dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Intense global debates sparked by events in the Tokyo and Paris games where transgender athletes dominated in several sports forced the IOC to reevaluate its position, after undertaking a lengthy study, and then to ban trans athletes

---

Who were the transgender athletes that dominated in Paris and Tokyo?

---

That is a great question, and maybe I should have said "allegedly". Because it gets real interesting. The most well known cases that are pointed out are various medal winning boxers (e.g., Imane Khief) and judo participants that were determined by their individual sport Olympic Federation to not be women based on genetic testing and the results were overturned by the International Olympic Committee (at the time, that IOC rules allowed men who identified as women to compete). So are they "transexuals"? I'm not really sure how the Olympics will now determine biological gender since they have now determined that biological men cannot compete, not matter how they identify. None of the women that were viewed by their sport associations as men had ever viewed themselves as men or transsexuals. There was an openly transgender woman that won a gold medal in soccer, and two other openly trans women, one in weightlifting and the other in mogul skiing that did okay, but didn't win medals. The whole thing is a quagmire, but as should be obvious from this thread, it is a big deal to a lotta people.

---

My point is that I don't recall any transgender athletes that "dominated" in Tokyo.
The weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard failed to register a lift in three attempts in Tokyo.

Imane Khelif won Gold in boxing in Paris.

She has a female phenotype but also the SRY gene, which is correlated with males.
She has female hormones and she had lowered her testosterone for competition.
For the qualifying tournament at the Paris Games (held in Dakar) she had lowered her testosterone level to zero.

Khelif said she is willing to undergo testing in order to defend her Olympic title, as long as it is conducted by the IOC.

---

Yeah we should be clear about Khelif that she is not "a man," she is intersex, a person with both male and female chromosomes. People like that are often raised as girls because they externally present as such (no *****) and may well have no idea about their condition until they find out later. That's pretty plausible given that she was raised in Iran, not exactly the most progressive place about gender fluidity.

The governing body for the sport decided that these kinds of intersex people shouldn't compete in women's boxing, which is not quite the same as saying someone like Khelif was "a man." Legitimately tricky problem with categorizing a person there.

---

But they told us there are only 2 genders and everybody is either born a man or a woman.

---

They?

Actually the Olympics now say that if you have the SRK gene you are a man and can't compete. Read my other post. Which since we can now leave the whole loaded trans label behind, is someone has a biological advantage of a man, should they be able to compete in women's sports without all the crap about about leaders propagating the rich ruling the world and Americans (and the rest of the world that competes in sports) being propagandized, and all the other stuff you throw in to avoid actually talking about the issue?

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

There are couple others that presumably fit into the Khelif category. And you repeated what I said about the openly trans athletes. And you walked right into a set-up

---

As opposed to you, I am not here for a "gotcha" or "set-up" moment.

I've probably been to more U.S. Outdoor National Championships and U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials since 1984 than anyone here, combined, multiplied by 10.

I'm aware of the SRY gene detection policy by the IOC.
You might want to read the following article.

IOC revives gene testing: A costly, criticized policy returns to the Olympics

---

So I ask you two questions:

If a person (note the absence of any label) has the advantages of male biology, should they be able to compete against women?

What testing would use to determine if that person should be able to compete?

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Intense global debates sparked by events in the Tokyo and Paris games where transgender athletes dominated in several sports forced the IOC to reevaluate its position, after undertaking a lengthy study, and then to ban trans athletes

---

Who were the transgender athletes that dominated in Paris and Tokyo?

---

That is a great question, and maybe I should have said "allegedly". Because it gets real interesting. The most well known cases that are pointed out are various medal winning boxers (e.g., Imane Khief) and judo participants that were determined by their individual sport Olympic Federation to not be women based on genetic testing and the results were overturned by the International Olympic Committee (at the time, that IOC rules allowed men who identified as women to compete). So are they "transexuals"? I'm not really sure how the Olympics will now determine biological gender since they have now determined that biological men cannot compete, not matter how they identify. None of the women that were viewed by their sport associations as men had ever viewed themselves as men or transsexuals. There was an openly transgender woman that won a gold medal in soccer, and two other openly trans women, one in weightlifting and the other in mogul skiing that did okay, but didn't win medals. The whole thing is a quagmire, but as should be obvious from this thread, it is a big deal to a lotta people.

---

Imane Khelif is not transgender. That is considered a crime in her country.

---

Here we go with trying to politicize the issue. I know you want blame the leaders who want to promote the rich for doing this, but you seem to be the guy doing that here.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Intense global debates sparked by events in the Tokyo and Paris games where transgender athletes dominated in several sports forced the IOC to reevaluate its position, after undertaking a lengthy study, and then to ban trans athletes

---

Who were the transgender athletes that dominated in Paris and Tokyo?

---

That is a great question, and maybe I should have said "allegedly". Because it gets real interesting. The most well known cases that are pointed out are various medal winning boxers (e.g., Imane Khief) and judo participants that were determined by their individual sport Olympic Federation to not be women based on genetic testing and the results were overturned by the International Olympic Committee (at the time, that IOC rules allowed men who identified as women to compete). So are they "transexuals"? I'm not really sure how the Olympics will now determine biological gender since they have now determined that biological men cannot compete, not matter how they identify. None of the women that were viewed by their sport associations as men had ever viewed themselves as men or transsexuals. There was an openly transgender woman that won a gold medal in soccer, and two other openly trans women, one in weightlifting and the other in mogul skiing that did okay, but didn't win medals. The whole thing is a quagmire, but as should be obvious from this thread, it is a big deal to a lotta people.

---

My point is that I don't recall any transgender athletes that "dominated" in Tokyo.
The weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard failed to register a lift in three attempts in Tokyo.

Imane Khelif won Gold in boxing in Paris.

She has a female phenotype but also the SRY gene, which is correlated with males.
She has female hormones and she had lowered her testosterone for competition.
For the qualifying tournament at the Paris Games (held in Dakar) she had lowered her testosterone level to zero.

Khelif said she is willing to undergo testing in order to defend her Olympic title, as long as it is conducted by the IOC.

---

Yeah we should be clear about Khelif that she is not "a man," she is intersex, a person with both male and female chromosomes. People like that are often raised as girls because they externally present as such (no *****) and may well have no idea about their condition until they find out later. That's pretty plausible given that she was raised in Iran, not exactly the most progressive place about gender fluidity.

The governing body for the sport decided that these kinds of intersex people shouldn't compete in women's boxing, which is not quite the same as saying someone like Khelif was "a man." Legitimately tricky problem with categorizing a person there.

---

But they told us there are only 2 genders and everybody is either born a man or a woman.

---

They?

Actually the Olympics now say that if you have the SRK gene you are a man and can't compete. Read my other post. Which since we can now leave the whole loaded trans label behind, is someone has a biological advantage of a man, should they be able to compete in women's sports without all the crap about about leaders propagating the rich ruling the world and Americans (and the rest of the world that competes in sports) being propagandized, and all the other stuff you throw in to avoid actually talking about the issue?

---

Yes, that is what they told us. Now you are telling me that somebody who was identified female at birth has now been re-gendered by the IOC? Were they wrong?

If I am not discussing exactly what you want me to discuss it is because I discuss what I think is important

---

Who exactly is the evil "they"?

Just guessing, but you are not getting there is a distinction between someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth and who seeks to physically align their body with the gender they want to identity through a medical process in contrast that there are people who are assigned an identity at birth that is not reflected in their actual gene make-up (I'm saying that in general laymen terms). The people who are concerned about women's sports generally don't want either group playing in women's sports. And thus the Olympics has said that is you have a biological male advantage as measured by the test we give you, you are considered a man and can't compete. In other words they being the Olympics and individual sports federations don't make any distinction.

Then we get to the trans label. My understanding is trans is someone who identifies as another gender that they are assigned. Despite what has been said by SYCasey here about taking hormones or the like, it is pretty clear that actually transitioning in any way (such as receiving female hormones) is a personal choice. Those not taking hormones or any other transitioning still retain the trans status.

As I understand, a person's gender identity is based on how they feel inside, not on gene tests or body parts. If a trans woman continues to identify as a woman after a gene test says she has male chromosomes, she is still a transgender woman. Gene tests do not change a person's true gender identity. So those who label, would consider Khelfi a trans woman, where she likely just considers herself a woman. But I hope that answers Diablos's questioning on whether trans women are winning (I don't make-up the rules on labels). In any event, the labels are irrelevant for Khefil who will now be considered a man for purposes of competing in her sport.

Whether what is deemed a biological male should compete in women's sports is a different issue to most women and lot of men, than whatever political conspiracy you see taking advantage of the issue. You don't seem to understand that. What you are sayig is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a sheep being taken advantage of. I'm not sure you read anything this long, so let me put this more simply, by quoting Bearister:

"It is ridiculous, but not for the reason trans women athletes think it is. It is exclusively a fairness issue, not a political or a discrimination issue."

And it is an issue the WNBA management better figure out, because it doesn't seem to be going away. What happens if a WNBA player like say Griner (I don't really know this is a concern for her, but everyome seems to equate her with being a man) is on an Olympic team, is tested, disqualified and outed?

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Intense global debates sparked by events in the Tokyo and Paris games where transgender athletes dominated in several sports forced the IOC to reevaluate its position, after undertaking a lengthy study, and then to ban trans athletes

---

Who were the transgender athletes that dominated in Paris and Tokyo?

---

That is a great question, and maybe I should have said "allegedly". Because it gets real interesting. The most well known cases that are pointed out are various medal winning boxers (e.g., Imane Khief) and judo participants that were determined by their individual sport Olympic Federation to not be women based on genetic testing and the results were overturned by the International Olympic Committee (at the time, that IOC rules allowed men who identified as women to compete). So are they "transexuals"? I'm not really sure how the Olympics will now determine biological gender since they have now determined that biological men cannot compete, not matter how they identify. None of the women that were viewed by their sport associations as men had ever viewed themselves as men or transsexuals. There was an openly transgender woman that won a gold medal in soccer, and two other openly trans women, one in weightlifting and the other in mogul skiing that did okay, but didn't win medals. The whole thing is a quagmire, but as should be obvious from this thread, it is a big deal to a lotta people.

---

My point is that I don't recall any transgender athletes that "dominated" in Tokyo.
The weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard failed to register a lift in three attempts in Tokyo.

Imane Khelif won Gold in boxing in Paris.

She has a female phenotype but also the SRY gene, which is correlated with males.
She has female hormones and she had lowered her testosterone for competition.
For the qualifying tournament at the Paris Games (held in Dakar) she had lowered her testosterone level to zero.

Khelif said she is willing to undergo testing in order to defend her Olympic title, as long as it is conducted by the IOC.

---

Yeah we should be clear about Khelif that she is not "a man," she is intersex, a person with both male and female chromosomes. People like that are often raised as girls because they externally present as such (no *****) and may well have no idea about their condition until they find out later. That's pretty plausible given that she was raised in Iran, not exactly the most progressive place about gender fluidity.

The governing body for the sport decided that these kinds of intersex people shouldn't compete in women's boxing, which is not quite the same as saying someone like Khelif was "a man." Legitimately tricky problem with categorizing a person there.

---

But they told us there are only 2 genders and everybody is either born a man or a woman.

---

They?

Actually the Olympics now say that if you have the SRK gene you are a man and can't compete. Read my other post. Which since we can now leave the whole loaded trans label behind, is someone has a biological advantage of a man, should they be able to compete in women's sports without all the crap about about leaders propagating the rich ruling the world and Americans (and the rest of the world that competes in sports) being propagandized, and all the other stuff you throw in to avoid actually talking about the issue?

---

Yes, that is what they told us. Now you are telling me that somebody who was identified female at birth has now been re-gendered by the IOC? Were they wrong?

If I am not discussing exactly what you want me to discuss it is because I discuss what I think is important

---

Who exactly is the evil "they"?

Just guessing, but you are not getting there is a distinction between someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth and who seeks to physically align their body with the gender they want to identity through a medical process in contrast that there are people who are assigned an identity at birth that is not reflected in their actual gene make-up (I'm saying that in general laymen terms). The people who are concerned about women's sports generally don't want either group playing in women's sports. And thus the Olympics has said that is you have a biological male advantage as measured by the test we give you, you are considered a man and can't compete. In other words they being the Olympics and individual sports federations don't make any distinction.

Then we get to the trans label. My understanding is trans is someone who identifies as another gender that they are assigned. Despite what has been said by SYCasey here about taking hormones or the like, it is pretty clear that actually transitioning in any way (such as receiving female hormones) is a personal choice. Those not taking hormones or any other transitioning still retain the trans status.

As I understand, a person's gender identity is based on how they feel inside, not on gene tests or body parts. If a trans woman continues to identify as a woman after a gene test says she has male chromosomes, she is still a transgender woman. Gene tests do not change a person's true gender identity. So those who label, would consider Khelfi a trans woman, where she likely just considers herself a woman. But I hope that answers Diablos's questioning on whether trans women are winning (I don't make-up the rules on labels). In any event, the labels are irrelevant for Khefil who will now be considered a man for purposes of competing in her sport.

Whether what is deemed a biological male should compete in women's sports is a different issue to most women and lot of men, than whatever political conspiracy you see taking advantage of the issue. You don't seem to understand that. What you are sayig is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a sheep being taken advantage of. I'm not sure you read anything this long, so let me put this more simply, by quoting Bearister:

"It is ridiculous, but not for the reason trans women athletes think it is. It is exclusively a fairness issue, not a political or a discrimination issue."

And it is an issue the WNBA management better figure out, because it doesn't seem to be going away. What happens if a WNBA player like say Griner (I don't really know this is a concern for her, but everyome seems to equate her with being a man) is on an Olympic team, is tested, disqualified and outed?

---

Sounds like they were wrong.

When you say I consider anyone who disagrees with me to be a sheep, I have to ask - disagrees about what? Are you creating straw men again?

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Intense global debates sparked by events in the Tokyo and Paris games where transgender athletes dominated in several sports forced the IOC to reevaluate its position, after undertaking a lengthy study, and then to ban trans athletes

---

Who were the transgender athletes that dominated in Paris and Tokyo?

---

That is a great question, and maybe I should have said "allegedly". Because it gets real interesting. The most well known cases that are pointed out are various medal winning boxers (e.g., Imane Khief) and judo participants that were determined by their individual sport Olympic Federation to not be women based on genetic testing and the results were overturned by the International Olympic Committee (at the time, that IOC rules allowed men who identified as women to compete). So are they "transexuals"? I'm not really sure how the Olympics will now determine biological gender since they have now determined that biological men cannot compete, not matter how they identify. None of the women that were viewed by their sport associations as men had ever viewed themselves as men or transsexuals. There was an openly transgender woman that won a gold medal in soccer, and two other openly trans women, one in weightlifting and the other in mogul skiing that did okay, but didn't win medals. The whole thing is a quagmire, but as should be obvious from this thread, it is a big deal to a lotta people.

---

My point is that I don't recall any transgender athletes that "dominated" in Tokyo.
The weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard failed to register a lift in three attempts in Tokyo.

Imane Khelif won Gold in boxing in Paris.

She has a female phenotype but also the SRY gene, which is correlated with males.
She has female hormones and she had lowered her testosterone for competition.
For the qualifying tournament at the Paris Games (held in Dakar) she had lowered her testosterone level to zero.

Khelif said she is willing to undergo testing in order to defend her Olympic title, as long as it is conducted by the IOC.

---

Yeah we should be clear about Khelif that she is not "a man," she is intersex, a person with both male and female chromosomes. People like that are often raised as girls because they externally present as such (no *****) and may well have no idea about their condition until they find out later. That's pretty plausible given that she was raised in Iran, not exactly the most progressive place about gender fluidity.

The governing body for the sport decided that these kinds of intersex people shouldn't compete in women's boxing, which is not quite the same as saying someone like Khelif was "a man." Legitimately tricky problem with categorizing a person there.

---

But they told us there are only 2 genders and everybody is either born a man or a woman.

---

They?

Actually the Olympics now say that if you have the SRK gene you are a man and can't compete. Read my other post. Which since we can now leave the whole loaded trans label behind, is someone has a biological advantage of a man, should they be able to compete in women's sports without all the crap about about leaders propagating the rich ruling the world and Americans (and the rest of the world that competes in sports) being propagandized, and all the other stuff you throw in to avoid actually talking about the issue?

---

Yes, that is what they told us. Now you are telling me that somebody who was identified female at birth has now been re-gendered by the IOC? Were they wrong?

If I am not discussing exactly what you want me to discuss it is because I discuss what I think is important

---

Who exactly is the evil "they"?

Just guessing, but you are not getting there is a distinction between someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth and who seeks to physically align their body with the gender they want to identity through a medical process in contrast that there are people who are assigned an identity at birth that is not reflected in their actual gene make-up (I'm saying that in general laymen terms). The people who are concerned about women's sports generally don't want either group playing in women's sports. And thus the Olympics has said that is you have a biological male advantage as measured by the test we give you, you are considered a man and can't compete. In other words they being the Olympics and individual sports federations don't make any distinction.

Then we get to the trans label. My understanding is trans is someone who identifies as another gender that they are assigned. Despite what has been said by SYCasey here about taking hormones or the like, it is pretty clear that actually transitioning in any way (such as receiving female hormones) is a personal choice. Those not taking hormones or any other transitioning still retain the trans status.

As I understand, a person's gender identity is based on how they feel inside, not on gene tests or body parts. If a trans woman continues to identify as a woman after a gene test says she has male chromosomes, she is still a transgender woman. Gene tests do not change a person's true gender identity. So those who label, would consider Khelfi a trans woman, where she likely just considers herself a woman. But I hope that answers Diablos's questioning on whether trans women are winning (I don't make-up the rules on labels). In any event, the labels are irrelevant for Khefil who will now be considered a man for purposes of competing in her sport.

Whether what is deemed a biological male should compete in women's sports is a different issue to most women and lot of men, than whatever political conspiracy you see taking advantage of the issue. You don't seem to understand that. What you are sayig is anyone that doesn't agree with you is a sheep being taken advantage of. I'm not sure you read anything this long, so let me put this more simply, by quoting Bearister:

"It is ridiculous, but not for the reason trans women athletes think it is. It is exclusively a fairness issue, not a political or a discrimination issue."

And it is an issue the WNBA management better figure out, because it doesn't seem to be going away. What happens if a WNBA player like say Griner (I don't really know this is a concern for her, but everyome seems to equate her with being a man) is on an Olympic team, is tested, disqualified and outed?

---

Sounds like they were wrong.

When you say I consider anyone who disagrees with me to be a sheep, I have to ask - disagrees about what? Are you creating straw men again?

---

Who is they you keep referring to and why are "they" wrong? You sound just like Trump frequently using the pronoun "they" in his speeches and interviews as a rhetorical device to establish an "us versus them" dynamic.

In this thread you disagree with the 75% of Americans who want only people born female to play in women sports. Recall you were the one that said Americans with this view "are highly propagandized and easily led." Sodden likje sheep tome - so go eat some straw.

The WNBA responded by saying they have no Trans athletes and the issue therefore is moot. They also said only biological women, not those born men, can play, and that the attempts by the two men were in bad faith. So on to refs?

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

36% of high school-aged girls actively play on a sports team.

---

99.9% will never face a trans athlete.

---

Millions of marketing dollars and / or free media is spent to raise alarm about this non-issue because the ruling class needs scapegoats to generate votes so they can continue taking all the money. Americans are highly propagandized and easily led.

---

Yes, Americans are highly propagandized and easily led. But the rest of your claim about me believing people I disagree with are sheep is your imagination. In this case, people I agree with are sheep. It's not the belief that I am questioning, it is the fervor of the belief - I couldn't imagine wasting a Federal vote over the issue while they are robbing us blind. So chew on that.

Former NBA player and transgender woman, Ms. Royce White has formally declared for the 2027 WNBA draft.

I hope the Indiana Fever drafts her, Caitlin needs some bodyguards on her side.

dajo9 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

36% of high school-aged girls actively play on a sports team.

---

99.9% will never face a trans athlete.

---

Millions of marketing dollars and / or free media is spent to raise alarm about this non-issue because the ruling class needs scapegoats to generate votes so they can continue taking all the money. Americans are highly propagandized and easily led.

---

Yes, Americans are highly propagandized and easily led. But the rest of your claim about me believing people I disagree with are sheep is your imagination. In this case, people I agree with are sheep. It's not the belief that I am questioning, it is the fervor of the belief - I couldn't imagine wasting a Federal vote over the issue while they are robbing us blind. So chew on that.

---

I don't understand a lot of this. I assume that people you agree with are progressives and you say they are sheep. Okay, if you say so, but I question that.

The fervor of those concerned about women's athletics is from a lot people who participate in girls/women's athletics or have love ones that do. Athletics serves in the country as a strong part of education, community identity, and cultural entertainment, and girls/women want to participate. I understand that because I know a lot of girls and women who compete. You obviously don't go in those circles and think their concerns are trivial. The vast majority of Americans and countries where sports are important don't agree with you.

You also don't hang around legal circles. There has not been any Federal vote on the issue, each state or where applicable, sports association, has their own rules on trans athletes. Trump issued an executive order which has had no legal effect, like a lot of his orders. SCOTUS ruled that State can ban on trans athletes are permissible. So as often is the case, you are just wrong on the facts.

But the view on trans/women's athletics reflects an elitist view that runs through progressive/democratic socialist circles. The robbing us blind fits perfectly with democratic/socialist emotionally charged messaging that has nothing to do with trans/women's athletics, and is ideologically biased, identity political garbage used to fowrard utopian ideology which is dividing the opposition to Trump and seems to be heading to a bad outcome in November at a time when there is an unpopular President. Chew on that for a while.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

36% of high school-aged girls actively play on a sports team.

---

99.9% will never face a trans athlete.

---

Millions of marketing dollars and / or free media is spent to raise alarm about this non-issue because the ruling class needs scapegoats to generate votes so they can continue taking all the money. Americans are highly propagandized and easily led.

---

Yes, Americans are highly propagandized and easily led. But the rest of your claim about me believing people I disagree with are sheep is your imagination. In this case, people I agree with are sheep. It's not the belief that I am questioning, it is the fervor of the belief - I couldn't imagine wasting a Federal vote over the issue while they are robbing us blind. So chew on that.

---

I don't understand a lot of this. I assume that people you agree with are progressives and you say they are sheep. Okay, if you say so, but I question that.

The fervor of those concerned about women's athletics is from a lot people who participate in girls/women's athletics or have love ones that do. Athletics serves in the country as a strong part of education, community identity, and cultural entertainment, and girls/women want to participate. I understand that because I know a lot of girls and women who compete. You obviously don't go in those circles and think their concerns are trivial. The vast majority of Americans and countries where sports are important don't agree with you.

You also don't hang around legal circles. There has not been any Federal vote on the issue, each state or where applicable, sports association, has their own rules on trans athletes. Trump issued an executive order which has had no legal effect, like a lot of his orders. SCOTUS ruled that State can ban on trans athletes are permissible. So as often is the case, you are just wrong on the facts.

But the view on trans/women's athletics reflects an elitist view that runs through progressive/democratic socialist circles. The robbing us blind fits perfectly with democratic/socialist emotionally charged messaging that has nothing to do with trans/women's athletics, and is ideologically biased, identity political garbage used to fowrard utopian ideology which is dividing the opposition to Trump and seems to be heading to a bad outcome in November at a time when there is an unpopular President. Chew on that for a while.

---

Are you claiming that Trump didn't openly campaign against trans in women's sports?

You should have just stopped after "I don't understand a lot of this" instead of going on to prove it.

---

No where did I ever discuss what Trump didn't or did campaign on. Again, I simply don't understand what you are talking about.

But a cute attempt a gotcha Mr. Federal Vote. I didn't understand a lot of your post because what you say is propaganda, rather than factually true. Progressive are not sheep, there is no Federal Vote, it is a state or non-governmental issue, ad nauseam. You just simply start saying ideological buzz stuff which doesn't make sense.

Any politician with a brain would have campaigned against trans/women in women's sports. You simply fail to grasp why this is an important issue. It is like being not being against Thanksgiving. That Trump gets this and left doesn't bespeaks to why we he wins elections despite being a divisive and flawed individual. There is a real issue that ideologues like yourself who vote for democratic socialist candidates will jeopardize the Democratic attempts to gain control in the Senate and House, leaving Trump even more runway.

You are the one that conflated Trump and politics into the conversation about trans players in the WNBA. Chew on that.

Big C said:

---

I realize this is one of those 80/20 issues that are Democrat Killers. That said I wish it could be handled with some nuance. On page 3 of this thread, I gave two made-up cases of trans girls/women participating in sports with biological females. First case, most everyone would say "no way". Second case, I think a lot of people would be fine with. So I'm not in favor of the one-size-fits-all approach.

Of course, I understand that trying to get most voters to consider nuance is basically a lost cause.

---

I also think it's overstating it to say that this specific issue had a big effect on the election. I don't think this is a super high-salience issue. IMO Trump won in 2024 mostly because voters were mad about the economy, immigration, and Biden being too old (and trying to run again). And this isn't just me saying something was low importance because I disagree with the position that's won. I don't agree with the Republican position on immigration but it clearly did win and was a high-salience thing. Trans athletes in women's sports is a niche thing.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

This issue doesn't affect me or anyone else here.
True?
False?

We could discuss my stamp collection, too, if people want to.

---

It is a subject being discussed publicly, and I and others here happen to follow women's basketball, and some others want to say why they don't.

If you don't think it is relevant, go somewhere else. Obviously the other posters on the thread had something to say. Who appointed you the God of what can be said or not said?

---

I
So tell us, counselor, how do you write laws for people like them?

---

Since you asked, the sports world seems to now be saying no biological males in women's sports. There is gene testing to determine gender, though as discussed, it is not 100% perfect. But I assume most sports entities will follow the Olympics model. I'm not sure how state law will address this - they may just let the sports bodies make the decision. Not everything in the world has to be controlled by a government law

I have been watching women's basketball for some time, and while I appreciate many of the women are openly gay, it really is not a factor in my watching the games, and I suspect that is true for most fans.

The perspective of a Seattle journalist

After 11 years as a sports columnist at the Seattle Times, I have decided to resign. It was entirely my choice, and it was not an easy one. The impetus was the Times declining to run a column I wrote from the perspective of two female student athletes who were opposed to…

— Matt Calkins (@Matt_Calkins) August 20, 2026

The American flag is a wonderful symbol of our country that has been ruined by MAGA.



Similarly, trans women competing against biological women is patently absurd and is unsupported by a single colorable argument but MAGA putting their dirty paw prints all over the issue and politicizing it is really not helping resolve the matter.

bearister said:

---

The American flag is a wonderful symbol of our country that has been ruined by MAGA.

---

This is such a ridiculous statement. The American flag goes beyond any party, any group, any person. For you, and others, to allow yourself to think less of the flag says way more about you than it does anyone else

BearlySane88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

The American flag is a wonderful symbol of our country that has been ruined by MAGA.

---

This is such a ridiculous statement. The American flag goes beyond any party, any group, any person. For you, and others, to allow yourself to think less of the flag says way more about you than it does anyone else

---

In this country, MAGA has co opted patriotism and everything associated with it, including the flag…..and everyone knows it.

American flags on steel poles were used to batter Capitol police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.



*I fully embrace your disapproval of me as a human being.

No, the left and Trump haters have turned the flag into a symbol of MAGA. The shame is on you, not the other way around.

BearlySane88 said:

---

No, the left and Trump haters have turned the flag into a symbol of MAGA. The shame is on you, not the other way around.

---

* Scholars of fascism, political commentators, and civil rights groups argue that the specific layout and choice of symbols frequently mirror authoritarian aesthetics, sometimes crossing into explicit far-right iconography:
The Aesthetics of Propaganda: Totalitarian regimes, including Nazi Germany, pioneered the use of massive, uniform flag backdrops to submerge individual identity into a singular, state-directed mass movement. Critics point out that filling stages with repetitive symbols aims for a similar psychological effect.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I realize this is one of those 80/20 issues that are Democrat Killers. That said I wish it could be handled with some nuance. On page 3 of this thread, I gave two made-up cases of trans girls/women participating in sports with biological females. First case, most everyone would say "no way". Second case, I think a lot of people would be fine with. So I'm not in favor of the one-size-fits-all approach.

Of course, I understand that trying to get most voters to consider nuance is basically a lost cause.

---

I also think it's overstating it to say that this specific issue had a big effect on the election. I don't think this is a super high-salience issue. IMO Trump won in 2024 mostly because voters were mad about the economy, immigration, and Biden being too old (and trying to run again). And this isn't just me saying something was low importance because I disagree with the position that's won. I don't agree with the Republican position on immigration but it clearly did win and was a high-salience thing. Trans athletes in women's sports is a niche thing.

---

It is a big niche, and the problem was it was a bipartisan niche so it gets a lot of play. Women and girls do care.

Did it change so many votes or views to change the election results of what was a winnable election for Harris- probably not by itself, but in combination with other views that were not seen as mainstream, it was a factor. The polls say the election turned on issues SYCasey described, but I would add another factor which was Harris herself. Harris's past liberal positions, which likely seemed mainstream in her native Bay Area, came back to haunt her. The Gallup post-election poll found 51 percent of voters described Harris as "too liberal," while just 6 percent deemed her "too conservative." To quote Charlie Kirk to Gavin Newsom, the GOP "simply ran out of time before we ran out of video clips of Kamala Harris saying wacky liberal things." Trans athletes was just one of many things that fell into this category. And she responded to word salad when asked about these issues, rather than either simply saying I changed my mind (something Trump does all the time) or arguging why he earlier position was correct. As a result, Harris managed underperformed Biden with almost every demographic and in every state.

(The other issue was the most astounding demographic shifts according to exit polls, where most pro-abortion voters said they did not let that issue drive their presidential vote.)
,
Not only did Trump easily win the presidential race, taking all 7 battleground states, but riding Trump's coattails Republicans took control of the Senate and the House. 2024 has turned out to be the best GOP showing in the US House popular vote since 1928. I say this to people who argue these are just niche issues, they were used to stereotype Harris when accumulated, and were definitely a factor in her crushing loss.

It is difficult to have a dialogue with furd. He is a prolific straw man creator. He also refuses to acknowledge arguments outside the framework for which he wants to discuss things. So, if you go outside his chosen framework, he just puts it aside and makes up an argument for you.

dajo9 said:

---

It is difficult to have a dialogue with furd. He is a prolific straw man creator. He also refuses to acknowledge arguments outside the framework for which he wants to discuss things. So, if you go outside his chosen framework, he just puts it aside and makes up an argument for you.

---

I think some would argue that you just wrote a paragraph describing interactions with you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Not only did Trump easily win the presidential race, taking all 7 battleground states, but riding Trump's coattails Republicans took control of the Senate and the House. 2024 has turned out to be the best GOP showing in the US House popular vote since 1928. I say this to people who argue these are just niche issues, they were used to stereotype Harris when accumulated, and were definitely a factor in her crushing loss.

---

I would quibble with "easily" as a description here. He won by about 1% of the vote. That's nationally and in the swing states. That means that if the electorate had swung about 1% in the other direction he would have lost. It was just a close race, but in a polarized country with so many of the swing states swinging together, that can be enough to produce a superficially large Electoral College total. In reality the margin was on a razor's edge.

I'm sure this issue was one factor that swayed some votes, and maybe in a close enough race that's enough to make the difference. That's theoretically possible. I'm just really skeptical of pushing this as a major issue when if Harris/Biden/Democrats had better trust on the economy or immigration that would have had a much bigger effect.