Let's face it--unless your kid genuinely does identify as another gender, it ain't gonna happen.[/quote]
-------
You underestimate the desire of high school boys to do things for no other reason than to s---w with the system. They might not even care about the rule, but would do it just to p--s people off. People like you
KudzuRunner wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Allow students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity;"
So any male who identifies as a female can now participate on girls teams ....
Ah, no. I don't think that the phrase "sex-segregated activities" means interschool women's sports. Intramural, perhaps. But not competitive athletics in the standard inter-school way that we're all thinking about. We're not going to have Fred-become-Fredrika running on the women's crosscountry team at Central HS.
I could be wrong about that, but I just can't believe that the Federal Government could be that stupid.
Well, you're wrong about both things.
When I actually look at the language in the U. S. DOJ letter, I'm profoundly worried. Here's the relevant language:
"Title IX regulations permit a school to operate
or sponsor sex-segregated athletics teams when selection for such teams
is based upon competitive skill or when the activity involved
is a contact sport. A school may not, however, adopt
or adhere to requirements that rely on overly
broad generalizations or stereotypes about the differences between transgender students and other students of the same sex (i.e., the same gender identity) or others’
discomfort with transgender students."
Jesus. The DOJ is serious about this. This does indeed seem to be Caster Semenya times a thousand. "Overly broad generalizations or sterotypes," in this case and with, for example, girls' XC in mind, might be something like, "Hey, I'm fine with letting Frederika use the girls bathrooms--she'll get bullied if she uses the boys bathroom in that skirt--but we obviously can't let her run on the girls XC team because, as a trans, she's got an X chromosome and will have an unfair advantage."
The DOJ, if I'm understanding this correctly, would call what I've just engaged in an "overly broad generalization."
Crap. This is crazy.
Oh Barry wrote:
Is it so that not a single one of the libtards here defends this decree? The only thing they seem to do (as usual) is to pour their hate onto DiscoGary.
What are all of you sick libtards views on this decree?
You forgot about moi. I'm a social justice warrior, by and large, when it comes to racial matters, and when it comes to feminism's core issue, which is gender parity. But I also believe in fair play, and I've been bothered by this particular issue ever since the Caster Semenya debacle and the way in which Dave Zirin immediately leapt to his/her defense while finding it easy to ignore the pain that CS's participation was causing his/her female competitors.
It's tempting for progressives--and I call myself a progressive centrist--to imagine that all the good and righteous people and issues more or less line up on the Left side of things. But this seems to me like one issue where ardent feminists should be profoundly alarmed. There's a gaping breach here between what is in the interests of female athletes and what is in the interests of transgender / intersex athletes.
Rojo is right: women's athletics does indeed discriminate. It says "No men allowed." It's one thing to say, "Sorry, trans women must be allowed into women's bathrooms." I think that's just fine. I heard Josh Earnest carefully and patiently explaining the contents of the DOJ letter during his briefing yesterday and it all made perfect sense.
BUT: women's athletics is a whole different thing. Regardless of what gender her mind insists she is, a trans woman has an X chromosome. She responds differently to testosterone. Trans women who are moving woman-ward (as it were) try to suppress testosterone, I believe; they're heading in a direction that tends to make them LESS competitive as athletes. But a trans woman athlete in competition--on a girl's XC team, for example--will, if she's truly competitive, have every reason in the world to dial back on the estrogen and let naturally produced testosterone kick in when pre-Nats and Nats are coming around.
Point is, this is a huge and completely ungovernable can of worms. The DOJ is acting as though it's all just good common sense, "fairness," and reasonable compliance. I don't think they've begun to think this through.
Brojos: this is a huge issue and if you summon JK and other experts, especially professionals in the world of women's athletics, to weigh in in a way that garners national attention, you will be performing an important public service.
The possibilities for gaming the system are immense here. And yes: the DOJ missive will have a huge chilling effect on those who might otherwise raise a hand and say--and please excuse my directness--"That is a DUDE right there, leading the girl's race, and that's just not FAIR, g--d---it!"
So yes: a few of us progressives are pissed off.
I hadn't really thought much about this. The goal of Title IX is a good one- equality for the sexes.
In terms of sports, however, this is 100% premised on their being separate men's sports teams and women's sports because men have a genetic advantage in nearly every sport.
If men can compete in women's sports just by saying they are women, it changes the game.
Some of you are saying people will not pretend to do this for kicks so it doesn't matter. I understand the argument, but all it takes is one or two good male athletes to do it and women will get screwed in terms of sports.
And then what about sincerely transgender people who are good athletes?
Take the case of Joanna Harper. She's a transgender female and was born a male. She was a 2:23 marathoner as a male. When she was male and running 2:23 if she had suddenly declared she was female she would have been world class overnight if she wasn't on hormone therapy.
As for unintended consequences, I wonder if this ruling is enforced if it will be the end of affirmative action at least on an institutional level. If people can just start picking their sex and getting college scholarships can they start picking their race as well? Remember Rachel Dolezal? She was ridiculed last year for being head of a local NAACP chapter and saying she was African American when she wasn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal#Allegations_of_discrimination_and_hate_crimes
There are federal programs for minority owned and female owned businesses
https://www.sba.gov/starting-business/how-start-business/business-types/minority-owned-businesses
KudzuRunner,
I didn't call you out because you are not one of the more "famous" LRC liberals who post here frequently. Appreciate your comments and glad to see a liberal agree with us conservatives on this topic.
As for the other liberals out there. Crickets..........
Its hard to imagine how messed up this up this.
What do you do with the cross dressing trans-gendered lesbian?
What about the girl that identifies as a boy. Can/should they be forced to compete against boys even though they are at a genetic disadvantage? To be consistent they probably should be.
University here I come. I was thinking that it was too expensive for me and I didn't see the cost/benefit. However, I'm sure that I will now be getting a full ride to the school of my choice (easily).,. My 4:05, 1500m, ranks me first in the US on the girl side. Even at the NCAA level...
Thanks Obama...
Messed up wrote:
Let's face it--unless your kid genuinely does identify as another gender, it ain't gonna happen.
-------
You underestimate the desire of high school boys to do things for no other reason than to s---w with the system. They might not even care about the rule, but would do it just to p--s people off. People like you[/quote]
H.S. boys??? Hell, I'm still doing that 20 years later.
By the way, which sport has the hottest chicks? Beach volleyball in one of those So. Call. surfside schools? I'm going there. I feel like a 16-year-old girl today. I'll bring "Mean Girls" to a hole new level.
Is it too late for Rio? I think that I have a very good shot...
KudzuRunner wrote:
You forgot about moi. I'm a social justice warrior, by and large, when it comes to racial matters, and when it comes to feminism's core issue.
The first step is admitting you have a problem. Good job.
Oh Barry wrote:
KudzuRunner,
I didn't call you out because you are not one of the more "famous" LRC liberals who post here frequently. Appreciate your comments and glad to see a liberal agree with us conservatives on this topic.
As for the other liberals out there. Crickets..........
Thanks, Oh Barry. I'll certainly be interested in hearing from my progressive friends on this.
I wonder whether the DOJ will end up adding a "note" in which they recommend that when it comes to athletic matters, they hope that American secondary schools and universities follow the Olympic model in transcompetitive matters:
"Athletes, though, who transition from male to female must declare their gender identity as female and show that their testosterone seem level is below 10 nanomols per liter for at least 12 months before competing, that the testosterone level must remain below this while competing and that athletes may need to undergo testing to prove this."
Somehow I don't think that will happen. But maybe it's a way out of all this: strict monitoring of hormone levels in the run-up to competition.
Aha! That would require government regulation. Conservatives will be against that--even though it's what's required to hold the line against the queering of America's gender binaries (male/female/what?). Progressives will be against it because they think that full citizenship for all parties concerned means that you basically don't have any rules, give everybody a medal, and then have a big party.
My biggest worry, what the hell else is King Barack going to decree, using the DOJ as his own personal sword? Our forefathers did not envision the executive branch with this much power.
BTW, what a joke. Am I the only one who remembers that Obama was against gay marriage during the 2008 campaign? Come 2016, and now he's profoundly worried about transgender students using locker rooms. I don't believe for ONE moment he truly cares about this issue. He 1.) enjoys the power of these executive actions and 2.) he enjoys the thought of "sticking" it to a segment of the population he truly loathes.
Here's one version of the future being ushered in by the DOJ: the Iranian "women's" soccer team:
Keep moving the little sucker wrote:
My biggest worry, what the hell else is King Barack going to decree, using the DOJ as his own personal sword? Our forefathers did not envision the executive branch with this much power.
BTW, what a joke. Am I the only one who remembers that Obama was against gay marriage during the 2008 campaign? Come 2016, and now he's profoundly worried about transgender students using locker rooms. I don't believe for ONE moment he truly cares about this issue. He 1.) enjoys the power of these executive actions and 2.) he enjoys the thought of "sticking" it to a segment of the population he truly loathes.
Drunk with power, flip flops with the political winds, hates Christians, swaps a traitor for Islamic terrorists. He will be making more ridiculous decrees until his last day in office.
I wish I had seen this yesterday! I came in 4th in a road race this morning. I could have won $750 as the first place female. :(
[quote]wejo wrote:
And then what about sincerely transgender people who are good athletes?
Take the case of Joanna Harper. She's a transgender female and was born a male. She was a 2:23 marathoner as a male. When she was male and running 2:23 if she had suddenly declared she was female she would have been world class overnight if she wasn't on hormone therapy.
Thanks for the lead in Wejo.
First off this rule is not new, at least in much of the country. California has its own version of this rule since 2012. Obama just made clear that the Fed's will enforce it nationwide in response to all of the anti-transgender "bathroom bills" that are popping up.
I absolutely agree that anyone competing at a reasonably high level in women's sports should do so at female hormone levels. Within a year of going on HRT (a testosterone blocker pus estrogen) I was 12% slower. This 10-12% loss of speed is standard in trans women endurance athletes.
The NCAA mandates a year of hormones before trans women can play on women's teams. The Fed's have no intention of changing the NCAA transgender regulations. The NCAA rules went into place in 2011 and the federal ruling that title IX protects trans people is approximately the same vintage.
There are two openly trans women competing in collegiate athletics, and none in division I. My sources say that there are two or three others who are being shielded by their schools. There are 200,000 women in NCAA sports. There is a trans man swimming for Harvard.
The rules for high school sports are trickier. I think that trans girls should be on HRT in order to compete for their school, and most trans kids want to be on them very badly. California adopted the title IX rules in 2012 and I only know of one case where a trans girl competed without therapy. She was a softball player and her coach put her in right field for the last two inning of their games. When she batted, her coach made her bunt every time.
Locker rooms have privacy areas for trans kids and for kids who are worried about changing in front of trans kids. Bathrooms have stalls. No one gets exposed, but plenty of kids are, admittedly, uncomfortable with having trans kids in the same facilities. Hopefully, this discomfort will ease in time.
No male (as defined by gender identity) child has tried to play on a girl's sports teams. There are coaches who want to protect their female athletes, and I don't see it happening. I admit that the regulations don't prevent it.
I'm not saying that the rules, as written, are perfect. But trans athletes won't take over women's sports.
Tgirl wrote:
The NCAA mandates a year of hormones before trans women can play on women's teams. The Fed's have no intention of changing the NCAA transgender regulations. The NCAA rules went into place in 2011 and the federal ruling that title IX protects trans people is approximately the same vintage.
Feds ruled title IX applied to trans kids in 2014
Tgirl wrote:
The rules for high school sports are trickier. I think that trans girls should be on HRT in order to compete for their school, and most trans kids want to be on them very badly. California adopted the title IX rules in 2012
California rule actually dates to August 2013