Pervert alert: Kansas GOP overrides Governor's veto, allowing child genital inspections for sports

[7,052,770]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

The key point though is that that's moot in the red states now since puberty blockers and hormones are illegal.

[It’s so Joever]

Why can’t sports just be done based on an assessed skill test? That is true meritocracy.
If some trans athlete can kick a soccer ball harder than Little Timmy, well then Little Timmy should go f**k himself and then learn to kick better.

Seriously, why not has skill classes in the same way wrestling has “weight classes”? If it’s a sport where it’s “not that serious”, then clearly it’s not serious enough to care about gender separated teams, right?

The issue to parents concerned about this type of thing is whether little Timmy has transitioned into little Tanya and is now kicking the ball harder then most or all of his cis female opponents, because youth athletics are almost entirely separated by gender with male and female teams for each sport.

Exactly! Ban gender segregated sports. From now on sports teams should be made based on skill level which can include strength tests. It’s just common sense.

Much much easier said than done. The problem is that will basically de facto repeal Title IX. While exceptions certainly exist, a pure physical meritocracy would effectively decimate female athletics. That not only robs young women and girls of the bonding and enjoyment Sports brings, but also potential Athletics scholarships as well.

Not true. You can have lower strength level sports still in this system. Females will just usually be in those. As for “bonding and enjoyment” they should be able to bond with their female AND male peers, the way I see it reducing the gender divisions in society is only a good thing given how polarized we are becoming in our generations.

The only point you are correct on is athletic scholarships…and yes girls will be at a disadvantage. Tough luck. Boys who want to get beauty pageant scholarships are also out of luck, and I would argue the entire modern school system is actually giving slight advantages to females for a variety of reasons (mainly boys develop mentally later which is a HUGE disadvantage) Math scholarships are rigged against those who have learning disabilities, that’s life.

Even the unimpressive male athletes will out-perform the best girls. I don't know if you're refusing to bite that bullet or if you're out of touch enough to not understand this. Regardless, what you are saying is that girls are not entitled to fair competition. There is no boy beyond maybe 6th or 7th grade with any athletic potential that would lose to his female peers.

As I said, that’s why we have strength tests and skill classes. They won’t “outperform” because if they are biologically stronger enough for it to be unfair, that would be reflected in a test and they would be competing in a different class/tier. This really isn’t a tough concept. Anyways if it’s really going to be such a tough issue, just replace all team sports with former military sergeant run calisthenics, either accept the fair solution or I say we give the fair but horrifying one.

[John Dule]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

[DaleCooper]

Why can’t sports just be done based on an assessed skill test? That is true meritocracy.
If some trans athlete can kick a soccer ball harder than Little Timmy, well then Little Timmy should go f**k himself and then learn to kick better.

Seriously, why not has skill classes in the same way wrestling has “weight classes”? If it’s a sport where it’s “not that serious”, then clearly it’s not serious enough to care about gender separated teams, right?

The issue to parents concerned about this type of thing is whether little Timmy has transitioned into little Tanya and is now kicking the ball harder then most or all of his cis female opponents, because youth athletics are almost entirely separated by gender with male and female teams for each sport.

Exactly! Ban gender segregated sports. From now on sports teams should be made based on skill level which can include strength tests. It’s just common sense.

Much much easier said than done. The problem is that will basically de facto repeal Title IX. While exceptions certainly exist, a pure physical meritocracy would effectively decimate female athletics. That not only robs young women and girls of the bonding and enjoyment Sports brings, but also potential Athletics scholarships as well.

Not true. You can have lower strength level sports still in this system. Females will just usually be in those. As for “bonding and enjoyment” they should be able to bond with their female AND male peers, the way I see it reducing the gender divisions in society is only a good thing given how polarized we are becoming in our generations.

The only point you are correct on is athletic scholarships…and yes girls will be at a disadvantage. Tough luck. Boys who want to get beauty pageant scholarships are also out of luck, and I would argue the entire modern school system is actually giving slight advantages to females for a variety of reasons (mainly boys develop mentally later which is a HUGE disadvantage) Math scholarships are rigged against those who have learning disabilities, that’s life.

Even the unimpressive male athletes will out-perform the best girls. I don't know if you're refusing to bite that bullet or if you're out of touch enough to not understand this. Regardless, what you are saying is that girls are not entitled to fair competition. There is no boy beyond maybe 6th or 7th grade with any athletic potential that would lose to his female peers.

As I said, that’s why we have strength tests and skill classes. They won’t “outperform” because if they are biologically stronger enough for it to be unfair, that would be reflected in a test. This really isn’t a tough concept.

Even the most pathetic young man on the planet (picture Wil Wheaton from Star Trek) is going to outperform his female peers in the same strength class because his potential is way higher than theirs. After a couple months of practice, he's going to be way out of their league as far as strength goes. Yeah, I'm sure some random nerd from Algebra Club would get his ass kicked by the girl athletes, but if you put him on an athletic team and make him practice for a while, he wouldn't be outmatched by them for long. That's all besides the point because people who try out for sports are going to be somewhat athletic to begin with. A whole team made up of rejects from the boys basketball tryouts would beat the girls team. This isn't a tough concept for most people, but for Atlas it clearly is. It's very embarrassing.

[7,052,770]

Why can’t sports just be done based on an assessed skill test? That is true meritocracy.
If some trans athlete can kick a soccer ball harder than Little Timmy, well then Little Timmy should go f**k himself and then learn to kick better.

Seriously, why not has skill classes in the same way wrestling has “weight classes”? If it’s a sport where it’s “not that serious”, then clearly it’s not serious enough to care about gender separated teams, right?

The issue to parents concerned about this type of thing is whether little Timmy has transitioned into little Tanya and is now kicking the ball harder then most or all of his cis female opponents, because youth athletics are almost entirely separated by gender with male and female teams for each sport.

Exactly! Ban gender segregated sports. From now on sports teams should be made based on skill level which can include strength tests. It’s just common sense.

Much much easier said than done. The problem is that will basically de facto repeal Title IX. While exceptions certainly exist, a pure physical meritocracy would effectively decimate female athletics. That not only robs young women and girls of the bonding and enjoyment Sports brings, but also potential Athletics scholarships as well.

Not true. You can have lower strength level sports still in this system. Females will just usually be in those. As for “bonding and enjoyment” they should be able to bond with their female AND male peers, the way I see it reducing the gender divisions in society is only a good thing given how polarized we are becoming in our generations.

The only point you are correct on is athletic scholarships…and yes girls will be at a disadvantage. Tough luck. Boys who want to get beauty pageant scholarships are also out of luck, and I would argue the entire modern school system is actually giving slight advantages to females for a variety of reasons (mainly boys develop mentally later which is a HUGE disadvantage) Math scholarships are rigged against those who have learning disabilities, that’s life.

Even the unimpressive male athletes will out-perform the best girls. I don't know if you're refusing to bite that bullet or if you're out of touch enough to not understand this. Regardless, what you are saying is that girls are not entitled to fair competition. There is no boy beyond maybe 6th or 7th grade with any athletic potential that would lose to his female peers.

As I said, that’s why we have strength tests and skill classes. They won’t “outperform” because if they are biologically stronger enough for it to be unfair, that would be reflected in a test. This really isn’t a tough concept.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand that women's and men's sports are often fundamentally different strategically.

Baseball and softball are totally different sports. Men's basketball and women's basketball basically are, as any men's player who's about 5-10 or more can regularly dunk in a game, and vanishingly few women can (none do regularly). Soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, etc., have different strategies that line up with the different physical characteristics.

You could gather of a basketball team of men whose height, weight, strength, etc., resembles a women's team, but it wouldn't make sense for them to play in a women's league because of those differences.

[It’s so Joever]

Why can’t sports just be done based on an assessed skill test? That is true meritocracy.
If some trans athlete can kick a soccer ball harder than Little Timmy, well then Little Timmy should go f**k himself and then learn to kick better.

Seriously, why not has skill classes in the same way wrestling has “weight classes”? If it’s a sport where it’s “not that serious”, then clearly it’s not serious enough to care about gender separated teams, right?

The issue to parents concerned about this type of thing is whether little Timmy has transitioned into little Tanya and is now kicking the ball harder then most or all of his cis female opponents, because youth athletics are almost entirely separated by gender with male and female teams for each sport.

Exactly! Ban gender segregated sports. From now on sports teams should be made based on skill level which can include strength tests. It’s just common sense.

Much much easier said than done. The problem is that will basically de facto repeal Title IX. While exceptions certainly exist, a pure physical meritocracy would effectively decimate female athletics. That not only robs young women and girls of the bonding and enjoyment Sports brings, but also potential Athletics scholarships as well.

Not true. You can have lower strength level sports still in this system. Females will just usually be in those. As for “bonding and enjoyment” they should be able to bond with their female AND male peers, the way I see it reducing the gender divisions in society is only a good thing given how polarized we are becoming in our generations.

The only point you are correct on is athletic scholarships…and yes girls will be at a disadvantage. Tough luck. Boys who want to get beauty pageant scholarships are also out of luck, and I would argue the entire modern school system is actually giving slight advantages to females for a variety of reasons (mainly boys develop mentally later which is a HUGE disadvantage) Math scholarships are rigged against those who have learning disabilities, that’s life.

Even the unimpressive male athletes will out-perform the best girls. I don't know if you're refusing to bite that bullet or if you're out of touch enough to not understand this. Regardless, what you are saying is that girls are not entitled to fair competition. There is no boy beyond maybe 6th or 7th grade with any athletic potential that would lose to his female peers.

As I said, that’s why we have strength tests and skill classes. They won’t “outperform” because if they are biologically stronger enough for it to be unfair, that would be reflected in a test. This really isn’t a tough concept.

Even the most pathetic young man on the planet (picture Wil Wheaton from Star Trek) is going to outperform his female peers in the same strength class because his potential is way higher than theirs. After a couple months of practice, he's going to be way out of their league as far as strength goes. Yeah, I'm sure some random nerd from Algebra Club would get his ass kicked by the girl athletes, but if you put him on an athletic team and make him practice for a while, he wouldn't be outmatched by them for long. That's all besides the point because people who try out for sports are going to be somewhat athletic to begin with. A whole team made up of rejects from the boys basketball tryouts would beat the girls team. This isn't a tough concept for most people, but for Atlas it clearly is. It's very embarrassing.

Okay but if it’s administered every year and there are incentives to go to the higher ranks? Either way this really isn’t an issue I care about too much, so I admittedly haven’t done much research.

[7,052,770]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

[John Dule]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

[7,052,770]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

Yes, the headline is an oversell. I wonder if an editor added that in without the writer's consent.

However, even without the headline, I think the article is conflating about 3-4 different points that are true on their own but don't really weave into a unified narrative:

• Testosterone amount doesn't correlate perfectly with athletic performance. Sure, it's not 100% explanatory, but nonetheless male puberty makes far better athletes than female puberty.
• Several states have allowed this for a while without it being a problem. Yeah, that's a valid point, but it's not really a "scientific" one, just an observation.
• Transwomen who never went through male puberty at all don't have an advantage over ciswomen athletes. That's plausibly true, but moot in most cases, at least the high-profile ones people fight over.
• It's more important to affirm transwomen psychologically than worry about who wins a random high school sports competition. Yeah, I lean toward agreeing with that, but that's a philosophical opinion not something covered by the statement "There is no scientific case for excluding them." Someone who says that who wins and loses in high school does matter after all is not being unscientific, just prioritizes things differently that I do.

[DaleCooper]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

Stuff like this is why I don't trust any of the mainstream "science" that is put forward about other issues like puberty blockers or detransitioners. If they're brazen enough to lie about something as obvious as this, how you possibly trust them on more important issues?

[7,052,770]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

Stuff like this is why I don't trust any of the mainstream "science" that is put forward about other issues like puberty blockers or detransitioners. If they're brazen enough to lie about something as obvious as this, how you possibly trust them on more important issues?

I don't think the underlying "science" lied in that article, just a journalist (and/or his editor) kinda strung some legitimate pieces of science together to make a conclusion that didn't hold together as tightly as he wanted it to.

If the entire scientific community is lying about anything (whether this topic or another one), if it is capable of pulling off a long-term lie, then we have much bigger problems in society that who is or isn't playing on what high school team.

[Ferguson97]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

Stuff like this is why I don't trust any of the mainstream "science" that is put forward about other issues like puberty blockers or detransitioners. If they're brazen enough to lie about something as obvious as this, how you possibly trust them on more important issues?

If you're at the point where your argument relies on a literal conspiracy theory (as in you are literally alleging that there is a secret plot by the scientific community to lie to the public), you've lost the plot.

[RFK 2024]

TLDR this entire thread but I highly doubt this would stand if it gets challenged and makes it to the Supreme Court.  It's also extremely creepy and wrong on many levels. 

[John Dule]

If you're at the point where your argument relies on a literal conspiracy theory (as in you are literally alleging that there is a secret plot by the scientific community to lie to the public), you've lost the plot.

How is it a "theory" when we've already established that the article you posted was full of misrepresentations and lies? I get that you're too much of a coward to directly respond to my points in this thread, but you don't get to just ignore the fact that your argument was thoroughly debunked and proceed as if nothing happened.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Groomer GOP in Kansas shouldn't have overridden governor's veto. Now genital-"checking" of kids has been institutionalized.