In reality, NCAA President Charlie Baker recently testified that fewer than 10 transgender athletes are currently participating among the 510,000 student-athletes in NCAA programs.
This is the context that republicans completely ignore. .002% of college athletes are trans. That’s barely even a rounding error.
In particular, if it's 10 kids, you can absolutely look at each individual kid and find out 1) are they actually even good at sports? and 2) what's their motivation for sport?
I would bet money that all ten of them are mediocre and really just want to live their lives like a normal kid.
Isn't that the point though, that it affects the 99%?
If half are in each division, and if a few athletes out of 250,000 all perform in the top 1% or better because they switched to a protected division displacing 99%+ who don't have arguable eligibility for that protected division...
I don't know if that's the statistic, but isn't that the general concept? That it's unfair to a huge number of other athletes that lose?
Are those fewer than 10 trans athletes competing in the NCAA performing in the top 1% or better? Should all trans athletes suffer because Riley Gaines tied for 5th place with a trans woman once?
Thanks, for any of this argument to hold any water it has to be demonstrated that trans athletes have any sort of advantage.
This is reminding me of something I just watched, the 30 for 30 about Oscar Pistorius. One of the paraathletes they interviewed commented on how welcoming and excited everyone was when Oscar started competing outside of the paraathletic events. It was only once he demonstrated that he could beat “able bodied” athletes that people started getting pissy. This guy also pointed out the disadvantages that running prosthetics introduce, but people only focus on the fact that the running prosthetics conserve momentum better than human ankles do.
At the end of the day, most every sport isn’t fair. You need time, money, luck, the right coaches, mentors, I could go on and on.
So true. Trans athletes are allowed to succeed, so it should not change anything even if they are, but broadly speaking, this is not what's happening. The state of Georgia just banned trans women from women's sports through high school, there are currently 0 known athletes who precipitated this ban. The Scottish FA just banned trans women from women's leagues, this affects 1 woman playing recreationally. The women's pro rugby union in the United States, WER, has (I'm pretty sure) only 1 trans woman athlete, her team is currently in last place and has yet to win a game.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. They come in all shapes and sizes and varieties and they deserve inclusion no matter their unique form.
That's the question I posed even though 8 people currently are illiterate and downvoted
Well, the answer is no, transgender athletes are not dominating competitions. Even if they were, trans athletes are allowed to succeed, but there's no evidence to indicate that this is happening regardless.
I didn't downvote your comment, but I don't blame people for reading it as coming from a disingenuous place. Big "I'm just asking questions" vibes.
That makes the assumption that trans athletes consistently outperform cis athletes, which there isn't evidence of. A trans person winning something does not mean all trans people will always have an advantage, which is the assumption conservatives make. What place does a trans person need to place for it to be okay? Are trans people ever allowed to win? Any time a trans person places above any cis person, it's used as evidence of unfairness, even though that makes no sense.
John Oliver did a piece on it a while ago, which gives a pretty good overview of the situation: https://tube.fede.re/videos/watch/16650f54-3c69-4d81-b7ae-17f0a3889dbd
As a German, I feel obliged to tell you, though, that yes, it does only concern 1%, or probably rather even 0.1%, of the population, because that is the fascist playbook. You pick out a minority and declare them the enemy, so you don't have to solve real problems. Don't get me wrong, there is a legitimate conflict here between the interests of cis women and trans women.
But it's not nearly as relevant as the fascists make it out to be. And most situations can be resolved with nuance, which is something that fascists hate. For example, whether trans athletes are better at sports is only relevant when it's about prize money. We don't need to be bullying kids for wanting to belong into a friend group.
And you'll find plenty trans athletes that are simply less athletic than their cis counterparts, too. I'll gladly serve as living proof that folks with a penis in their pants can be less athletic than folks with a vagina. That's where the real source of conflict comes from, that women's sports is a pretty arbitrary line to draw for opening up a second league. I do think women's sports still has merit, because again, nuance. But I really don't think that it's worth ruining the lives of trans women.
Nice he's great.
I agree with your second point. I think civilized literate people have to have the nuanced discussion, and I agree the rest is just a hatred playbook.
I too recommend John Oliver's explanation, it really clearly shows how little those few trans people matter to sports in general and how much sports matters to those specific trans individuals.
There is a conflict here between the interests of SOME cis women and trans women. You only need look to women's rugby or roller derby, 2 sports both very decidedly on one far end of the sports physicality spectrum, to see how little conflict is actually necessary.
Boss lady puts diaper baby to bed lol
Must be nice to have a governor who cares that kids get to eat.
Tell me about it... - Indiana
Not gonna lie, it's the first time I've been ok with my state politics.
-Illinois
meanwhile in Florida
Any time the Orange Turd loses the world is a better place.
not really, because he just ignores them. Who's gonna stop him? Us?
While it is true that courts don't really stop him. This still shows that not everyone bends the knee to him. It shows that he doesn't have complete total support. And, most importantly, there are some politicians that do have a spine. Even if their intentions are misplaced or malicious, I'll take anything to stop Trump. Can't comply in advance.
You have to be a ghoul to want children to be hungry and unable to live their best life. Unfortunately, we will need a great deal of holy water.
He's losing all lawsuits, he's ignoring the results.
I don't think people here understand this yet: he doesn't care. He won't abide by any court rulings and there's no one to make him do it. Your system was always broken, and your rights are just a gentleman's agreement. Now you ran out of gentlemen.
Yeah, in spite of Trump literally being a felon while also being president, people still can't shake the idea that he's somehow forced to follow the law. He's actively ignoring a bunch of judicial orders, but people keep celebrating whenever another is added to the pile. We're simply unable to understand that when Trump - or any rich person for that matter - gets a sentence that "makes them" do something, they can just... not. And nothing bad will happen to them.
Has he paid any of the money he was supposed for the slander/libel/ breaking new York laws or whatever? Or has it just been reduced to nothing.
I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised if he didn't use his power as president to dodge it somehow. Or he just ignored it - who's going to actually come after him over it anyway?
Sorry, I'm a foreigner and I don't understand much. Someone cares to explain? Should the police normally enforce judicial orders and sentences? Why do they not? Is the police personally loyal to Trump?
Basically, people do what the law enforcement - like police and judges - say because they go to jail for a long time if they don't. There are plenty of other punishments that aren't jail, but those are really only enforced with the threat of jail time if you don't comply, so it all comes back to jail in the end. Nobody's going to come after Trump to put him in jail because he's the president, and even before then, he had enough money to make sure nobody came after him anyway.
Nobody but the wealthy know exactly how they get away with their crimes, but I'd imagine some high-ranking members of the police force and probably several other people from other government agencies are willing to look the other way for a bit of cash, which allows the people who have that cash to essentially treat every crime like nothing more than a fine.
Thank you for your insightful reply.
I also found this: https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/trumps-politicization-of-the-u-s-marshals-service-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy/
It says that one of the primary functions of the US Marshals Service is to carry out judicial orders, but it reports to the president. This looks like a flaw to me.
Yeah, the whole system is meant to work by assuming the president has the country's best interests in mind and is willing to do what it takes to uphold them. Even when corruption inevitably wormed its way into every level of government, they still like they should pretend to have the country's best interests in mind just to appease the population, so a lot of good happened even while a lot of bad was going on beneath the surface.
Now we've got a president who openly commits crimes and exploits the fact that the people meant to stop him are his subordinates now, and people still support him. It's essentially proved to all corrupt politicians that they don't need to hide it anymore, and no longer need to even halfheartedly care about the country's best interests.
Our whole system that assumes the guy on top will at least feel compelled to "do the right thing" is instead being led by someone who ruins everything seemingly for fun, and he's setting that example for a bunch of people who are eagerly waiting to be next in line when he finally dies.
My 6th grade teacher included the judiciary's lack of ability to enforce their rulings as part of our lesson on checks and balances. That feels like foreshadowing now.
US Marshals is supposed to be that, right? But they don’t seem to take action
Yes but they are very small and not enshrined in the Constitution.
Yeah but that's not exclusive to our system, that's society in general.
Janet Mills and the Judge will soon be accused of being MS13 and sent to El Salvador. Let's see her tattoos.
Ms paint goes brrrrr
Judges are going to like him less and less as he keeps denying them.
the real question is when the marshall service starts doing their actual job
I give it about 24 months. He'll get comfortable and make some stupid decision that ruins the money of some rich group and they'll oust him. It sucks for everyone, but they're too dumb not to eat themselves.
The US Marshals are under control of the Executive Branch.
The US Marshals are not friendly or beholden to the courts.
US Judges have the authority to deputize as they need to see judicial orders carried out. The Supreme Court has its own - the Marshal of the Supreme Court.
The US Marshals are basically security escorts for high risk assets, they won't be making arrests anytime soon.
what a toxic piece of shit, cutting school meal funding because he did not get his way.
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!