this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
236 points (90.7% liked)

politics

18904 readers
3130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 63 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Of all the gigantic fish that urgently need to be fried, why the actual fuck do we put so much energy into legislating who can or can't play a fucking game??

It's boxing. Boxing.

Our planet is on fire. The Nazis are back. Most of us are wage slaves. Women are going to prison over their physiology. Multiple nations are currently at risk of being wiped off the map... and the folks with the power to contribute a shred of progress toward fixing any of those are wasting their time worrying about whether or not some fucker can participate in a game based on the dangly bits in their pants.

...not that Boebert would actually make the right decision on any of the actually important issues. Maybe I shouldn't complain about that dipshit fixating on sports. But still, fuck!

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 18 points 8 months ago

That's the point. All this culture war bullshit is there to distract from climate change, nazis and all the wage slavery (and regular slavery) going on in the world today.

[–] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

Our planet is on fire. The Nazis are back. Most of us are wage slaves. Women are going to prison over their physiology. Multiple nations are currently at risk of being wiped off the map...

Conservatives care about all of those actually relevant things, but they're trying to make them even worse.

Of course that wouldn't be very popular, so instead they just scream about what's in people's pants and their voters eat it up

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (6 children)

This is an honest question and not intended to be inflammatory.

If a man goes through puberty, then undergoes gender reassignment surgery and is able to prove that their hormone levels are within the allowed ranges for four years, will their physique be comparable to that of a person who was assigned female at birth? Do they still have physical advantages gained through male puberty?

[–] match@pawb.social 55 points 8 months ago (1 children)

they're gonna have physical strength similar to someone with their physique. hrt noticeably reduces muscle mass and many cis women (especially pro athletes) have higher testosterone levels than hrt levels aim for

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They're also going to have a better lung capacity, more stable trunk, and in relation to height men have longer arms and legs. Men also have larger bone areas at muscle attachment sites.

There's currently no way of removing all the variables that exist in order to equalize everything. In the case of boxing, you'll always hear about "reach" or arm length/wingspan. Boxers with a longer reach usually have an advantage since they can land blows out of range of their opponents. Since a born male will have a longer wingspan than a born female, that is one boxing specific thing that any Trans boxer will have over their opponent. That and lung capacity.

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

true. A better measure might be something like "lifetime testosterone level"; the current rules would not prevent a motivated coach from putting a cis woman on male growth hormones as a child and ending the regiment long in advance of the hormone testing period

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 47 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The medical science on it says that two years of hormone therapy are enough to lose any sort of competitive advantage in trans athletes.

Four years is overkill, and is part of why this policy is considered one of the strictest in professional sports.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago

It doesn't change that born males have a more stable trunk and longer reach and increased lung capacity. All three of those things are beneficial to a boxer.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

Not a doctor or a trans woman, but from what I understand, you lose the physical advantages of self-produced testosterone over time.

Additionally, it's not as simple as "hormone levels." Some AFAB women have higher than normal levels of testosterone, and some AMAB men have higher than normal levels of estrogen (and/or just lower testosterone levels). There will always be athletes who have biological advantages, whether that's a bigger heart, better lungs, longer/shorter legs, better eyes, stronger bones, etc.

We draw these boxes around perceived genders as if that's a guarantee of fairness, but it's not some panacea that effectively separates the able from the unable, just like gender is more than your genes.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Who cares though? It's time to stop segregating sports by gender. Sports are skill based, right? So let's break them down that way. Break out divisions by skill, not by gender or physical location. If a woman can work her way to top-tier heavyweight boxing, let her do it.

E: Damn, y'all are really afraid of getting beat by a girl!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I like that this policy includes requirements for hormones over time. I don’t know the science but they clearly considered potential unfairness and attempted to account for it

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, nobody has ever accused her of being smart…so this makes a lot of sense.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Yeah, man, If there was some issue that Boebert clearly understood, that would be the huge news story.

Actually, that sounds like a good story for The Onion. "Lauren Boebert criticizes bill for legitimate reasons that she completely understands."

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Be charitable and try to look at this from conservatives view point:

  • Massive gun violence
  • Runaway inflation, basics becoming unaffordable
  • Housing crisis
  • Healthcare in shambles, even if you can afford it
  • Regular environmental disasters
  • COVID resurgence

So obviously they need to have details on every persons genitals. It's clearly the most important next step.

[–] HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

What makes it even better is they hate women's sports. They have always made fun of it. None of them watch it. They don't give a shit. They only care about the trans aspect of it. Not whether or not it's fair for cis women

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago

She doesn’t need to understand it. As long as she makes enough noise- she’ll get the coward’s vote she needs.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

She's likely totally OK with Buck Angel competing, right? Oh, but Buck wouldn't be allowed since he hasn't completed re-assignment surgery.

https://youtu.be/lD5g8_IEWpw

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why does she look like she's giving a terribly toothy blowjob in every pic I see of her?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Gotta stop looking at theater security footage...

load more comments
view more: next ›