The correct response, IMHO, is to say, “this is an issue that should be addressed by the sports bodies and by the athletes directly involved. Let’s move on to talk about the real issues…”
If and when conservatives or their stans continue to perseverate, get concerned. “You’re avoiding talking about major issues here in order to talk about a few edge cases in sports. Why are you so uncomfortable talking about things that affect everyone?”
When they continue past that, keep changing the subject. “…Okay, sure. Let’s get back to cuts to Social Security.”
Don’t let the billionaire stans control what you say. Focus on the issues that you want to focus on.
Why do you think anyone will vote for you when you spit on their concerns and lie to their face?
If you’re opposed to self ID, oppose it. If you’re for it, support it openly. But this bullshit “it’s not happening but if it is it’s good and you’re a transphobe for talking about it and anyways TAXES” strategy does not work.
More Republican lies that you’ve accepted. I don’t think there’s any more point to this. I’ll happily respond to these lies in the Pit if you want, but I think this is a hijack in this thread.
Keep calling me a liar rather than responding to the two citations I provided.
What, aside from someone’s say so, is required to successfully get the CIF hearing to declare you can participate in women’s sports? I linked the entirety of the relevant legislation, so if anything like that existed, you’d be able to quote it instead of continuing these ad hominem attacks.
Genuine gender identity is required. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say “any idiot who claims to be a woman”, it doesn’t say “self-ID”, it says gender identity. Not pretend gender identity, not fake gender identity, not fraudulent gender identity, but actual gender identity. That’s a real thing! A hearing can determine if it’s real or not if there’s any question about it.
And I don’t think you’re a liar. I think you’ve accepted lies as truth.
Absolutely, that’s much more important than the twelve trans athletes in the United States. But it also has nothing to do with Democrats’ disastrous messaging on this issue.
Kamala ignored the issue, and look where it got her.
Why the fuck does genuine gender identity matter for SPORTS? The only thing that should matter for ATHLETICS is whether you PHYSICALLY transitioned enough to lose any advantage gained from being AMAB. I don’t think men are pretending to be trans to win at sports; I think that genuinely trans people have a physical advantage that, unfortunately, means they cannot fairly compete with women.
But the only requirement for proving that is a written statement saying so, which means it amounts to Self ID anyways. But as noted, my concern isn’t about bad actors - it’s that genuinely and wholeheartedly transitioning socially does nothing to eliminate your advantage, and even transitioning physically only partially mitigates the advantage.
@iiandyiiii, I wonder if we were speaking past each other.
You seem to think my objection to self ID in this context involves the problem of people being treated as trans when they are not genuinely trans in their internal feelings?
That’s not at all what I was getting at. My problem is that in the field of athletics specifically, self ID, as in simply identifying as trans, is not sufficient because it doesn’t actually address the reasons that sports are segregated by sex in the first place.
Sports are segregated due to physical differences, so the requirement for participation in sports should be undergoing physical changes to a level that makes up for any potential advantage.
It’s got nothing to do with someone’s internal or emotional state.
No, Kamala’s problem was even more niche than that: one of the most effective ads of the campaign showed an old clip where she expressed support for the government paying for trans prisoners to have gender affirming care.
Man, aren’t you so glad she decided to die on that hill rather than retracting her support for that idea?
I don’t think the Democrats lost because of their stance on transgender transgender issues directly. I think what hurt them is they are wishy-washy about their support. It comes across as if they are supporting the issue simply to get the votes, but they won’t really stand up for the issue. The example above of redirecting to SS is an example of that. If they support an issue, then speak confidently about it. When asked for specifics, don’t put up a smokescreen and change the topic. Be passionate about what you believe in and speak convincingly about it in order to get voters to support your position on those issues. Most Democrats don’t really invoke a lot of passion. Policy changes won’t matter if the candidates don’t come across as being passionate about it. Sanders and AOC are passionate in way that voters like. You may not like those politicians, but you know what they stand for. Lots of Democrats come off as bland and not trying to offend anyone in order to get the most votes.
I can endorse this, as long as it’s accompanied by the insistence that it’s wealthy interests who have made this such a successful distraction, and the real issues are about the wealthy screwing everyone else over.
Interesting thesis! Unfortunately, it breaks down in reality. How do you account for the fact that both AOC and Bernie underperformed bland, boring Kamala in their house district and state respectively?
Except it’s not the same boat. We know its not the same boat, because we let trans women compete in women’s sports, and cis women weren’t shut out of them.
Trans women have to play in men’s leagues = all cis male athletes, no women trans athletes.
Trans women have to play in women’s leagues = mostly cis female athletes, a small number of trans athletes.
Because we’re not talking specifically about California? And we are talking, specifically, about Gavin Newsom’s position on the topic, which is (and correct me if I’m wrong, here) “No trans women in women’s sports, full stop,” and not, “Trans women in women’s sports is okay, but we need more stringent screening requirements to insure fairness.”
And when I said, “transitioning does affect athletic performance,” I was obviously referring to medical transitioning, not just social transitioning. As you are well aware.
Is that Gavin Newsom’s position? Again, I’m not aware that he put forward that level of nuance in his statements.
“None have been particularly strong,” was an overreach, I’ll own that.
You don’t think the Republican party was responsible for pushing this subject to the forefront in 2024? You don’t think the Republican party is deeply transphobic? You don’t think that the Republican party is going to use their success on this issue, to push for further restrictions on the rights of trans people?
I agree that there’s a lot of people who aren’t comfortable with trans women in sport, who aren’t necessarily transphobic in any larger sense. But, surely, you must also see that there are a lot of people who don’t like trans women in women’s sport, who are also deeply transphobic?
I think Newsom is making a smart play by courting the former group. But I don’t think I’m entirely irrational for worrying that he might, also, try to court the second group.
In the case of AOC and Sanders, I think it’s because some of their stances are very polarizing. I like how confidently they speak about the issues even if I don’t agree with all their stances. They are able to project their deep knowledge and passion about their positions in a way that I can respect even if I don’t necessarily align with all of their positions. I don’t doubt that they firmly believe the positions they talk about. That’s not the case with many Democrats. It seems like they are often parroting focus group tested talking points. I’m not sure if that’s the position they actually hold themselves or if they are just saying it because a political advisor told them that saying it would get them the most votes.
Passion is important–but it’s also important to call out fear mongering for fear mongering. And one for the best ways to do that, IMO, is to point out that it’s a terribly small issue, and then to pivot to the issues that affect everyone.
Note that this is different from, say, deporting professors who speak against Israel’s policies in Gaza. That policy has a chilling effect on first amendment rights across the country and raises major constitutional issues. It does affect millions of people. And the people directly affected have their lives destroyed.
Whether trans folks who are professional or semiprofessional or high-level collegiate athletes should play alongside cis folks of the same gender identity is an important issue, for them. But it doesn’t have the same sort of chilling effect on millions; and if they’re not able to play, it’s not the same as being deported from the country they live in.
Democrats should respond to these culture-war issues by calling them out as such, explicitly saying that the discussion should stay in the bodies of experts responsible for making the decisions, pivoting the discussion to the issues that affect millions of people in profound ways, and not letting the conversation be driven by people who can’t let go of the culture war.
