buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 no comments on the upholding of transgender bans in sports? lol. next year the court will probably rule that even allowing transwomen to complete with biological women violates title ix. those cases are proceeding through the courts right now. but you never know, roberts could make that one another middle of the road decision and say states CAN ban them (which they said today) but are not REQUIRED to ban them (which will be the next issue before the court). 1 Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Just now, buddha said: no comments on the upholding of transgender bans in sports? lol. next year the court will probably rule that even allowing transwomen to complete with biological women violates title ix. those cases are proceeding through the courts right now. but you never know, roberts could make that one another middle of the road decision and say states CAN ban them (which they said today) but are not REQUIRED to ban them (which will be the next issue before the court). Did that happen too? Sheesh. Its a wedge issue. Its Tobias Funke being a never nude. Quote
buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 minute ago, romad1 said: Did that happen too? Sheesh. Its a wedge issue. Its Tobias Funke being a never nude. republicans should HOPE the court doesnt decide the issue. its a great issue for them to continue to harp on. Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 I have had the trans women issue presented to me as the director of a local sports league a couple times. Gender issues with girls sports are weird enough. 1 Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 minute ago, buddha said: republicans should HOPE the court doesnt decide the issue. its a great issue for them to continue to harp on. My daughter has one friend from theater who is one of the confuzles who is clearly a biological dude but identifies and dresses as a woman. He was out in the yard when they were tossing some whiffle balls and he was raking and I was like...oh, if only. Micklefate. 1 Quote
oblong Posted June 30 Posted June 30 I didn't play on the team but my friends did... in middle school we were all the typical chubby 12-13 year old kids, about 5'7", 140 pounds.... in our league was a kid named Mayce C. Webber (middle name Chris 😉 ) who was about 6'4" 210 pounds. Was that fair we had to play against a much larger kid? Why is gender the qualifier? Sometimes in life you have to compete against someone who had some built in genetic advantages. That's a lesson in and of itself. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted June 30 Posted June 30 My one question to those concerned with the trans issue is why does it seem that the question only goes one way? We have a distant relative who is female but identifies as male. I'm not sure where that particular issue stands on the transitioning process or if there is one. But no one seems to raise much objection in regards to sports. Or maybe it's my circle is too small to really pay attention. Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 15 minutes ago, oblong said: I didn't play on the team but my friends did... in middle school we were all the typical chubby 12-13 year old kids, about 5'7", 140 pounds.... in our league was a kid named Mayce C. Webber (middle name Chris 😉 ) who was about 6'4" 210 pounds. Was that fair we had to play against a much larger kid? Why is gender the qualifier? Sometimes in life you have to compete against someone who had some built in genetic advantages. That's a lesson in and of itself. The great divide in little league was at around that 11-12 age when the dudes who had been corn-fed were separating from the bookish kids who would later be their bosses. Quote
buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 17 minutes ago, oblong said: I didn't play on the team but my friends did... in middle school we were all the typical chubby 12-13 year old kids, about 5'7", 140 pounds.... in our league was a kid named Mayce C. Webber (middle name Chris 😉 ) who was about 6'4" 210 pounds. Was that fair we had to play against a much larger kid? Why is gender the qualifier? Sometimes in life you have to compete against someone who had some built in genetic advantages. That's a lesson in and of itself. gender isnt the qualifier, sex is the qualifier. Quote
oblong Posted June 30 Posted June 30 2 minutes ago, buddha said: gender isnt the qualifier, sex is the qualifier. whatever.... my point still stands. Life can be unfair at times. It's just sports. NObody's entitled to a trophy. Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 30 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: My one question to those concerned with the trans issue is why does it seem that the question only goes one way? We have a distant relative who is female but identifies as male. I'm not sure where that particular issue stands on the transitioning process or if there is one. But no one seems to raise much objection in regards to sports. Or maybe it's my circle is too small to really pay attention. The females dying to play in male sports thing is perpetual. Quote
buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 14 minutes ago, oblong said: whatever.... my point still stands. Life can be unfair at times. It's just sports. NObody's entitled to a trophy. so why have women's sports at all? they can compete against the boys. if they cant win, its ok, its just sports and life is unfair sometimes. Quote
buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 3 hours ago, buddha said: really 5-4 on the constitutional interpretation issue. kavanaugh said the EO violates congressional statute, but that the 14th amendment issue is unclear on whether it applies to all people born in the US. really 5 1/2 to 3 1/2. gorsuch would have allowed it for illegal aliens who live here permanently, but not for people who are just passing through. consistent with wong kim ark, kinda. kavanaugh said its up to congress to regulate it. so its really a 7-2/6-3 decision for the birthright citizenship being ok, but the chief went for a really broad opinion and was only able to get 5 to sign up. the 3 libs and barrett. only alito and thomas were dead set against it with kavanaugh trying to play both sides. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Alito is a serial liar and Thomas should have been impeached long ago for all the bribes he's taken. Kavanaugh is just a frat boy with no original thoughts. These are the best and brightest jurors we can find? John Jay is rolling in his grave Quote
Sports_Freak Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, romad1 said: The great divide in little league was at around that 11-12 age when the dudes who had been corn-fed were separating from the bookish kids who would later be their bosses. Outta likes but that got a 🤣🤣🤣 I have a good friend who says the potency of marijuana really took off once the nerds got involved with it. 🤣🤣 1 Quote
chasfh Posted June 30 Posted June 30 3 hours ago, buddha said: look, i like birthright citizenship. america is a country of immigrants, etc etc. yadda yadda yadda. but there are plenty of examples in american history where folks were denied citizenship even if they were born here because their parents were foreigners and subject to the laws of the country in which they were domiciled. The 14th amendment was not created for the purpose of making every foreigners kid a citizen, it was specifically created so the south couldnt prevent black people who were born here from being citizens. it was never meant to address any other issue. i like the result, i just dont think its crystal clear. the law rarely is. You're a good guy and everything, but for the purposes of this debate, I don't care how much you like this ruling any more than I care about what kinds of hats you imagine I wear. The court may have cited Wong Kim Ark in its decision, but they did so to explicitly reject the Trump administration's argument that birthright citizenship was a right only reserved to those domiciled in the United States, and Roberts affirmed that while the parents in Wong Kim Ark happened to be domiciled in California, the actual legal rule established by the case was not dependent on that fact. As for the dissents you noted, both the Devereuax and the de Bourry cases constituted executive or administrative decisions that were accepted at face value by the parties in question at the time and were not subsequently litigated, and the majority opinion today emphasized that isolated administrative actions or passport denials from the 1880s do not hold the same weight as constitutional text or Supreme Court precedent. Such rejected dissents notwithstanding, the only exclusions to the birthright citizenship rule are for children of accredited foreign diplomats; children of hostile invaders or occupying forces; births aboard foreign sovereign vessels; and, weirdly, children born only in American Samoa and Swains Island. I don't know for sure whether the Trump lawyers attempted to characterize undocumented immigrants as hostile invaders or occupying forces—it would be very on-brand for them to do so—but I'm guessing they probably didn't because we'd be reading that very thing in the news stories about this today. I guess even Trump lawyers have their limits. At the moment, anyway. Quote
chasfh Posted June 30 Posted June 30 2 hours ago, oblong said: I didn't play on the team but my friends did... in middle school we were all the typical chubby 12-13 year old kids, about 5'7", 140 pounds.... in our league was a kid named Mayce C. Webber (middle name Chris 😉 ) who was about 6'4" 210 pounds. Was that fair we had to play against a much larger kid? Why is gender the qualifier? Sometimes in life you have to compete against someone who had some built in genetic advantages. That's a lesson in and of itself. Did Mayce C-is-for-Chris Webber try to groom his teammates into a deviant sex cult? I rest my case. 😉 Quote
chasfh Posted June 30 Posted June 30 39 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Alito is a serial liar and Thomas should have been impeached long ago for all the bribes he's taken. Kavanaugh is just a frat boy with no original thoughts. These are the best and brightest jurors we can find? No, they're not! That was the point! 😂 1 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, oblong said: I didn't play on the team but my friends did... in middle school we were all the typical chubby 12-13 year old kids, about 5'7", 140 pounds.... in our league was a kid named Mayce C. Webber (middle name Chris 😉 ) who was about 6'4" 210 pounds. Was that fair we had to play against a much larger kid? Why is gender the qualifier? Sometimes in life you have to compete against someone who had some built in genetic advantages. That's a lesson in and of itself. It depends on the sport. When my son played little league baseball, there was a kid on his team that was taller and heavier than anyone in the entire league. He pitched and nobody could hit his fastball. They limit innings but any time he was scheduled to pitch, everyone chalked it up as a win. Really unfair. But when my son wrestled in HS, there were strict weight limits for every single match. Some kids starved themselves to "make weight." I'm glad my son never had to because it woulda been a fight....I'm against starving children...for ANY reason. Quote
oblong Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, buddha said: so why have women's sports at all? they can compete against the boys. if they cant win, its ok, its just sports and life is unfair sometimes. I don’t disagree with that in principle but in reality it would be hard to implement. So in general we’ve created these lines out of convenience. But there should always be exceptions. I’ve played on teams in HS where some of the players on the girls team were better than players on the boys team. Why do we need women and men’s curling? This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts. It’s frankly rooted in cruelty and bigotry and ignorance. Sorry that your Meaghans and Katelyns and Ashleighs may have to play against someone bigger and stronger. There’s no cynical motive behind the kids wanting to participate. There are biological inconsistencies sometimes and for these kids sports might have been the best outlet. But going along with that violates a “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” belief and we can’t go against one version of a Christian Bible, can we? Quote
romad1 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 12 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: It depends on the sport. When my son played little league baseball, there was a kid on his team that was taller and heavier than anyone in the entire league. He pitched and nobody could hit his fastball. They limit innings but any time he was scheduled to pitch, everyone chalked it up as a win. Really unfair. But when my son wrestled in HS, there were strict weight limits for every single match. Some kids starved themselves to "make weight." I'm glad my son never had to because it woulda been a fight....I'm against starving children...for ANY reason. Yeah, the tall kids with leverage were at distinct advantage pitching and hitting and otherwise being assigned to play 1B because of tallness. However, there is a strong IF to that. If they could master their hand/eye coordination they were. Sometimes the length arrives without coordination and that goes for the girls as well as the boys. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Transgender in sports is rare. This is just so parents can attack kids who are not feminine enough. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted June 30 Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Transgender in sports is rare. This is just so parents can attack kids who are not feminine enough. Several months ago, I heard a talking head on TV say there were less than 300 transgender kids in sports across the entire country. But it's an excellent distraction from the Epstein Files. Quote
buddha Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, oblong said: I don’t disagree with that in principle but in reality it would be hard to implement. So in general we’ve created these lines out of convenience. But there should always be exceptions. I’ve played on teams in HS where some of the players on the girls team were better than players on the boys team. Why do we need women and men’s curling? This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts. It’s frankly rooted in cruelty and bigotry and ignorance. Sorry that your Meaghans and Katelyns and Ashleighs may have to play against someone bigger and stronger. There’s no cynical motive behind the kids wanting to participate. There are biological inconsistencies sometimes and for these kids sports might have been the best outlet. But going along with that violates a “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” belief and we can’t go against one version of a Christian Bible, can we? there are many reasons for sports to be divided according to sex that have nothing to do with bible verses. its about boys being biologically bigger than girls and thus giving girls a chance to compete against others like them. i agree with everyone who says this is nothing more than a distraction, but it makes for an interesting legal argument. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.