The controversy began when an 18 year old biological male was allowed to play on a junior varsity team in the Tumwater School District, alongside 14 and 15-year-old female athletes.
15-year-old Frances Staudt noticed the obviously male athlete on the opposing team during her warm up for the final game of the season and asked the school’s athletic director whether the player was a male, but was told that, in accordance with Washington state law, the school will not discriminate based on sexual identity.
Staudt then notified her coach that she was unwilling to play against a biological male opponent. (Source)
... 18 year old biological male...against...14 and 15-year-old female athletes.
And a 15 year-old girl is being sued because she refused to play against him.
So if a 15 year-old girl can be forced against her will to play against a man (18 years-old being a legal adult), and if she is not being paid; how is that any different than forcing Black people to pick cotton against their will and without monetary compensation?
This attempts to set a precedent where you can be sued and forced to pay damages for doing nothing. They want to punish people who do not dance to the tune mutating in their head.
I believe it was Ayn Rand who has a famous quote about your nations status when the laws protect the criminals?
ReplyDeleteFor folks that can't add, this is the big event, all the marbles, as it were? That feeling in the back of your head for the last 20 years that something big and bad is coming and is just around the corner? ITS HERE!
Is today "Take-the-Piss Tuesday" or something?
ReplyDeleteYou cannot be serious with that question, Joe.
I am serious.
DeleteBoth of my daughters played high school sports. Both daughters benefited from the experience. My oldest daughter, who was a fairly robust girl, was injured a couple of times due to "incidental contact" in basketball and soccer.
Can you imagine the typical 140 pound girl going up against a 220 pound, male "rugby-player" while playing soccer?
Looking at the genetics, my granddaughter will be fairly small in stature. That makes her even more vulnerable to injury.
So, who are we protecting? What happened to protecting the biological women?
If this continues, this will end badly in that someone will be seriously harmed, there will be a suit, and there will be no more sports at all because no-one will want to take the financial risk.
DeleteAs a manager, I tell my employees they are 100% allowed to not do something they feel uncomfortable doing or that they feel untrained for. This is not remarkable; it is basic respect for the individual.
To be clear, your question was:
Delete"how is that any different than forcing Black people to pick cotton against their will and without monetary compensation?"
This is a gross exaggeration and false analogy. It's mindless - tossing nuance to the wind and threatening meaningful discourse. You can find comparisons between any two ridiculous things if you have no shame.
Providing arguments as to why biological males shouldn't play against biological females is preaching to the choir and missing the point of the criticism.
My understanding is that the biological advantage was the main concern for creating an exclusive splinter for women's sports. However, I recognize that it's a complex social issue that we're navigating as a society. It is NOT remotely close to the severity of slavery.
Good Job Gary ducking Joes answer and providing unneeded virtue signaling about slavery.
DeleteThat said:
Joe's article starting this thread is about the LAW (something Slave Owners HAD on their side) FORCING Young Women to do sports like battle against PHYSICALLY Stronger Males pretending to be Females or Be PUNISHED (Like Slaves were if they failed to OBEY).
So I too HAVE NO SHAME in your worldview, eh?
BTW in case you've never heard in Islamic nations Slavery STILL EXISTS. Mostly in the Christian female slave trade.
So PLEASE Tell us about YOUR View of Islam, since you have such strong opinions here.
Hey, Mike! I'm concerned that you don't know what "ducking" or "virtue signaling" means.
DeleteIf I asked "How is you forcing me to read your retarded comments any different from you shooting me in the head?" and you said "shooting you in the head is way more severe and, even if there are loose comparisons that can be made, it is a ridiculous comparison" would you be virtue signaling about gun violence?
No, you'd be making a rational observation that the two are not equal.
Yeah, you have 'no shame' in a colloquial sense.
I do not care about Islam. I do find it funny that you found a way to shoehorn it into this conversation, though.
Didn't Trump put out a policy that prohibits this? Or did that get stopped in court by a liberal judge somewhere?
ReplyDeleteJonathan
The UK Supreme Court ruled earlier that biological sex was the defining characteristic, and thus in theory should have outlawed this kind of situation. However, the wokerati seem determined to deny the biological facts and still permit the transgender nonsense.
ReplyDeleteGood call!
ReplyDeleteBeing "forced against her will" does sound a lot like slavery... isn't that what slavery is all about?