Interesting article. Almost makes mincemeat of people with black and white positions on all of this. But maybe Mr Blakeman from Nassau Co. NY will swoop in and save the day.
Federal appeals court blocks West Virginia from enforcing anti-trans sports ban against 13-year-old girl
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/west-virginia-anti-trans-sports-ban/index.html
As one might expect, the two judges in the majority are D appointees, and the dissenting judge is an R appointee.
The decision:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Document.pdf
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.
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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38413534/
This is probably more interesting to read and discuss than the mindless dreck the OP posted
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.
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.
Yes, this.
As one might expect, the two judges in the majority are D appointees, and the dissenting judge is an R appointee.
The decision:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Document.pdf
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.
I do find the issue compelling. While the solution, if there is one, is clearly not staightforward, the issue is a remarkable rorschach test of this era.
No, l just mentioned Blakeman for entertainment value.
Nope. I’m a life long registered Republican that has voted Democrat, generally, since about 2012. I don’t understand why this is even being discussed. It seems very simple to me.
Nope. I’m a life long registered Republican that has voted Democrat, generally, since about 2012. I don’t understand why this is even being discussed. It seems very simple to me.
It is being discussed because the GOP thinks they can use the demonization of trans people for political gain.
The reality is this topic should be managed by the individual sporting federations. Big government edicts are not the answer.
As one might expect, the two judges in the majority are D appointees, and the dissenting judge is an R appointee.
The decision:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Document.pdf
Is there anyone or group that did not weigh in ?
Can we expect that some of the legal representation was provided pro bono.
Am I the only one who finds the D and R schism in the law on matters of this culture war disturbing.
Surely, yes.
Yes, but no more so than on other issues where the same schism arises. Ds and Rs often have different fundamental values, and that shows up in cases where those values have to be balanced/ weighed.
As one might expect, the two judges in the majority are D appointees, and the dissenting judge is an R appointee.
The decision:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Document.pdf
I don’t think the schism is as bad as you might think.
I know of exactly ZERO liberals who think there should be no legal protection for cis girls and women in sports. I’m a very liberal liberal and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree that some protection of girls and women is required by our laws as well as general notions of fairness and good sportsmanship.
It seems obviously to many people that trans athletes should be afforded some legal protections as well. Who/ what/ when/ where/ how are all questions that determine the balance of rights.
I woke up feeling optimistic today. I think most people recognize the value of community and the need to balance rights so that everyone can enjoy and participate in community. We’ll get there.
Puberty blocking hormones do not make the penis shrink into a clitoris and testicles / sack fully disappear…
Puberty blocking hormones do not make the penis shrink into a clitoris and testicles / sack fully disappear…
And this is why the CHAGA movement is doomed. lol
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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38413534/
This is probably more interesting to read and discuss than the mindless dreck the OP posted
That study has little to do with the topic.
It is common for young children (3-7) to question their gender. The vast majority of these young child desist. For a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or for someone to be trans, the gender incongruence needs to be *persistent. *
Conflating gender questioning youth with trans youth is a common bad faith talking point pushed by the trans panic crowd. It only serves to confirm their limited understanding of the topic.
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.
Gender identification, not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is who you’re attracted to.
The athlete identifies as a girl. If we take that identification at face value, she should be awarded the same protections that title IX afford to all women. The problem is anatomically and physiologically she is a boy.
This always seems to distill down to the same question we have been flogging to death for years now which is what actually makes a woman a woman. Anatomy? Self identification? Some combination of the two?
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.
I know of exactly ZERO liberals who think there should be no legal protection for cis girls and women in sports.
Really? This surprises me. There seems to be a pretty big push amongst the left to fully accept trans women as women in all aspects. To do so means acceptance in the change rooms, in competition, on the podiums etc.
I feel like if it weren’t liberals pushing this so hard it wouldn’t even be a discussion.
I’m a very liberal liberal and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree that some protection of girls and women is required by our laws as well as general notions of fairness and good sportsmanship.
Just curious to dig a bit deeper here. As a very liberal liberal, and a woman, what are your personal views on what protections should be afforded to women to protect fairness and good sportsmanship? If you could wave a magic wand and create a set of rules or standards to include trans women yet protect cis women in sports, where would that line be?
I know of exactly ZERO liberals who think there should be no legal protection for cis girls and women in sports. I’m a very liberal liberal and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree that some protection of girls and women is required by our laws as well as general notions of fairness and good sportsmanship.
It seems obviously to many people that trans athletes should be afforded some legal protections as well. Who/ what/ when/ where/ how are all questions that determine the balance of rights.
I woke up feeling optimistic today. I think most people recognize the value of community and the need to balance rights so that everyone can enjoy and participate in community. We’ll get there.
Well-said.
Where do you think reasonable fairness can start for inclusion and fairness for all on this subject? I mean this seriously considering the LI thread went a different direction.
I thought that law did a good job of starting to identify the who/what/when/where/why.
I am in full agreement that both trans individuals and biological women need and deserve protections and fairness in the best way possible. And I believe “best way possible” is where the disagreements meet.
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.”
That’s just DSW flexing the masters degree in click bait he received from the prestigious Big Kahuna School of Bullshit.