Trump Signs EO Banning Transgenders From Women's Sports

No we haven't, because no one has ever bothered to match people together on equal footing for their individual ability before.

That sounds like if you can't make one level of competition, then move down to the next level and then the next until you find that level where you are competing with those who are on the same level as you. Which is what I am saying, only I am not making limits on sex or gender.

So what's stopping the 9th graders from being the ones to push him off the team then? Aside from there may not be that grade there, but I think you get the point. Or what happens if there are 7th graders who are bigger, faster and stronger than him despite his training. But put it the other way. Do you let varsity level players play on the jr varsity team? Given that they are bigger and stronger as you noted, would that not similar to your claim of letting males play against females? Not good because men are bigger and stronger than women? If not then explain the difference, without such dodges as "use common sense" or "it should be obvious"

Setting aside that Thomas has lost many of their competitions to cis women, including coming in 8th out of 8 in one, all this does is highlight my solution of matching up people of similar ability. If Thomas was all that due to their male biology, you would think that they would break all kinds of records. Yet they did not break a single NCAA women's record, while a cis woman broke 18 out of he 27 (all by cis women) new records set at Thomas' last competition for the NCAA. And BTW, yes, I am purposefully referring to Thomas as a "they". For all that I will point out the flaws in the arguments of their performance, their locker room behavior is reprehensible, and doesn't have a place even in a men's locker room. So I don't grace them with either gender pronoun.

As pointed out, even Thomas didn't take away often the win from a cis woman, or even place or show. But either way does nothing with regards to my point on matching up people based on ability and not sex or gender. Let me ask you this. If we were to place people based purely on ability, how do you think things would settle out sex wise? Don't assume a two division limit.

 

His middle school only goes to the 8th grade. When he goes to high school, whether he plays or not depends on how many teams they have. When I was in high school my high school had 3 teams. One was for freshmen only, called the "Frosh" team. Then there was the Junior Varsity team witch was open to any grade level. And then there was Varsity which, of course, consisted of the best players in the whole high school. I remember one very gifted athlete who played on the Varsity team throughout his entire high school years, including as a freshman.

I expect my grandson will get on the team when he's in the 8th grade. His dad (my son) is a strong athlete, and he is training him at home. I guess it is possible that a crop of really gifted 7th graders could prevent him from making it next year, but I objectively think that's doubtful.

When I was in high school a player could only play on one team. So no. A Varsity player could not also play on the Junior Varsity team. I assume that hasn't changed.

Contact sports like football highlight the difference between the two sexes. It would be exceptionally rare - not completely inconceivable, but very rare - for a bio female to make it onto an otherwise male football team. We know the physical differences between males and females. They are a fact and not debatable. Those differences are what would keep the vast majority of females from making it onto a male football team as long as the team had a sizeable pool of potential male athletes who wanted to try out for the team. In the vast majority of cases the males would simply have too many natural physical advantages that the female simply could not match.

But it is just the opposite if you have a bio-male trying out for a women's team, and that is what is simply not fair.

My guess is totally unscientific. I have done zero research on my answer, nor do I intend to. Pure opinion, okay?

Bottom third: Predominantly female, many of whom are good female athletes. Also, some males who are not very good male athletes.

Middle third: A mix of some the better females and average males

Top third: Predominantly males. A smattering of females who were gifted athletes

Top 10%: Probably only males

Now I have no idea whatsoever how accurate that is. But if it's anywhere near accurate, it backs up my opinion on this. That smattering of top females I mentioned in the top third deserve to be champions among women, but honestly, they will never be champions against the best men. Those elite female athletes have earned their place in the top tier, and they should not have to compete against bio-males to get the wins and honors they deserve.

Look. Here's how I see it.

We are all living with the hand we are dealt. Some people are tall. Some people aren't. Some people have great looks. Some people don't. Some people are very intelligent. Some people are only average or below average. Etc, etc, etc. And some people identify with their birth sex, and some people don't.

I know a couple of war vets. One doesn't have most of one leg, and has a missing eardrum. One has only one eye and a partially impaired hand.

Both are very successful in life. But the compromises they must make, they make without complaint. They deal with the hand they were dealt, and both are happy to be alive. And they live well, despite the hand they were dealt.

And I think transgender people can make compromises too. If you are a birth male, compete in sports against other males. In every other way, present as a female if you want. But make that compromise. Make that compromise because almost everyone else around us does too, in one way or another. Do it because the hand you were dealt should not impact others negatively. The happiness one feels from winning is temporal. Life's ups and downs continue long after the thrill of winning something in sports becomes just a pleasant memory.

Do you know how "honor" is earned? It is earned through selfless acts. It is earned by sacrificing something for the greater good of others. And for those who have earned it, honor lives with them forever, until they die. And then it is remembered by their children and grandchildren, and it serves as an example to follow.

So, to transgender bio males, I say, accept the hand you were dealt. Make the compromises. Make a sacrifice. Don't impair bio females. And know that putting yourself second was the honorable thing to do. And live the life you want to live, knowing that you did that, and be proud of it.

That's how I see it.

Seth

 

Wasn't sure how it was sructured there. I come from a Jr High background. 7 and 8 only. Later they changed it to Middle School with 6, 7 and 8, taking away from elementary. However, in my travels in the Navy, I have seen some where Middle School was 7, 8 and 9, with High School being 10, 11, and 12.

Not what I asked though. I said varsity level player. Good enough to get on the team, but not enough slots to let him in. There is a difference between not good enough to make varsity and not enough room to get in. So does that mean that a kid who is good enough for JV, but not varsity, might lose his chance to be on a team simply because someone better that was slotted out of varsity got to get the slot? And is not that guy, who was good enough to be varsity, playing above the average JV ability level?

Which means that even in putting the divisions on an ability based criteria, you'll still get the criteria you'd want for the most part, and not put any bio women in danger since any bio men would not be of the ability to do any more harm than a bio women of the same ability. I keep asking this question and everyone keeps dodging it. Maybe you won't. If Janice is up against Mary who hits with 200# of force (random number for example's sake), and that is considered a fair match, then what is the difference of Janice being matched with Bob, who also only does 200# of force? Is Bob's 200# somehow more powerful than Mary's?

It also backs up my opinion. If they are playing on a level field that is divided up on ability then the bio females could outdo the bio males of the same ability. Thomas showed us that when they went to the NCAA tournament and broke not a single record, and yet 27 records were broken by bio females, 18 by a single bio female. If Thomas really had such an advantage over bio females by being bio male, he should have broken at least one.

Do they not seek surgeries and other medical procedures to fix or mediate whatever loss they have? Or are they, "Nope lost an eye. I have to stay this way, even if there is a new electronic one that could restore my binocular vision."? If they develop PTSD or other disorders or complications, do they not seek help for that? So what really is the difference?

We are in agreement that people in sports should not be competing against those who are not their equal within the sport, such that something other than skill in that sport gives them an advantage. Is that not the principle in having weight classes in boxing? That one man should not have advantage over another man due to superior strength and damage absorption? I'm just saying to eliminate the sex criteria and use criteria that is absolutely objective to the sport. And maybe weight isn't it for say boxing. Maybe it becomes punching strength, and ability to withstand a given force when hit.

Setting aside that we can show example after example of actual transitioned bio males losing repeatedly to bio females, not to mention that we deny actual bio females into certain sports, or at least certain categories, if they naturally have too high a testosterones level, we have people who are trying to be athletes. And the only fair competition is one on level ground, metaphorically speaking. I could as easily argue that it is just as honorable to make the compromise and sacrifice to move to an ability based system, instead of a sex based system. Who is being selfless and doing he actual sacrificing, is ultimately going o be a subjective value.

 

I understand what you're driving at. I just don't agree with it. Dividing people by male - female is easy. What you're suggesting would be very complicated. Are you suggesting that sports should go through a long, drawn out, perhaps controversial testing process of the athletes to determine their ability instead of just dividing them by gender? Also, if we could divide everyone up according to ability, the champions would always be men. Male boxers, male swimmers, male soccer teams, etc, etc, etc. There would literally be no female champions at all. Now to make sure females have a chance to be champions, we could go down the list of competitors at an event in the order of where they placed, and when we get down to a female, declare her the female champion. But if we're going to do that, why didn't we just separate the competition by gender in the first place? The reason we didn't, the reason we went through a long, drawn out, complicated "ability testing" was to include transgenders. That's why we did it.

I don't agree with that. I'm sorry. We are not going to blow up a simple, widely accepted system and replace it with an onerous, complicated system to accommodate .5% of the population, if that. The honorable thing for that .5% is to make a sacrifice. That sacrifice is to make choices that others don't have to make. But, as I said, this is the hand they were dealt, and life isn't always perfectly fair. They can choose to live a trans life, except for organized sport. Or they can drop from competitive sport if the idea of competing in their birth gender is too unpleasant. Or, they can forestall transition until a time in their life when they are through with competitive sports. I think of Lia Thomas. The guy was transitioning right in the middle of his collegiate sports years. I'm sorry, I think that is dumb. He should have just finished his college sports as a man and then transitioned if that's what he wanted. Or, he could have presented as a female outside of the pool but continued to compete as a man. Are those compromises? Yes!! I'm sorry, but SO WHAT? They are not the only people in the world who play this game we call "Life" with the hand they were dealt.

Seth

 

At this point, I think we have come down to the arguments that we're just going to keep circling around on, simply resaying them in different ways. Both of us are expressing opinions on what is best or fair, which are subjective values. I don't think we are going to agree much beyond where we have. I will not disagree that simply being transgender qualifies one for one side or the other. For that matter, simply being cis gender can still be not qualified for a given division such as a cis woman who has naturally high testosterone. I am not one who wants to just blindly move trans women into women's sports. I just don't believe that an absolute ban is needed, especially for those who don't go through a male puberty, which would not be the Lia Thomas types. But I think that you and I respect each other too much to continue in circles, so I will bow out here. I look forward to seeing you in other threads.

 

It’s been a nice respectful exchange of views.

Cheers!

 

Reserving female sports for females is clearly common sense as is ending the minting of the penny.

Treasury To Stop Minting Pennies

It costs the US Government more than 2 cents to mint a single penny. The cost to mint pennies has exceeded the face value of the penny for nearly 20 years. Yet no one else, until Trump, would pull the plug on the penny.

“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!” Trump wrote. “I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies.”

Getting rid of the penny cuts costs.

 

You posted in the wrong thread. This thread has nothing to do with pennies.

 

Fake News.

This thread is about common sense.

Please stick to the topic rather than trying to make your fellow posters the topic.

 

He is attempting to make a point through the use of a parallel, a valid debate tactic. I'm not saying that I agree with the point, or that he is right or anything. But the use of a parallel is legit and proper. The attempt to dismiss it is avoidance of his point. I will be addressing it later when I get home. But there is nothing wrong with his use of a parallel. In this specific situation, it is you who are not debating in good faith, with the avoidance.

 

But there’s a problem with his plan: Phasing out the penny could result in needing to make more nickels, and the US Treasury Department loses far more money on every nickel than it does on every penny.
According to the latest annual report from the US Mint, each penny cost 3.7 cents to make, including the 3 cents for production costs, and 0.7 cents per coin for administrative and distribution costs. But each nickel costs 13.8 cents, with 11 cents of production costs and 2.8 cents of administrative and distribution costs.
During that fiscal year, the Mint tried to cut those losses by making far fewer nickels — only 202 million, down 86% from the 1.4 billion nickels it minted in each of the two previous years. That’s also far less than the 3.2 billon pennies it made in 2024 and the 4.1 billion it made in 2023 and 5.4 billion it made in 2022.
Even if the Mint has to make only 850,000 additional nickels in 2025 to meet demand from retailers, that would wipe out the savings of eliminating the penny. If goes back up to making 1.4 million nickels a year, that would cost $78 million more than the cost of pennies it is no longer making.

 

Common sense isn't, and the use of it as an argument is nothing but a dodge. Not to mention that just because it is thought of as common sense by some does not make it right. After all, there were plenty of people who used to say that it was common sense that blacks and whites can't get married. Some still do. ECA showed how your specific example doesn't necessarily save money, the supposed common sense not actually making sense. Further, if the penny is abolished (yes I know i would still be a legal coin for what is out there, but no longer minting it would mean that people will start hoarding them as collector's items), then due to soon to be absence, states will have to adjust their sales taxes and income taxes, as applicable, to account for that. And since it is unlikely that any state will lower taxes, that means they will all be rounded up to the nearest nickel, or if we eliminate both penny and nickel, since they cost more to mint than they are worth, to the nearest dime. For Maryland, in either case, the sales tax will jump from 6% to 10%. Alabama would either move to 5% or a whopping jump to 10% if both go. Does it seem like common sense to force such higher taxes on citizens?

 

No it's not about common sense, because "common sense" is an empty argument, with the "common sense" being whatever the person presenting the argument wants it to be.

 

lets beat a dead horse

NOBODY ever forced a woman to compete in sports against a transgender person

all a woman needed to say is "I refuse to compete against a transgender person" and don't suit up

and if all women did this and refused to compete against a transgender...it would be the END!!

but thousands of women decided to compete against a transgender...they suited up and tried there best

some women won and beat the transgenders ..others did not

some women accepted defeat with honor and class...others whined and cried and made excuses

this entire issue was created to get attention and make money by trump supporters

Riley Gaines and other lunatics needed a cause to get attention and make money ..

their next cause will be something like banning transgenders from fishing and hunting

anything to get attention and make money

 

Eliminating the penny isn’t an open and shut case, as the cost is not the only factor at play. It’s a worthy discussion, though. So, perhaps it was a good parallel, since not is all as it seems on the surface for the topic, either. How ‘bout that!?

That’s fair.

 

Senate Democrats Unanimously Oppose Protecting Women’s Sports.

'On Monday evening, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block a Republican-sponsored bill aimed at preventing federally funded schools from allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. In a 51-45 party-line vote, Democrats filibustered the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, which needed 60 votes to advance.'

Dems don't even give a damn what Dems want.

'A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted in January found that 79% of those surveyed were opposed to the participation of “transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female” in women’s sports. Just 18% said they “should be allowed.”'

18% of Americans support the Dems position.
79% of Americans oppose the Dems position.

Democrats oppose 67-31