policy over turned.
How did 3 become 60??? Your way of using math is to make up numbers?
There weren't 60.
I know there weren't 60. I am asking, if there were a different number of trans athletes on the podium at State, not just three, would it be a problem then? What about 10? 20?
What is the number where you would admit, "well, yes, biological females don't have a fair chance at winning their own division at State."
Where would you draw the line? Three is obviously not "big deal" for many people. "Who cares, it is only three!" But I was asking what if it were a larger number? When would it be a problem? Ever? It is just thought experiment so I can understand how people think about this issue.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I know there weren't 60. I am asking, if there were a different number of trans athletes on the podium at State, not just three, would it be a problem then? What about 10? 20?
What is the number where you would admit, "well, yes, biological females don't have a fair chance at winning their own division at State."
Where would you draw the line? Three is obviously not "big deal" for many people. "Who cares, it is only three!" But I was asking what if it were a larger number? When would it be a problem? Ever? It is just thought experiment so I can understand how people think about this issue.
Exactly - as soon as something is based on bending the rules to make an accommodation for someone, everyone (whether they like to admit it or not) has an arbitrary line where they think "well...come on now, let's not get silly."
For me it's when any male is allowed to participate in women's sport. For others it might be when a women's football team has 4 males on the team. For others it might be when every single player in a women's football match is male. When fundamental rules are seen as flexible, everyone has a hypothetical line at which they realise the rules can't be bent any further.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Look, I'm a democrat and I don't support biological males in women's sport, BUT I'm certainly not going to vote for folks who support the MAGr agenda and our current president, over this issue. Part of the problem we're dealing with is folks using culture war issues to help to sway elections, with far greater things at stake. Like your health care.
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
My opinion, as a former progressive who voted for people like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, is that people are overly focused on Trump's personality defects and not enough on general political corruption across the spectrum or the fact that the two major parties are undergoing a realignment.
The Democrats are increasingly captured by educated coastal elites, who are terribly out-of-touch with regular people who do regular jobs and can't afford to live in a postmodern la-la land. The gender stuff is just one example. Unregulated immigration is another. White collar professionals aren't going to be fighting for decent wages or public programs because migrants aren't going to settle in their neighborhoods and outstrip the available resources. America hasn't taken care of its own citizens for a long time, and the working class is frankly sick of being scolded for not putting the needs of immigrants above their own. It's not that they lack compassion; its that they have to live with the tradeoff that comes when our social policies lean too heavily towards globalization versus looking after the national interest and citizens.
I don't see how anybody could think that the Democrats are better for women than the Republicans at this point. Defining women out of existence essentially undoes a lot of the legal protections we won since the 60s. Likewise, normal people see boys in girls sports and see people defending these policies as being out of their minds. To be fair, people who think that boys are girls and vice versa are out of their minds on that issue.
Similarly, I find it hard to get worked up about Trump's "threat to democracy," when the Democratic party just staged a massive cover-up to keep Biden in office, even though he thought he was the president of NATO. Then, when the first presidental debate happened and the gig was finally up, they forced Harris on people instead of allowing party members to choose a new candidate. How can a party claim to defend democracy when they won't let the people vote, when they hide the fact that the president has dementia, and nobody knows who actually was filling the role of the executive branch for several years?
Trump is a narcissist and a blabbermouth, but let's not pretend that there's any political party looking after the average, politically-moderate American.
As a former, long-time Democrat, it's simply insane that Democrats want to allow men in our sports. How could anyone with common sense who cares about women's sports vote for them?
Because there are many bigger problems in the world and republicans are making a total hash of them?
How did 3 become 60??? Your way of using math is to make up numbers?
There weren't 60.
I know there weren't 60. I am asking, if there were a different number of trans athletes on the podium at State, not just three, would it be a problem then? What about 10? 20?
What is the number where you would admit, "well, yes, biological females don't have a fair chance at winning their own division at State."
Where would you draw the line? Three is obviously not "big deal" for many people. "Who cares, it is only three!" But I was asking what if it were a larger number? When would it be a problem? Ever? It is just thought experiment so I can understand how people think about this issue.
I previously said if it’s below 1% of winners nationwide then it’s much ado about very little. That means 1% would be my tipping point. It will probably never reach that level because the population of kids who are both transgender and athletic enough to win a girls state championship in track is less than 1%.
As it stands in reality, we’re talking about less than 0.15% of winners. My question is how is such a minuscule number of winners ruining girls sports? I think all the hysteria is way out of proportion to the reality.
And why are Republicans giving a handful of transgender children playing sports more attention than gun violence? What’s more important?
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
I agree. But you have a large number of elected Democrats fighting for allowing trans women in men's sports. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill to ban biological males from women's sports. This is a huge issue for some people so they are willing to elect a maniac if it means getting this policy over turned.
What about the economy, homelessness and illegal immigration? Anyone nutty enough to consider transgender athlete participation a voting issue, is going to vote republican, anyway.
It’s very likely that Thomas and Alioto will retire during Trump’s term which could lock in at least a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court for decades to come. Unlike transgender athletes, this matters.
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
My opinion, as a former progressive who voted for people like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, is that people are overly focused on Trump's personality defects and not enough on general political corruption across the spectrum or the fact that the two major parties are undergoing a realignment.
The Democrats are increasingly captured by educated coastal elites, who are terribly out-of-touch with regular people who do regular jobs and can't afford to live in a postmodern la-la land. The gender stuff is just one example. Unregulated immigration is another. White collar professionals aren't going to be fighting for decent wages or public programs because migrants aren't going to settle in their neighborhoods and outstrip the available resources. America hasn't taken care of its own citizens for a long time, and the working class is frankly sick of being scolded for not putting the needs of immigrants above their own. It's not that they lack compassion; its that they have to live with the tradeoff that comes when our social policies lean too heavily towards globalization versus looking after the national interest and citizens.
I don't see how anybody could think that the Democrats are better for women than the Republicans at this point. Defining women out of existence essentially undoes a lot of the legal protections we won since the 60s. Likewise, normal people see boys in girls sports and see people defending these policies as being out of their minds. To be fair, people who think that boys are girls and vice versa are out of their minds on that issue.
Similarly, I find it hard to get worked up about Trump's "threat to democracy," when the Democratic party just staged a massive cover-up to keep Biden in office, even though he thought he was the president of NATO. Then, when the first presidental debate happened and the gig was finally up, they forced Harris on people instead of allowing party members to choose a new candidate. How can a party claim to defend democracy when they won't let the people vote, when they hide the fact that the president has dementia, and nobody knows who actually was filling the role of the executive branch for several years?
Trump is a narcissist and a blabbermouth, but let's not pretend that there's any political party looking after the average, politically-moderate American.
“My opinion” exactly describes what you posted and it’s incredibly biased. It’s really a summation of what the more extreme Trump voters like to make against Democrats.
My opinion, as a former progressive who voted for people like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, is that people are overly focused on Trump's personality defects and not enough on general political corruption across the spectrum or the fact that the two major parties are undergoing a realignment.
The Democrats are increasingly captured by educated coastal elites, who are terribly out-of-touch with regular people who do regular jobs and can't afford to live in a postmodern la-la land. The gender stuff is just one example. Unregulated immigration is another. White collar professionals aren't going to be fighting for decent wages or public programs because migrants aren't going to settle in their neighborhoods and outstrip the available resources. America hasn't taken care of its own citizens for a long time, and the working class is frankly sick of being scolded for not putting the needs of immigrants above their own. It's not that they lack compassion; its that they have to live with the tradeoff that comes when our social policies lean too heavily towards globalization versus looking after the national interest and citizens.
I don't see how anybody could think that the Democrats are better for women than the Republicans at this point. Defining women out of existence essentially undoes a lot of the legal protections we won since the 60s. Likewise, normal people see boys in girls sports and see people defending these policies as being out of their minds. To be fair, people who think that boys are girls and vice versa are out of their minds on that issue.
Similarly, I find it hard to get worked up about Trump's "threat to democracy," when the Democratic party just staged a massive cover-up to keep Biden in office, even though he thought he was the president of NATO. Then, when the first presidental debate happened and the gig was finally up, they forced Harris on people instead of allowing party members to choose a new candidate. How can a party claim to defend democracy when they won't let the people vote, when they hide the fact that the president has dementia, and nobody knows who actually was filling the role of the executive branch for several years?
Trump is a narcissist and a blabbermouth, but let's not pretend that there's any political party looking after the average, politically-moderate American.
“My opinion” exactly describes what you posted and it’s incredibly biased. It’s really a summation of what the more extreme Trump voters like to make against Democrats.
I doubt you are familiar with what Trump voters think or how these opinions stack up against policy positions historically taken by either party. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats lost the working class, and I'm a heck of a lot more confident in my own assessment of why this happened than your non-argument, which essentially amounts to calling Trump insane and his voters ignorant.
That's why I'm saying that people let his personality overshadow their analysis. It's not that there aren't problems with his personality. But many of his policy positions are moderate. This, and not rightwing extremism, explains why many of the people who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump. As much as you want to paint them as extremists, they aren't. In fact, it is wealthy white people who made the biggest political shift in recent years. Nobody is saying you have to like Trump, but you would benefit from recognizing that your view of him is extreme relative to the average American.
I can't imagine living a life so impoverished that I would find this subject worthy of discussion. Do I think that such athletes should compete against girls? No; in fact I can't figure out why somebody that young is permitted to change their bodies like that. You can't have sex legally, but you can alter your body? That's bizarre.
But ... honestly ... whatever. Get a life; doing so will make you happier.
PSA since this is not really clear to everyone --- The trans girl in Oregon did not "win" the HJ. The girl who won state is a biological female. She is (and has always been) a girl. Here is the article:
Two high jumpers refused to accept their medals at Saturday’s Oregon state track and field championships, opting instead to protest the inclusion of a transgender athlete at Hayward Field. [The athletes] who finished third and fourth, respectively stood on the back side of the podium and didn’t grab their medals. One of the other athletes, who tied for fifth in the high jump, is a transgender girl.
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
I agree. But you have a large number of elected Democrats fighting for allowing trans women in men's sports. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill to ban biological males from women's sports. This is a huge issue for some people so they are willing to elect a maniac if it means getting this policy over turned.
That House vote was a stunt and wouldn’t have gone anywhere. Rather than pretending to be stupid, the Democrats didnt support it. It was similar to the state senate votes in red states to ban people that don’t exist.
No election votes changed hands over the transgender athlete issues.
I previously said if it’s below 1% of winners nationwide then it’s much ado about very little. That means 1% would be my tipping point. It will probably never reach that level because the population of kids who are both transgender and athletic enough to win a girls state championship in track is less than 1%.
I can see how you've come to this conclusion but I think you're forgetting that the number of male participants ≠ the number of people affected. A male competing in a female competition affects fairness and safety for every single female participant, whereas you're only counting the male. To put it bluntly, if I have 99 hens and I let one fox into the hen house, is the fox just a "1%" problem?
I previously said if it’s below 1% of winners nationwide then it’s much ado about very little. That means 1% would be my tipping point. It will probably never reach that level because the population of kids who are both transgender and athletic enough to win a girls state championship in track is less than 1%.
I can see how you've come to this conclusion but I think you're forgetting that the number of male participants ≠ the number of people affected. A male competing in a female competition affects fairness and safety for every single female participant, whereas you're only counting the male. To put it bluntly, if I have 99 hens and I let one fox into the hen house, is the fox just a "1%" problem?
How? How do 3 transgender winners affect the fairness for the 1,997 female winners?
Why are you lumping in “safety” here? Do you think a transgender runner is going to throw a vicious elbow at a female runner during a distance race?
And why did you cut off the rest of my comment where I asked why are Republicans giving transgender children playing sports more attention than gun violence? What do you think is more important: a girl losing a foot race, or a girl losing her life?