I don't support trans. Many sports are categorized by sex Male swim team competitions, female swim team competitions, and so forth.

A minority of so-called progressives now want that categorization be based on gender. That is, how a person identifies themselves.

If you allow that why bother to have different teams and competitions based on gender? You may as well have uni-gender teams. 

I thought it ridiculous when the Biden admin changed the passport application to allow identification by M, F or other. You were allowed to use other or to simply switch from M to F or vice-versa. Then why bother to have sex in the application when it is made irrelevant?

If we're doing gender to whatever anyone feels then you may as well remove the sex identifier from birth certificates, passport drivers licenses and have uni-gender bathrooms (leading to issues in schools with raging teenage hormones).

To me a person transitioning sex are cosmetic changes of putt on different clothes, surgically modifying sexual parts and getting hormone therapy. But primarily they are still the sex they are born with, that is the XX or XY chromosome, the body's basic building block. Which is why they require hormone therapy for life.

I know there are very rare aberrations such XXY chromosomes. But that is irrelevant to my above discussion.

TGreene said:

If you allow that why bother to have different teams and competitions based on gender? You may as well have uni-gender teams. 

I think the sports angle gets way too much attention. Trump and the right wing in general don't care about sports, they care about attacking trans people. Changing the US passport to be sex rather than gender, and insisting sex can only be M or F, is not about sports. Erasing any mention of trans people from the National Park Service's Stonewall Memorial page isn't about sports. Kicking people out of the military because they are trans isn't about sports.

If we're going to talk about sports, the actual answer is that the organizations running competitions can set their own rules, same as they do for what medicines and drugs they allow, what kinds of shoes they allow, etc. It's not really a matter the federal government needs to get involved in. Politicians only bring sport up to try to sneak in anti-trans animus, which is what they really care about.

PVW said:

I think the sports angle gets way too much attention. Trump and the right wing in general don't care about sports, they care about attacking trans people. Changing the US passport to be sex rather than gender, and insisting sex can only be M or F, is not about sports. Erasing any mention of trans people from the National Park Service's Stonewall Memorial page isn't about sports. Kicking people out of the military because they are trans isn't about sports.

If we're going to talk about sports, the actual answer is that the organizations running competitions can set their own rules, same as they do for what medicines and drugs they allow, what kinds of shoes they allow, etc. It's not really a matter the federal government needs to get involved in. Politicians only bring sport up to try to sneak in anti-trans animus, which is what they really care about.

yes, of course. that's why they floated crazy stories about their daughters getting trampled by massive trans women while playing soccer.

to say nothing about orange man's crazier story about little johnny coming home from school one day without a penis because of unapproved surgery.

for which, I should point out, he never got any significant push back from the media. or anyone of any prominence, other than Dem politicians. And no one listens to them.

Ohio passed legislation banning trans girls in scholastic sports last year. At the time there were 10 such people in the whole state, out of 400,000.

A true crisis.

I know it comes across as vulgar, and that I probably sound like a broken record, but I do firmly believe the intent of raising this issue is simply about getting the image of a woman with a penis into the minds of voters, or the image of little johnny without one, at which point millions and millions of people freak out.

drummerboy said:

Or, more correctly, non-issue.

One of the more disappointing things I've seen from my side is to see how many liberals seem to be willing to throw trans women under the bus.

Related to that is how so many have bought into the completely made up issue of women's sports being under some kind of threat.

And these folks often claim that the threat is stupidly obvious. Even though there is zero evidence of any harm.

Zero.

It's just another example of libs eating their own.

DEI overreach!

Yeah, not a thing.

Defund the police is a crazy policy!

OK, but show me a prominent Dem supporting it.

Some of us are too gullible, and make MAGA's job way too easy.

The "tiny" number you accurately cite is a "giant" number for two constituencies: for the woman swimmer standing next to the "Phelps-sized" trans woman, the number is 100%. For the MAGA crowd, the % doesn't matter for purposes of propaganda. Easy pickins': show a pic of the two athletes and that number is also 100% for the MAGA crowd.

It's not "libs eating their own." It's libs trying not to throw easy slow-pitch softballs to the Aaron Judges of the MAGA world.

Yup, no prominent dem supports "defund the police." But  ALL DEMS DO in MAGA world. It's a dumb slogan in so many ways. 

Consider how much mileage MAGA world has gotten out of "the squad." They amount to around 5 congresspeople with progressive, even enlightened ideas. To the right, all dems are squad members.

Yes, we're making MAGA's job way too easy, but in the exact opposite way you conceive. 

 Given the fact that our gov't is moving rapidly rightward, you wanna argue trans-sports issues? We might want to focus on getting the country back. And it ain't that hard when DJT won by 1 1/2 %. 

Heard a commentator say that if one out of 100 voters in swing states changed their vote from red to blue, we'd be looking at President Harris. We need those folks. And we're not gonna get them by standing on progressive principles. Center-left is the first step. These non-MAGA idiots who voted red based on the price of eggs or the poor people doing menial labor for pennies are within reach. They're starting to realize, thanks to the Musk effect, that they **** up royally. 

We can get a blue Congress next year unless we screw it up. 

GL2 said:

The "tiny" number you accurately cite is a "giant" number for two constituencies: for the woman swimmer standing next to the "Phelps-sized" trans woman, the number is 100%. 

Michael Phelps: 6-foot-4, 194 pounds. 

Lia Thomas: 6-1, 143 pounds. 

Katie Ledecky: 6-0, 160 pounds.

Missy Franklin: 6-2, 165 pounds.

The point here is, ask some soccer mom with an 8-year-old girl about the issue and she's not breaking down height/weight. It's a great issue for cons. So, if in principle you're right, in politics you're wrong.

In June 2023, a Gallup poll found that 69% of US adults believe transgender athletes should compete on sports teams that match their birth gender. This is higher than the 62% who held this view in 2021.

In June 2022, a Washington Post-UMD poll found that 68% of Americans believe that transgender girls would have a competitive advantage over other girls in youth sports.

In June 2022, an NPR/Ipsos poll found that 63% of Americans oppose allowing transgender women and girls to compete on teams that align with their gender identity.

New York Times/Ipsos survey show that 79% of Americans think that trans women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.

You wanna be right or do you wanna win back non-MAGA right-leaning voters?

We've got Kash Patel and Dan Bongino running the FBI. And we wanna have this largely-unpopular issue (fair or not) as part of our platform?

GL2 said:

We've got Kash Patel and Dan Bongino running the FBI. And we wanna have this largely-unpopular issue (fair or not) as part of our platform?

You came to MOL with a transgender Olympics analogy. I pointed out why the analogy was a poor one.

You came to MOL with a transgender Phelps analogy. I pointed out why that analogy, too, was a poor one.

Does that mean transgender rights are now part of my platform?

I was unclear: by "our" I meant libs.

And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is difficult, even within my own household. If you want to be right about the Phelps thing, fine. You're right. I picked the name b/c it's handy. I had no idea what size Phelps is vis a vis the women athletes. But obviously, in an effort to clear up my "poor" analogy, you researched it, unless you have these stats already in your head. So, you're right. Point DaveSchmidt.  

In an effort to be "less wrong" I think the first two items are the same. And the third was my lack of clarity.

What I find objectionable is the "you came to MOL" crap. I've been around since '07, off and on, well before you "came to MOL." I didn't barge into your social club and start a bar fight. And I got the same vibe earlier when db decided that folks like me are "against all trans" people. You guys really pull out the big guns on this issue.

I'm a forever major lib who had the temerity to disagree with the standard progressive line. I still do. It's not a black and white issue, even on the left. 

GL2 said:

The point here is, ask some soccer mom with an 8-year-old girl about the issue and she's not breaking down height/weight. It's a great issue for cons. So, if in principle you're right, in politics you're wrong.

In June 2023, a Gallup poll found that 69% of US adults believe transgender athletes should compete on sports teams that match their birth gender. This is higher than the 62% who held this view in 2021.

In June 2022, a Washington Post-UMD poll found that 68% of Americans believe that transgender girls would have a competitive advantage over other girls in youth sports.

In June 2022, an NPR/Ipsos poll found that 63% of Americans oppose allowing transgender women and girls to compete on teams that align with their gender identity.

New York Times/Ipsos survey show that 79% of Americans think that trans women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.

You wanna be right or do you wanna win back non-MAGA right-leaning voters?

I want to be right.

There is no other choice. Is there?

And the important point here is how many votes were actually lost on this issue. Just because someone is against any one Dem position does not mean they'll vote Republican.

It's hardly that simple.

And I'd say that most votes that were lost were because of the insane ads run by MAGA and that were not pushed back against effectively.

MAGA seizes on such progressive issues and inflates them to cover all democrats, as they did with "defund the police." 

We lost by a mere 1 1/2 %. If any of those crazy MAGA ads contained even a kernel of truth (which most effective propaganda does), they're very effective. How much mileage did they get out of "woke" and "defund the police?"

Give me Bubba Clinton (warts and all) and/or Rahm Emanuel, or even Obama. Ya gotta win elections, not "be right."  Obama wasn't even for gay marriage but got there. After you win you can then be right if you've got a Pelosi-type Speaker and are lucky enough to have the Senate.

Let's just hope we win big next year in Congress.  

I don't think any of us here work for the DNC or are running anyone's campaign. I don't really know how a campaign should best handle questions around trans people for the sake of maximum electoral benefit. But as regular people on a message board talking to other regular people, free from the burden of worrying over the electoral consequences of our words, I do think it's important and appropriate to insist on the civil rights of everybody. People should be able to their lives in dignity and security, regardless of gender -- to use restrooms meant for their gender, to register for official documents such as passports or drivers licenses using their gender, to be free from having nosy busybodies demanding they justify their existence and identity.

Is that a winning electoral message? I don't know, but while my control over national political outcomes is limited, I do have control over how I treat and stick up for people in my immediate community.

GL2 said:

What I find objectionable is the "you came to MOL" crap.

My point was simply this: I addressed the topic only because you brought those analogies up first. And you, not I, are the one making a big deal about it.

To put it another way:

Party A publicly makes a couple of comparisons on the subject of transgender participation in sports.

Party B counters those comparisons with easily found facts.

Is Party B to blame for making an issue of transgender participation in sports?

I think you’re missing the “you came to MOL” part.  That, for me, is the big deal. 

Either way, next time I choose some famous name as an example, I’ll check weight/height.

As I’ve repeated over and over, the issue is complex on the left and right and cannot be reduced to b/w stats. Should we also need to check testosterone levels, BMI, etc? 

So how about dropping the interloper accusations and the A,B,C stuff and either drop it or discuss it w/o the territorial crap. 

My major concern is prog purity loses elections. I loved both Bernie and Warren but if they ran as third party candidates, I’d choose  a Biden so as to win and then pursue more prog issues once they’re elected.

Meanwhile, mtierney et.al. are chuckling at the usual dem/lib/prog purity argument. 

Not sure basing policy around appeasing mtierney is a sound approach.

I’m saying this is the stuff cons relish.

GL2 said:

MAGA seizes on such progressive issues and inflates them to cover all democrats, as they did with "defund the police." 

We lost by a mere 1 1/2 %. If any of those crazy MAGA ads contained even a kernel of truth (which most effective propaganda does), they're very effective. How much mileage did they get out of "woke" and "defund the police?"

Give me Bubba Clinton (warts and all) and/or Rahm Emanuel, or even Obama. Ya gotta win elections, not "be right."  Obama wasn't even for gay marriage but got there. After you win you can then be right if you've got a Pelosi-type Speaker and are lucky enough to have the Senate.

I have to say that I think this is pretty off-base.

Do you think your three examples (and christalmighty. Rahm Emanuel?) would have had some ability to prevent MAGA from creating issues out of woke or defund the police or trans in sports?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you think it was the fault of Democrats that these kind of phony issues had traction?

Yeah, I need clarification on that last point before I continue.

Again…all this metastatic hatred from the right was implanted into their brains and souls by people like Levin and Limbaugh. Of course Obama was the most hated man, so it’s no wonder these people have been ratcheting up the hatred as soon as he became president. Anything he said became a topic for their political agenda… simple word he used was “ woke”

He gave the country the affordable care act… it became Obamacare”

He made it easy for welfare recipients to own a cell phone…. It became “Obama phone”

He signed the same sex marriage into law… they are hell bent on making that illegal. 
repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell “ 

He signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act… 

Apparently he pissed off millions of these MAGAts…I’m shocked they love the muskrat but won’t drive an electric car…

GL2 said:

I think you’re missing the “you came to MOL” part.  That, for me, is the big deal. 

I apologize, GL2. It was a poor way of saying you wrote a public post.

GL2 said:

So how about dropping the interloper accusations and the A,B,C stuff and either drop it or discuss it w/o the territorial crap.

Now that I’ve dropped the unintended interloper accusation, maybe the discussion can return to how anyone is supposed to combat misinformation about transgender participation in sports without raising the temperature or appearing to make too much of it.

DaveSchmidt said:

GL2 said:

So how about dropping the interloper accusations and the A,B,C stuff and either drop it or discuss it w/o the territorial crap.

Now that I’ve dropped the unintended interloper accusation, maybe the discussion can return to how anyone is supposed to combat misinformation about transgender participation in sports without raising the temperature or appearing to make too much of it.

It's the rich man's flim flam perpetrated on the rank and file - get people riled up about issues that generally don't have any impact on their lives in any given year and they won't notice you picking your pocket.

tjohn said:

DaveSchmidt said:

GL2 said:

So how about dropping the interloper accusations and the A,B,C stuff and either drop it or discuss it w/o the territorial crap.

Now that I’ve dropped the unintended interloper accusation, maybe the discussion can return to how anyone is supposed to combat misinformation about transgender participation in sports without raising the temperature or appearing to make too much of it.

It's the rich man's flim flam perpetrated on the rank and file - get people riled up about issues that generally don't have any impact on their lives in any given year and they won't notice you picking your pocket.

Grift -- but also casual cruelty. Those dragooned into being props and distractions suffer, but the grifters don't care or even revel in it.

drummerboy said:

GL2 said:

MAGA seizes on such progressive issues and inflates them to cover all democrats, as they did with "defund the police." 

We lost by a mere 1 1/2 %. If any of those crazy MAGA ads contained even a kernel of truth (which most effective propaganda does), they're very effective. How much mileage did they get out of "woke" and "defund the police?"

Give me Bubba Clinton (warts and all) and/or Rahm Emanuel, or even Obama. Ya gotta win elections, not "be right."  Obama wasn't even for gay marriage but got there. After you win you can then be right if you've got a Pelosi-type Speaker and are lucky enough to have the Senate.

I have to say that I think this is pretty off-base.

Do you think your three examples (and christalmighty. Rahm Emanuel?) would have had some ability to prevent MAGA from creating issues out of woke or defund the police or trans in sports?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you think it was the fault of Democrats that these kind of phony issues had traction?

Yeah, I need clarification on that last point before I continue.

I’m  saying that dems have a way of creating ideas that blunt their message and fuel cons. Most of the country was supportive of reform after George Floyd but “defund the police” was a tone deaf message.  I realize we meant spend much more on social reform issues and less on the militarization of police agencies. But America largely heard “get rid of cops.”

And we know how “woke” was twisted into a mainstream joke. 

Yes, Rahm was a tad unpalatable, kinda our Roy Cohn, but he knew how to craft a message as he did for BHO in his first term. He would’ve recognized ideas that wouldn’t fly with middle America. And a guy like BHO dithered on gay marriage AND got elected and “evolved,” as he named it.

Look at how effective AOC has become by moving toward supporting a mainstream dem position and shaking off the squad label. We know she hasn’t compromised her values but she’s moved to a place where she can effect change rather than “standing her ground” in the name of purity. 

While I do remain hesitant/doubtful about my position on trans women in women’s sports, I see what mainstream Americans envision (some giant guy clobbering their little girl) and how useful the issue is for cons.

This stuff evolves, but only when it’s made palatable by leaders elected on general matters. BHO on gay marriage is a perfect example.

PVW said:

I don't think any of us here work for the DNC or are running anyone's campaign. I don't really know how a campaign should best handle questions around trans people for the sake of maximum electoral benefit. But as regular people on a message board talking to other regular people, free from the burden of worrying over the electoral consequences of our words, I do think it's important and appropriate to insist on the civil rights of everybody. People should be able to their lives in dignity and security, regardless of gender -- to use restrooms meant for their gender, to register for official documents such as passports or drivers licenses using their gender, to be free from having nosy busybodies demanding they justify their existence and identity.

Is that a winning electoral message? I don't know, but while my control over national political outcomes is limited, I do have control over how I treat and stick up for people in my immediate community.

I agree with this. 

It's never a good idea in the long run to oppose a group's civil rights. I mean how ridiculous and frankly mean of Obama does it seem when we recall his opposition to same sex marriage. It was only about 15 years ago it seemed like a good electoral strategy to oppose basic rights for same sex couples. And how does that look now? 

Pretty bad. 

Given the right wingers are going to hammer Democrats with this issue as long as they think it's beneficial to them; what should Democrats do?

Just keep repeating they support civil rights, dignity, safety and privacy for everyone. 

Everyone.