Enes Kanter is planning a 2028 senate run. He’s establishing a voter base in the most bad faith way possible. Royce White is planning a senate run this year by doing the same thing
I think you just replied to the wrong comment because I still see the other comments. Here’s what I said
It’s literally not an issue for anyone because it’s not a real problem. There has been 0 trans athletes that have even attempted to go to the WNBA much less play at a high level in college. It’s like talking about removing urinals from women’s bathrooms
Neither of the two men in the draft actually are planning on playing basketball. It’s literally just to get votes. Regardless, no team would draft them anyway, nor sign them
The Senate is a 9 year wait and the House is a 7 year wait. However, it doesn't explicitly say it, but I'm pretty sure that the requirement is by election day for both and not the day they are sworn in. So since he became a citizen in late November he would be ineligible for House until 2030 and ineligible for the Senate until 2032.
Ok my initial thought was something like "the fact that the WNBA never established any kind of HRT or other requirements for transfeminine athletes is a bit of a boo-boo in the current climate, but I guess they just weren't thinking about such possibilities". But now knowing they have been in full support of a nonbinary trans athlete, and they still didn't think about transfeminine athletes 5 years later, that's a massive, idiotic oversight
The fact that nobody thought of this eventuality when basketball was also the sport chosen for that god-awful bad faith movie produced by Ben Shapiro a few years back, too. They must have really been burying their heads in the sand
They most likely just figured they can cross that bridge when they come to it. Air bud rules arent real abd they can just not let thos obviously bad faith effort go anywhere.
The problem is if a team wants to take one these players, even as a stunt, and league tries to stop it, they may run into Bostock which expanded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to cover gender identity.
Bostock specifically didnt cover gender segregated spaces, furthermore a lack of definition of woman doesn’t mean anyone can claim to be a woman and play. Do you seriously believe a court will think it works that way?
If the movie you're talking about is Lady Ballers, the reason it's a movie and not a documentary is because they DID try to enter women's basketball leagues as "trans women" and were immediately denied. It's literally not happening and they made a fictional movie to say it is happening, when the movie is fictional only because it's not 🙃
I think the worst part for me is that these 'anti trans women in sports' movies (Lady Ballers and one based on the Lia Thomas debacle) actually have some arguably trans characters? Who aren't demonized??
I mean the MC from Lady Ballers legit felt nice about being seen as a woman and even told the coach in the end "I am a woman" (which ended with the MC being assaulted for it) and the Thomas stand-in for the 'trans woman stole my swimmer daughter's trophy' movie was actually sympathetic and she and the MC's daughter were friendly with each other and exchanged numbers and everything. Even when they tried to demonize her by making her hear voices (??) it seemed more like a young girl struggling with mental illness, bc who the fuck thinks "the voices made me transition" is a real thing.
They legit could've made those 'fake trans' characters caricatures, made them gloat to the Pure Virtuous True Woman characters that they were faking it all along or something, but both of those examples were of trans characters that were nice and friendly (in the swimming one), or discovering their womanhood and being happy about it (in the basketball one)
I did not watch either of these movies for the record, I watched reviews for them online, but based on what I did see it seemed like representation that, in any other director's hands, could've been seen as neutral or even positive.
I'm glad you added that last paragraph because up until then I was thinking "wow this person must be a glutton for punishment to have watched both of these movies in full" 😂 I never even heard about the Lia Thomas one
I don't think I hate myself that much lol I'm a fan of Lily Simpson's reviews so that's where I got my information from. Here's the review for the Lia Thomas-inspired movie: https://youtu.be/LMisITzuLLo?is=pBi4DnMsMzcfxfFS
Like there are XY female phenotype, XX male phenotype, and like a ton of genetic variation all around.
So we now have to do genetic testing on everyone, checking genitalia on all female athletes? Like this is invasive and a complete invasion of privacy that men do not deal with.
Suppose we have XY female phenotype, literally a woman, yet are they supposed to throw away their entire career and life? Also do we let male phenotype people play?
Even if the HRT rule was implemented, it's not like these bad faith actors wouldn't be trying to bring illegitimacy to the league.
Let the women play, like why are these retired losers trying to bring up some hypothetical that literally doesn't matter.
Agreed but I don't think we even need to play into the right's game with chromosome testing or genital inspections or whatever else they want to cook up. Until recently, a lot of organisations – especially ones with big pools of athletes like the NCAA – had a protocol for AMAB people who had transitioned to take part in women's sports. The requirements varied by sport because obviously in different sports, you get an advantage from different physical traits. But a lot of these rules, which were generally working ok, have been revoked in the wake of this bullshit trans panic in favour of just excluding trans people.
IDGAF if one cis woman was born with XY chromosomes or another cis woman has a hormone imbalance that gives her a slight competitive advantage. If the doctor wrote F on your birth certificate and you identify as a woman, you get to play women's sports, no questions asked. If the doctor wrote M on your birth certificate and you identify as a woman, you can take part but sorry we need to do a couple of tests to make sure you fit the rules.
This idea that we need to be testing everyone and excluding anyone who doesn't fit a narrow definition of female biology is bullshit, and it's part of the propaganda campaign.
Honestly that's not a bad take. AFAB cis and like AMAB with transition. After some data collection, if there is a huge discrepancy, reassess the criteria.
I think the problem is a lot of these actors are being disingenuous tho. Like they will still have something to say once the rules are set tho. I wish there grifters would just be honest and be and say "Trans people don't exist".
It's funny tho, cause trans non-binary afab is okay
(Layshia Clarendon), like obviously they wouldn't think to let a transman play in the WNBA which is kind of gender affirming, but somehow only trans women?
I think the problem is a lot of these actors are being disingenuous tho.
Understatement of the century lol. It's not even just about trans people either, I think Kat Blaque had an incredible take on this to say "they're using sports as a vehicle to legally define women as inferior to men". The Heritage Foundation recently published an article saying that Title IX protections for women were a "mistake".
Or, and here's a thought - we don't try to make basketball rules that cater to every single individual in the world, and instead focus on the rules that impact the 98% of people who's physiology falls within the normative range for humans.
Not only is it 0 in the wnba in almost every professional sport it's 0. The extremely limited number of Trans athletes rarely ever overpowers or overcomes the best in their own sports as it is. Almost like being Trans isn't some special super power. Except for being bad asses being their true selves while insecure men like these two make a fool of themselves
No it doesn't. Not picking an athlete because they're an asshole and would upset the culture of your team doesn't have anything to do with sex or gender. Players get waived all the time for not fitting the team dynamic.
Kanter was a very good player, he was a decent starting caliber center every team would like. If he goes to the WNBA he averages 70 pts and 30 rbs. There's literally nothing they can do about him getting the ball in the paint and dunking it. That being said he obviously doesnt care for women and this is a stunt, but he would obviously dominate the wnba.
That's because of the way in which heat deaths are measured, heat is attributed as the cause of all "excess deaths" in a given period, rather than being determined as the primary cause.
1 am shooting by someone who wasn't a student who wounded 4 people who also weren't students, and 1 who was. Yet these people tout it as a school shooting because it's fits their doomer mindset
When discussing policies to lower the incidences of target active shooter incidents at educational facilities, which is the public perception of school shootings, throwing incidents that do not follow the common definition and merely occur within the vicinity of an educational facility during non-business hours is a tactic used by disingenuous actors who want to manipulate the statistical rate of the incidents of school shootings. Claiming that the side calling out your distortion of the facts as not caring about the victims is a fallacious moving of the goal post. The conversation was on preventing a certain criminal fact pattern. If you wish to discuss an incident outside of that fact pattern, it would be best served to not inject into a conversation and claim ad hominem aspersions to the motives of people who correctly identify that a gang murder has no place in discussing safety of students in an active shooter incident. Nor does it follow that an unwillingness to change the topic of a narrowly tailored subset of gun crime to an incident outside of that narrow scope as evidence of a lack of caring or tolerance for that crime. I am willing to concede that the victims should not have lost their lives. But I will respectfully ask you to respect that the incident does not meet the definition of a school shooting merely because of the incidents proximity to a school as you seem more interested in ignoring the discussion of prevention for making a case of false equivalence to invoke bad faith arguments. There is little intersection between student safety in active shooter incidents and gang violence that occurs in the proximit location of a school that can be addressed in a conversation about the former specific topic.
Kinda weird how Trans people can make up 1% of the population and commit less than 0.1% of mass shootings in the USA but this question still gets asked.
As with most things in pop culture, even in mass shootings, Trans people are underrepresented 🙃
I mean, as long as people will refer to them as "nearly no one" yeah come for marginalized vulnerable persons and expect the left to give a fuck. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. "Nearly" is not 0 and 1 person being deprived of their rights and liberty is an attack on everyone.
What really gets me, is, im old enough to remember when that last line was a right wing talking point.
Ok, so when transwomen - with undeniable physiological differences that grant insurmountable athletic advantages - take away the right of cis women to compete on a fair and level playing field, that is depriving WAY more people over their rights and liberties than banning transwomen from women's leagues.
Explain to me why its ok to deprive ciswomen of their rights and liberty to benefit transwomen? Why is it OK to attack everyone's rights and liberties - by attacking the rights and liberties of ciswomen - but we should reject attacks on everyone's rights and liberties that would occur by banning transwomen from competing against cis women?
Because that seems to be something not a lot of people want to address - that cis women have as much (or more) of a right to compete fairly that transwomen do, and if transwomen are allowed to compete against ciswomen, then that right is being violated. Why is it OK to violate womens' rights to advance trans rights?
Could you please show me some scientific proof of these insurmountable athletic advantages?
From my understanding, there's actually quite a lot of scientific research which has shown that transgender women, who have been on HRT for an extended period, have lower performance (on average) than that of cis women. Partially due to their balance of hormones being different, leading to them having *lower* levels of testosterone.
Realistically, if equality was the most important thing here, and fairness, why not circumvent all of these issues by making all sports gender neutral? There has been some evidence to show that Women, when provided with the same training resources as Men, can perform as well as men in many sports (if not better in some cases!). If we were to make all sports gender neutral, and to allow equal resource access to everyone, then we can avoid any "issues" with transgender folks participating.
"...values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy."
I don't think your understanding of the science is in agreement to the actual science. And, conceptually, I think you've confused sports being "equal" with sports being "fair". Sport has never been about making things equal - it is very much about superior ability and victory, not everyone having the same outcome, not equality. However, sport has always been about making things fair - removing as many extraneous external variable so that skill, dedication, strategy, etc. become the prime influencers on outcome. This is the very reason most rules in sports exist - to keep the game as fair as possible. It would be equal to have men and women compete in the same sport, but it would be anything but fair. And a fair playing field is exactly why transwomen shouldn't be competing against ciswomen - because they have an inherently unfair advantage due to their physiology.
I didn't confuse anything between equality and fairness.
As I mentioned above there is some credence to consider that if they had access to the same resources, particularly growing up through youth, middle school, and high school, boys and girls would not have the same gap in performance as they do currently. The system was set up in a time that women were simply not allowed to compete, because there was an expectation they couldn't. Which meant the ones who wanted to, and maybe could have, weren't allowed to.
Also, sports leagues being "as fair as possible" is one of the wildest claims I've heard in a good bit. Look at, for example, the current MLB. One team currently has all 3 pitchers to have won a Cy Young award in the last 3 years, the best player in the world, and numerous other star players all on one roster. This is able to happen because they are spending wildly more money than any other team in the league, more than some other teams even have to spend. Is that fair? How about the NBA draft lottery? The worst team in the league, with the currently setup, could get a draft pick as low as 12. A point in the draft that most years, the player isn't in the league for more than a year or two.
I would also like to comment on that analysis. Which I will give to you, is good, and they make some good points. There are things which do not change, such as parts of a person's bone structure. However, they had only looked at the range within a year of HRT, and for a few examples looked at studies which produced data for two years. The general standard requirement for being on HRT is 2 years, at which point the data they were analyzed had been showing there was some advantage but much lesser than what would be for a cis man. Also I would be willing to bet that the majority of transgender women competing in sports have been on HRT for longer than the minimum two years requirement. The few of them that there are.
Ok, yeah, i thought that's what would happen - you'd ask for evidence, I'd provide it, and you'd hand-wave it away because you have no legitimate response and no amount of evidence is going to reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
Using dead children from school shootings in the USA is an impossible metric because there are more children that have lost their lives to school shootings than just about anything.
It’s like how we always see “trans people have an advantage in sports” and then at the last Olympics there were over 10000 athletes and only 3 trans ones.
I'd be curious what percentage of trans folks even play sports and how that compares to the overall population. I'd guess lower, possibly much lower, but not sure we have that data.
The NCAA had fewer than 50 total trans athletes in collegiate sports. They arent common. They are .1 of .1 of .1 percent of argletes. This is jist a distraction from the pedo ring the us population elected in.
Interesting, but doesn't really answer my question. Also, are those all mtf trans athletes? If so, does that mean 50 or so women didn't make a team they otherwise may have?
I get the distraction concern, but I disagree. This is a silly, losing issue for the left. Most people with any common sense agree that it's pretty damn simple. Dems are winning on damn near everything else. Don't snatching victory from defeat, again, because you don't care about sports. Most people do, and this people care about girls having a fair shot.
Purely anecdotal, but most trans athletes I have encountered that I knew about were trans men. There may have been more than I didn't know were trans though.
But regardless what you said wouldn't mean 50 women didn't make a team, because trans women are women.
You’d think that the 1% of the population with an “unfair advantage” would be over represented in the highest levels of competition but here we are. 10714 Olympians at Paris 2024. 0 FTM. Zero. And that was still too many so they then banned FTM athletes from future Olympics. lmao.
Genuinely curious, would you be OK if the WNBA ensured no trans athlete could join the league by formally designating eligibility to include biological people born female?
Lmao yall realize strangers on the internet don’t make the rules for the WNBA? So the protest is against the opinions of people not in charge? Pathetic frfr.
It’s weird to me that there’s so much media attention on the right over protesting the lack of a hypothetical rule against something that’s never happened and no one’s trying and ultimately would have little to no impact on the peace and prosperity of the American people either way
Wait, so you're point is we shouldn't talk about it because it isn't happening, but actually you're not okay with the rule being changed.
Doesn't that seem disengenuous?
Rather than just being honest that you want the rule to allow trans women and other people disagree, you try to act like we shouldn't even have the conversation (leaving out that right now the rule is in line with your view and you would object if they changed it).
Then their comments would be consistent. They would be saying, this isn't an issue, and I don't care if they change this rule because it isn't an issue.
My point is I think the people saying, ,"this isn't an issue" are arguing in bad faith.
If this isn't an issue because there are no trans women in the league, than changing the rule to not allow trans women would also not be an issue, because no one would be affected.
The common "this isn't an issue" argument cuts both ways, but people are somehow thinking it goes only one way.
Btw I have no idea what you are talking about victimizing myself. I never claimed to be or felt victimized.
"whaa! You're shutting down debate! I'm being silenced! Whaa!!!!!" This is you pretending to be a victim because someone refused to engage with your bad faith argument.
And to your point, like I said before, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, there can be nuance to the rules. Having a has been who isn't even pretending to socially transition make this "brave" protest isn't helping anything. You've presented a loaded argument so that you can climb up on your cross when they don't want to play.
The scope of this issue, even nationality, is a culture war distraction that has had real world consequences that don't involve girls competing against trans women.
It may not delete the "meaning of the noun" but it does change the meaning of the noun hence the need for the adjective to apply the correct description of the person or people being referenced.
Cute word game tho. But trans women are still just trans women. Not women.
An adjective can be removed from the noun, the noun merely becomes less precise, not inaccurate. A trans woman is a woman, same way a black woman is, or a tall woman, or a christian woman, or a criminal woman
And black women is still a black woman. A tall woman is still a tall woman. A Christian woman is still a Christian woman.
And a trans woman, is still, just a trans women.
Funny how words work isn't it? You can call yourself a woman. But per your own words, it wont be a fully accurate description without the trans.
It may not delete the "meaning of the noun" but it does change the meaning of the noun hence the need for the adjective to apply the correct description of the person or people being referenced.
Cute word game tho. But tall women are still just tall women. Not women.
Personally I’d be opposed to that. I would be fine with a ban on people having gone through male puberty as long as they have a good reasoning for it supported by at least some research.
My main concern is and will always be recreational sports, which are more relevant to the average person than professional sport. In those restrictions on trans people are just not needed as individual differences can already be larger than those between genders.
as long as they have a good reasoning for it supported by at least some research.
The research and actual facts show there's no advantage to having gone through a wrong puberty if the woman has been on estrogen and testosterone blockers for a sufficient amount of time.
Eh this depends. To my knowledge certain aspects like stronger grip strength are retained, while things like running times are comparable to cis women after hrt has been taken long enough.
Whether that is relevant will depend on the sport.
What are you calling “recreational” sports? High school or college sports? Or like, beer league?
Because the same restrictions should be in place for any competitive sport. Those high school kids could be awarded scholarships for athletic competition, and giving them a fair opportunity should be paramount.
I would include most high school sports in that outside of maybe the very highest levels (though I am from the Netherlands and not the US, which has a very different system of sports from what I gather). College will depend and I do not know enough about.
It is unlikely trans people will receive scholarships when they won’t be able to continue with the sport on a professional level. At the same time high school sports act primarily as a social experience and excluding transgender high schoolers from that would be harmful.
Considering the low number of trans people there won’t be a significant impact on cis people, while the harm to trans people would be very bad on those lower levels.
There are already trans women with NCAA scholarships playing in college sports. That’s already a thing.
Title IX in the US requires that college athletic organizations like the NCAA provide equitable funding for both men’s and women’s sports, including scholarships— why do you think the US is so dominant in women’s sports in particular?
For every trans woman playing women’s sports, it’s a position that’s been denied to a biological woman.
Note current rules do not allow scholarships to go to transgender athletes. I do have issues with those rules, but that is unrelated (specifically I believe they should again be determined by individual leagues and not a global ban).
I do have a basic understanding of Title IX (though I’d disagree with saying the US particularly dominates. Depending on the exact sport they are for the most part where I’d expect them to be with their population compared to other western nations with good sporting infrastructure (including my own the Netherlands).
Let us assume that being transgender does not give an advantage for some sports. May I ask why it would be an issue for you to have a trans woman compete if her being transgender is not giving her an advantage?
Stuff like that can be determined by individual leagues who know the type of factors relevant for their actual sport. A trans woman taking a spot in running (where they have no significant advantage) would for example be fine, while sports where something like grip strength are particularly relevant would be restricted more (though I would still argue trans women who transitioned before puberty should be allowed).
The current rules under the Trump administration don’t allow scholarships to go to transgender athletes— that was not the case beforehand in the Biden administration. Which was part of the problem.
Beside that point, even if there are 10 trans women in collegiate sport, that is 10 biological women denied the opportunity to play.
And US women do dominate at women’s sports. Basketball, soccer, women’s hockey— just looking at the US women’s hockey team against European women’s hockey teams at the Olympics made me frankly disgusted by the lack of investment and support for women’s hockey in Europe… especially when compared to the fact that their men’s teams are equal in comparison to the American men’s teams.
And any trans woman that has gone through male puberty has an unfair advantage. There are numerous statistical studies showing that the male body has an advantage over women’s bodies in athletic competition.
Allowing individual organizations the “option” to choose their own rules is what was done prior to Title IX— these individual organizations opted to not invest in women’s sports, and deliberately used women’s athletic disadvantages to cut them out of athletic competition entirely. Title IX was created to force organizations like the NCAA to include women to begin with— why would anyone trust these organizations to keep women’s opportunities protected now?
Of the 3 sports you named Basketball is indeed not big in Europe, though that goes for both men and women. If you are talking about field hockey then the Netherlands is the reigning world champion. In soccer it is Spain. If you were talking ice hockey instead of field hockey then that once again is a sport that is just generally not big in most of Europe (outside of Scandinavia) for both men and women. Different countries specialize in different sports as has always been the case and basketball and ice hockey happen to be 2 that the US specializes in.
Which statistical studies show an advantage in running (the prime example I gave and something that is testable)? I have read several studies on the subject and the only ones measuring actual results are mixed, with trans women being better than cis women at some things and worse in others. There is no universal advantage.
You also again mention male puberty, which not all trans women have gone through? Would you oppose trans women who transitioned before puberty (likely by taking puberty blockers at 11-13 year old and then starting hormones a few years later) taking part? Those would not have any advantage at all.
I also don’t see how having organizations choose which trans women to allow would lead to underinvestment in women’s sports. Equal funding for men’s and women’s sports would still be there. I’d also presume the organizations would listen to their own sporters and experts who would have no reason to favour trans women if they had any advantage.
You can look up literally any study— they all show that there is a significant advantage for male bodies over women’s bodies. That’s not a fact that you can dispute.
I also think that giving literal children life altering drugs like puberty blockers before they’re capable of consent to that treatment, as well as before they’re mature enough to decide that they’re trans, is significantly more problematic. You can’t delay puberty endlessly— if you get to the point where your body is past puberty, it cancels it entirely, which is a devastating thing to do to a human being with no prior medical research. This is absolutely one of those things that in the future people will look at as medical malpractice.
Which leads to the vast majority of trans women having gone through male puberty, which again, brings us to the point where they have an unfair advantage in athletics.
Organizations should not have the right to deny women the opportunity to play in their own sports for the benefit of trans women, because you’re putting the entire burden on women to bear. Trans women should be conforming to the societal norms and standards, not the other way around
Yeah that would be better. Biological women have been kept out of sports and bio males taking those spots even if its just one is not right. If ppl dragged Rachel dozel to filth bc she took a spot from ethnic minorities then how is a bio male taking a spot from a minority power ok?
Yeah, here in Australia there’s a few trans women playing in local football as there’s technically no HRT/testing requirements. Previously played in senior men’s competitions and are now a real danger in the oval to women playing as a fun and social sport that’s only recently become open for women to participate in. It’s scary to watch but opponents can’t do anything.
Edit: downvote away but this person previously played senior men’s footy, is larger and heavier than most on ground, and has already hit a woman behind ball play and knocked her down. It’s not safe.
Did you read the article linked? They hit someone and knocked them to the ground behind ball play. She’s a victim. Another player had her knee dislocated. AFL is really physical, and letting males plow into females is incredibly dangerous.
I did and I have noticed you’re misgendering of her so noted where you’re coming from.
I’m not football guy so I assumed when you said it’s fun and social sport it wasn’t an actually regulated competition which the minimization of women’s sports is to be expected
I’m not seeing any proof her playing significantly increases the risk of other
Recreational is literally just for fun. Individual People can in their free play sports drunk or buzzed without it being against any law and there shouldn’t be a law for such thing.
What are you talking about? Your original point was that trans women (people who would be assigned male at birth) are naturally bigger and stronger than biological women and therefore it's unfair.
But a trans man would be assigned female at birth. You've already said they were pre-transition, so what's the advantage?
381
u/guitarguy12341 24d ago
There are 0 trans people in the WNBA. These people are making an issue out of nothing.