Obama Issues Decree Ending Sex Segregated Sports in All Schools

The issue I have isn't with the ruling, it's with America's general inability to respect each other and the spirit of the laws that are drafted (this is directed at you rojo). Somewhere along the line during the last few decades Americans have lost their ability to set their own limits, lost their ability to look inward and assess whether an action is right or wrong. We have arrived at a place where it is acceptable to instead rely on the literal interpretation of a law, and the presumption that our actions must be acceptable if the government hasn't implemented measures to specifically prohibit them. It's a sad state of affairs that Americans are not able or willing to self-regulate.

The above answers why we generally need the government to issue these civil mandates, but why do we need this one specifically? Because there is a failure at lower levels to recognize that Trans individuals are not looking to gain a competitive or economic advantage; Trans individuals just want to establish a daily level of comfort that non-Trans individuals enjoy in public environments.

Can this ultimatum and other civil mandates like it be exploited? Yes, there are people like rojo that see this as an open-invitation to gain both a competitive AND economic advantage. Why do we as a society have to go there? This mandate does introduce issues that will have to be resolved, but that does not mean that our society is better off without it. The landscape of athletics may be changing in regard to gender identity, and we should be looking at how we can accommodate those changes, rather than rejecting them outright (or exploiting them).

Many on this thread ask why liberals are so quiet. I believe it is because this represents a much larger issue than the gender ruling we're specifically talking about, and putting into words something that characterizes the larger issue is challenging.

I'm confused with all these posts. Does this mean that I cannot win Foot Locker next year? But Semenya can still win in Rio...

It's all very confusing.

Agreed, you explained well what I was trying to suggest yesterday.

Posters keep emphasizing that that viewpoint underestimates high schoolers willingness to pull stuff like that for attention and money. I don't think so. I'm not too far out of high school, and I think they're underestimating how seriously high schoolers take their image and have pride in their personal identity.

NotFarEnough wrote:

I think they're underestimating how seriously high schoolers take their image and have pride in their personal identity.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Libturds never stop pushing away reality. There will be dozens of cases within a year (in fact there already are many of them). And with each case a tenfold of girls will opt out of HS athletics.

Thank you, Obama.

Federalist #51: "if men were angels, no government would be necessary."

We live in a diverse country where people are going to push the boundaries.

The founding fathers knew that we couldn't count on people to live by their conscience. We wouldn't need to write explicit laws about the transgender issue if people weren't going to take the laws the wrong way.

captainwildcat wrote:

Reg Fields wrote:

I completely disagree with your assessment. Any kid who came out as a trans and dud this would be considered "brave" and a "hero" by the media. Did Caitlyn Jenner just not win woman of the year?

I'm not talking about an actual trans kid doing this. I'm talking about Rojo's claim of mandating his son do this. I took this to mean Rojo would force his non-trans son to compete and live his life as a girl. This would be abuse.

What would be the abuse? His son can just be a cross dressing transgendered lesbian. Wear the same cloths and still date girls. Just change his name from Dan to Dana and we are good to go in this new paradigm. Basically just claim to be a tom-boy thats lesbian.

I mean look at Caster, (s)he wore a suit to her wedding were (s)he married a girl. The next thing you know (s)he will be having a biological baby the week after a winning three world medals, something most women would find impossible, but this "woman" will have little trouble with it.

Why people think others won't want take advantage of this easy road baffles my mind especially when you see those that do being appladed rather than scorned for taking advantage of the rules. And dominating competetion that is at a clear disadvantage.

BroncoFan wrote:

This mandate does introduce issues that will have to be resolved, but that does not mean that our society is better off without it. The landscape of athletics may be changing in regard to gender identity, and we should be looking at how we can accommodate those changes, rather than rejecting them outright (or exploiting them).

Many on this thread ask why liberals are so quiet. I believe it is because this represents a much larger issue than the gender ruling we're specifically talking about, and putting into words something that characterizes the larger issue is challenging.

Nonsensical gobbledygook. They are silent because logic, reason and reality have been tossed away as unfair. All they can do is natter about like Kudzu to try to sound thoughtful.

When someone can't put their argument into words, it's usually because they don't understand what they are trying to discuss. In this case, it's because the end result shows how flawed their original thinking on the topic has been. Obama has been kind enough to engage in reductio ad absurdum so everyone can understand how dangerous and destructive the left has become.

When the premise is garbage, the result is garbage.

Men are not women. Marriage is society's way of putting a solid structure around reproduction and the raising of children, not giving acceptance to who likes whom today. Is our whole society a classroom of delicate 12 year old girls?

The entire world doesn't have to be remade to accommodate the exceptions, especially those with mental problems so severe that they would mutilate their own bodies to fulfill their sexual fantasies.

Change By Alinsky wrote:

Nonsensical gobbledygook. They are silent because logic, reason and reality have been tossed away as unfair. All they can do is natter about like Kudzu to try to sound thoughtful.

Truer words were never spoken.

A different curve wrote:

[quote]captainwildcat wrote:

[quote]Reg Fields wrote:

I mean look at Caster, (s)he wore a suit to her wedding were (s)he married a girl. The next thing you know (s)he will be having a biological baby the week after a winning three world medals, something most women would find impossible, but this "woman" will have little trouble with it.

Caster has a purse, not a package. She's gay. She married a girl. She and her partner won't have that baby unless a doctor does something unpleasant to her with a very long needle and then artificially inseminates her wife. Is that what you were suggesting?

monies > pride wrote:

NotFarEnough wrote:

I think they're underestimating how seriously high schoolers take their image and have pride in their personal identity.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Libturds never stop pushing away reality. There will be dozens of cases within a year (in fact there already are many of them). And with each case a tenfold of girls will opt out of HS athletics.

Thank you, Obama.

Liberals hate to be called out to defend the indefensible. So they hide.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Caster has a purse, not a package. She's gay. She married a girl. She and her partner won't have that baby unless a doctor does something unpleasant to her with a very long needle and then artificially inseminates her wife. Is that what you were suggesting?

Idiot. Caster has testicles and he's a heterosexual man. You and your ilk are the reason this charade has started. If you had read what conservative posters have said for months, even years, this would have not come as any surprise.

NYC wrote:

And you wonder why parents home school their children...Will Obama allow his daughters to shower with the football team? Seriously, with the state of our economy and the world being upside down, this ass clown focuses on this. We have become the laughing stock of the world.

Just doing as much damage as possible with limited time... gots to get stuff done ya know?

Change By Alinsky wrote:

[quote]BroncoFan wrote:

They are silent because logic, reason and reality have been tossed away as unfair. All they can do is natter about like Kudzu to try to sound thoughtful.

I'm not trying to sound thoughtful. I'm actually thinking. There's a difference.

Be daring. Overcome your own gag-reflex and startle-response. Take the long view. Risk actual thought, as opposed to easy dismissals grounded in a sneering disregard for people whose behaviors and ideas you disagree with.

How about this for living dangerously: I'll offer you the strongest possible rebuttal, from the Left, to the arguments I offered earlier. I'll try to demolish my own case. I'll ventriloquize Dave Zirin--assuming that he was intellectually honest, which he's not.

Let's try to imagine the present gender-troubled situation of women's athletics from the perspective of the Civil Rights movement. In 1948, for example, the great majority of white Southerners felt that "the races," as they called them, should remain segregated in schools, in public restrooms, on sports teams, in any and all public spaces where they met. They certainly shouldn't marry and produce children! That was the underlying scandal that segregation was trying to avoid: "mongrelization." The horror!

They were fools, those white Southerners. We know that now. I've got a perfectly normal 10-year old son. Smart as hell, purple belt in TKD, very quick with computer games. The whole mongrelization thing was a lie. Blacks and whites married and had kids. The world didn't end. Trust me.

What did happen with desegregation, though, is that the racial makeup of professional sports teams, and mainstream professional sport in general, changed. Over time, black male and female athletes displaced white athletes. This happened in football, in basketball, and of course in the sprints. The world didn't end, but there was a shift.

So here's the thing: thirty years from now, when the presence of trans women and intersex "women" (like Caster) have been normed and no longer seem exceptional, the present-day composition of women's athletics--where what you might call "natural-born women" almost completely dominate--will be seen, in retrospect, as akin in some way to the all-white basketball teams of the 1940s. It'll seem old fashioned: the way things were done back then (i.e., right now), but not the only reasonable way of conducting athletic business.

Over the next 30 years, as the world grows more comfortable with the idea of trans and intersex women moving into the protected world of women's athletics, natural-born women will, like white guys and gals who play pro basketball today and the occasional superior white male or female sprinter, find themselves more at the margins than at the center. A survival of the fittest contest will slowly be waged. Trans women athletes, in fact, will find themselves the focus of interest from coaches looking for the edge in performance. Of course a whole regime of hormone regulations will slowly be evolved--and are already being evolved--to create a level biological playing field. But inevitably there will be more Caster Semenyas, and as the stigma surrounding such sort-of-women diminishes, a bidding war for their services may even transpire. They'll become hot properties for coaches seeking every allowable way of gaining an edge.

NBA basketball today is almost unimaginably different from the game played by white guys in the 1940s. That's what happened when the artificial line between "the races" came down. And today's fans are happy about that--even though, in a different sport, Jackie Robinson took a whole lot of heat for daring to break the white monopoly.

This is what will happen to women's XC and track. The artificial line between "the genders" will slowly dissolve. We'll still keep a basic men's/women's binary around for a while, but our conception of what a woman--a female athlete, more precisely--is will slowly shift. We'll grow much more used to trans women competing in women's events, and--a shocking thought!--we'll grow much more used to the sort of masculine-looking woman that Caster is taking part as well. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about all this. Fifty years ago, women were Playboy Bunnies:

Now we've got Lolo Jones:

From the standpoint of a 1950s person, Lolo Jones might as well be a different species. That's not a woman! But of course it is. Norms change. And they will continue to change.

And, believe it or not, some of us are glad they do.

Whew! That's what Dave Zirin might say.

Hey, Kudzutard, how many fingers am I holding up?

KudzuRunner wrote:

A different curve wrote:

[quote]captainwildcat wrote:

[quote]Reg Fields wrote:

I mean look at Caster, (s)he wore a suit to her wedding were (s)he married a girl. The next thing you know (s)he will be having a biological baby the week after a winning three world medals, something most women would find impossible, but this "woman" will have little trouble with it.

Caster has a purse, not a package. She's gay. She married a girl. She and her partner won't have that baby unless a doctor does something unpleasant to her with a very long needle and then artificially inseminates her wife. Is that what you were suggesting?

Yes, Caster can father a child, perhaps not as accidentally as most men can but she could do it none then less, unlike past versions of actual womens competetion.

However, my main point was in this new paradigm what biological or social construct does any genetic male need to jump through in order to compete agaisnt (or walk into a shower room) with a genetic female? There is litterally nothing concrete you need to do, you can still have sex with girls, still keep your internal/external plumbing, dress the same, keep your natural hormanal balance but yet still kick the crap out of the competetion. Your just a tom-boy transgendered lesbian similar to Semenya (of course I will agree that at least Semenya has good reason for going down the road she did, but still the end result is preposterous)

Look I have two daughters that run and have been steadily improving (4:55 and 4:40 1500m PRs @ 12 and 16 years old) watching Semenya is terribly demotivating (i.e. how will I be able to compete with that, with all kinds of empathy for the poor blonde South African girl that lost the 1500m to Caster in South Africa this year). If there is a threat of this within there immediate American world it will game over for them in the sport, and to be honest how could I blame them? They could work for years for there shot to win districts, get a scholarship ect. just to have some mid-to-low level boy jump in, claim to be trans(or actually be trans) and steal the prize.

KudzuRunner wrote:

I'm not trying to sound thoughtful. I'm actually thinking. There's a difference.

Be daring. Overcome your own gag-reflex and startle-response. Take the long view. Risk actual thought, as opposed to easy dismissals grounded in a sneering disregard for people whose behaviors and ideas you disagree with.

.

Thinking involves examining your premises as well understanding their implications. As a left-leaner, if you do either, you become uncomfortable because of the inherent fallacies, so you revert to the leftist playbook.

1) Attack the individual with whom you are arguing. Part of that is always pointing out that you are smarter. And more moral.

2) Refer to your moral superiority. In this case, you are on the side of the angels because you married a black woman and disdain the racial animus of southern whites when they were overwhelming Democrats.

3) Make an extended false analogy to muddy the waters.

You do not examine your premises that have led the Left to this lunacy. Here's the premises that do not result in the intellectual muck in which you find yourself.

Men and women are different. Unless there are aberrations, as there are in a world of 7 billion people, they have complementary sexual organs. Together they produce children. The aberrations may be as little as a tiny percent of one percent.

That difference between men and women is profound in certain areas, and not so great in others. The greatest is that women have the capacity to become pregnant and become mothers. It shouldn't be hard to understand that the human female is wired physically and mentally for that task.

And the differences can't be ignored without a cost. The overwhelming majority of people in our society would be happier and healthier by accepting this simple biological fact.

The differences between blacks and whites, especially in an place like America where they have genetically mixed for hundreds of years, are very, very small in comparison. There is no analogy, whether you are playing devil's advocate for some "trans" world or you are talking about aberrant sexuality (which you were not implicitly, but is what is underneath this whole charade.)

If you really want to do some thinking, try to figure out when you started talking about "trans" rights? Was it right about the time immediately after the infamous Supreme Court decision on "gay marriage"? Right after Obama and the other haters of Christian civilization moved onto their next target?

Who are you to question what his son identifies as at certain hours of the day?

Bigot.

Wait a tick.

The directive leans heavily on Title IX, which specifically refers to an individual's sex (biology), and not gender (identity).

Shouldn't that make this whole directive pretty much moot?

Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

STSBO wrote:

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..........

You never stopped to consider the implications of "crickets", did you? OK, let me spell it out for you.

1) "Crickets" means that everyone (or nearly everyone) on these boards think that this is an incredibly bad idea.

2) Which implies that all of the liberals on these boards think that this is an incredibly bad idea.

3) Which implies that you are almost unimaginably stupid for not realizing this.

OK, now carry on with your "crickets" comments now that you are clear about the implications.

Yeah, this decree is outrageous. We agree on that. What else do you want me to post?