Say goodbye to women's sports, Biden vows on passing equality act within first 100 days

*in this very thread

Biden is evil cloaked in senile fragility wrote:

Shows that Biden is as misogynistic as Kamala accused him of being by not protecting women's sports. Transgenders have no laws limiting their play in male athletics but now they get the special privilege of being the crowned gorillas of women sports. And of course, the crowned gorillas will apply the trite platitude of being a victim with a gold medal around her neck.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about sports. Can you please point to the specific language in the bill that applies? I can't find it.

whatsports wrote:

Biden is evil cloaked in senile fragility wrote:

Shows that Biden is as misogynistic as Kamala accused him of being by not protecting women's sports. Transgenders have no laws limiting their play in male athletics but now they get the special privilege of being the crowned gorillas of women sports. And of course, the crowned gorillas will apply the trite platitude of being a victim with a gold medal around her neck.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about sports. Can you please point to the specific language in the bill that applies? I can't find it.

Do you really think that a bill needs to specifically mention sports to be applied to sports? Let me put this in simple terms for you, with this bill transgender athletes would be considered a protected class, the same way that race is considered a protected class. You would not be able to turn away someone who identifies as a gender just like you can't turn away someone because of their race. This will create huge problems.

local lib wrote:

I already said that I’m fine with restricting sports based on sex and not gender, I’m this very thread. Your last post with the dumb religion analogy did nothing to argue your point.

Calm down bro. Calm down.

Nobody cares.

whatsports wrote:

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about sports. Can you please point to the specific language in the bill that applies? I can't find it.

Here is the part of the Equality Act concerning Title IX, which affects scholastic and interscholastic sports as well as PE in educational institutions and systems that are recipients of federal funds:

“SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES.

“(a) Definitions.—In titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX (referred to individually in sections 1106 and 1107 as a ‘covered title’):

“(1) RACE; COLOR; RELIGION; SEX; SEXUAL ORIENTATION; GENDER IDENTITY; NATIONAL ORIGIN.—The term ‘race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’), or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an individual, includes—

“(A) the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of another person with whom the individual is associated or has been associated; and

“(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of the individual.

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

“(3) INCLUDING.—The term ‘including’ means including, but not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning in Federal law.

“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—

“(A) a sex stereotype;

“(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

“(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

“(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

What this means is that where Title IX - and all other federal anti-discrimination statutes - refer to sex, sex will be completely redefined so that it means something very different to what it was understood and agreed to mean in the 1960s and 70s when these laws were passed.

If the Equality Act becomes law, sex in these pre-existing federal statutes will no longer mean simply and clearly to the two distinctly different biological classes that all individual human beings (and members of other sexually reproducing species) belong to based on whether our bodies are meant to produce small gametes (sperm) or large gametes (ova) at some point in our lives.

When Title IX and other federal anti-discrimination laws were passed, sex was defined by this biological criteria, which is how the life sciences traditionally defined sex and still define it today.

In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, and 1972, when Title IX was passed, "gender identity" was not a concept or term that had come into everyday parlance like it has today. Back then, "gender" was a linguistic term, signifying that in some languages inanimate objects are assumed to be masculine, feminine or neuter. In French, for example, chair - la chaise - is feminine; bed - le lit - is masculine.

Sex as the Equality Act redefines it means a whole bunch of things other than biology, including "sex stereotype" and "sexual orientation or gender identity. "

This is alarming because the whole point of first and second-wave feminism was that sex and sex stereotypes are two entirely different things. Sex is an inescapable fact of life for all sexually reproducing species, including humans. But sex stereotypes are prejudices placed on female and male humans alike that limit and constrict us all.

It's also alarming coz the new definition of sex treats "sexual orientation" as interchangeable with "gender identity" when the two have nothing to do with one another. This seems to have been written with intent of obscuring several things, such as a) the fact that the vast majority of males (75-80%) who claim to have a female "gender identity" are heterosexual - in other words, they are males who are sexually attracted to females; and b) the conflict between "gender identity" and the very idea of sexual orientation. Many of those who espouse the primacy of gender identity say that being homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is bigoted and exclusionary; according to them, people who are attracted to others based on sex are antediluvians coz the enlightened and evolved way is to base attraction on gender presentation and identity, not on sexed bodies.

The Equality Act's definition of sex is further alarming coz it says sex as legally defined includes "sex characteristics, including intersex traits." This definition does not differentiate between natural sex characteristics and artificially and surgically-created facsimiles of sex characteristics such as the ones some males obtain by getting facial feminization surgeries, tracheal shaves, lip-plumping injections, fat transplants, collarbone, shoulder and ribcage reductions; and having sacs of silicone gel or saline implanted into their chests. Or the ones some females are now obtaining by ingesting exogenous testosterone that enables them to get deeper voices, to grow beards and to develop male-pattern hair loss.

Moreover, the EA's mention of "intersex traits" throws people with DSDs - disorders/differences of sex development - into the mix, when people with these conditions have asked time and again to be left out of gender identity convos and politics. And it enshrines into US law the "problematic" term "intersex," which many with DSDs reject as highly inaccurate and "othering" coz it gives the mistaken impression that people with DSDs are in between sexes, neither male nor female - when in fact they are all male or female, with differences from the norm for their sex.

But most alarming, and adding to the confusion created by the bill overall, the Equality Act defines "gender identity" in circular reasoning as "the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth."

Which means that if the Equality Act becomes law, a person's "gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics" will take precedence over a person's biological sex for participation in girls and women's sports. Which would mean a short-haired biological female who doesn't wear make-up, paint her nails or act girly like Martina Navratilova would have less right to participate in female sports than biological males like Cece Telfer, Terry Miller, Andraya Yearwood, Fallon Fox or Jenner in Jenner's current style of presentation.

What's more, a person's "gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics" rather than the person's biological sex will determine whether he or she can lawfully access the handful of spaces, programs and services that are segregated by sex in order to provide female people with safety, privacy, dignity, peace of mind and a chance at fair play and equal recognition and representation (such as female -only changing rooms, locker rooms and showers; female-only communal toilets; refuges and programs exclusively for female victims of rape and other sexual assault and male domestic violence; female-only dorm rooms, homeless and disaster shelters; women's prisons; female-only awards - such as the Best Actress Oscar - and scholarships, etc.)

Many supporters of hard-won women's rights fear that according to the reasoning of the Equality Act, Ru Paul and the male cast of his drag shows when dressed and acting in their full drag costumes and personas would have much more of a right to sports, spaces and services meant for female people than women like me. I'm a once quite pretty but never very "feminine" acting, grooming or dressing woman who now in late middle age looks and "presents" pretty "gender neutral" and therefore in the view of the new genderists I don't really count as a real woman . Coz according to the new gender ideology, being a woman means wearing makeup, long hair, wigs, high heels and sexpot clothing; behaving girly and in sexually come-hither ways; performing femininity; and hewing to the sort of regressive sex stereotypes most women balked against and threw off decades ago.

The fact that I've conceived, gestated, given birth to and breastfed children, have XX chromosomes, have faced and fought sex discrimination and exclusion, been subject to sexual harassment and assault, experienced decades of excruciating menstrual cramps, gone through menopause, and my life has been constrained by serious gynecological disease requiring surgeries and chemotherapy - all this no longer qualifies me as woman in the eyes of today's genderists! Coz according to them, what defines a woman is being demure, sexy, girlish and giggly. In fact, the new genderists vilify women like me as bigots and "TERFs" for having the temerity even to mention our sexed bodies, to say that sex matters, and to point out that being female isn't all fun and frills.

Another problem with the way the Equality Act redefines sex is that the lynchpin of "gender identity" - gender itself - is nowhere defined. Instead, the Equality Act just repeats the word "gender" four times without ever saying what the hell it actually means. Again:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

Moreover, the Equality Act seems to assume that everyone has a "gender identity." When, in fact, most people don't. As the sexologists who've studied these issues for decades have observed, most adults are aware that we have a biological sex - but we do not really have a "gender identity," we just have personalities. The only people who have a "gender identity" are those who for one reason or another would prefer to be the opposite sex, neither sex , a combo of both sexes, or in some new special, newfangled category supposedly beyond and superior to sex such as maverique, neutrois or vapogender.

Tatar wrote:

Feminists attack the idea that sex should be a determining factor in how we experience the world.

There's no conflict between feminism and trans rights despite what Navratilova or JK Rowling think. They're not feminists because they believe differences between men and women are due to biology and not patriarchy.

Huh? I've been a feminist for more than 50 years, and I've not come across your brand of feminism before. Please provide some sources to substantiate your POV that feminists say the differences between men and women are not based on and rooted in biology.

Please also explain how "patriarchy"would have come about if not for massive differences between the sexes due to biology.

You say sex is not a determining factor in how we experience the world. So when I was a kid in the era before Title IX and there were no school sports or even PE classes for girls it wasn't coz of sex? When I and other women weren't allowed even to consider certain careers or apply for certain jobs in the 1960s and 70s it wasn't coz of sex? When my mother had to have written permission from her husband in order to seek employment outside the home, that wasn't coz of sex?

When women were denied voting rights, property ownership, banking services, and bodily autonomy in the US it wasn't coz of sex?

So all the millions of girls around the world killed at birth, forced to endure FGM and child marriage, trafficked for sex, subjected to rape, other assaults and honor killings, forced from toddlerhood into lifetimes of domestic and sex servitude - this has nothing to do with biology and sex?

When I had children with a wonderful man but our experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and the post-partum period were very different - it wasn't coz of biology and sex? How come, then, I was the only one of the two of us who threw up for months, suffered exhaustion, broke out in hives, got fat and had to lumber and waddle around, embarrassingly broke waters in a public place, experienced lengthy and difficult labors, had genital trauma, bled for weeks from the vagina, breastfed and pumped milk for months afterward and went through several episodes of mastitis?

None of this had to do with sex or biology? Mate, you are speaking out of your arse.

Last week, when hundreds of women on flights that refueled or transferred in Qatar were pulled off airplanes and forced against their will to undergo invasive genital exams to see if they had recently given birth - that wasn't coz of sex or biology?

Really?

You say There's no conflict between feminism and trans rights

No former male should be allowed to compete against females. There, I said it.

Goodbye women's sports. So long. Adios. Bon Voyage. Farewell.

tatar wrote:

A trans women is a women.

It doesn't matter what you think they are, they'll look and act like a woman. You'd be comfortable forcing that person to use the men's alongside your son?

This discussion has to do with sports. I'm pretty sure most of us on this site are perfectly fine with trans people living their lives as the gender with which they identify.

But sports are a different story. Trans people allowed to compete with cisgender women have a massive unfair advantage, and allowing trans athletes to compete as women is a boneheaded decision. The only way for biological women to keep up will be to dope illegally.

This is why I say that there should be a new division for trans and intersex athletes. There are clearly enough of them for there to be a significant competitive field, and no one can rationally claim discrimination that way.

And all of this is wrong, yes? I said feminists attack the idea sex should be a determining factor. You've mis-read a fundamental line of my post.

The experiences you describe are not because of XX or XY chromosomes but because the patriarchy are using biology to justify oppression. Ask your sports teacher or careers advisor from the 70s and they might have tried to justify your limited options on the grounds that women have certain innate characteristics - rooted in biology, which make them more or less suited to certain things. Certain unalterable characteristics, meaning they can't be educated to the same standard in the same subjects. You are what your biology says you are, and should look and act according to what we associate with feminine or masculine. Particularly for women these are oppressive, yes?

These are the same arguments rearing their head in 2020 to justify trans exclusion. You should attack these ideas rather than agreeing with them! In particular I'm sure every sexist the world over will be really pleased to hear how fundamental motherhood is to womenhood, after all this is what they've been saying for years.

The exclusion of women from politics or property ownership wasn't based on biology. Nobody justified their exclusion by saying women have vaginas and can't vote. When I was a kid, the only thing worse than being a girl was a boy acting like one. It was the perception of feminine behavior being weak and not quite fully formed. You shouldn't behave like THAT because your biology says so.. Do you realize the bigotry trans individuals experience is based on this same notion? They experience the sharp end of the (socially created) divide between men and women.

Trans rights are women's rights. As a feminist you should be able to say sex should be irrelevant in the same way an anti-racist says race should be irrelevant. That's not erasing women or minorities, it's recognizing the differences we have aren't rooted in biology but in culture.

I was responding to a previous poster who's post has now been deleted.

I'm aware the people here are concerned with the implications for sports. However the rest of the world doesn't consider the "Right to Win a Gold Medal" to be on a par with the inclusion of trans individuals in society and the elimination of sex-based bigotry.

What it means is that because of Feminism men will have gone on to be dominant in all women's sports. Thanks Girlies. Men are Number 1 and being equal means we win more.

Old and Slow wrote:

local lib wrote:

Sex is biological, gender is a social construct.

Glad I could help.

No, gender is not a social construct. That is as absurd as saying race is a social construct. Your gender and sex are the same and cannot be changed. This whole idea that gender is a social construct is just liberals trying to ignore science to fit their agenda. Science is hard isn’t it?

Glad I could help.

Not quite.

Sex and gender are different, in law and in reality as defined, for now.

One side believes that sex isn’t real but gender is. The other side believes that gender isn’t real but sex is.

I can’t help.

This is where I lose the plot with modern liberalism.

Dudes want to live life as women? Fine. No quarrel from me, do your thing.

But the idea that a person should be allowed to flip, overnight, from being a 400th place male runner to a 1st place female runner is insane.

It’s insane that a woman would ‘roided to attain T levels equal to a male would be banned from the sport, but a man who wants to race girls is lauded as a trailblazing hero for equality.

Trans rights are women's rights. As a feminist you should be able to say sex should be irrelevant in the same way an anti-racist says race should be irrelevant. That's not erasing women or minorities, it's recognizing the differences we have aren't rooted in biology but in culture.

...except that when it comes to athletics and physical strength, differences between sexes are 100% beyond dispute rooted in biology.

Women will never, as a group, be equally strong or fast as men. Denying that is denying scientific reality.

Standard Setter wrote:

I have three blue-chip daughters and am not concerned one iota, you need to read the text... also 24 Rep. voted for it in 2019 -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

You should be concerned, I have three average sons who will now identify as girls and your blue chips will be the new average.

Why won’t Semenya just compete against b-level male talent? Isn’t the idea to comepete against the best? This is like the 15 min 5k guy showing up to the turkey trot and blowing everyone away by 3 minutes- crossing the line pounding his chest. There’s no pride in that.

The only women's sport I'm interested in is distance running. And that's been pretty much ruined by doping, as evidenced by #1 and #2 in the last Olympic Marathon . Not to mention a never-ending spate of improbable times out of the blue. Of course there are some clean athletes, but who knows who they are?

But if this is passed, it very much consistent with the destructive path the country has been on for decades.