Biden executive order says schools should include transgender athletes in girls' sports
Look what this stupid man is doing!!!!!!!!!!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Biden , in an executive order aimed at "preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation," is calling on schools across the country to allow transgender athletes to participate in the sport of their gender identity.
"Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," reads the new order , released on the first day of his presidency.
The order is a strong signal that the Justice Department is going to enforce it via Title IX -- and schools that don’t comply risk losing funding.
The order also calls for equal treatment "regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation" in the workplace and in health care settings. "All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation," the order states.
The order points to Supreme court case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) where the court held Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination "because of . . . sex" includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
Biden, in the order, tied in intersectional discrimination, writing that discrimination on the bases of gender identity and sexual orientation is often coupled with discrimination based on race or disability.
Heads of agencies are ordered to reassess their policies dealing with Title VII or any statute prohibiting sex discrimination.
Transgender athletes in schools was a hot topic of debate last year, when 17 states introduced bills to restrict athletes’ participation to sports of their gender assigned at birth. Only one became law-- in Idaho. The Trump administration supported the ban, but a federal judge temporarily blocked its implementation after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The Trump administration also intervened in Connecticut, when the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) found a law allowing transgender high school girls to compete on girls’ sports teams violated the Title IX right of girls assigned female at birth. The DOE threatened the Connecticut schools with pulling funding or facing action from the DOJ, but neither happened. The administration had jumped in to support a case of several cisgender girls seeking to block the state policy. The plaintiffs argued transgender female runners had an unfair physical advantage.
The case has yet to be decided.
Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia have policies similar to Connecticut’s, according to Transathlete.com. Fourteen others allow transgender participation with certain conditions, such as hormone treatments or other proof the athlete is transitioning, according to the organization.
Last year, a group of Republican senators introduced a bill that would revoke federal funding of schools that allowed transgender girls to compete in women's sports, but it didn't go very far. Former Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who co-sponsored the bill, highlighted a dispute in Connecticut where two competitors, who were born male but identified as female, won 15 girls state championships.
Erin Buzuvis, a professor at the Western New England School of Law who specializes in gender and discrimination in education and athletics, told The Associated Press the Connecticut case could "evaporate" if the new administration doesn’t want to press it.
"The Idaho situation is different because it is a state law that is being challenged under the equal protection doctrine," Buzuvis said. "That could set some sort of national standard about what kind of policies states are allowed to have or prohibited to have. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the case would say, ‘Here is the one policy that all states must have.’"
Tags
Who is online
472 visitors
My preference is for Biden to focus on common issues with the most glaring being COVID-19 and steer clear of partisan issues that have little or no urgency.
Women who are biologically male have a distinct advantage in many sports over biologically female competitors. This is a controversial issue and Biden should not be stepping in (especially with an EO and especially on his first full day in office) while the controversy is far from undecided.
Biden gets a tic in the wrong column for this. IMO of course.
The only thing I can think is maybe they wanted to get it done now and get a lot of the hype and hate for it out of the way, better now than in 16 months.
Appease a section of the base and get them to shut up for now.
Possibly. I will reevaluate if we learn more.
That's what I was just thinking. Something to bring attention to the issue and then move along.
I'm confused. Do I hate or not hate the other?
Did you note that 'sexual orientation' is included equally in the EO? What say you about Biden's policy on that?
What, specifically, are you asking?
My questions seem pointed enough to me.
The first one is a yes or no.
The second asks your position on the other half of the population cited in the EO. You had plenty to say about the gender identity half.
I call it Redundant as it wasn't a problem since it already would have been illegal to exclude someone on that basis.
Actually, it isn't. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is perfectly legal in many states. Over a third of the LGBT population live where housing, employment and other forms of discrimination is legal.
So while there are some Federal protections, all too many states have refused to follow suit.
You just want a yes or no? Okay, yes.
What aspect of my position are you asking about? Are you asking if I have a problem with a lesbian athlete competing in a female event or a gay athlete competing in a male event?
If so the answer is no. There is no biological advantage/disadvantage of sexual orientation. Since my comment was about advantage why would you think sexual orientation would matter?
If you had some other question in mind then be specific.
I asked you a specific question.
"That' policy directing agencies to address discrimination based on sexual orientation just as Biden did on gender identity.
I don't see why you need clarification since you didn't seem to have an issue with expressing your opinion on the gender identity part of the EO.
Trump issued quite a few EO's and agency policy that addressed this issue that I have no doubt will be on the list of 'policy' that has to change to meet Biden's goal.
Why argue with me about a simple request for clarification?
So "There is no biological advantage/disadvantage of sexual orientation." is not sufficient?
Apparently you have a particular answer you seek. Just cut to the chase and state what you want me to write and I will let you know if I agree.
I made no argument, I made an observation.
Oh it's quite sufficient if irrelevance is your goal.
The issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation addressed in the EO doesn't have anything to do with 'biological advantage/disadvantage'. Discrimination in employment, education/training, housing and healthcare are all issues cited in the EO, the access to which should have NOTHING to do with 'biological' attributes.
As my question proves, I asked for your opinion, NOT a particular 'answer'.
At this point, it's irrelevant because any discussion has been sullied.
My mindset was the EO related to transgender athletes per the topic and not on the EO in general.
You apparently want my opinion on sexual orientation discrimination in general per the EO and beyond this topic. ( Oddly you did not ask me about discrimination in the workplace, etc. on sexual identity. That suggested that you wanted me to opine on sexual orientation as I did on sexual identity — in terms of athletics. )
Okay, Dulay, my position is that discrimination (in general) on sexual orientation is wrong. One's orientation has nothing to do with employment, education, housing, etc. This seems obvious to me.
As for sexual identity in general (even though you did not ask), there are some jobs better suited for a biological male. Typically these would be jobs that require brute strength. Since biological males are typically stronger than biological females, this is a practical and meaningful difference. I am sure there are examples of jobs better suited for biological females such as precision jobs where smaller hands is an advantage.
In principle, sexual identity also should not be a factor in the workplace, education, housing, etc.
While the seeder may want to concentrate exclusively on GENDER identity, the content of the seed includes sexual orientation, in fact everywhere in the seed where GENDER identity is cited, so too is sexual orientation.
That alone seems to illustrate that the 2 issues can and should be addressed on equal footing.
Thanks for expressing your position. Now, what say you about Biden's policy as documented in the EO?
The goal of the EO, it seems, isn't to get people to acknowledge that the discrimination it cites is 'wrong', but to make it US policy to eliminate it wherever possible.
I believe you've said fairly often that you disagree with discrimination based on sexual orientation over the years, yes? Your position has always been clear.
Yeah, I would think the inquiry is better suited to those whose opinions are questionable.
Disagreeing with it doesn't address what one thinks about the policy expressed in the EO.
I would think that those that oppose such discrimination would support it being addressed by Biden ASAP, especially given the length of time since the Bostock ruling without any action being taken.
It seems to me that one can oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as TiG has consistently done, while also opposing the risks to girls' and women's sports likely inherent in in including trans women in female athletic competitions, as TiG has also consistently done. I believe his position on each is well known.
My focus in this seed has been on transgender athletes and the political / ideological problems this causes at the very inception of a term where Biden promised to work for all the people equally hard. It is not politically wise to issue an EO on issues so undecided (EOs should not be used this way in general) and especially if the issues in question are highly contested and emotive (remember, I am focused on transgender athletes here).
You are looking at the EO from a different perspective — that of general discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. Your scope is broader than what Suz has defined by this seed.
Let's now look at the policy statement of the EO (going beyond the focus of this seed):
I would have advised Biden to not include what I have annotated in blue . That sentence turns what could have been a helpful EO into one that ignites partisan/ideological flames and touches on complicated issues that have no clear, clean solution. Note the difference between the sentence in blue and the remaining sentences of section 1. The remaining sentences make a general statement against discrimination. Biden is saying: do not discriminate. He is saying that everyone has equal treatment under the law and in business.
Good stuff.
Those sentences match what Biden has declared to the nation. The sentence in blue , however, focuses on aspects of sexual identity that are problematic, emotional and not yet resolved. For example, there is no clean solution to sexual identity when dealing with public restrooms / locker-rooms, etc. Should a biological male be permitted to make use of female restrooms simply because she identifies as such? How about locker rooms in high schools? How about showers? Society will eventually work through these matters, but this is an evolutionary process (societal evolution) and certainly not to be decided by an EO.
Suz offers this seed which focuses on the athletic issues and thus falls within the blue area . My comments have applied to that.
Actually, the focus of the comments has been on transgender athletes. That is a choice, made by members, NOT by the seed, which focuses on the EO and specifically cites the Bostock ruling.
The Trump administration's policy was to deny that both Title VII and Title IX provided no protection to LGBTQ people. Bostock DECIDED the 'issues in question' of Title VII, it is no longer 'highly contested' and it is incumbent on the Federal government to implement that decision, no matter HOW 'emotive'. The Trump administration connected Title VII and Title IX protections and so is the Biden administration.
Following the law and addressing a wrong that primarily effects one group of people does NOT somehow inherently exclude everyone else. Title IX specifically targets discrimination in educational programs on the basis of sex. Female participation is educational sports programs has grown by over 500% since Title IX was enacted. Just because it's primary effect was to open educational programs to females doesn't mean that it somehow excluded males.
I repeat: While the seeder may want to concentrate exclusively on GENDER identity, the content of the seed includes sexual orientation, in fact everywhere in the seed where GENDER identity is cited, so too is sexual orientation.
That alone seems to illustrate that the 2 issues can and should be addressed on equal footing.
It seems to me that President Biden campaigned on addressing complicated issues that have no clear, clean solution. The Covid pandemic, climate change, racial inequality, economic injustice, police reform and the list goes on. I disagree with the idea that Biden should only tackle issues that are settled and easy.
Actually, Biden is instructing the Executive Agencies of his administration to identify and recommend for elimination the US government policies, programs and regulations that discriminate based on sex that now EXIST. In short, action, not words.
The EO doesn't proclaim a decision of any kind TiG. It sets a task for Executive Agencies. PERIOD, full stop.
I presume you mean GENDER identity when you say sexual identity.
You know that 'female restrooms' have single private stalls right? Oh and the majority of women's showers do too. Transgender females have been using them for decades without an issue until recently. Most of the time, unbeknownst to the other females using the facilities, including locker rooms. In short, it's a mostly fabricated 'issue' that MEN created to 'protect' women that rarely if ever have need for said protection.
Note that NOT ONE of the comments in this seed mention transgender MEN. By hormonal standards, they are MEN, by 'biological' standards, they are women. Should THEY be using 'female' restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities?
It sounds like you want me to confine my comments to 'the blue area'. The 'blue area' is ONE sentence is the seed. Is it your posit that the rest of the seed is somehow off topic?
That is your choice.
I have never argued differently. I asked for his position on Biden's EO.
I put forth an effort to give you a detailed answer since you seem to have been offended that I asked for clarification. Now you return with a post that complains of word choice, argues perception of scope of this seed, complains that male examples were not used, declares that I am trying to limit your comments, etc.
This is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
No further response from me.
Not offended at all. I viewed it as evasion.
I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out that you claimed that the seed topic was intentionally limited and IMHO it is the COMMENTS that are intentionally limited.
Isn't that exactly what you did in your prior comment?
When I point out a cogent point, why do you insist on labeling it as a complaint?
I made an observation and asked a question. How is that a 'declaration'?
Seriously, you comment is saturated with unfounded assumptions.
You've yet to respond to the first question I asked so...
I agree with you. I won't concern myself with gymnastics because I just don't see transgender women being able to compete effectively. However, I see very big problems in track and field, soccer, and softball.
I am an advocate for taking off all the emphasis that is put on sports.
AMEN to that!!!
Yeah! Let's get back to readin', ritin' and rithmatic!
Heresy! You know throwing or kicking a ball is more important.
What is funny is I remember as a kid playing dodgeball and was taken out by a girl. The horror!
I was often the last one standing in dodgeball. I could throw as well as most boys, but I was more agile (back then) and could catch.
I was once the last one standing. I was small so it was hard to hit me. I manage to catch a ball, got the biggest boy back and we beat the other team. I got taken out eventually
I kinda sucked at it. I remember one time we won, it wasn't because of skill. I threw the ball and it went over the other kids head. They reached up and tried to catch it and missed but it hit their hands.
At least you can say you knocked out the biggest boy. Haha
GO CHIEFS!!!
Might as well have only one team for each sport
It works for bowling...
Depends on where you live.
When I bowled. years ago, many leagues required 2 females per team.
When I played co-ed Parks and Rec softball, we had to have a certain number of women on the team, and the batting order had to alternate male-female. It was recognized that of course all or mostly-male softball teams would have an advantage over teams evenly split or majority-female. Very few women can hit it out of the park every at bat, but many of the men could.
I was not allowed to play high school BASEBALL because a girls SOFTBALL team existed... they're not the same. It made me very frustrated. I suppose now... everyone can join as long as they claim identification as a boy.
What made me very confused is that they would allow me to play football, so it's not like it was a "safety" issue. I was only one of 3 girls that WANTED to play baseball, so it's not like there would've been an influx of girls that desired to drop the softball team to move to the baseball team either.
I believe that in some cases, girls wanting to play baseball have successfully argued that softball isn't a "like sport", given the differences in pitching style and rules on switch hitting and base stealing. I played both, and had to relearn some rules when I switched to softball.
My HS would not allow it. It's obnoxious. I don't know if it's like that still, but I doubt they changed the rules. I can't say anything about anywhere else, because I don't know.
I think interpretation of Title IX has been a bit uneven.
When I played high school softball, Title IX was considered to have been satisfied by having us share a first aid kit with the baseball team (equal equipment). Our home fields were 3 miles apart, and we didn't play the same away schedule. Guess who kept the Bandaids and Neosporin? Hint - not the girls.
Walk it off, Walk It Off....
Sure does and my daughter kicks her husband's ass all the time. They bowl on different teams in the same league. She plays on Daddy's team and he plays on Mommy's team.
I think we have more important things to focus on right now Joe.
I agree. Definitely not a priority.
This will end girls sports as it has been for a long time and what benefit will it bring?
What benefit? It’ll surely make some freak feel good about himself because he beat a girl.
Just how many transitioned girls in HS sports do you think there are?
enough to issue executive orders for.
enough to be an issue.
I don't know, but in individual sports like track and field or tennis, a handful are enough to affect competition placings at the state level, which is the highest playoff level at which high school athletes compete. At the individual school level, it may rob some girls of even the chance to compete, if they're cut from the team because they're competing for slots with larger, stronger trans girls.
Nope -
The only thing that doesn't change in transition is hand size and frame height. Everything else compares to non-transgendered women. If you want to make the case for those that have not been on hormone replacement therapy for enough time to show those changes I'd likely agree, but that's not what we are talking about.
Frame height is plenty to give advantage in many sports. In fact, the only sport I can think of offhand where height isn't an advantage to some degree is gymnastics. Most others, even tall cis women have an advantage over shorter cis women (and the same for men).
And at the high school level, how many trans people have been on hormonal therapy for very long? Just due to their ages, I'm willing to bet not many.
Also, while I appreciate the link you provided, that was one sport - running. I don't know that those results can be extrapolated to other sports, especially those that rely more on strength than endurance and aerobic capacity - football, for example, or wrestling.
To make this claim valid you would need some statistical data on frame height comparisons in all sports where trans women were competing. It's just doesn't make sense to assume all trans women are tall and all cis women are short.
I don't bet. I want data. I also said I'd agree in those cases where they weren't far enough along.
The physical changes are the same no matter what sport one enjoys. Transitioning women decrease muscle mass, blood oxygen and strength.
It specifically said the competing rates are the same in the same age groups. If they were average raked as men with men they rank average with women after transitioning.
I'm not assuming that all trans women are tall and all cis women are short. I'm assuming, based on well-established sex differences, that biological males on average are taller than biological females. And in most sports, height is an advantage. Greater reach, longer stride, faster bat/club speed.
Not all studies agree that they decrease to a point that would be fair to cis women. This one showed that after 12 months of hormone therapy, those transitioning from male to female were still stronger, on average, than those transitioning female to male:
I don't think we can unequivocally say that trans women don't have an advantage over cis women in sports.
Considering I have a teenage girl in High School currently, I'm sure it's far more than you think.
Then perhaps we should put height and reach restrictions in women's HS sports? Only tall women should compete with tall women? Sounds silly. I don't think the number of tall transgender women in HS sports is large enough to bar all transgender women from HS sports.
Directly from your link.
~
Though relatively new, current peer reviewed data is pointing to the opposite.
That's why I never said anything about that. Merely that those who have such an advantage because they were born a different sex should not be allowed to compete with those born female.
Personal observation isn't empirical data. I, in my own humble opinion based on what evidence I can find (also not empirical), see that women no matter what age they are are far stronger and smarter than people often give them credit for. They don't need to be sheltered, coddled or pandered to. Everything I can find points to trans women having a sporting advantage seems to be a myth. I'm all for more study, but I'm certainly not for more discrimination based on ignorance.
That makes no sense. Tall cis women can compete against short cis women, but tall trans women can't?
See mocowgirl's link @9.
You were the one making the assumption that there's not many trans girls in HS. Do you know anyone in HS currently? Have you spoken with them about how this is a "thing" now? Have you looked up the statistical data regarding trans girls in HS?
Not all take hormones and even fewer get surgeries.
Here, I'll help.
I asked a question and where I did make assumptions I pointed it out.
Then they are not trans and the only comment of mine that applies was to Sandy were I concured they shouldn't compete.
Read and responded to.
I agree with you and I think I basically said the same thing above. I am going to show an example. This young woman is kinda famous.
No matter what some say, I don't see this young person as having any advantage over the other girls.
This is the kind of person laws like this were meant to protect.
It seems to me people are perverting the directives beyond their original intent.
It doesn't change any of my comments. I don't know why you feel it would when I explicitly talk about those taking hormone replacement therapy.
Nice post. There seems to be a lot of bias and ignorance when it comes to trans women. I'm seeing a lot of people online arguing against HS women trans athletes using the worst case scenario as if that's the norm. Perhaps we should further fragment and protect our children by only letting those with the same gender, height, weight, and age compete against each other so everything is exactly fair every time. I'm sure we can go even further if we must and add race, eye and hair color just in case. I mean if we're going to get silly we should go all the way to absurd.
I seem to remember a time when people thought Black males had a distinct advantage.
I think an average benchwarmer on the boy's JV basketball could start on the girl's varsity
Perhaps, perhaps not. Rrrelevant to this discussion though.
I think you're mistaking disagreement for ignorance.
That was not the intention. I'm simply pointing out what your definition [which is similar to my own] is on the subject is not the definition that the US government would have.
Funny considering weight is something that is considered in wrestling... they try to match gender too, but that's not always possible.
It's possible, but no one has put up actual peer reviewed evidence to refute my claim. Yet.
I think what is being debated is nuance. I take that back as it kinda doesn't fit. Maybe an over generalization.
I would imagine that most going through the change would want to join in with the girls teams as that is what they feel or are a part of. It is not like people are changing just so they could beat out all the girls and win something.
I guess there may be a few but I think that would be few and far between.
There is also a difference in transgender and transvestite, which I think many people confuse. (Not accusing you of that of course)
A major difference between someone actually transitioning and a man that likes to wear women's clothes.
According to this peer reviewed article, neither of us is completely right.
I agree, but I suppose the question is, what definition is Biden's EO assuming? A transgender that transitions via hormone therapy and surgery is considered a transsexual. Someone that chooses to only do hormone therapy is transgender, identifying as opposing gender they're born with, but is still trying to be more like the gender they identify with; however, the definition of transgender does not include hormone therapy or surgery in it.
It's a 3 (almost 4) year old paper that said there wasn't enough data. Perhaps it is correct... Serious research only goes back to 2015. If I get time before the end of my workday here. I'll see if I can't find something more recent that either confirms or refutes, my claims.
I doubt that any, or many, are joining girls' teams simply to take advantage. That does not negate the existence of the advantage. In order to do that, biological boys who transition to female would have to start hormone therapy before puberty. When someone can show me that is what's happening, I will withdraw my opposition.
That is why I call it an over generalization. If I am not mistaken this EO also includes the ability to use a corresponding restroom. Yet for some reason people are only talking about sports. Like it is some kind of scare tactic to be against trans rights. Oh no the sky is falling and women will never be able to compete in sports again.
I would think most transitioning do not enter a sport just because they could beat the other girls. In fact, I think a lot of transitioning would forgo sports as they are trying to balance hormones.
I just think there is a lot of misconceptions and scare tactics being thrown around.
Take for example some people would categorize drag queens in the same category when it isn't the same.
The pics of the girl I showed above, she started hormones before puberty. Actually it made it harder for surgery as the genitals didn't grow as they normally would and created complications. Though that is a different debate, Imo.
I imagine she's the exception, rather than the rule.
That was kinda my point. Imo people like her are who these kind of directives were meant to protect. Yet it seems to have morphed into an over generalization that somehow now includes a wide swath.
I should add, I think some just want to get rid of any protections for trans people and intentionally dilute the pool to achieve that objective.
I've read a couple of articles now online that try to fairly ask the questions we are debating and the concussion are - at best there is a decrease of 10% after 12 months and that means the there were be no unfair advantage. At worst we just don't know, because there isn't enough data, there are no controls in the data we have and there is no real way to test all the aspects necessary. The best testing is in running by the woman I've already linked to.
The most seemingly objective science article ( ) has, among many pro and con points, this that speaks to my original point:
That isn't empirical evidence, but such is yet to be found. mocowgirl @ 9.0 does make a valid point out with her post there are some sports like boxing, power lifting, mma and rugby that will never be completely fair, but that isn't a reason a cross country runner or some other similar MTF athlete should be discriminated against based on the data we do have.
Because they are only "pretend" women.
There was a company I worked for that allowed a m to f transgender use the ladies room while in the shop [there were several unisex restrooms in the engineering dept.]. I never had a problem with that... except that person still stood up to urinate and left the toilets a mess. If one wants to be a female, I only ask that they do not leave a mess on the toilet simply because they refuse to sit down to pee. I took issue with the female engineer that would come to the shop restroom to "evacuate" after lunch too, because she left the toilets a mess with her vomit. I filed complaints on both for the same reason... lack of respect for the women that worked in the shop.
sheer idiocy.
'nuff said.
I thought Biden said his decisions would be guided by "science"?
I guess that only applies when it is politically expedient for some reason or other.
Looks like you are cherry picking data to support your position. From your own wiki link -
NO bias?
Really? Wow! A peer reviewed and celebrated medical physicist.
Upon further research I've found that sports such as boxing, power lifting, mma and rugby would probably present an unfair advantage to an MTF athlete. That doesn't mean the rest of those who don't present an unfair advantage should suffer discrimination. And medical science should continue to collect years more data on the subject.
I want to know why someone has to identify with the opposing gender to what they're born to play a sport that is typically the opposing gender's sport?
I always wanted to play on the high school baseball team, but it wasn't allowed because a girls softball team existed. I didn't want to play softball. HS girls softball would NOT allow for switch hitting. Pitches are slower [it wasn't fast-pitch softball]. And quite frankly, I never got along with most females very well, but I don't identify as a male.
While I DO think that males have biological advantages to women in most sports [generally speaking], what happens to those that would like to play a sport that is typically a single-gendered sport, but does NOT identify as that sex? In simpler terms, does a HS female [identifying as female], biologically speaking, have to claim identification as male to play HS baseball?
When I was in HS, they allowed females to join the football and wrestling teams, because there were no comparative sports for females.
The following list of sports is not a complete list of what's considered a sport. The headers with the list beneath each are my opinion and not to be assumed as fact.
The following sports where bio males likely have advantages over bio females [in most instances]:
Sports that bio females likely have an advantage over bio males [in most instances]:
Sports that are likely unaffected by biological sex:
Equestrian events include men and women in the same competition classes, because there is no advantage. I would say that in volleyball, males have the advantage - taller, and able to hit harder.
I didn't think equestrian events.
I did say that it wasn't a complete list. 
And as far as volleyball, that's why I said maybe. It was just my opinion.
Understood. I was just tossing my 2 cents in. Volleyball is a sport where height is a distinct advantage, and more strength equals faster serves and spikes.
Have to agree with the shooting. My Niece is the best shot in the family.
Now roller derby, I think those women could beat up any man that tried to get involved. Haha
Actually I think baseball should be open. Have boys and girls on the team.
I forget where and when it was but I read somewhere that there was a girl wrestler that could beat a bunch of the boys.
I would typically agree with you, but I know a transgender on a roller derby team and quite frankly she [formerly he] kicked everyone's ass.
That's why I stated in most instances. I could wrestle well, but I helped my stepbrother practice for his meets, because all of his friends outweighed him by a lot. I was only about 5 lbs less than he was; therefore, I was his sparing partner.
The Biden EO recognizes the Bostock ruling in June of 2020, that went almost totally ignored by the Trump Administration. That ruling has NOT been effectuated into US regulation and policy. This EO instructs Federal agencies to review policy and regulations and provide avenues to do just that.
I think this is going to cause a lot of resentment and problems
Transgender athletes in school should be able to participate in sports, they should just compete against those who share their birth gender. If you're a transgender girl born a boy, you should compete against boys even if you want people to address you with different pronouns. If you're a transgender boy born a girl, you should compete against girls even if you want everyone to call you Rick instead of Rachel. If they are being given steroids or testosterone then they should not be allowed to compete at all just like any non-transgender person who was doping for sports.
Biden's EO declares war on girls playing sports by allowing biological boys to compete against them. Sounds like Biden wants boys to beat girls, he must be a closet misogynist.