Supreme Court discussion sports boys and girls

[elghund]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Ever hear the phrase, "Turn your head and cough"? I did starting at age 9 in order to participate in organized boys sports.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I guess you didn't play sports as a youth if you're unfamiliar with that.

Deflection.

There is no equivalence between a hernia exam for a male and a gynecology exam for a woman.

By reading your replies, you sound like you want any female to get a full gynecological exam.

You gonna come out and say that you are in favor of an 8 year old girl getting a full exam?

elg…

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by elghund

Deflection.

There is no equivalence between a hernia exam for a male and a gynecology exam for a woman.

By reading your replies, you sound like you want any female to get a full gynecological exam.

You gonna come out and say that you are in favor of an 8 year old girl getting a full exam?

elg…

No equivalence? I beg to differ. Having to expose one's private parts and have them groped is common to both sex's pelvic exam.

I'm not sure how you sussed that out from my reply, but you're wrong and I never said it. There are other ways to determine someone's sex that aren't nearly as invasive as an internal examination. A swab inside your mouth for instance.

[ICU 812]

These last few posts involving anatomy simply validates my case about who is a male and who is a female.

Thank you for that, and lets use it.

Males should not be permitted to compete in female's sports.

[Ducbutter]

Actually, inguinal hernias are common to both sexes and the exam is exactly the same for both. Females need to be examined just as males do before participating in sports and it's no more invasive than for males. That exam is adequate to determine sex of the individual in north 97% of people on the planet. Hell, there's no need for a doctor to palpate the area at all. I visual inspection is all that would be required in that percentage of athletes.
Not to mention, it's not even a factor until boys reach puberty. Up until then there's not much difference betwixt the two sexes in terms of strength and other things that change drastically with puberty's onset.

[txdot-guy]

Can we all at least agree that the court shouldn’t define what makes a person female or male?

It’s not the court’s place to decide what makes someone male or female.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The Supreme Court should be determining what rights citizens have, regardless of their gender. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what defines a woman or a man.

Ok well let's say boys have a right to dress up like girls but that right doesn't extend to the extent they can play in women's sports.

[Precious_b]

So, what's the ruling on hermaphrodites?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Can we all at least agree that the court shouldn’t define what makes a person female or male?

It’s not the court’s place to decide what makes someone male or female.

Can we all at least agree that biology defines what makes a person male or female?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Can we all at least agree that biology defines what makes a person male or female?

Unfortunately biology sometimes messes up and creates a person who is not fully male or female.

That’s the problem with defining gender as xx or xy.

People who have one of several well-documented medical conditions do not have only XX or XY chromosomes, which typically correspond with female and male sexes, respectively.

Those conditions include Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY), Turner Syndrome (missing or partial X), Triple X Syndrome (XXX) and Jacob’s Syndrome (XYY).

Research estimates that about 1.7% of the worldwide population has intersex conditions or differences in sex development, cases in which someone’s anatomy does not neatly fit into male or female.

Legislatures should be the ones to define gender legally. Not the courts.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Unfortunately biology sometimes messes up and creates a person who is not fully male or female.

That’s the problem with defining gender as xx or xy.

People who have one of several well-documented medical conditions do not have only XX or XY chromosomes, which typically correspond with female and male sexes, respectively.

Those conditions include Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY), Turner Syndrome (missing or partial X), Triple X Syndrome (XXX) and Jacob’s Syndrome (XYY).

Research estimates that about 1.7% of the worldwide population has intersex conditions or differences in sex development, cases in which someone’s anatomy does not neatly fit into male or female.

Legislatures should be the ones to define gender legally. Not the courts.

so 8 thousand of 8 billion should what? be allowed to compete as what? create the trans Olympics bar them otherwise.


you are missing the point. this isn't about hermaphrodites .. it's about men in lipstick and dresses unfairly competing against biological women.


why do you think men no matter how much estrogen gets shoved up their butts is a fair contest athletically against biological women?


that's the real question

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so 8 thousand of 8 billion should what? be allowed to compete as what? create the trans Olympics bar them otherwise.

you are missing the point. this isn't about hermaphrodites .. it's about men in lipstick and dresses unfairly competing against biological women.

why do you think men no matter how much estrogen gets shoved up their butts is a fair contest athletically against biological women?

that's the real question

That’s true.

And the Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality of the question without legislating biological sex.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Can we all at least agree that the court shouldn’t define what makes a person female or male?

It’s not the court’s place to decide what makes someone male or female.

The court doesn't need to define, or re-define what makes a person female or male. That has already been defined by biology.


That has been settled science sincethe scientific method was developed in the Renassance, and for centuries and millennia before by non-scientific societies, pretty uniformly all over the world.

Prehistoric peoples including Neanderthals recognized the difference and made fertility effigies in clay that cannot be construed as anything else but female figurines. . . .this during the pre-pottery Stone Age.

No. SCOTUS does not need to define what makes a person female or male . . . that has been done.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

So, what's the ruling on hermaphrodites?

They flip a coin.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

They flip a coin.

LOL!

It seems maggies don't want to touch that one with their cut-n-dry morals.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

LOL!

It seems maggies don't want to touch that one with their cut-n-dry morals.

You touch it then.