South Dakota Transgender Bill...

[carpedm9587]

Or adopt New York's bizarre "gender neutral" birth certificates.

Now that IS odd...

[seer]

No. I think this should go one of two ways. Either schools should have three tracks for sports: all-male, all-female, and gender-neutral; or they should just have gender-neutral.

Right spend all this money for a hand full of delusional kids who may grow out of it in adulthood. Many, if not the majority, of kids, do not carry their transgender identity into adulthood. http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01...y-grow_99.html

[seer]

Now that IS odd...

Why, it logically follows the madness of the left...

[carpedm9587]

Why, it logically follows the madness of the left...

Not from my perspective. Except in the case of the true hermaphrodite, where confusion abounds, we are all born with a specific sex type. Omitting it from our birth certificate is akin to omitting hair color, eye color, and race from our certificate. That we can CHANGE that assignment is a function of modern science, so we need to consider ways to reflect that in our legal structure. I'm not sure changing a birth certificate is the way to go, but perhaps modern IDs that include our birth assignment and our "new" assignment? I'm not sure - I haven't thought that part through.

But to simply omit a key describing characteristic from our base identification documentation? That is decidedly odd, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Right spend all this money for a hand full of delusional kids who may grow out of it in adulthood. Many, if not the majority, of kids, do not carry their transgender identity into adulthood. http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01...y-grow_99.html

I don't see this as a numbers game - and my perspective is not limited to transgender people. There are women who want to compete with men and are capable of doing so, but they are constrained from doing so by our current separation. I believe a person should always have the freedom to excel to the extent of their capabilities. I don't think women should be excluded from anything on the basis of being women. I think they should be excluded/included on the basis of their ability to participate.

So the NFL should be open to women. Basketball should be open to women. Baseball should be open to women. The military should be open to women. Anyone who believes that they have the skill and ability should be able to try out and be judged on their abilities, and not on the presence or absence of particular genitalia.

That being said, on average, women do tend to be slighter then men, so there will be some women who only wish to compete with other women. Therein lies my conundrum. If we ONLY have gender-neutral sports, men will, on average, best women. Across the board, the best times, greatest weights, etc. are all men. Does it HAVE to be that way? Is there a degree to which our society's constant refrain of "men are stronger and faster than women" contribute to the reality it describes? My gut says yes - at least to some degree. But right now that is the reality. So how do we address that?

Perhaps we base sports on skills classes rather than gender. This happens in boxing all the time, where there are distinct weight classes. Could something like that be used to erase the current sex-based classification? Maybe. It needs to be considered, IMO.

[seer]

I don't see this as a numbers game - and my perspective is not limited to transgender people. There are women who want to compete with men and are capable of doing so, but they are constrained from doing so by our current separation. I believe a person should always have the freedom to excel to the extent of their capabilities. I don't think women should be excluded from anything on the basis of being women. I think they should be excluded/included on the basis of their ability to participate.

Should men equally be able to participate in women's sports? But neither would involve more spending on tracks and such, as it would with transgenders as a separate class.

So the NFL should be open to women. Basketball should be open to women. Baseball should be open to women. The military should be open to women. Anyone who believes that they have the skill and ability should be able to try out and be judged on their abilities, and not on the presence or absence of particular genitalia.

As long as, with the Military, they don't lower the standards. And I'm not sure that women can't try out for the NBA and I think there is a female kicker coming up in the NFL.

That being said, on average, women do tend to be slighter then men, so there will be some women who only wish to compete with other women. Therein lies my conundrum. If we ONLY have gender-neutral sports, men will, on average, best women. Across the board, the best times, greatest weights, etc. are all men. Does it HAVE to be that way? Is there a degree to which our society's constant refrain of "men are stronger and faster than women" contribute to the reality it describes? My gut says yes - at least to some degree. But right now that is the reality. So how do we address that?

There is no need to address it, most of this is simply biological. I have no problem with women competing under the same rules. If a 125lb women wants to fight a 125lb man, no big deal.

[lilpixieofterror]

Should men equally be able to participate in women's sports? But neither would involve more spending on tracks and such, as it would with transgenders as a separate class.



As long as, with the Military, they don't lower the standards. And I'm not sure that women can't try out for the NBA and I think there is a female kicker coming up in the NFL.



There is no need to address it, most of this is simply biological. I have no problem with women competing under the same rules. If a 125lb women wants to fight a 125lb man, no big deal.

[carpedm9587]

Should men equally be able to participate in women's sports?

I addressed this later in the post.

But neither would involve more spending on tracks and such, as it would with transgenders as a separate class.

At no point did I make this suggestion.

As long as, with the Military, they don't lower the standards. And I'm not sure that women can't try out for the NBA and I think there is a female kicker coming up in the NFL.

Where they set the standards is irrelevant to me, as long as the standards are the same for everyone. In many instances, the standards more or less set themselves. If I am looking for the best available, and I have 20 openings - then my "standard" will be the capability of the 20th-best person I interview/test.

There is no need to address it, most of this is simply biological. I have no problem with women competing under the same rules. If a 125lb women wants to fight a 125lb man, no big deal.

We seem to agree. I suspect that many sports could be arranged in weight classes: boxing, weight lifting, football, etc. Essentially any sport that is based on strength. More skill-based sports would seem to me to require no sorting. I have never understood why we have to have a woman's golf circuit and a men's golf circuit. I have to wonder if tennis needs to be organized by sex. Many things are the way they are for no other reason than they've always been that way.

And I would dearly love to have someone study the degree to which our culture and norms contribute to this "women cannot be as strong or fast as men." I'm not sure how that would be done - but I cannot imagine that the impact is zero. I'm sure biology would lead to some degree of difference - but I wonder how much that gap would narrow if we didn't continually pound home the "women are weaker and slower than men" theme.

[KingsGambit]

I think there is a female kicker coming up in the NFL.

There are a lot of clickbait articles about Becca Longo but she isn't a serious NFL prospect. She plays at a lower division college and hasn't managed to make it on the field yet, and she has stated that her long field goal range is 54 yards - not nearly good enough.

[lilpixieofterror]

I addressed this later in the post.



At no point did I make this suggestion.



Where they set the standards is irrelevant to me, as long as the standards are the same for everyone. In many instances, the standards more or less set themselves. If I am looking for the best available, and I have 20 openings - then my "standard" will be the capability of the 20th-best person I interview/test.



We seem to agree. I suspect that many sports could be arranged in weight classes: boxing, weight lifting, football, etc. Essentially any sport that is based on strength. More skill-based sports would seem to me to require no sorting. I have never understood why we have to have a woman's golf circuit and a men's golf circuit. I have to wonder if tennis needs to be organized by sex. Many things are the way they are for no other reason than they've always been that way.

And I would dearly love to have someone study the degree to which our culture and norms contribute to this "women cannot be as strong or fast as men." I'm not sure how that would be done - but I cannot imagine that the impact is zero. I'm sure biology would lead to some degree of difference - but I wonder how much that gap would narrow if we didn't continually pound home the "women are weaker and slower than men" theme.

[carpedm9587]

That makes a certain amount of sense. However, I suspect separating by weight class - or perhaps by "strength class" would seem to address this without having to resort to male/female distinctions, and might actually result in a sport more focused on skill than strength.

At no point did I suggest that there is no difference biologically between men and women - so I'm not sure exactly what you think I was "wrong" about.

[carpedm9587]

There are a lot of clickbait articles about Becca Longo but she isn't a serious NFL prospect. She plays at a lower division college and hasn't managed to make it on the field yet, and she has stated that her long field goal range is 54 yards - not nearly good enough.

Interesting. I would think that accuracy is at least as important as range. If I had someone with a 100% accuracy record out to 40 yards and 0% accurate beyond that, and someone else who is 90% accurate to 40 yards and 50% accurate to 70 yards, I'd probably want them BOTH on my team - with the more accurate one for shorter kicks and the less accurate one for the longer kicks.

But then again - I have not followed football for a long time, and I'm sure payroll plays a factor as well.

[lilpixieofterror]

That makes a certain amount of sense. However, I suspect separating by weight class - or perhaps by "strength class" would seem to address this without having to resort to male/female distinctions, and might actually result in a sport more focused on skill than strength.

At no point did I suggest that there is no difference biologically between men and women - so I'm not sure exactly what you think I was "wrong" about.

[carpedm9587]

Or the same could be achieved by basing the class on strength rather than sex. There are many ways to measure strength - which is the actual issue. That would also sort men into such classes, evening the playing field in much the same way it is done for boxing.

No - I didn't suggest anything of the kind. You are misreading my posts.

[KingsGambit]

Interesting. I would think that accuracy is at least as important as range. If I had someone with a 100% accuracy record out to 40 yards and 0% accurate beyond that, and someone else who is 90% accurate to 40 yards and 50% accurate to 70 yards, I'd probably want them BOTH on my team - with the more accurate one for shorter kicks and the less accurate one for the longer kicks.

But then again - I have not followed football for a long time, and I'm sure payroll plays a factor as well.

There are enough kickers in the college ranks who have both accuracy and length beyond 60 yards that her skillset just isn't good enough. having said that her story is still an amazing one and she has come a long way.