We're going for compromise solutions. I think we can all agree that D1 is serious business and D3 less so, so it makes a lot of sense.

What about psychological safety? We are often told young people nowadays feel "unsafe" and it refers to psychological safety, for example when being exposed to ideas they don't like.

I'd imagine many teenage girls would feel unsafe having to share female-only facilities with a biological male, therefore psychological and perhaps physical safety is compromised.

I don't disagree with this general point - I do believe the governing body of individual sports are probably best placed to make these judgements regarding trans inclusion verses female safety. However, when certain institutions have been ideologically captured to the extent they ignore female safety, then perhaps the government is correct to intervene.

Some pretty bad faith arguments here. If a woman said she had been raped, would you not believe her unless there was video evidence?

You can't just believe claims made by one side to be true purely on the basis of which side you support, that not how it works.

And I hate to break it to you, but half the USA is conservative. They should be allowed a voice in the public sphere including on university campuses without being exposed to violence and intimidation.

I still stand by my point that we shouldn't broadcast anything but that is not the rule.

Nope never had an interaction with a transgender individual in my life but if I did I would treat them the way I treat anyone else. Though you cant ignore the fact of a woke mob which include climate and the trans activists that are getting more violent especially on University Campuses when they do not like the speaker.

I believe in Trans rights until it infringes on women's rights as does Caitlyn Jenner and Martina Navratalova strong voices in the LGQBT community along with many others.

We're really going full "violent trans activists" for the next phase of this moral panic, aren't we.

Let me be clear I said climate and trans activists on University Campuses.

You're the guy who just said "Males assaulting females is now somehow viewed as progress", right? I think you gotta take a few weeks off on accusing people of bad faith arguments. But regardless, one can simultaneously take the stance that women should be believed while also noting the ridiculousness of lozen droning on and on about violent trans activists when he is talking about a single anecdote with shakey, edited video that doesn't show anyone hitting anyone else. The size of the outrage to the amount of provided evidence is just ridiculous.

Arguing for a bathroom ban as a way to justify banning trans kids from playing youth sports is pretty bad.

Yes, the trans boogeyman is coming to get you in the bathroom, nowhere is safe from the trans menace.

Single Incident I had already posted this earlier. These occurred this year and seem to occur regularly at US campuses when conservatives speak


Kellie-Jay Keen, a British activist also known as Posie Parker, caused an uproar in Australia and New Zealand three weeks ago with a speaking tour opposing trans rights and advocating for female-only spaces. Parker said she felt like the “most hated woman” in Australia after widespread protests greeted her speaking events. In Melbourne, neo-Nazis turned up at her event, although Parker says she has no association with such groups.

At a rally in Auckland she was met by 5,000 trans activists, doused in tomato soup and swarmed by protesters before she abandoned the event, fearing for her life.

In January at Montreal’s McGill University, Robert Wintemute, a professor of human rights law at King’s College, London and a lawyer for the LGB Alliance, was forced to abandon a talk after protesters shouting profanities disrupted the event, unplugged his projector and threw flour at him.

In January at Montreal’s McGill University, Robert Wintemute, a professor of human rights law at King’s College, London and a lawyer for the LGB Alliance, was forced to abandon a talk after protesters shouting profanities disrupted the event, unplugged his projector and threw flour at him. She found herself being called a Nazi and transphobic “scum.” “That’s fairly distressing,” she told The Times of London.

Its not a bathroom ban let them use whatever bathroom they want as there are cubicles which offer privacy. A locker room does not.

Where did I argue for a bathroom ban??

Ah, you are drawing the lines between bathroom bans and locker room bans? A ridiculous justification of banning trans kids from youth sports either way, but interesting that you think this distinction matters.

Where did I argue for banning trans kids from youth sports??

If your whole ridiculous bit about on about "psychological safety" of females being afraid of biological males in change rooms wasn't about the topic of this thread then great! I certainly agree such arguments should never be used to support bans on trans inclusion in sports.

How does it make you feel when you are told this? Do you agree that these are valid feelings, or are you putting "unsafe" in scare quotes because you don't take it seriously?

What does this have to do with banning trans kids from sports?

Maybe instead of the 20 questions you just state your position? You were the guy fearmongering away about the "psychological safety" of trans women in women's changeroom. As embarrassing as this point is on its face, how do YOU think that relates to the thread's topic of trans inclusion in title IX regulated sport?

My position on what? I've made my views very clear in this thread so maybe read back instead of labelling me with opinions i strongly disagree with such as banning trans kids from sports.

I wasn't fearmongering about psychological safety. This is a well-documented phenomena, and many women have gone on record saying they feel unsafe sharing bathrooms or locker room facilities with males.

Could you quote your supposedly stated views? Your initial post was the hilarious bad faith "Males assaulting females is now somehow viewed as progress". The rest is a bunch of weird quibbling over things but I didn't see any "very clear" view on the OP. I don't have any clue why you started to bring up "psychological safety" or what view you think that this connects do, but I am very glad to hear it has nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread which is trans inclusion in youth sports.

Your asking him to state his views and I have asked you many times to state yours which your not prepared to do either. I think I am the one person that was clear on my views

The locker room discussion is relevant as many of these transgender athletes that compete will use the same locker room as the women

LOL @ you calling anyone out for not answering questions. I've tried three times in this thread to get you to respond to this, and it's not at all new for you to just leave conversations when they get difficult.

I am not sure what your asking me in the first one

First off let me explain what I interpret the policy to be. States can ban men from competing against women in competitive high school and above unless a national body has rules applying to the issue . If I am interpreting that wrong let me know . So for example if the NCAA has a set of rules applying to transgender athletes the state can not over rule it

Could the state ban at the junior high level?

If I am wrong on that than some of my answers need to be clarified .

Nothing, obviously. Nor does the post from uke at the end ask a question. I'd hope that when you completely misrepresent someone, you'd do better than "please correct me where I'm wrong", or that when uke tells you that you got it wrong, you might have something more to say, but I guess that's up to you to decide.

I'm mainly working from the quote provided in the OP:

Which would mean that schools (and presumably their governing bodies) can limit transgender students' participation. But sweeping rules that just ban transgender students from all sports teams at all levels, like what some of the states have done or attempted to do, aren't allowed. So I see nothing that "denies women the right to compete fairly in sports" and "Believing that men should not compete against women" doesn't even seem relevant to this thread about a policy not allowing sweeping bans of transgender kids from playing in sports. And why the Supreme Court would overturn this, I have no idea.

Than neither of us really know how it applies exactly? I read the full link and it still seems unclear. I kinda of agree with it though but what if the NCAA says yes but the state says no

I am moving on you have upsetted this two spirited billy goat