this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
851 points (99.5% liked)

politics

23663 readers
2585 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He huffed about how the question wasn't "appropriate" even though his bill would result in kids being asked that same question.

A Republican state rep from Michigan testifying about his anti-trans sports bill on Monday was left speechless after an out Democratic colleague began his questioning by asking, “Representative, can you tell me: are you trans?”

A long beat staring down out gay Democratic state Rep. Mike McFall followed, before state Rep. Jason Woolford (R) managed to reply, “Are you?”

“I’m actually going somewhere with this,” he said to lawmakers in the small chamber.

“Because I want to know, how does a 14-year-old girl prove whether or not she’s trans to a 50-year-old coach?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

even if you could theoretically tell a story that sounds somehow “unfair” depending on your storytelling skills.

Yeah, they sure do love pulling the Riley Gaines card even though she came in fifth, making it a total nonsequitur.

And I totally agree that this debate is too big considering it only targets a tiny handful of athletes. I say it's complicated because some arguments used feel, circumstantial? As in, "Trans women should play with women because there's only a couple of them anyway?" Would acceptance of that argument lead to tokenism? BWhat if, for whatever reason, a sports team happened to take on a lot of trans woman? I think that would be okay, but I worry it would dredge the debate up all over again.

Or, people often say, "Trans women should be allowed to play with women because they rarely win anyway." But what if a trans woman ends up on a winning streak and then another controversy erupts? I feel uncomfortable that our condition for entry is framed as our failure to win, and that if we win, then by implication we get othered as opposed to just being a woman who won a sports game one time. This recently happened, actually. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ca-school-sports-authority-panders

This is to say, I'm just thinking aboug how we come to a supporting argument that ages with grace? And what argument should that be? Not that I think any pro-trans argument would satisfy some people, with it being the wedge issue that makes TERFS out of people originally left of center. I guess I don't know the answer at this point.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Idk but usually starting somewhere like "there are ten transgender athletes in all NCAA sanctioned college sports across the entire country" points out how fucking stupid legislating on this issue really is. You can feel whatever way you want to feel about it but this is a made up issue being used to restrict rights. Simple as.