Devon Park (Softball Hall of Fame)

[Roger S]

Why on earth don't these legislators concentrate on things that will actually help Oklahoma, like increasing funding for education??

Their positions of power depends on an uneducated populace.

[dankrutka]

Their positions of power depends on an uneducated populace.

Unfortunately, people want to explain this away as being an education issue, but educated people often are bigots who promote conspiracies too. Just look at the U.S. Senators who have most notably promoted conspiracy theories and hate... they're Ivy league graduates.

[GoGators]

Funding education is hard. It takes actual legislative work. It takes cooperation and collaboration, it takes making tough decisions. It takes having a goal and working diligently towards it. It takes time. It takes competent leadership.

Anti-trans bills are easy. Just words on paper.

This is why we continually see these types of bills. Its a way of "doing something" without actually having to do anything.

[Roger S]

Unfortunately, people want to explain this away as being an education issue, but educated people often are bigots who promote conspiracies too. Just look at the U.S. Senators who have most notably promoted conspiracy theories and hate... they're Ivy league graduates.

I would never consider a bigot to be an educated person... Doesn't matter where the piece of paper hanging in a frame on their wall came from.

[onthestrip]

It's all grounded in bigotry. Where are these transgender athletes who are dominating women's sports? They're just using these theoretical made up scenarios as their cover for bigotry.

Losing the WCWS will be a huge loss for OKC if it happens, but for once, I agree with the NCAA here. If your state can't host and support everyone then you don't deserve national events.

Couple of trans girls dominated state track events in Connecticut a couple years ago.
https://www.courant.com/sports/high-...6ru-story.html

Yes its a small issue with very few cases but doesnt mean it hasnt negatively harmed some female athletes. Sure bigotry plays a role in some states thinking but it also could be from a position of keeping competition fair for born-females. Heck, even the NCAA rules say trans females cant compete unless they have a years worth of hormone therapy. Im guessing if you polled the public, an overwhelming majority would agree that female sports should be for born females only. Kind of weird for NCAA to try flexing their muscles on this when they have their own policy with restrictions and when about half the states have already banned trans females from female sports.

[mugofbeer]

this is all just hypothetical scenarios that aren't based in the real world. These bills are just "solutions" looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Is the Oklahoma legislature going to cost the state tens of millions of dollars a year and hurt the image of the state on a national level yet again because "what if Kevin Durant decided to be trans?" The whole thing is laughable.

First, l think you have to consider the hypotheticals and there are cases if you Google it. One is an undefeated high school boys wrestler who now wants to compete as a girl. I would certainly have questions of fairness in this case. Of course it is also not an issue in some sports.

There aren't many cases in the US, agreed, but more of an Olympics level issue. You say it's laughable but the day will come somewhere it becomes an issue. It' just an interesting debate because, unlike how Pete describes it , there are arguements on both sides from valid sources - not alt-right, strawman sources. It's an easy browser search if you filter out the people hell-bent on making it a political issue.

[PoliSciGuy]

Deciding what rights to give trans people *is* inherently a political issue.

[jedicurt]

First, l think you have to consider the hypotheticals and there are cases if you Google it. One is an undefeated high school boys wrestler who now wants to compete as a girl. I would certainly have questions of fairness in this case. Of course it is also not an issue in some sports.

i think there is a much bigger issue with High School Female Wrestling, until 2018, there were only even 6 states that had womens wrestling as an officially recognized state sport, by the 2019 season that increased to 15, and as of last year, there will now be 26... so only just over half of all states even recognize it as a high school sport. womens sports has been second tier to mens sports since high school sports became a thing. So i'm still trying to figure out what exactly we are trying to stop here. my assumption is that this wrestler, assuming they meet all of the weight class requirements, would compete with others of the same weight class. and if we are just doing it for safety, well, then lets take a serious look at CTE in high school football... but since we clearly don't care about safety in football, i'm going to throw that argument out until legislatures start trying to ban football for not being safe. so now we get back to "cheating the system"... for what? again, what does this person get for competing? what are they trying to cheat the system to gain?

[Pete]

Regardless of a very few, rare cases...

What on earth is our state legislature doing making this a priority?

It's political grandstanding and if you can't see that, their methods are just playing to your political bias and need to constantly construct 'evil forces' instead of dealing with real problems in our state and society in general.

[dcsooner]

Their positions of power depends on an uneducated populace.

+too big to count

[dcsooner]

Regardless of a very few, rare cases...

What on earth is our state legislature doing making this a priority?

It's political grandstanding and if you can't see that, their methods are just playing to your political bias and need to constantly construct 'evil forces' instead of dealing with real problems in our state and society in general.

\another + too much to count

[mugofbeer]

Deciding what rights to give trans people *is* inherently a political issue.

Where in the bill of rights is this covered? I don't see one saying you have the right to participate in women's athletics even though you are physically a man. Are we inventing a new right to apply?

[Swake]

First, l think you have to consider the hypotheticals and there are cases if you Google it. One is an undefeated high school boys wrestler who now wants to compete as a girl. I would certainly have questions of fairness in this case. Of course it is also not an issue in some sports.

I tried to find your example and the only one I could find, you have it exactly wrong.

The transgender boy is an undefeated girls wrestler who is forced to compete as a girl because that was his birth gender. He wants to compete as a boy.

https://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/st...beggs-teach-us

[PoliSciGuy]

Where in the bill of rights is this covered? I don't see one saying you have the right to participate in women's athletics even though you are physically a man. Are we inventing a new right to apply?

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, for starters.

[mugofbeer]

That is the case, l told the story a bit wrong.

I realize he was forced to compete as a girl (which l disagree with), the point is despite his transition treatments, he is still physically a man. The more l think about it, the more unfair it seems to me in sports that require strength and finesse. I see no connection to "right" or politics. It's a matter of fairness and competing against peers.

[mugofbeer]

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, for starters.

Where is "assigned sex" or "identity sex" stated anywhere in Title IX? It was a flawed piece of legislation that leaves it up to the POTUS. There's still no "right."

[PoliSciGuy]

Where is "assigned sex" or "identity sex" stated anywhere in Title IX? It was a flawed piece of legislation that leaves it up to the POTUS. There's still no "right."

...what? Is your reading comprehension that bad? Here's what Title IX says:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

School sports absolutely fall under this as an "education program or activity." If a school is receiving federal funds (which is every public school and almost every university), then it cannot discriminate in participation in these activities based on sex. Things like "assigned sex" or "identity sex" are pointless obfuscations. The statute is pretty clear - schools cannot discriminate sports opportunities based on sex. I'm not sure where you're seeing that this is all somehow up to the President to decide, that's some pretty bad reading of the statute.

[Swake]

That is the case, l told the story a bit wrong.

I realize he was forced to compete as a girl (which l disagree with), the point is despite his transition treatments, he is still physically a man. The more l think about it, the more unfair it seems to me in sports that require strength and finesse. I see no connection to "right" or politics. It's a matter of fairness and competing against peers.

You disagree his being forced to compete as a girl? What? He was born a girl, this is exactly opposite your entire argument.

[mugofbeer]

I read fine. Yes, basis of sex. Is the sex based on what their body shows it is or what their identity says it is? That isn't covered anywhere, Professor.

You're reading into this what you want it to be. Just because you say it is doesn't make any of it a "pointless obfuscation."

As l understand it, relevant cases are making their way through the courts so they're the ones who get to decide. You'll just have to wait to see if a physical man competing as a woman is a "pointless obfuscation."

[Swake]

I read fine. Yes, basis of sex. Is the sex based on what their body shows it is or what their identity says it is? That isn't covered anywhere, Professor.

You're reading into this what you want it to be. Just because you say it is doesn't make any of it a "pointless obfuscation."

As l understand it, relevant cases are making their way through the courts so they're the ones who get to decide. You'll just have to wait to see if a physical man competing as a woman is a "pointless obfuscation."

So if a woman born as a man is taking hormone therapy you are fine with them competing as a woman?

[PoliSciGuy]

I read fine. Yes, basis of sex. Is the sex based on what their body shows it is or what their identity says it is? That isn't covered anywhere, Professor.

You're reading into this what you want it to be. Just because you say it is doesn't make any of it a "pointless obfuscation."

As l understand it, relevant cases are making their way through the courts so they're the ones who get to decide. You'll just have to wait to see if a physical man competing as a woman is a "pointless obfuscation."

No, actually, it is covered. Bostock v. Clayton County in 2019 ruled (with a 6-3 majority with some conservative justices joining) that transgendered individuals cannot be discriminated against or fired because of their "new" sex conflicting with their biological sex. This transposes pretty easily into Title IX of the same act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download) since the language is essentially interchangeable. And historically, the Court has interpreted Title IX's language broadly, since the language itself is broad (as established in North
Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell). Adding these pointless obfuscating adjectives like "assigned" or "identity" in front of the word "sex" goes against the broad nature of the statute, according to the courts. If Congress wants to clarify by adding those words, fine, they can pass a new law, but until they do the language of the statue is pretty clear, and Bostock affirms that.

[mugofbeer]

So if a woman born as a man is taking hormone therapy you are fine with them competing as a woman?

How about you stop responding to my posts and l'll do likewise. You are only trolling me at this point.

[Swake]

How about you stop responding to my posts and l'll do likewise. You are only trolling me at this point.

You can't even figure out what you are arguing for or against now. Sad.

[mugofbeer]

No, actually, it is covered. Bostock v. Clayton County in 2019 ruled (with a 6-3 majority with some conservative justices joining) that transgendered individuals cannot be discriminated against or fired because of their "new" sex conflicting with their biological sex. This transposes pretty easily into Title IX of the same act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download) since the language is essentially interchangeable. And historically, the Court has interpreted Title IX's language broadly, since the language itself is broad (as established in North
Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell). Adding these pointless obfuscating adjectives like "assigned" or "identity" in front of the word "sex" goes against the broad nature of the statute, according to the courts. If Congress wants to clarify by adding those words, fine, they can pass a new law, but until they do the language of the statue is pretty clear, and Bostock affirms that.

Title XI is written so whoever is the President at the time can interpret and apply the law as he/she wants, which is what Biden did with his executive order. The SCOTUS ruling was about Title VII Employment discrimination and not Title lX Public School Education.

Biden's Justice Department is making their own interpretation that the Title VII ruling applies to Title IX which is their right. They simply change the Trump Justice Department interpretation which was their right. You state the statute language is pretty clear which is simply untrue. Title IX is a one sentence statute that can change with the POTUS.

That's why lawsuits are pending so we'll have to see whose right are being violated. This is the case that's being run up the Federal court ladder.

https://apnews.com/article/connectic...09d6128687af82

[PoliSciGuy]

Title XI is written so whoever is the President at the time can interpret and apply the law as he/she wants, which is what Biden did with his executive order. The SCOTUS ruling was about Title VII Employment discrimination and not Title lX Public School Education.

Biden's Justice Department is making their own interpretation that the Title VII ruling applies to Title IX which is their right. They simply change the Trump Justice Department interpretation which was their right. You state the statute language is pretty clear which is simply untrue. Title IX is a one sentence statute that can change with the POTUS.

That's why lawsuits are pending so we'll have to see whose right are being violated. This is the case that's being run up the Federal court ladder.

https://apnews.com/article/connectic...09d6128687af82

This is a pretty profound misunderstanding of how things work. POTUS can direct his education and justice departments to make certain statements and regulatory interpretations in house, but the actual legal interpretation of the law is up to the Courts, not POTUS. And under Bostock, the Courts have shown that their interpretation "on the basis of sex" is indeed broad, which aligns with their earlier Title IX ruling in North Haven. To go against that in a Title IX case would be hugely ignorant of the existing precedent (and would require Gorsuch and Roberts to suddenly do an about face without a legal leg to stand on).