Trump Signs EO Banning Transgenders From Women's Sports

Then you should want Trump to also ban girls from participating on boys teams, right?

 

a total of 10 people are now banned from womens sports

big whoop..

if a woman wants to compete against a transgender person it seems she should have the right to do so
just as a woman should have the right to refuse to compete against a transgender ..

now maybe Riley Gaines can get a real job...

 

Correct. They're far more likely to be overturned than legislation.

They couldn't find rights for women to decided when or if they have a child, so why do you think they'd find all sorts of rights for trans women to compete against "XX" women?

 

I think common sense answers that question for you, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it.

 

Not what I said though. I only pointed out that they the Trump appointed SCOTUS judges have multiple times passed down verdicts that went against Trump's wishes. They could end up overturning many EO's but then not overturn passed laws from Congress that do the same things. My only point is that it is not an automatic judgement for Trump out of SCOTUS, despite how many justices he put there and how many are conservative.

 

I'm glad someone finally pointed that out in this thread. The devil is always in the details - MAGA's great nemesis.

Out of over 500,000 student-athletes attending NCAA schools, fewer than 10 are transgender, NCAA President Charlie Baker said during a congressional hearing in December. “The NCAA is an organization made up of 1,100 colleges and universities in all 50 states that collectively enroll more than 530,000 student-athletes.
https://19thnews.org/2025/02/ncaa-transgender-womens-sports-trump/


Great work, Trump! Now that 10 trans athletes are out of the picture, we have a clear path to finally Make America Great Again! I hope he next takes on all the DEI crossing guard workers. They're destroying America!

 

The biggest argument for not allowing boys/men to compete against females is injury. Which I agree with. Therefore you should also be against females participating on boys/men’s teams, right? If people are worried about females getting injured playing against boys then it make common sense to ban it both ways.

 

And then there is the question of where were those 10 placing? If they were all top 10, there might a real argument. I might even be willing to say the same for top 100. At top 1000 we're pushing it, but I'll consider it. But if they are all over the place then the worry is made up.

 

It never happens. All their focus is on gay men or transgender women/males. Notice how they never make complaints about gay women or trans men/females? Or the hypocrisy of saying people should go into the restroom of the sex they were born, but then turn around and tell any female that looks "too manly" that they can't go in?
https://www.fox19.com/2022/07/08/tr...-says-group-beat-him-up-using-wrong-restroom/
I used FOX since many trans opponents like them.

 

I see your point and it's a good one. I could see where there could be some exceptions, however. For example, tennis is a non-contact sport. Let's say you have a small, rural high school where there are not enough female tennis players to field a girls team, but you have a girl in the school who is exceptionally good at tennis, better than most boys at her school. Or maybe they can't field a girls track team, but she is an exceptionally fast runner. See where I'm going with that?

 

I do see where you’re going but then I see the left making the same argument…why not make same exceptions for trans to play on girls teams.

 

Because the reason we don't want to let biological boys play on girls teams is, as you pointed out, the risk of injury and because it simply isn't fair to the biological girls. A good example is in swimming. There is no risk of injury to the biological girls, but it simply isn't fair. But if a girl is one of those exceptional athletes, and she doesn't have a girls team she can join, and she can make the cut on a boys team, and it's a non-contact sport like tennis or track, then I say let her play. I don't think anyone is going to argue that doing that is unfair to the boys.

 

My point is if we make exceptions then the left will try to use that argument. But it’s really a moot point because girls won’t be banned from playing boys sports…even the sports they will get beat up in. Go figure.

 

Now here's my thought with that track thing, setting aside any transgender issues. Why does a school have to field separate boy's and girls teams? Aren't they competing against different schools? Even if each school has only one or two girls each, they would then be competing against each other. In the meantime, boys and girls can train with each other. It might even push the girls to bring their level up to the boys. Even if girls as an average will be below boys, there can be individuals who will match or exceed them.

 

That you keep avoiding answering my question tells me you don’t really care about females getting injured competing against boys. Shame.

 

But why does it have to be based on sex or gender? You just pointed out how a girls who has the ability to compete on the boys' level should be able to. So why not just set ability levels and let those levels compete amongst themselves, regardless of sex or gender? You'll have an even playing field, and in the end, most males will be separated out from the females, and most females will be in their own division, but no one can claim sex or gender discrimination. And this would work even for contact sports as the female would be against another person, male or female, who is matching her for striking power.

 

It's also not fair for you to wrestle with another boy who is much weaker than you. The fairness is not in the sex or gender, but the ability.

 

Who gives a crap! This is for the NCAA to resolve (or for athletes to protest/boycott) - not our govt, let alone our illegitimate 'president'.

 

What I said was that if a girl has no girls team to join, and if it's a non-contact sport, and she's good enough to make the cut onto a boys team, she ought to be allowed to do that.

You asked why does it have to be based on sex or gender. Because the of the obvious. Generally, males have an inborn physical advantage over females in sports. Everybody knows that. It's not even debatable. As a general rule, what's fair is that biological girls play against biological girls, and boys play against boys. I was just talking about a possible exception.

 

Some sports allow the team to be both male and female, but the two genders don't compete against each other. Swimming is like that. Girls swim against girls; boys swim against boys. But each team gets points for first, second, and third places, and the team with the most points at the end wins.

 

Again, what does it matter as far as whether there are other girls at the given school? Is she actually competing against her teammates, or against people from other schools? Why does there need to be a boys or girls team? Even at keeping males and females separate for competing, they go as one team to compete in boys and girls events separately. This point is outside anything with regards whether bio males and bio females should be in competition with each other. It works for swimming as well.

The claim of obvious is usually a dodge, and usually relies on begging the question fallacy.

Right, when looking at the two as a whole group. But what is true for the group in average, doesn't automatically translate to individuals. A given bio female could, as you yourself acknowledge in your example, be able to compete with bio males, because they are above average. Likewise, some bio males would be able to compete with bio females on equal grounds because they are below average. Hence why setting the standard based on ability both allows people to compete with other of the same level, as well as have, for the most part, the division between bio males and bio female that many are calling for.

 

And no reason why track and field should not also be like that, as well as some others I'm sure.

 

Trump seems to be doing pretty well.

 

Nah, we've already seen too many examples of what happens.

If a boy can't make the Varsity men's team, his option is to go on the Junior Varsity men's team, get better, and try again next year. My grandson is in 7th grade. His school has one football team and only so many spots on the team. He tried out for the team. He didn't make it, although he is a good athlete. You know who got it? The 8th graders. They are generally bigger, faster, and stronger. My grandson is working out now with his dad. Next year, he will be bigger, faster, and stronger, and there is little doubt that he's going to make the team. That's what you do. You do what you have to do.

Leah Thomas was a decent swimmer against male swimmers. But not a great swimmer. He was nowhere close to a championship level. But when he changed to the female team, he was instantly a champion. That is patently unfair to the biological females he competed against, women who had spent years and years training to be champions when pitted against other biological women. Not taking anything away from any other sport, but I was a competitive swimmer when I was young. I can appreciate the huge commitment it takes to excel in that sport. Years and years of hard, tedious training. Swimming is not a sport that's fun to practice like some sports are. It takes a very special kind of discipline of the mind and body to get to a high level. Improvement is slow, and it is measured in tenths of seconds. In my opinion, I think it is an indefensible insult to biological women who have gone through the incredibly hard work and dedication it takes to get up to a championship level just to have some bio-male just waltz in and take it away from them. Indefensible.

If you are a biological male, and your strength and skills are not good enough to be a champion, hey ... welcome to reality. Deal with it. Don't try to take away the opportunity to win from a biological female.

 

I’m amazed there are so many people in this country that doesn’t know what a woman is.