Trump threatens to cut Calif.’s federal funds if trans athletes ‘illegally’ compete in women’s events

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Is it?

16 year olds can have a driver’s license and that’s something that affects everyone around them way more than some random trans kid playing a sport.

Can a 16-year-old decide to have a consensual sexual relationship with a 40-year-old? Why not if what you say is true?

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Who was abused in this particular case? What was the abuse that happened

The top 16-year-old female athlete who got second place by losing to the boy, undercutting all her hard work, dedication, and sacrifice to the sport. Feminism is dead because the left killed it.

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
Ok, fair enough.

And you are okay with it? What makes the boy's feelings more important and worth validating than the girl's?

essentialsaltes · Jun 7, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
The top 16-year-old female athlete who got second place

That did not happen. Two gold medals were awarded in the relevant event in the state finals.

Henrye · Jun 7, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
I don’t understand how you can support a president taking time out of his supposedly busy day to single out one single 16 year old trans kid and cyberbully them to his millions of followers on social media.

What a disgusting person you voted for and continue to support.

This is completely off topic. Are you unable to comment on what was actually said?

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
That did not happen. Two gold medals were awarded in the relevant event in the state finals.

Two gold medals?

essentialsaltes · Jun 7, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Two gold medals?

Two gold medals

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Two gold medals

The boy received a gold medal for participating in girls' sports. Great.

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
Can a 16-year-old decide to have a consensual sexual relationship with a 40-year-old? Why not if what you say is true?

Disgusting. He should have been left alone. He was recruited or groomed by radical activists I bet. Ugh

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
The boy received a gold medal for participating in girls' sports. Great.

That’s awful! The boy should give it back! Ugh

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
From the article referenced by essentialsaltes:

So the transgender athlete did not take away any opportunities from the girls.

Males still shouldn’t compete with girls. It’s only fair. They don’t deserve special treatment because of their disorder.

Oompa Loompa · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
From the article referenced by essentialsaltes:

So the transgender athlete did not take away any opportunities from the girls.

So the boy just received a participation trophy for demolishing girls in girl's sports.

Henrye · Jun 7, 2025

RileyG said:
Males still shouldn’t compete with girls. It’s only fair. They don’t deserve special treatment because of their disorder.

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
I disagree. There is far too much nuance for a black and white rule.

There are many sports where the physical difference between men and women don't matter (e.g., cornhole). There are many sports where such differences matter but to a small degree (e.g., bowling). Then, there are many sports where they matter significantly (e.g., weightlifting, short distance running).

There are also contexts in which the physical differences are important at elite levels but unimportant at lower levels (e.g., fencing). There are contexts where a male competing against females does not take anything away from the females.

And the more you dig, the more nuance there is.

So to reduce it to a black and white rule is not sensible nor helpful.

Take someone like Laurel Hubbard. I agree. It's unfair. Hubbard has a significant advantage.

Take someone like Austin Killips. I agree. It's unfair. Killips has a significant advantage.

Take someone like Redmond Sullivan. I disagree. It's fair. Sullivan did not have a significant advantage.

Take someone like the athlete in this case. I disagree. It's fair. This athlete did not take anything away from the girls. The girls still received their rightfully earned medals.

I would encourage you to reflect more closely on this statement.

Why? Men and women are different.

Just blows my mind.

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
Yes, men and women are different. Sometimes those differences are important to the outcomes of a competition. Sometimes they are not.

Look at the facts of the Hubbard case. Those differences are important to the outcomes. It's unfair.

Look at the facts of the Sullivan case. Those differences are not important to the outcomes. It's not unfair.

I don’t know. I still think they should be banned.

Henrye · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
Yes, men and women are different. Sometimes those differences are important to the outcomes of a competition. Sometimes they are not.

Look at the facts of the Hubbard case. Those differences are important to the outcomes. It's unfair.

Look at the facts of the Sullivan case. Those differences are not important to the outcomes. It's not unfair.

Any sport relying on strength and endurance would qualify as being an unfair advantage for men over women. Men are simply built different than women.

Sports like fencing also wouldt qualify as men having advantage over women. Strength and faster reaction times by men would make it unfair. The issue is indeed black and white.

Henrye · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
Endurance? Look at women in ultrarunning. They don't always beat the men, but they have done so often enough.

Do you know why I raised the fencing example?

It's because I am a fencer, a foilist. I, as a man, regularly lose to women in my club. Why is that?

It's because skill is much more important at certain levels than strength and faster reaction times.

Sure, I get lucky from time to time. I get a skill shot at times. But they regularly beat me. And it's not because they're stronger or faster. It's because they're more skilled. It's because they have better point control. It's because they have better footwork. It's because they're better at parries.

So, no, it's not black and white.

There is a reason why the issue relates to men playing in women sports rather than women playing in men sports.

There are indeed women that had tremendous skill and endurance and have competed in men sports however that is a testament to their perseverance and resolve and not the norm.

Men in women sports is not related to their perseverence or resolve but to their inherent biological advantage. Biologically, men have muscular, skeletal and genetical advantages that make the competition inherently unfair. The issue is indeed black and white.

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
If you don't know, I encourage you to start there. Gather data. Think critically. Do the differences always matter? I think you'll find they don't.

I very much agree that in cases where they do, yes it should be banned. But I would not support a ban in all cases because that's harmful to trans people.

Yes. It matters. Feelings don’t define reality. Males belong in men only sports and females on women only sports. Biology matters.

RileyG · Jun 7, 2025

sanderabeer said:
The following statements are factual:

Men and women are different biologically.

These biological differences often play a role in determining competitive outcomes in sports.

Your statement above is not factual. It is a value judgment. The judgment is that men competing in women's sports is unfair.

Your reasoning is based on deriving an ought from an is. That is, you are trying to argue that because men and women a biologically different and these differences (often) result in competitive outcomes (is), then it is unfair for men to compete in women's sports (ought).

Yet, I have provided several counter examples of women out competing men for a variety of reasons.

As such, your reasoning falls apart. It's a bad argument. And because it's a bad argument, the harm being inflicted upon trans people is not justified.

Yes, there are some cares where excluding trans women from women's sports is justified. But there are many cases where it is no justified. And so your absolute rule is not tenable.

You have to justify the value judgment, otherwise you're harming people for no good reason.

Trans “women” aren’t women- they are MEN and have no business competing in women’s sports.

If it’s intramural or coed sports, I wouldn’t care.

If it’s men sports only or women sports only, then no, they can’t compete on their so called “preferred identity.”

Pommer · Jun 8, 2025

Wasn’t it “conservatives” which closed municipal swimming pools rather than integrate them?

Instead of a pool getting shuttered, it’s a State.
If the “problem” still doesn’t go away, eliminating women’s sports (for a while) would take care of having to hear about it. Nobody wants that, but it’s a possible “next step”.

Trump threatens to cut Calif.’s federal funds if trans athletes ‘illegally’ compete in women’s events

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads