Apologies. That was meant to be sarcastic, and not a blame on Democrats. I was mostly making fun of the extreme lengths people are going to to say that the Republicans are somehow not to blame for this.

Keep on trying. One of these days, those Democrats will turn around and say not to reveal this info, and then that’ll vindicate the child-loving Republicans.

Hey, where’s all those losers that kept saying the Dems didn’t actually want it released? Come on out of the woodwork, ya fucking losers.

Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then… Why is there even a problem?

These aren’t inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn’t true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.

Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don’t. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.

Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.

See, the thing is, I disagree. No one would take the years it takes to transition for the unknown potential advantage. We do not know what amount of advantage or disadvantage transitioning would give, and the evidence we currently have says that there isn’t a statistical advantage.

These policies don’t even protect cis-women. Women born with hormonal abnormalities or genetic advantages are directly impacted. These are seen as beneficial in male competitors (Michael Phelps is a genetic lottery winner and should probably be in his own league), but if a woman happened to benefit by having naturally higher testosterone production, height, or skeletal structure, should she be excluded from competing against women? Then the only difference between that hypothetical trans athlete and cis athlete is… That they are trans.

Most of this issue is really due to how we segregate sports. We arbitrarily use gender/sex because there are genetic and cultural differences that mostly correlate to difference in outcomes. There are better ways to segregate sports (ala weight classes in boxing) that would more fairly match opponents, but we don’t do these. Why? Mostly laziness, somewhat historical systems of oppression.

So, no, I don’t agree. When you can find a trans athlete that transitioned for am advantage, I will acknowledge your point.

Do you not think a cis-female 52-year old former athlete and ex-Navy could play college basketball as well or better than Gabrielle Ludwig? Mission College didn’t go to playoffs the one year that Gabrielle Ludwig played 30 minutes a game.

Do you… Do you think older women are shit at basketball?

Name one transfem Olympian that this ruling protects against. Which of those girls are out there stealing medals?

Like, imagine an athlete so dedicated to trying to win that they spend years paying stupid amounts of money to go to a psychologist, go on HRT, get surgery, and deal with unbelievable amounts of stigma on top of the training you also would need to do in order to get almost no advantage (or possibly negative advantage) instead of just buying steroids.

Imagine being stupid enough to believe that.

… That makes sense. Whoops!

I don’t think anyone will read that, but I did. The thing is, you’re not really wrong. But you aren’t going to appeal to anyone like that.

Do you just want to be angry? Do you just want to yell? I feel that.

Personally, yes, I would rather have had non-Trump than Trump. There weren’t really any other viable options besides Kamala when I voted. No third party vote would’ve saved us, even if I convinced literally everyone I know to do the same. But Kamala was much better than Trump, and you brought up good reasons why. She can be bullied into being better. Heck, Gavin Newsom can be bullied into being better. I don’t really like either of them, but I have limits to what I can affect, and I chose that which I could.

Unfortunately, it’s everyone’s mess. We all have to clean it up. I didn’t cause it. Heck, even people that don’t live here probably have to help, and they’re the least to blame for it. But, that’s kinda how it works. Start small, and go from there.

That’s kind of related, though. He used to support trans kids until he felt like it might affect his electability. If he isn’t willing to stand by his morals, he is only supporting the money.

The list did. You’re appending to a list.

Wait, where does this not apply to Republicans?

These guys are saying $50-100 but I have seen $200 per month on a $1800 per month apartment. It’s no joke.

There’s no technicality about it. The people that get married are the ones who determine the exclusivity of the marriage.

Like, it’s even dumber than that because if you didn’t have marriage, you’d still have people in exclusive relationships, so wtf are you complaining about?

You gotta remember that these people spouting this have very little to work off of, so they’re gonna use anything they can.

They keep bringing incels that complain about her non-stop.

Right, that would be you arguing moral grounds. If you were to argue that Nazis are covered under hate speech, that is fine because hate speech is illegal. There’s the difference, right? Depicting Nazis isn’t illegal (in most places), and could be allowed, but hate speech is illegal.

But then why do the Republicans look like child sex predators? Idk, maybe they should’ve voted to release the documents anyway, unless they are actually the predators.

Why did they do that? That is a really dumb strategy. The Republicans should’ve voted to release it so the Democrats would’ve had to vote to block it. Now the Republicans look like child molesters.

You said they worked together, but did they work together to make themselves look bad? Why not 50-50 it? Or make everyone vote against it? Idk, maybe I’m a better political strategist than you and them?