Glenn Youngkin and friends.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

Tshile is also against girls over 6' from playing basketball and volleyball. That extreme minority (less than 1% of the US population) has a physical advantage and displaces normal sized girls. One must not virtue signal to accept girls over 6'. 😁

 

 

When in doubt, paint the people making solid points as non-tolerant or bigots. 

[The Evil Genius]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

When in doubt, paint the people making solid points as non-tolerant or bigots. 

 

Ffs it was sarcasm.  

[PleaseBlitz]

I can't believe we now have two (2) threads on this topic. 

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

The virtue signaling isn’t in caring about trans people. 
 

the virtue signaling is disregarding the impact on more people, in order to boast about how you care about these people. 
 

for every transgender female on a girls team, you have 1 girl who doesn’t make the team because the trans girl took her place. You also have any # of girls on the team displaced further down the depth chart. You also have the girls on every team they play, being put at a disadvantage because they’re playing against someone biologically superior to them in athletics. 
 

we both care about trans people and are interested in doing right by them. 
 

im just not willing to cause negative impacts to that many people, for every 1 transgender female, when I see it perfectly reasonable to draw lines at biological advantages and disadvantages, and can see how pushing tolerance to get to a point where they can feel comfortable as a much more reasonable solution with way fewer people impacted and a greater net impact on society over the long run. 
 

you and others can’t seem to figure that out. You’re more interested in clinging to your political and moral identity here. It can be seen in the inability to consider, discuss, or come up with other solutions. It can be seen in the way you discuss other solutions and the people that support those other solutions. 
 

it’s virtue signaling. And it’s pathetic. 

 

There are any number of ways to get around this issue.  Cut off based on testosterone level.  Transition pre-puberty blocker vs post-puberty blocker.  Provide additional funding to make additional roster spots available, either on a blanket basis or per trans-inclusion basis.  But nope, people against trans inclusion takes a binary either/or approach and says that anyone looking to adjust the system to include trans individuals (while being cognizant of ameliorating or eliminating the effect to cis-females to the maximum extent possible) are virtue signaling.  It's more that trans-inclusion opponents are building a strawman argument (trans-inclusion with no remedial measures whatsoever).  But why take a deliberative and nuanced approach when it's just easier to paint the other side with a broad stroke argument that no one is advocating for?  Seriously, is anyone advocating for a blanket trans-inclusion with no remedial measure whatsoever?  At least I'm not aware of any.

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Tshile is also against girls over 6' from playing basketball and volleyball. That extreme minority (less than 1% of the US population) has a physical advantage and displaces normal sized girls. One must not virtue signal to accept girls over 6'. 😁

 

 

well this is where your virtue signaling is on display

 

in your desire to be clever and witty to support your liberal ideas, you are incapable of discussing the subject reasonably. 
 

That’s what it’s about. The blinders you wear. 

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

There are any number of ways to get around this issue.  Cut off based on testosterone level.  Transition pre-puberty blocker vs post-puberty blocker.  Provide additional funding to make additional roster spots available, either on a blanket basis or per trans-inclusion basis.  But nope, people against trans inclusion takes a binary either/or approach and says that anyone looking to adjust the system to include trans individuals (while being cognizant of ameliorating or eliminating the effect to cis-females to the maximum extent possible) are virtue signaling.  It's more that trans-inclusion opponents are building a strawman argument (trans-inclusion with no remedial measures whatsoever).  But why take a deliberative and nuanced approach when it's just easier to paint the other side with a broad stroke argument that no one is advocating for?  Seriously, is anyone advocating for a blanket trans-inclusion with no remedial measure whatsoever?  At least I'm not aware of any.

this is total bull****. Your response to the idea that you’re coming up with assanine ways to deal with a problem that has a much simpler and more pragmatic solution, is to propose more convoluted and cumbersome ways to deal with it instead?

 

then accuse the people supporting more pragmatic solutions that impact far fewer people and cause way less disruption, as being intolerant or against inclusion?

 

if you’re gonna take exception to the virtue signaling thing, maybe not do it so much. 

[The Evil Genius]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

There are any number of ways to get around this issue.  Cut off based on testosterone level.  Transition pre-puberty blocker vs post-puberty blocker.  Provide additional funding to make additional roster spots available, either on a blanket basis or per trans-inclusion basis.  But nope, people against trans inclusion takes a binary either/or approach and says that anyone looking to adjust the system to include trans individuals (while being cognizant of ameliorating or eliminating the effect to cis-females to the maximum extent possible) are virtue signaling.  It's more that trans-inclusion opponents are building a strawman argument (trans-inclusion with no remedial measures whatsoever).  But why take a deliberative and nuanced approach when it's just easier to paint the other side with a broad stroke argument that no one is advocating for?  Seriously, is anyone advocating for a blanket trans-inclusion with no remedial measure whatsoever?  At least I'm not aware of any.

 

Are you a geneticist or closely aligned to that in the medical field? I forgot who's who here sometimes. 

[bearrock]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

Are you a geneticist or closely aligned to that in the medical field? I forgot who's who here sometimes. 

Not me (not even close, lol.  Ask my high school biology teacher 😂).  I think that's @bcl05? (I may be wrong).  

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Are you a geneticist or closely aligned to that in the medical field? I forgot who's who here sometimes. 

I guess it’s @bcl05. Several very good posts definitely worth reading

Edited March 13, 2023 by tshile

[TD_washingtonredskins]

17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

There are any number of ways to get around this issue.  Cut off based on testosterone level.  Transition pre-puberty blocker vs post-puberty blocker.  Provide additional funding to make additional roster spots available, either on a blanket basis or per trans-inclusion basis.  But nope, people against trans inclusion takes a binary either/or approach and says that anyone looking to adjust the system to include trans individuals (while being cognizant of ameliorating or eliminating the effect to cis-females to the maximum extent possible) are virtue signaling.  It's more that trans-inclusion opponents are building a strawman argument (trans-inclusion with no remedial measures whatsoever).  But why take a deliberative and nuanced approach when it's just easier to paint the other side with a broad stroke argument that no one is advocating for?  Seriously, is anyone advocating for a blanket trans-inclusion with no remedial measure whatsoever?  At least I'm not aware of any.

 

I mean, sure...but seriously? All to avoid biological males playing with biological males and biological females playing with biological females in youth sports? That's a lot of process to build in to, as others have pointed out, a pretty rare exception when the stated goal is simply "fairness for all" who are taking the time to participate in the sport. 

 

Years ago we had a girl who was just so much better at softball than the other girls when we were in elementary school. She was better than many of us at baseball too. So, rather than a bunch of new rules, they just threw her in our league so she could be an above-average player in a boys' league rather than making it not fun in the girls' league. I know that's not a perfect example to what this situation is, but that's the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Rather than legislate some perfectly worded law, let's just do what will work for these rare cases...which is to have the transgender females (biological males) play with other males. More often than not, that will be more fair and far more simple. 

[bearrock]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

this is total bull****. Your response to the idea that you’re coming up with assanine ways to deal with a problem that has a much simpler and more pragmatic solution, is to propose more convoluted and cumbersome ways to deal with it instead?

 

then accuse the people supporting more pragmatic solutions that impact far fewer people and cause way less disruption, as being intolerant or against inclusion?

 

if you’re gonna take exception to the virtue signaling thing, maybe not do it so much. 

 

My use of the term "trans-inclusion opponent" was a shorthand for the position you had on the issue rather than some accusation of bigotry.  I would view either absolutist view on trans inclusion issue (call it something else if my use of the term inclusion bothers you) as flawed.  Allowing crossover into female leagues with no remedial measures would be flawed but in my opinion, so is the blanket ban without any exception.

 

We have two competing interests that are both legitimate (interests of cis-females in preserving athletic opportunity and competitive fairness and interests of trans-females in pursuing their life to the maximum extent they can in a way that meshes with their identity).  Without remedial measures, it seems impossible to satisfy both interest at the same time.  Most people seem to agree that preservation of opportunity for cis-females and competitive fairness are the two objectives at play that should not be sacrificed.  I agree with that.  What I disagree with is the notion that those two objectives can only be achieved with a blanket, no exception ban on trans-females playing in female leagues.  If a trans-female took puberty blockers from an early enough age where biological advantage has not set in yet, what exactly is the issue with letting them compete in female leagues?  Olympics have used testosterone threshold for nearly two decades and we haven't had trans female meaningfully compete in any event.  So how does that negatively effect competitive fairness?  California, as I understand it, has a pretty lax trans female competition law for the last decade.  That seems like a good source of data to study and see how much negative effect it had on cis-female interests and tailor appropriate responses to negative fallouts.  Why are these approaches not superior to a blanket either/or position?

[tshile]

@bearrock

 

i think your idea has problems in being workable. I favor a much simpler approach. 
 

that said - always open to new ideas. 

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I mean, sure...but seriously? All to avoid biological males playing with biological males and biological females playing with biological females in youth sports? That's a lot of process to build in to, as others have pointed out, a pretty rare exception when the stated goal is simply "fairness for all" who are taking the time to participate in the sport. 

 

Years ago we had a girl who was just so much better at softball than the other girls when we were in elementary school. She was better than many of us at baseball too. So, rather than a bunch of new rules, they just threw her in our league so she could be an above-average player in a boys' league rather than making it not fun in the girls' league. I know that's not a perfect example to what this situation is, but that's the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Rather than legislate some perfectly worded law, let's just do what will work for these rare cases...which is to have the transgender females (biological males) play with other males. More often than not, that will be more fair and far more simple. 

 

I can't speak to the effect on mental health that female league participation has on trans females.  I have no expertise nor personal experience.  All I know is that some experts and some individuals have spoken based on their expertise and personal experience that it was or is very meaningful to them.  So if people more in the know and smarter than me can come up with a plan that is both workable and by in large (not gonna require perfection, but let's say overwhelmingly large degree) continues to ensure cis-female athletic opportunity and competitive fairness, I see no reason to object to that.  Now, if a particular approach has problems, sure, let's discuss and work on addressing it.  But I don't see a lot of sense in a blanket no trans-female no exception policy in perpetuity when there appears to be at least some levels, some regions, and some countries, where some combination of pre-reqs for trans-female in female competition has been implemented with minimal issues.

 

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

@bearrock

 

i think your idea has problems in being workable. I favor a much simpler approach. 
 

that said - always open to new ideas. 

 

And you may be right.  I'm no expert on this.  But I look at the Olympics, California, and Canada and think well it appears (at least to my layman's eyes) that it can work without too much of a problem.  I take the let the experts take a crack at this and we'll see approach.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

24 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I can't speak to the effect on mental health that female league participation has on trans females.  I have no expertise nor personal experience.  All I know is that some experts and some individuals have spoken based on their expertise and personal experience that it was or is very meaningful to them.  So if people more in the know and smarter than me can come up with a plan that is both workable and by in large (not gonna require perfection, but let's say overwhelmingly large degree) continues to ensure cis-female athletic opportunity and competitive fairness, I see no reason to object to that.  Now, if a particular approach has problems, sure, let's discuss and work on addressing it.  But I don't see a lot of sense in a blanket no trans-female no exception policy in perpetuity when there appears to be at least some levels, some regions, and some countries, where some combination of pre-reqs for trans-female in female competition has been implemented with minimal issues.

 

 

And you may be right.  I'm no expert on this.  But I look at the Olympics, California, and Canada and think well it appears (at least to my layman's eyes) that it can work without too much of a problem.  I take the let the experts take a crack at this and we'll see approach.

 

I wonder what the effect on mental health is for those who can't participate in the leagues of their choice for financial reasons. We aren't subsidizing athletics for everyone to make sure that kids get to play. Having said that, to the bolded part in your post, I agree...I would assume we all do. If there's some simple solution out there that allows everyone to be happy and the leagues to remain fair, GREAT! 

[tshile]

I can’t speak for every area but where I am, it is subsidized. There may be parents who don’t bother to try or learn about it because of their financial situation, but as far as I’m aware there hasn’t been a kid in any of the leagues I’m involved in that couldn’t play cause they couldn’t afford the fees or equipment. 
 

which is why I always donate our old equipment, and will happily take anyone to donate. We also donate money to all the leagues for those kids. And there’s grants available. Etc. 

[bearrock]

It may be a Northern Virginia thing, but pretty sure subsidy is readily available for athletic participation around here.  Heck, given the rate of obesity in this country, money should be no barrier to getting kids involved in sports.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I can’t speak for every area but where I am, it is subsidized. There may be parents who don’t bother to try or learn about it because of their financial situation, but as far as I’m aware there hasn’t been a kid in any of the leagues I’m involved in that couldn’t play cause they couldn’t afford the fees or equipment. 
 

which is why I always donate our old equipment, and will happily take anyone to donate. We also donate money to all the leagues for those kids. And there’s grants available. Etc. 

 

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

It may be a Northern Virginia thing, but pretty sure subsidy is readily available for athletic participation around here.  Heck, given the rate of obesity in this country, money should be no barrier to getting kids involved in sports.

 

Oh wow, OK, I stand corrected. I had no idea that there was "financial aid" for kids to play sports. Keep in mind though, we aren't always talking about impoverished people here. My daughter, for example, is in competitive cheer. It's expensive as ****. I have friends who have kids in that AND travel baseball. Same situation but multiplied by 2. Our families wouldn't qualify for financial aid or subsidies.

 

But, what if our neighbors lose their job and said no about little Becky cheering with her friends or little Tommy playing baseball with his? They don't get to play on the team they want to play on might have to play on a different team. That's more the situation I was talking about...not a kid who doesn't get to play at all because his parents have to keep the heat on. Would anyone bend all the rules to make sure those kids play on the team they want? 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

It may be a Northern Virginia thing, but pretty sure subsidy is readily available for athletic participation around here.  Heck, given the rate of obesity in this country, money should be no barrier to getting kids involved in sports.

And at least where I am, every leagues forms have, somewhere around the area payments are discussed, a catch all “contact us to discuss reduced rates and payment schedules”

 

which, if you go that route, there is room for people in the lower ends of income to still get their kids in sports

 

some of it is legit subsidy via government or grants, or corporate donations, but a good chunk of it is just random adults throwing money into the pool when we sign up to coach, or get our kids in, or whatever 

[bearrock]

25 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

But, what if our neighbors lose their job and said no about little Becky cheering with her friends or little Tommy playing baseball with his? They don't get to play on the team they want to play on might have to play on a different team. That's more the situation I was talking about...not a kid who doesn't get to play at all because his parents have to keep the heat on. Would anyone bend all the rules to make sure those kids play on the team they want? 

 

I would and have seen situations like this covered by different types of sources.  In the richest country in world, I think we have room to cover this (and thankfully often do).  

[bcl05]

I am the resident ES geneticist, unless there are others too.  Here is a simplified version of my standard rant on these issues.  Apologize if this is redundant with stuff I’ve written in the past…

 

The “biological sex” and (even more) “what is a woman” arguments that I see often in discussions of trans issues drive me nuts.  This issue is actually so complex that simple definitions are always going to fall short. 

Basically (and it could be a lot more complex than this) there are 5 different domains that comprise “sex”

 

External anatomy -   vagina/labia/clitoris vs. penis/scrotum

Internal anatomy -  Uterus/ovaries vs. prostate/testes

Hormones  – Estrogen/progesterone vs. testosterone

Chromosomes – XX vs. XY

Gender identity – female vs. male

 

Every single one of these domains naturally exist on a spectrum.  For most people, everything conforms to one pole or the other, but there are plenty of people for whom that is not true.  There are people born with vaginas and testes.  There are folks with XX chromosomes and penises.  There are XX people who produce a ton of testosterone.  There are people with scrotalized labia, elongated phallus, and complex chromosome variants at birth whom we really don’t know what to expect re: male/female.  Etc. etc. etc. 

 

Trans identity is just one part of a complex biological phenomenon of “sex” which escapes simple definition. 

Any simple definition is going to get messy on the edges, and will have cases where people have discrepancies between different domains of sex.  I see patients all the time with interesting and complicated mixes of features of both male/female characteristics.  Mostly they are otherwise healthy and you’ve all likely met folks like this and not known it. 

 

The entire point of any childhood extracurricular activity (especially sports) is to give kids opportunities to learn teamwork, make friends, and feel like they are a part of something.  Children who are different (in any way, but especially if their gender/sex conformity is not typical) are especially in need of these experiences. 

 

I am very glad that girls sports exists, because there are real biological differences between “girls” and “boys” in the general population, and the most important value for me in sports at most levels is inclusivity.  I think including the rare kids who have harder-to-define sex (including trans kids) is such a small number that favoring including them over inconveniencing some others is well worth it.  I’d strongly support just kids participating in whatever sport/activity they want.  I would keep it simple and just ask people to sign up for boys or girls leagues and not question their ability to decide for themselves where they fit best.  

I acknowledge that this does get a lot more complex at the highest levels of competitions, and I’m glad the olympics/NCAA and the like are taking a thoughtful, inclusive, but rational approach (even if I’d disagree with some minor points). 

[Captain Wiggles]

So Youngkin is fine with Caesars building a resort casino convention center dealy in SW VA but not Ford building a EV battery plant? The Ford jobs are better paying even tho the folks in Michigan are whinging about how theys poverty wages.

 

Aren't the majority of slot/game machines made in China? That's sposidly why Youngkin didn't want the Ford plant in VA right? Because the batteries would be built with parts from China. 

[Simmsy]

Youngkin changes Virginia’s voting rights restoration process

 

Quote

People with felony convictions seeking to have their rights to vote, run for office and serve on a jury restored are now required to file an application given to them once they are released. They are all “considered individually,” Secretary of the Commonwealth Kay Coles James wrote in a March 22 letter to state Sen. Lionell Spruill Sr. (D-Chesapeake).

 

The Youngkin administration’s move is a shift from a policy change implemented by Gov. Robert McDonnell (R) to automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of certain nonviolent felonies who meet specific requirements.

 

[stoshuaj]

On 3/13/2023 at 3:23 PM, Captain Wiggles said:

So Youngkin is fine with Caesars building a resort casino convention center dealy in SW VA but not Ford building a EV battery plant? The Ford jobs are better paying even tho the folks in Michigan are whinging about how theys poverty wages.

 

Aren't the majority of slot/game machines made in China? That's sposidly why Youngkin didn't want the Ford plant in VA right? Because the batteries would be built with parts from China. 

 

Not that I know where GY stands on Chinese slot machines but 

Caeser’s was approved by local voters in ‘20

 

Youngkin became Gov in ‘22

 

Ground was broken for the casino before he took office.

 

While I would guess you could find a Chinese slot machine manufacturer on the list, my very brief foray into slot machine manufacturers came up w Australia/Germany/US 

 

https://gamblingriot.com/slot-machine-manufacturers/

[EmirOfShmo]

Gotta believe the noise gets louder due to Vestboy's recent voting decision for felons...

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

The incident she's alluding happened down here in NC at...... a COMMUNITY COLLEGE campus to a student who was over eighteen.Technically yes a teenager at a public school. 🤭

 

Funny how she gets to decide for her children but other parents don't get to decide for theirs.