US State (South Dakota) mulls denying modern gender theory by proposing non-cis athletes compete by so-called biological sex

Noticer of White Supremacists wrote:

M&MM wrote:

The answer is to have "Open" and XX chromosome (no artificially elevated testosterone) categories. .

Why don't we just go back to apartheid and segregation days?

What does this have to do with athletics or transgender students?

Recipe for underachievement wrote:

What defense of "girls' division" makes sense in the first place, once you realize that the concept of "girl" is practically entirely socially constructed on unwitting children?

I’ll bite... What proof is there have that sex (XX, XY) is a “social construct”? It seems clear to me that it’s a biological fact which can be determined from birth.

Those who don’t like the proposed SD legislation could just ick up their balls and go home...

DougC wrote:

Recipe for underachievement wrote:

What defense of "girls' division" makes sense in the first place, once you realize that the concept of "girl" is practically entirely socially constructed on unwitting children?

I’ll bite... What proof is there have that sex (XX, XY) is a “social construct”? It seems clear to me that it’s a biological fact which can be determined from birth.

Sex is not a social construct. It is a biological term. It is partially defined by your genotype (XX or XY in your DNA) and your secondary sexual characteristics (facial hair, breasts, etc). However, even in a biological sense, there are cases where the distinction between the sexes is unclear or fuzzy. How do you classify individuals with Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY), etc?

Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct. Male and female are words we use to describe the outward characteristics of a person. They are words we use because they are useful, not because the Gods demand it. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I don't think I can do a better job that contrapoints, so watch this video if you're still confused:

its insanity i tell you wrote:

If they implement this bill they will be in the same quandary as Texas with the girls state champion wrestler Mack Beggs. Beggs, biologically a girl, identifies as a boy and is taking prescribed testosterone, a performance enhancing drug. However, Texas requires individuals to compete in the division of their birth records so Beggs has to wrestle girls or not compete at all. It's very unfair to biological girls to have to compete with someone who is taking performance enhancement drugs, especially since they wouldn't be allowed to take them unless they claimed they were transitioning.

Not really, anyone taking testosterone shouldn't be allowed to compete.

Flounder wrote:

arbitrarily???

You're either born with balls or not. It isn't arbitrary.

In sports - Functioning balls = dude. No balls = chick.

How you dress outside of sports is your own bidness.

You idiot, this gives us the travesty of Caster Semenya dominating the women's division.

jommo wrote:

Flounder wrote:

arbitrarily???

You're either born with balls or not. It isn't arbitrary.

In sports - Functioning balls = dude. No balls = chick.

How you dress outside of sports is your own bidness.

You idiot, this gives us the travesty of Caster Semenya dominating the women's division.

Nope. Semenya has functioning internal testes and is not XX. Those internal testes produce levels of testosterone that are way higher than those who are female (XX).

That video is addressing the use of pronouns and whether they are prescriptive. That is unrelated to this issue that in competition, should biological males be allowed to compete as females. If some guy, who now wants to identify as a female, prefers to be called “she” or “her”, that’s fine. He can call himself whatever he wants, BUT if your sex (which we agree is not a social construct) is male, then “he/she/it” should be banned from competing in the female division.

Meh, time to just have one category.

For a state track meet, the athletes with the season's 20 best times/marks get to compete.

You're welcome.

I think it’s fine for a boy to compete as a girl or vice versa.....following complete hormone therapy and determination by medical authorities that the person has been successfully reassigned. Also it should be federal law that such reassignments are to be determined by medical personnel based on psychological evaluation. Basically the same policy the military was to implement.

Alan

jommo wrote:

Flounder wrote:

arbitrarily???

You're either born with balls or not. It isn't arbitrary.

In sports - Functioning balls = dude. No balls = chick.

How you dress outside of sports is your own bidness.

You idiot, this gives us the travesty of Caster Semenya dominating the women's division.

I wrote "Functioning Balls" for a reason. They aren't required to be dangling.

The whole gender identity movement is hypocritical. To say that you identify as one gender or another is to recognize that there is gender inequality.

There are a few - very few - cases of actual genetic gender anomalies out there. To encourage genetically normal people to act as if they have a genetic disorder is disrespectful to those that are actually affected. It isn't much different from an open division athlete trying to compete in the Special Olympics.

Noticer of White Supremacists wrote:

M&MM wrote:

The answer is to have "Open" and XX chromosome (no artificially elevated testosterone) categories. .

Why don't we just go back to apartheid and segregation days?

Having separate divisions based on sex is EXACTLY "apartheid" and "segregation".

We no longer have separate divisions for black and white.

Equivalency would be to no longer have separate divisions for male and female.

The fact that "progressives" hold two completely opposite views while believing they are equivalent PROVES that they are functionally insane.

Being called a man - or a woman, as the case may be - does not define you, I agree... but it DOES describe you.

The characteristics we historically apply to males and females are social constructs, but the state of being male or female most certainly is not. You don't have to be a man to want to be the breadwinner of the house, and you don't have to be a woman to enjoy cooking.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think it’s fine for a boy to compete as a girl or vice versa.....following complete hormone therapy and determination by medical authorities that the person has been successfully reassigned. Also it should be federal law that such reassignments are to be determined by medical personnel based on psychological evaluation. Basically the same policy the military was to implement.

Alan

Alan- Someone who was born male retains massive advantages (bone structure, size, muscle mass, blood volume, etc) even after hormone therapy. There is no way to compete reverse course and make someone female. The advantages are much greater than if a biological female were to take steroids or other PEDs.

theJeff wrote:

The whole gender identity movement is hypocritical. To say that you identify as one gender or another is to recognize that there is gender inequality.

Huh? How do you even come to that conclusion? To identify as one gender only acknowledges a gender preference. Even you choose to present as a cishet male. Are you saying you choose to be male because choosing female is less?

If you read my first post, I agree with your, but you seemed confused on the idea of gender vs sex and which one is a social construct, so I tried to help out.

Huh!? wrote:

theJeff wrote:

The whole gender identity movement is hypocritical. To say that you identify as one gender or another is to recognize that there is gender inequality.

Huh? How do you even come to that conclusion? To identify as one gender only acknowledges a gender preference. Even you choose to present as a cishet male. Are you saying you choose to be male because choosing female is less?

No. If gender is fluid, why bother identifying as one over the other?

And, to be clear, I didn't choose to be male any more than I chose to be white or born in the 1900s. Yet, here I am: a early-middle aged white male.

theJeff wrote:

No. If gender is fluid, why bother identifying as one over the other?

And, to be clear, I didn't choose to be male any more than I chose to be white or born in the 1900s. Yet, here I am: a early-middle aged white male.

Then why do you care either way?

Also, read my statement carefully. You choose to present yourself as male. That's your choice. And I never mentioned race. Why do you bring your whiteness into this?