iNow

I hear the stone tablets into which they’ve been chiseled and handed down from on-high are quite lovely.

You know, I wasn’t convinced the first 17 times you copy pasted this, but this 18th time really made a difference. It matters not how someone takes a piss. We can proceed by focusing on skill, strength, capability, and desire to compete. Maleness and femaleness are rather irrelevant when setting up divisions and qualification thresholds.

I wonder if we might be able to agree that elite sports right now aren’t the ones being targeted by legislation making it illegal for trans kids to compete. I wonder if we can proceed agreeing that these ideas need first to be tried in elementary school, middle school, and high school where states are currently excluding these kids who already feel excluded, then perhaps address these valid concerns at the elite level a bit later once we’ve had more practice getting things right.

Especially given that sports is literally us humans making up and inventing from scratch arbitrary rules however we see fit.

This current state is needlessly discriminating against trans kids. If it can be improved without sacrificing the other rules of fairness and decorum that cis-gendered kids play within, then why not try? You seem to be saying, “because it’s always been this way and we can never change it” and TBH that doesn’t move me at all nor is it compelling in the least given humanity’s long history of hatred and bigotry.

I absolutely agree with you that “extreme PC being forced down peoples throats” DOESN’T exist here, and certainly not in this thread, but I also know that was just sloppy language and not at all what you meant to convey.

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever.

Your response confuses me because I know you’re not being intentionally obtuse.

I’m also curious to know. Segregating based on size, strength, and ability clearly makes sense. Tell me again why we can’t do that while ignoring how someone urinates?

Why can't the threshold for qualification include something about weight and height where it's actually relevant? Why does sex have to play a role at all? Then you should consider no longer posting on sites like these, because it's not your blog. See above.

I said it 5 days ago and 4 days before that, and probably a few other times throughout this thread before then, but…

Don’t lump us all together Our elected officials tend to be the ones who lost the popular vote. And even when they won, they operate in a system where a tiny minority can prevent the sizable majority from making changes. In some cases, that’s helpful. In these cases, it’s just sad. I’m fairly sure those billion dollar startups are already there… lobbying.

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.