AutomaticJack wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
Almost makes mincemeat of people with black and white positions on all of this.How, exactly? Most arguments I’ve seen either say no, or OK if the athlete hasn’t gone through puberty. Seems like a pretty straightforward take in this situation and no new argument I’ve seen.
Where is this “minemeat” you speak of?
Given your continued insertion of Blakeman into posts, even ones where he is not discussed, I’m led to believe your interests are purely political rather than caring about the issue.
The problem is a legal one, and this will not be the end. The ruling uses Title IX, a law that was supposed to protect girls in sports, as its justification. It has been twisted in a way that does just the opposite, and that is going to cause problems. The law says that you can't discriminate based on sex, and this court has decided that also means sexual orientation. That is the problem many of us have.
I'm not arguing that this isn't a legal issue. In fact it has been argued as such on both sides. Both are citing Title IX but it still comes back to the same hurdle "how are we defining a woman."
My question to DSW was how did this particular articles make "mincemeat" of the people with black and white positions on the matter. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly I don't see anything in that writeup that undercuts the notion of "biological males shouldn't compete against biological females."
EDIT: Also not sure where sexual orientation comes into the trans sports issue.