• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. House approves bill banning transgender student athletes in girls sports

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yeah, there are more sexualities and genders than 2 sexes and those who are neither XX or XY. But yes, there are always grey areas in all social contexts and sometimes we need laws for that. That is how a democracy works, even a republic like the USA.



 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Or maybe the schools can respect the rights of the vast majority of females that don't want people with phalli in hanging around when they are vulnerable. And maybe the schools could be held responsible for any consequences of allowing trans people in the ladies dressing rooms, including civil and criminal liability for create an unsafe environment.

So it is not about swimming. It is about rights. But how do you lose a right that is inalienable? I mean if the women have that rights to their safety, so do all other humans? Or maybe you can point to where in the constitution transmen and transwomen lose their rights to safety?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It makes perfect sense. You don't decide whether other people feel a situation is threatening, they do. It isn't I who is arrogantly thinking I can speak for anyone, it is you. Because you have been in mixed bathrooms you appear to be presuming to dismiss the concerns many women have when people with phalli are allowed in facilities when they are most vulnerable. You don't get to do that.

So it is not about swimming, it is about feeling safe. So again how about the rights of other people to feel safe other than women?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I didn't say the ladies shouldn't also be armed. I don't fear a woman legitimately exercising her right to bear arms. Do you?

No, I fear the government and you are using the government, you are such a leftie and a part of what will destroy this country. You are an enabler of the sick belief in statism and as such you have fortified your right to any right by your actions. Just wait to we clean this country of sick degenerate statism and get our Freedom back.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Interestingly I have seen Biden get a lot of criticism from the left for saying that. The feeling being if they left it up to individual schools they could make horrible unfair decisions. And that is true. But I agree with Biden, I think individual schools who know the situation are the only ones with a hope of making the right decision.

Exactly -- There are legitimate reasons to prohibit this student or that student from participating -- but some on the far left want no refusals, which is as much of a government overreach as all refusals.

Biden's plan is a compromise (so naturally, nobody's 100% happy) - leave the power in the hands of the individual schools (where it belongs, IMHO), and if a school abuses that power by making horrible unfair decisions, the families can sue the school.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
That exchange wasn't about sports.

Just like this was never about water.
1682168508378.png
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Exactly -- There are legitimate reasons to prohibit this student or that student from participating -- but some on the far left want no refusals, which is as much of a government overreach as all refusals.

Biden's plan is a compromise (so naturally, nobody's 100% happy) - leave the power in the hands of the individual schools (where it belongs, IMHO), and if a school abuses that power by making horrible unfair decisions, the families can sue the school.

Yeah and in effect let it work itself out. I get that, but that also has a price.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Supporters of this bill don't see it as limiting trans people. They see it as protecting the rights of females. I understand that you and others don't see it that way. But realize that those who see it as protecting the rights of females are in the majority.

I don't really fit into the bucket I think you're putting me in on this.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Yeah and in effect let it work itself out. I get that, but that also has a price.

It's a simple solution -- keep the decision making at as local a level as possible, so that disputes can be settled at as local a level as possible.

I believe that's called "small government," and I recall a lot of people used to give that a lot of lip service.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It's a simple solution -- keep the decision making at as local a level as possible, so that disputes can be settled at as local a level as possible.

I believe that's called "small government," and I recall a lot of people used to give that a lot of lip service.

Yes, but it still happens within the constitution. That is where it always ends in practice. What the local government does, does that fall within the constitution?
There are no state rights themselves, they are within the constitution.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Yes, but it still happens within the constitution. That is where it always ends in practice.

Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.*

What the local government does, does that fall within the constitution?
There are no state rights themselves, they are within the constitution.

True enough -- but the Tenth Amendment gives the states full authority regarding any matter that the Constitution doesn't say anything about -- age of consent for sex/marriage, for example, varies from state to state.

But because the Supreme Court gets to decide the Constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches**, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

And since the American justice system is a Common Law system, we have "vertical stare decisis": judicial decisions from higher courts are binding to the courts beneath it...and when the Supreme Court makes a decision, well, every court is beneath it, isn't it?
The matter is considered settled, because the only court that can change the Supreme Court's decision is... the Supreme Court itself, in a later decision***.


*it says so. (convenient, isn't it?)
**they said so in Marbury v Madison (1803) (convenient, isn't it?)
***VERY convenient, isn't it?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Top