Should Trans People be allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms?

I still believe there should not be any sex discrimination in sports. Let everybody compete against everyone else. i don't care who the best women's basketball player is and I don't care who the best men's player is. I care who is the best.

AFAIK, there's only a potential lawsuit if there is a malicious intent in revealing something. I think that would apply to misgendering as well.

Quote: odiousgambit

OK, Lefties, join in on your usual chorus, "Move along, nothing to see here"

https://www.newsweek.com/shocking-field-hockey-injury-sparks-fight-over-transgender-athletes-1840845

1. Field Hockey players get injured all the time (pretty dangerous sport.) This is the first case I have heard of an injury being related to a trans player.

2. No trans person is going to be playing field hockey in any bathroom (as far as I know.)

So yeah I will join the chorus as nothing to see here because I don't think this relates to bathroom policy even slightly (even if the injury was related to one player being trans.)

Quote: Gandler

1. Field Hockey players get injured all the time (pretty dangerous sport.) This is the first case I have heard of an injury being related to a trans player.

2. No trans person is going to be playing field hockey in any bathroom (as far as I know.)

So yeah I will join the chorus as nothing to see here because I don't think this relates to bathroom policy even slightly (even if the injury was related to one player being trans.)

I would have to guess you know we have been using this thread for general TRANSgressive events of all sorts and for some reason are just now bringing it up now.

Next TRANSgression I'll start a new thread, if no one else has

Mission seems to be angry about this, saying "if you don't like me saying XYZ"... No, I like you doing it. Continue and I will continue.

In my view, it remains to be seen whether this is a trans issue or not, and I confess I can't prove it yet. I bet it is coming and that will make it seem like a cover-up; I'm guessing the NY Post is working overtime on that. Of course if not trans, it is still related, in that biological males are being allowed to play in women's sports. Yep I'm against that though I understand the Scott Adams argument: approximately saying, "Women's sports are sub-standard sports so let whoever wants to play in them, fine, it might improve them". I don't agree. I think I don't care much if professional women's sports goes away, but I think it would be a shame at the school level. Shame indeed plays a big role here.

Quote: odiousgambit

I would have to guess you know we have been using this thread for general TRANSgressive events of all sorts and for some reason are just now bringing it up now.

Next TRANSgression I'll start a new thread, if no one else has

Mission seems to be angry about this, saying "if you don't like me saying XYZ"... No, I like you doing it. Continue and I will continue.

In my view, it remains to be seen whether this is a trans issue or not, and I confess I can't prove it yet. I bet it is coming and that will make it seem like a cover-up; I'm guessing the NY Post is working overtime on that. Of course if not trans, it is still related, in that biological males are being allowed to play in women's sports. Yep I'm against that though I understand the Scott Adams argument: approximately saying, "Women's sports are sub-standard sports so let whoever wants to play in them, fine, it might improve them". I don't agree. I think I don't care much if professional women's sports goes away, but I think it would be a shame at the school level. Shame indeed plays a big role here.

There is no possible state of affairs in which this is a trans issue, and here is why:

1.) Since 1979, it has been Massachusetts law that an individual involved in amateur athletics can play on a team that does not correspond to their birth sex if there is not a team that does correspond to their birth sex, in that sport, available at that academic institution.

2.) The school in question from which the field hockey player took a shot that would result in injury ONLY has a girls' field hockey team.

Therefore:

3.) If the individual was a boy who identifies as male, that boy can play on the girls field hockey team because there is no boys field hockey team available at that academic institution.

4.) If the individual is male, by sex, and identifies as female, then that individual can play on the girls field hockey team regardless of whether or not they are a transgender. Yes, they could be transgender and ALSO be playing on that team, but the fact that they are transgender is irrelevant to whether or not they would be permitted to play on that team, per #3.

5.) If the individual is female, by sex, and identifies as male, then that individual can play on the girls field hockey team, firstly, by virtue of the fact that the individual's sex is female, and secondly, because there is only a girls field hockey team at that academic institution, and therefore, per item #1, all individuals must be permitted to play on that team if they wish.

In any event, in this case specifically, you would be arguing with a state-level law that has been around longer than I have been alive. Myself, I don't live in Massachusetts, so I don't care what Massachusetts does at the state level.

Looks like odius’s latest anti-trans gambit is a big ol FLOP.

Quote: Mission146

There is no possible state of affairs in which this is a trans issue, and here is why:

1.) Since 1979, it has been Massachusetts law that an individual involved in amateur athletics can play on a team that does not correspond to their birth sex if there is not a team that does correspond to their birth sex, in that sport, available at that academic institution.

2.) The school in question from which the field hockey player took a shot that would result in injury ONLY has a girls' field hockey team.

Therefore:

3.) If the individual was a boy who identifies as male, that boy can play on the girls field hockey team because there is no boys field hockey team available at that academic institution.

4.) If the individual is male, by sex, and identifies as female, then that individual can play on the girls field hockey team regardless of whether or not they are a transgender. Yes, they could be transgender and ALSO be playing on that team, but the fact that they are transgender is irrelevant to whether or not they would be permitted to play on that team, per #3.

5.) If the individual is female, by sex, and identifies as male, then that individual can play on the girls field hockey team, firstly, by virtue of the fact that the individual's sex is female, and secondly, because there is only a girls field hockey team at that academic institution, and therefore, per item #1, all individuals must be permitted to play on that team if they wish.

In any event, in this case specifically, you would be arguing with a state-level law that has been around longer than I have been alive. Myself, I don't live in Massachusetts, so I don't care what Massachusetts does at the state level.

You seem to be taking a legal-eagle view of this, which I care little about. Yes your facts are correct, but also exactly what the journalists are being told who are reporting on it in order to try to control the reporting. You know what my wager is.

The law being older than you? this is obvious. Trust me, there wasn't a single person who voted for or against that law who gave a thought to the idea that boys would be playing on the girl's team, except maybe somebody joked about it ... then everybody had a good laugh. Yes, things were that different then, it was inconceivable back then that a male would ever want to do such a thing. Males who were more female than male by nature did not want to do so, probably had even less interest than any other male. Weren't there some males who thought, heh, that would be fun [or 'hey I could beat everybody']? No. None of this crossed anybody's mind. This law was for females who could compete to some degree in what they knew was top competition, not sub-standard sports set aside for them, so they could do so. Little league was an example, prior to the law girls were not allowed to play in many/most places.

Have you seen field hockey being played? Something is really up with a guy who wants to do that... well, I have to take it back if the various teams are full of guys playing and he's just one of them. But I really, really doubt it.

Quote: odiousgambit

You seem to be taking a legal-eagle view of this, which I care little about. Yes your facts are correct, but also exactly what the journalists are being told who are reporting on it in order to try to control the reporting. You know what my wager is.

The law being older than you? this is obvious. Trust me, there wasn't a single person who voted for or against that law who gave a thought to the idea that boys would be playing on the girl's team, except maybe somebody joked about it ... then everybody had a good laugh. Yes, things were that different then, it was inconceivable back then that a male would ever want to do such a thing. Males who were more female than male by nature did not want to do so, probably had even less interest than any other male. Weren't there some males who thought, heh, that would be fun [or 'hey I could beat everybody']? No. None of this crossed anybody's mind. This law was for females who could compete to some degree in what they knew was top competition, not sub-standard sports set aside for them, so they could do so. Little league was an example, prior to the law girls were not allowed to play in many/most places.

Have you seen field hockey being played? Something is really up with a guy who wants to do that... well, I have to take it back if the various teams are full of guys playing and he's just one of them. But I really, really doubt it.

I honestly don't know why 'journalists' would be reporting on an injury sustained in a high school athletic event on a website that we'd presume report relevant national information in the first place. Anyway, I'm simply stating facts, because facts are things that I do care about.

The very fact that this is even a discussion here simply demonstrates what a miserable hellhole our society has become, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank individuals on both sides of the aisle for that. Quite frankly, total nuclear destruction and extinction can't come soon enough as it is the fate that we very much deserve.

As to the question that the legal decision was made by people not, 'giving a thought' to the prospect of boys participating on girls' teams:

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/378/378mass342.html

The basis of the decision made in 1979, or one of them, was literally because a boy played on a girls' volleyball team and that team was forced, as a result, to forfeit their position in the playoffs as they had all such games graded as a loss. This question included sports other than volleyball, however. Quoting from the decision:

Quote:

The State Board of Education took the view that rule 17(d)(1) could not stand legally in its blanket form, and the present action eventuated. The state of affairs on which the new rule impinged, and the policing of the rule, are described in the stipulation of the parties. When the rule was announced, Easthampton High School, which had no swimming team for boys, was allowing boys on

Page 348

the girls' team (the record does not disclose how many boys). There was a similar situation at Pioneer Valley Regional High School in field hockey, [Note 12] and at Amherst Regional, Greenfield, and Northampton high schools in volleyball. The previously all-female David Hale Fanning Trade School in Worcester had then recently admitted forty-eight boys in a total enrollment of 585. As the school could not field teams exclusively for boys, it allowed boys to play on the girls' softball and basketball squads (again, as with other schools, there is no indication of how many boys participated).

With that, unless they were all just kidding around enough to file this action with the state in 1979, and have a judge decide on the Constitutionality, specifically of boys either being excluded from girls' teams, or alternatively, girls' teams being sanctioned for having boys on them...I think that was exactly the reason that the ruling was what it was.

Therefore, I have no choice but to strenuously disagree with your obviously blind, ill-informed, illogical and nonsensical position that, "There wasn't a single person who voted for or against that law who gave a thought to the idea that boys would be playing on the girl's team..."

I really don't want to bury you. We're friends. I honestly hate doing this. Why would you make me do this to you? I tried to let you off easily. Did you really believe that I made the comments that I did without having read the actual decision knowing that it would be available?

Per the above, the remainder of your middle paragraph is completely irrelevant.

In any event, I have no opinion of guys who would play field hockey on girls' teams other than I would have no inclination to personally do so. If I were on a men's field hockey team, and a woman wanted to play with us, I would welcome her...but, I would hold nothing back and play as if she were anyone else...which, let's be honest, she'd probably very much appreciate.

OdiousGambit,

I want to talk to you about maybe concerning yourself less with the transgender issue. I believe this is an issue that, for one reason or another, is very personal to you; I have no idea why that might be.

However, you approach most subjects in a way that is very objective and consistently well-informed. I believe that whatever it is causing you to take this issue so personally is clouding your normally reasoned approach to questions.

Obviously, this is not a request in my capacity as an Administrator. You can post whatever you want. I'm only suggesting this as being for your own benefit simply because you really don't seem yourself on this particular issue and I worry that you let this particular issue bother you more than necessary.

Maybe just take a break and come back to it. I'm worried that you're letting this issue consume you to a certain extent. If you take a break and come back to it, then I think that you will make better informed arguments in support of your position.

As you know, I am opposed to male-to-female trans athletes being forced upon girls in amateur sports, as well. However, I recognized that, in the State of Massachusetts, it actually wouldn't matter as it could be a boy who identifies as a boy. For that reason, the question of whether or not it was a trans individual is strictly irrelevant.

ADDED: Also, Newsweek seems to have removed that article. Either that, or it has a different link. EDIT: The old link works again.

(Having read the article again)

Jesus Christ. What are we coming to? Newsweek literally cited what someone said in a Tweet in the article as support for the writer's position. Holy sweet mother of God, even I would never cite a Tweet unless it was strictly relevant to the specific subject matter of an article.