Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling crown

[usayit]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It doesn't change how one is made up? It doesn't add bulk and muscle?

Why should one be able to add bulk and muscle but not another?

It doesn't matter. Test positive and you are out. Change it for all or not at all.

You want a school full of athletes on performance enhancing drugs?

No... it isn't that simple. Of course I wouldn't want students any form of drug that is dangerous to themselves (and others). However, I am reasonable enough to understand this isn't a simplistic thing... that there are experts out there that should be consulted to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable use of ANY drug when it comes to athletics. That's why most of the exceptions require a physician to be involved throughout the athletics participation.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by neko_mimi

I guess it was bound to happen. "Transgender" males competing in female sports. How long before the feminists start protesting?

I predict much confusion in the democrats' future. Their wedge issues are going to split their own party apart.


Trinity’s transgender boy wins girls state wrestling crown

No surprise. Unless this boy is truly "transgendered" i.e. has had his nuts removed, etc. he has the testosterone and muscle that unfairly gives him the advantage. That is why boys shouldn't be allowed to compete with girls.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by usayit

No... it isn't that simple. Of course I wouldn't want students any form of drug that is dangerous to themselves (and others).

That isn't what I said. Do you want to address what I actually said and the questions I posed or do you just want to twist what I said in an attempt to avoid both?

[usayit]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I agree, which is why I think this performance enhancement use permitted for some but not for others will eventually be struck down as it is in effect discrimination based on gender identity when cisgenders who identify as their birth gender are denied such use.

As my understand... there are two UIL regulations at play here.

One determined whether or not the individual participates with girls or boys leagues. UIL uses the birth certificate.

One determines appropriate/acceptable use of drugs by its athletes. This one has nothing to do with gender.


The first one is the one that is at the center of the UIL controversy. I doubt the second one would be struck down simply because the exceptions of drug for medical use is applied to everyone.


I honestly think this situation was mishandled by the UIL. If it were me making the decision on behalf of the UIL, I would have either

* Made an exception for Mack Beggs and adopted rules similar to that of NCAA (must compete against boys).

Or

* Not allowed Mack Beggs to compete citing that regulations force competition against Girls BUT the testosterone treatment would pose a health risk to the other competitors. Then proceed to support motions to have the regulation that placed Mack in the girls league to begin with to be re-examined. No way would I risk a lawsuit from someone getting injured nor having multiple forfeitures leaving a stain on the competition itself.

[usayit]

Originally Posted by pknopp

That isn't what I said. Do you want to address what I actually said and the questions I posed or do you just want to twist what I said in an attempt to avoid both?

No it isn't what you said. I already answered your question.... just because a drug falls under PED classification doesn't automatically mean it results in an unfair advantage.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by usayit

As I read it, bathroom use doesn't fall under legitimate educational interest but athletics does. So a student using a bathroom according to their gender identity doesn't require proof but there is an exception for records being disclosed for legitimate reasons.. then proceeds to indicate how and who has that information.

In regards to the Obama edict to all public schools both K-12 and Collegiate, no, you're flat out wrong. There is no medical or identification proof whatsoever required. It's all just based on a student's "say so." Read the edict's exact words:

"Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.

...Under title IX, a school must treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex."

And the same is true of bathroom/locker/shower room use:

"Restrooms and Locker Rooms... A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so."

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/li...ransgender.pdf

Note that this is all just based on "interpretation" and actually has no legal basis, either Constitutionally or according to Federal Law.

As a Federal Judge ruled in the Pitt (university) case when a F to M (but still anatomically female) transgender student was expelled for repeatedly using the men's shower/locker room facilities on campus even after being warned to not do so:

"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.

With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."

Federal Judge denies the discrimination claim of a transgender expelled from Pitt over locker room use - Inside Higher Ed