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

We've got about 5 or 6 more years of this madness before it becomes ridiculous enough for the tide to start swinging back against the lunatic transgender movement. It's going to get worse before it gets better, we're going to see dudes competing in NCAA women's sports.

Mark my words when white biological males start taking NCAA titles that would have been won by black biological females the people supporting this nonsense will stop pushing it and start pushing back against it.

I agree. Feminists are still ultra supportive which makes no sense. Men haven't yet taken the women's athletic scholarships, but when they do, it will have to change. I hadn't really thought about race. It probably wouldn't go over very well if a 20 year old white guy started beating Serena at tennis or starting beating Sydney at the 400 hurdles. Serena is pushing for income equality but this situation would destroy women's earning potential in all sports.

Wait it out wrote:

Mark my words when white biological males start taking NCAA titles that would have been won by black biological females the people supporting this nonsense will stop pushing it and start pushing back against it.

You nailed it. It certainly hasn't helped that two of the more high profile cases involve black women - Semenya and the HSer in CT.

Imagine the outrage if some Trump voting , white dude with a 1:54 PR identified as a woman and won the women's gold over Semenya in the Olympics. Then maybe the rules would be overturned.

Huh?! wrote:

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?

Because it - like my age and gender - falls under the category of “Things I was born as and cannot change,” Alex.

PS- you saying I choose to present myself as male is incredibly sexist. How dare you assume that pants and a 5:00 shadow be reserved only for males. Apologize.

theJeff wrote:

Stop being pedantic, Jeff. Apologize? I don't know what for.

Huh... wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Stop being pedantic, Jeff. Apologize? I don't know what for.

For being sexist. As I explained.

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.

Pure gold wrote:

DougC wrote:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ2ojjgTEh4

The only 'social construct' being discussed here is "gender science" itself. Gender science is nothing more than opinion based on other opinion. No science here, not even a hint. Many factual scientific realities have become inconvenient to current social narratives. Social engineers have never been shy about allowing facts to interfere with their agendas.

Men can be women, women can be men, gay is healthy, women don't need men, (white)men are bad, the list goes on. If you don't agree with their insane garbage then YOU are the problem. You're a hater, you're homophobic, transphobic, a nazi, a racist, a sexist, a fascist, the shrill gaslighting drones on and on. Smug, sad progressives follow in lock-step without realizing they are the frogs in the pot.

Right on man or woman or whatever wrote:

Feminists are still ultra supportive which makes no sense. Men haven't yet taken the women's athletic scholarships, but when they do, it will have to change. I hadn't really thought about race. It probably wouldn't go over very well if a 20 year old white guy started beating Serena at tennis or starting beating Sydney at the 400 hurdles. Serena is pushing for income equality but this situation would destroy women's earning potential in all sports.

This.

One qualifier: can we say “female SJW’s” instead of “feminists”? My grandmother was a feminist. My mother was a feminist. Both were women who blazed their way to successful careers in what were then still traditionally male fields based on gender role expectations, not biology. Those were the generations that fought for equality without being bats...t crazy.

Equality to me is a level playing field. It is not getting something for nothing. I’m a feminist if it means believing in equal intellect-based opportunities for women. But we’re not the same as men: pregnancy, anyone? prostate cancer? We are biologically disparate sexes, and in sports, where biology plays a huge role, women need to compete against other women, period. I may be a feminist, but I’m no SJW: if you can’t outrun me without the benefit of a couple of testicles, GTF out of my race.

rojo wrote:

Wait it out wrote:

Mark my words when white biological males start taking NCAA titles that would have been won by black biological females the people supporting this nonsense will stop pushing it and start pushing back against it.

You nailed it. It certainly hasn't helped that two of the more high profile cases involve black women - Semenya and the HSer in CT.

Imagine the outrage if some Trump voting , white dude with a 1:54 PR identified as a woman and won the women's gold over Semenya in the Olympics. Then maybe the rules would be overturned.

As someone who voted for Trump, you just gave me a idea to own the libs.

"Open" implies that anyone could compete. I don't see how this could possibly be construed as apartheid.

A person who is XX could choose the be in that category or in "Open". For the tiny percentage of non-XX or XY, they could compete in the open category as well. Everyone can participate.

Special kind of Moran wrote:

Noticer of White Supremacists wrote:

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

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

It's excellent trolling.

It just makes sense, that IF you are going to have a Womyn's Division, that you allow ALL the womyn to compete, and NOT just those who have got through the process to have birth certificates corrected. It should be EQUAL ACCESS, not just to those who can afford the right "identity papers".

Flounder wrote:

jommo wrote:

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.

So how do you classify people with varying levels of androgen insensitivity? How do you draw your "bright line" ?

(I still suspect this attempt to treat it as a simple binary problem is about scoring political points at the expense of the people actually in the difficult areas.)

X is not X, nor Y is Y wrote:

https://medium.com/@QSE/the-xx-xy-lie-our-social-construction-of-a-sex-and-gender-binary-4eed1e60e615

If you can really be both genders, why don’t you go fvck yourself?

On the one side, we have random LRC basementers who spout off multitudinous uninformed opinions about how they feel things "ought" to be. On the other side, we have actual professional gender theorists whose entire career is to think about such things and push the boundaries of our understanding.

Which is more likely correct?

I'd trust My Gut and The Bible before any (sexist) Gender Theorist.