Transgender athletes wins CT state champs for school

zxcvzxcv wrote:

blackmoney wrote:

Positions change over time. What you say was the case in the past. Nowadays democrats are in favor of racism and segregation as well while republicans accept equal rights and opportunity

Wrong. Democrats root for the underdog and seek to correct the racist and sexist conditions that made the underdog oppressed. Let's say for the sake of argument that white people had virtually all been brought here as slaves over a period of 250 years, that shortly after their emancipation, they were made second-class citizens under segregation, lasting until, say, 1965, and that they continued today to live in segregated conditions, have a harder time getting bank loans for housing, make much less money, have very little wealth, live shorter lives, be sent to prison more, and so forth. Would you really call Democrats racist for attempting to change the fundamental conditions under which white people had come to live in such circumstances?

The trans issue is distinct. Democrats want people to lead the lives they choose. Hence, the party has supported trans rights. At the same time, many Democrats recognize that it makes no sense to both have a protected category in athletics (female) and to allow biological males into it, and that it is unwise to eliminate separation by sex in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Sprinter guy3 wrote:

If your first paragraph is accurate, then we should agree that there is a problem that a boy can simply say they are a girl and start winning.

Further, sex is not “assigned.” Gender is assigned. Sex is objectively measurable. In fact, with >99% accuracy, sex can now be determined at the embryonic stage even before an embryo implants in the uterus. And it can be measured in 100% of cases after birth. What you are referring to is gender, which is assigned by definition.

Where things get weird is because some are trying to separate sports by gender, when they need to be separated by sex. There is no legitimate policy purpose that is furthered by a division based on how a person “feels” or “identifies has.” To separate on those grounds shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why there’s a division at all.

Once again, 1% or 0.02% or whatever does not deserve to be erased, just because you want to.

People with some 46XY DSD are assigned female at birth based on their anatomy, and often won't discover their karyotype until later in life. Should they be excluded from girls' sports? GOP politicians have no clue because they don't even know or acknowledge such people exist. I even know of one case in which a fetus was assigned male before birth, and reassigned female at birth. (Her mother had a traffic accident while being pregnant, and she got thoroughly examined at the hospital.)

Even if those people consist of only 0.02% or whatever, they do exist among hundreds of thousands of high school and middle school athletes. (0.02% of 100,000 is 20.) Do you want to be excluded from high school sports because the politicians are ignorant about human sex? We are talking about actual human beings, not some political props.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Sprinter guy3 wrote:

If your first paragraph is accurate, then we should agree that there is a problem that a boy can simply say they are a girl and start winning.

Further, sex is not “assigned.” Gender is assigned. Sex is objectively measurable. In fact, with >99% accuracy, sex can now be determined at the embryonic stage even before an embryo implants in the uterus. And it can be measured in 100% of cases after birth. What you are referring to is gender, which is assigned by definition.

Where things get weird is because some are trying to separate sports by gender, when they need to be separated by sex. There is no legitimate policy purpose that is furthered by a division based on how a person “feels” or “identifies has.” To separate on those grounds shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why there’s a division at all.

Once again, 1% or 0.02% or whatever does not deserve to be erased, just because you want to.

People with some 46XY DSD are assigned female at birth based on their anatomy, and often won't discover their karyotype until later in life. Should they be excluded from girls' sports? GOP politicians have no clue because they don't even know or acknowledge such people exist. I even know of one case in which a fetus was assigned male before birth, and reassigned female at birth. (Her mother had a traffic accident while being pregnant, and she got thoroughly examined at the hospital.)

Even if those people consist of only 0.02% or whatever, they do exist among hundreds of thousands of high school and middle school athletes. (0.02% of 100,000 is 20.) Do you want to be excluded from high school sports because the politicians are ignorant about human sex? We are talking about actual human beings, not some political props.

GD wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Wrong. Democrats root for the underdog and seek to correct the racist and sexist conditions that made the underdog oppressed. Let's say for the sake of argument that white people had virtually all been brought here as slaves over a period of 250 years, that shortly after their emancipation, they were made second-class citizens under segregation, lasting until, say, 1965, and that they continued today to live in segregated conditions, have a harder time getting bank loans for housing, make much less money, have very little wealth, live shorter lives, be sent to prison more, and so forth. Would you really call Democrats racist for attempting to change the fundamental conditions under which white people had come to live in such circumstances?

The trans issue is distinct. Democrats want people to lead the lives they choose. Hence, the party has supported trans rights. At the same time, many Democrats recognize that it makes no sense to both have a protected category in athletics (female) and to allow biological males into it, and that it is unwise to eliminate separation by sex in bathrooms and locker rooms.

There are many Democrats who think like you do, but you're missing an important point about the radical, so-called "woke" wing of the Democratic party. They have repackaged ideas that many recognize as racist and sexist and call them progressive. John McWhorter, a professor and NYT columnist, has a book about the race aspects of this ideology. It's called Woke Racism.

Essentially, woke ideology (an amalgam of postmodernism and critical theory) argues that philosophical liberalism, which I will summarize crudely as the belief that all people are morally equal and deserve equal opportunities in society, is an ideology created by white men to create and maintain dominance over women and people of color. They put identity politics in place of equality doctrine, and identity politics entails treating different groups of people as if they are essentially different. Racial essentialism is therefore a shared feature of old school racism and woke ideology.

When people argue that being on time or a strong work ethic are facets of white supremacy, they're embracing the very same ideas that racists of prior generations did. The Smithsonian Institute posted an infographic on their website arging these sorts of thigns a handful of years ago. The logical implication of this belief is that people who aren't white don't have a strong work ethic or have difficulty showing up on time. This is why people can pull quotes from Richard Spencer (white supremacist) and Robin DiAngelo (anti-racist educator) and find more similarities than differences. DiAngelo and others in her camp are like arsonists running the fire department. Their toxic illiberal ideas are creating the very problems they claim to have expertise in solving.

There's a difference between acknowledging a history of racism and sexism and its lingering effects today, for example, and arguing that the bedrock of Western culture (philosophical liberalism) is the ideology that created racism and sexism. On the contrary, liberalism is the foundation upon which institutions like slavery and coverture were overturned.

Sprinter guy3 wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Once again, 1% or 0.02% or whatever does not deserve to be erased, just because you want to.

People with some 46XY DSD are assigned female at birth based on their anatomy, and often won't discover their karyotype until later in life. Should they be excluded from girls' sports? GOP politicians have no clue because they don't even know or acknowledge such people exist. I even know of one case in which a fetus was assigned male before birth, and reassigned female at birth. (Her mother had a traffic accident while being pregnant, and she got thoroughly examined at the hospital.)

Even if those people consist of only 0.02% or whatever, they do exist among hundreds of thousands of high school and middle school athletes. (0.02% of 100,000 is 20.) Do you want to be excluded from high school sports because the politicians are ignorant about human sex? We are talking about actual human beings, not some political props.

What this boils down to at the end is that you believe a substantial minority’s right to feel good (regardless of the reason) outweighs everyone else’s rights when they are in conflict. And that position is not tenable.

RunRagged wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

I would support applying the WA policy from 7th to 12th grade in track & field. K-6 probably does not need any policy. In terms of others sports in high school and middle school, it's up to them. (Their governing body has to make their own policy first.)

So in your view, there's no need for any policy that attempts to insure fairness in track & field for female students before 7th grade?

US Youth Track & Field Records, Age 8 & Under by Sex:
100m: 13.65 Male; 13.97 Female
200m: 28.11 Male; 28.48 Female
400m: 1:03.30 Male; 1:06.53 Female
800m: 2:29.59 Male; 2:38.26 Male
1,500m: 5:08.52 Male; 5:21.81 Female
Long Jump: 4.46m (14'7¾") Male; 3.99 m (13'1¼") Female
Shot Put: 9.62m (31'6¾") Male; 8.11 m (26'7¼") Female
Mini Javelin: 33.29m (109'2¾") Male; 23.15 m (75'11½") Female

On what grounds do you think it's justified to deny female students fairness in track & field so long as they haven't made it to 7th grade yet?