iNow

So you're saying the transgender situation is non-binary? Go figure!

The same is largely true in the US, yet state legislatures are actively legislating to exclude them… hence threads like this one. This is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it. I, of course, disagree, but YMMV. Then criteria can also include thresholds based on physicality where appropriate. You’ve hardly presented an insurmountable obstacle to the approach. The intent is improvement, not perfection. But if she meets the qualification standards for her division and wishes to compete, then that’s her choice to make, not ours. I’d go one farther… I’m not being idealistic. This is said in an attempt to dismiss and diminish me as some Pollyanna. The idea I’m putting forth addresses the exclusion of trans kids being legislated across the US while minimizing impact to existing athletes and sports structures. That’s not idealism. It’s improvement.

I was familiar with Biden’s exact words before I asked.

When did Biden discuss his fears? You’re nothing if not consistent Serge.

Something about it being easier to motivate base voters by pointing at who they should hate instead of offering popular policies that could meaningfully improve their lives. People are often unfamiliar with and even scared of trans kids being around their own kids, so politicians feed that ignorance by passing laws preventing trans kids from using the bathroom of their identity or playing sports… bc they’re all big bruising hulks who are gonna rip poor little Sally’s arms off at their sockets, etc. They appeal the basest instincts of the base, fire them up, win their votes, gain more power, and the cycle continues as more hateful and more needlessly discriminatory laws get passed. See also: Don’t say gay legislation in Florida. And they don’t need you preventing them from trying. This is an argument from incredulity… Nobody cares that you personally can’t envision non-XY chromosomal people being able to demonstrate certain abilities or surpass various skill levels. Let them try and prove you right or wrong. Just set the standards and move forward. Those who qualify get to play. Those who don’t qualify can’t play. If the standards need review or future adjustment, that can be done without wondering how best to keep trans kids separate and rejected, or boys and girls in separate divisions. The same way kids get assigned to the varsity team versus the junior varsity team, or T-ball versus Little League. You’re not being asked to solve world hunger or find a rational number = the square root of 2.

I will repeat that most of the laws being passed right now focus at the level of adolescent sports in middle and high school and even college and as I’ve mentioned a few times that’s also where my primary focus exists. Even if we include the pinnacle of sports and elite athletes, however, the details of the divisions account for this. “To play at THIS level, you must exhibit qualifications on skill 1, 2, and 3. We don’t care how you pee.” You seem hyper focused on fairness, yet cannot see your blind spot for how unfair the current urination-based classifications are for trans kids. Unless I’m misreading you, this sounds an awful lot like “separate, but equal.” It’s as if you’re proclaiming you want ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re certain that THEY use different water fountains. So… If sports divisions and classifications are setup using skill and capability-based thresholds then there’s no need to keep them separate based simply on how they happen to pee. If a female qualifies, she can play in that league and at that level. If a trans kid qualifies, they too can play in that league and at that level. Why again do you think this is “just a crap idea?” Then don’t watch, but if the woman or trans person qualifies at that level and meets the level of skill required to do so and wishes also to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? That’s some next level paternalism right there.

+1 for the clever word play and cool article

Must everything always boil down to overly simplistic monolithic labels as if the sum total of people and concepts can be adequately represented with a few letters? What term should be used? How about Loretta.

I think you two should just get a divorce already. You’re traumatizing the kids and neighbors with your bickering

And other times language really is coded and being used nefariously by groups in growing numbers despite you’re lack of personal awareness of them doing so. See also: Urban, inner city, blighted, etc. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/07/13/recognizing-that-words-have-the-power-to-harm-we-commit-to-using-more-just-language-to-describe-places/

Very little, and likely zero, since the US system has been broken in numerous ways that favor power over majority support. Majority of Americans support progressive policies. They get blocked by those in the minority. There are certainly issues with playing identity politics and gaming the system for power, but you seem to be leveling your charge and blame at the primary victims of that process. This may have been true decades ago. Today, however, the median GOP voter feels Biden isn’t the true president and that “the left” are bigger enemies than autocrats.

Once more… Here’s what I said:

If you’re not intentionally misrepresenting me, then you’re badly misreading me.

Here is what I said:

And that’s a feature, not a bug. No unfair advantages. No more exclusions based on arbitrary historical reasons. Competitors don’t get displaced. It’s win-win. This is a problem… how, exactly? Your morals are clearly shit, and I thought you were better than this. I feel that my actual position and actual proposal solves for it, renders your concerns moot, and if enough people could simply extract their heads from their bungholes they might agree it’s the simplest, most logical, amd most fair approach and it could have a chance of becoming a reality. But alas… people often seem to get rather mad when you try to assist them in removing their craniums from their colons. Are you unfamiliar with try-outs in sports or physical skills testing? It’s no wonder you’re so confused. Last I checked, it was middle school and high school kids having laws written to prevent them from playing. And frankly, if a trans person can make it to the very pinnacle of their sport, then good for them… but I’m talking about legislation being directed at already marginalized kids in schools who simply want to play sports… laws that make it explicitly illegal for them to do so. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening. Where I live. Real children are getting hurt. And for what? Because we’re too lazy to update divisional thresholds to be based on skill and not how someone urinates?

Why does the importance of these alleged differences in their “builds” supersede letting anyone qualify based on merit and skill based thresholds regardless of who they are and how they urinate? You keep repeating this point. I find it irrelevant and peripheral to the position I’m advocating. Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior? I tend to agree, but it’s the threshold that matters, not their maleness or femaleness or anything in between. What would their advantages matter if divisions were setup based on skill and competence instead of assigned sex at birth?

I recommend you believe me, specifically here now when I point out that this fun little anecdote of yours has literally Jack and his other brother Shit to do with the point I've been making about how better to setup sports divisions for improved and more inclusive outcomes.

I don’t know. All 6 of them are pretty incredible. (that one’s for you, MigL)

Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee. Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

Lol! I'd go with "Moontanned in Canuckistan!"

Of course. Language is a funny thing that way. Thx

I thought Moon lived in Georgia or the Carolina’s <pauses to check profile> Yep. North Carolina, in fact. Always nice seeing museums being respectful of artifacts and original owners, though.

I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at this point, but yet again the issue vanishes if you classify and set brackets based on skill and strength and ignore whether they pee standing or sitting. Will certain sports continue being dominated by cis-gendered males? Of course, but if fairness is your metric then excluding trans people is the least fair approach of all. Just set qualification thresholds based on skill and capability and merit. Done and dusted. Solved.

Too late Why would we ever do that? One of the beauties in the scientific method is that all observations and conclusions are only ever at best provisional. It’s self-correcting, not based on ridiculous circular reasoning like “the fact of existence must come before all else.”