LPGA Policy Update

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

ANOTHER TRANNY THREAD! Not sure how this slipped past Maximum Overkill's tranny alert system...

 

The LPGA and USGA added a female-at-birth clause to their policy which they say follows a long study on the medical, sports physiology, and gender studies law sides of the issue. Actually this makes sense as a policy. The long and short of it is- to compete in an LPGA tournament a person must either be a female at birth or have gone through gender transitioning before hitting puberty.

 

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/42775509/lpga-usga-gender-policy-updates-include-female-birth-clause

[jerryskids 6,783]

At birth makes sense.  "Gender transitioning before hitting puberty" does from a scientific level, but I'm concerned about setting up systems that encourage kids to make decisions to medically transition before puberty.  Lefties here tell me that never happens but... anyway, I could also see a potential legal issue where woke parents sue to allow little Johnnie to become Joanie because he thinks he's a girl and loves golf!

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

At birth makes sense.  "Gender transitioning before hitting puberty" does from a scientific level, but I'm concerned about setting up systems that encourage kids to make decisions to medically transition before puberty.  Lefties here tell me that never happens but... anyway, I could also see a potential legal issue where woke parents sue to allow little Johnnie to become Joanie because he thinks he's a girl and loves golf!

 

I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits. I know the counter argument will be "well one is too many." To which I say- look if a parent allows their kid to do it, that's on them. Also, I don't think we need to be writing off people because of something maybe like 5 people will do. 

[jerryskids 6,783]

27 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits. I know the counter argument will be "well one is too many." To which I say- look if a parent allows their kid to do it, that's on them. Also, I don't think we need to be writing off people because of something maybe like 5 people will do. 

It happens but it's rare.  But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.  

[jonmx 2,429]

If Democrats had their way we would just put TBD on the birth certificate.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,082]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits. knIow the counter argument will be "well one is too many." To which I say- look if a parent allows their kid to do it, that's on them. Also, I don't think we need to be writing off people because of something maybe like 5 people will do. 

If it's so small then why are we even allowing it?  No big deal, right?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,082]

58 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It happens but it's rare.  But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.  

Sounds like they're going to uphold the Tennessee bill from the oral arguments.  Of course, the far-left nut job SCOTUS who can't even tell you what a woman is wants to overturn it, but it looks like logic and reason are going to win out.  At least that is what SCOTUS watchers are saying.

[WhiteWonder 2,733]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

 "Gender transitioning before hitting puberty" does from a scientific level,

I'd need to know more about the weird science involved in this before saying what impact it could have on sports. 

I started golfing at like 8 years old. by the 5th grade I wanted to be a pro golfer. In HS, we didn't have a boys team and a girls team. If you were a girl you simply had to be good enough. So if I was 8 year old me, and I had some golf skill and my parents wanted a meal ticket, could they start conditioning me to think maybe I really am more of a girl... transition "before puberty" and get a women's golf scholarship? 

So If I had transitioned before hitting puberty, there is absolutely no way I could then ease off whatever testosterone blockers and other drugs i'd need to be taking and wind up with a bit of that male advantage?  I'm genuinely asking. I have no idea 

[edjr 6,580]

16 minutes ago, jonmx said:

If Democrats had their way we would just put TBD on the birth certificate.

like Obama

[weepaws 3,189]

That’s great news op.  

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,340]

2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits. I know the counter argument will be "well one is too many." To which I say- look if a parent allows their kid to do it, that's on them. Also, I don't think we need to be writing off people because of something maybe like 5 people will do. 

not widespread got it

 

[Maximum Overkill 1,984]

3 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

ANOTHER TRANNY THREAD! Not sure how this slipped past Maximum Overkill's tranny alert system...

Are you tore up over this decision? Poor thing  

[kilroy69 1,245]

“Can’t say I didn’t see this coming. Banned from the Epson and LPGA,” Davidson wrote in an Instagram Stories post. “All the silence and people wanting to stay ‘neutral’ thanks for absolutely nothing. This happened because of all your silence."-The Tranny golfer trying to get onto the LPGA tour. 

 

This is the height of delusion. "i was not allowed to outdrive women and have a competitive advantage. It was going great and YOU people stopped me. That is totally unfair and everyone should have spoken up." 

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

4 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

If it's so small then why are we even allowing it?  No big deal, right?

So you agree it is silly to spend this much time on something that affects like a small miniscule fraction of the population?

Good.

 

Question for the people that apparently missed what I said- how many people do you think will be wanting to play golf for the life and be under 8?

[jerryskids 6,783]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you agree it is silly to spend this much time on something that affects like a small miniscule fraction of the population?

Good.

 

Question for the people that apparently missed what I said- how many people do you think will be wanting to play golf for the life and be under 8?

How about you respond to me first:

It happens but it's rare.  But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.  

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

17 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

How about you respond to me first:

It happens but it's rare.  But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.  

That's not a question. It's a statement of fact. All I can say is- yes there is a case going on. I've also said I think this stuff affects a small part of the population and to me personally- it's a waste of time. I don't agree with gender affirming care for minors and thus think this is all silly. 

So now my question I suppose.

[jerryskids 6,783]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

That's not a question. It's a statement of fact. All I can say is- yes there is a case going on. I've also said I think this stuff affects a small part of the population and to me personally- it's a waste of time. I don't agree with gender affirming care for minors and thus think this is all silly. 

So now my question I suppose.

I didn't say it was a question; I was looking for your response.  The statement of fact means that despite your "it's only a few people so we shouldn't discuss it," SCOTUS saw it worth addressing.  Because, we aren't a democracy/mob rules society, and we address questions of rights for minorities.

I don't know if you have kids, but since you are a teacher who deals with them on a daily basis, I'm fascinated that you think it's a nothingburger that SCOTUS is considering making it a constitutional right for minors to get irreversible sex change operations.  

It's not silly, it's incredibly dangerous.  

[WhiteWonder 2,733]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you agree it is silly to spend this much time on something that affects like a small miniscule fraction of the population?

Good.

 

Question for the people that apparently missed what I said- how many people do you think will be wanting to play golf for the life and be under 8?

Depends how you choose to look at it. Because it fits your stance better, you're choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the people who might want to do this (parents, children).  You're not taking into account all the naturally born females in the sport, at all age levels. It only takes 1 to impact those people.

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

10 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I didn't say it was a question; I was looking for your response.  The statement of fact means that despite your "it's only a few people so we shouldn't discuss it," SCOTUS saw it worth addressing.  Because, we aren't a democracy/mob rules society, and we address questions of rights for minorities.

I don't know if you have kids, but since you are a teacher who deals with them on a daily basis, I'm fascinated that you think it's a nothingburger that SCOTUS is considering making it a constitutional right for minors to get irreversible sex change operations.  

It's not silly, it's incredibly dangerous.  

It's not that I think it's a nothingburger. It's simply that I think the amount of time and oxygen we spend on this issue far outpaces the actual amount of people it affects. Yes a court case was brought and the Supreme Court is hearing it, but that's because what the Supreme Court is designed to do- here legal challenges and either uphold or oppose them. The larger point for me is- if you decided tomorrow that you wanted to go through surgery to make yourself a pelican I don't think we should spend a ton of time building laws around preventing avian/man combinations. Additionally it isn't just about sex change operations- gender affirming care can be mental support groups and the like. It isn't solely sex change operations despite what the media wants to reduce it to. 

And again all the people in here are doing is obfuscating from the point. I think the LPGA decision is about as good as you are going to get in this situation. They are basically saying "We only want women competing in these events" while building in one caveat that might allow like a very very minor population to be a part of it but gives them enough cover to say "Hey- we are being sensitive to transgender women." And that is what I was responding to in your post which is why I bolded it. How many people do you think will decide they want their boy to be a girl by the age of 8 because they really love golf?

 

9 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:

Depends how you choose to look at it. Because it fits your stance better, you're choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the people who might want to do this (parents, children).  You're not taking into account all the naturally born females in the sport, at all age levels. It only takes 1 to impact those people.

I 100% do take into account the naturally born females and I've understand the situation they are put in. That's why I love the statement the LPGA put out. I think they perfectly threaded the needle here on this to take everyone into consideration and build as fair a policy as possible in the current climate.

[Maximum Overkill 1,984]

26 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

transgender women.

AKA Crossdressers  

[TBayXXXVII 2,543]

19 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits. I know the counter argument will be "well one is too many." To which I say- look if a parent allows their kid to do it, that's on them. Also, I don't think we need to be writing off people because of something maybe like 5 people will do. 

Oh the irony.  LOL

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh the irony.  LOL

Good addition to the discussion at hand. Hope you didn't hurt any brain cells. 

[jerryskids 6,783]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's not that I think it's a nothingburger. It's simply that I think the amount of time and oxygen we spend on this issue far outpaces the actual amount of people it affects. Yes a court case was brought and the Supreme Court is hearing it, but that's because what the Supreme Court is designed to do- here legal challenges and either uphold or oppose them. The larger point for me is- if you decided tomorrow that you wanted to go through surgery to make yourself a pelican I don't think we should spend a ton of time building laws around preventing avian/man combinations. Additionally it isn't just about sex change operations- gender affirming care can be mental support groups and the like. It isn't solely sex change operations despite what the media wants to reduce it to. 

And again all the people in here are doing is obfuscating from the point. I think the LPGA decision is about as good as you are going to get in this situation. They are basically saying "We only want women competing in these events" while building in one caveat that might allow like a very very minor population to be a part of it but gives them enough cover to say "Hey- we are being sensitive to transgender women." And that is what I was responding to in your post which is why I bolded it. How many people do you think will decide they want their boy to be a girl by the age of 8 because they really love golf?

 

I 100% do take into account the naturally born females and I've understand the situation they are put in. That's why I love the statement the LPGA put out. I think they perfectly threaded the needle here on this to take everyone into consideration and build as fair a policy as possible in the current climate.

A few comments:

- SCOTUS hears only a fraction of the petitions brought to them.  It's disingenuous to say they are just doing their job. They thought this was worth hearing.

- It is the Left that obfuscates medical transitions by lumping them under the happy sounding "gender affirming care" umbrella, not the other way around.  Nobody is arguing that kids shouldn't be able to talk to a therapist about their gender confusion.

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

Just now, jerryskids said:

A few comments:

- SCOTUS hears only a fraction of the petitions brought to them.  It's disingenuous to say they are just doing their job. They thought this was worth hearing.

- It is the Left that obfuscates medical transitions by lumping them under the happy sounding "gender affirming care" umbrella, not the other way around.  Nobody is arguing that kids shouldn't be able to talk to a therapist about their gender confusion.

- Of course no court hears every case. They are still just doing their job of hearing cases. Transgender is a big picture thing right now because of the amount of oxygen it is given. So they are hearing it and will vote it down. The system works.

- Are you on the left? Because you said this: "I'm fascinated that you think it's a nothingburger that SCOTUS is considering making it a constitutional right for minors to get irreversible sex change operations. "......you only singled out one aspect of gender affirming care- notably it is the one aspect that is the most controversial. But I'm glad to see that you are agreeing that the people who want to make it solely about sex changes- both right and left- are dopes. 

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

Let's get back to the main point of the thread though-

This is a good policy and covers a lot of bases. Good on the LPGA for this

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,082]

14 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you agree it is silly to spend this much time on something that affects like a small miniscule fraction of the population?

Good.

 

Question for the people that apparently missed what I said- how many people do you think will be wanting to play golf for the life and be under 8?

Negative.  I'm throwing it back at you with the bogus "it's such a small percentage" argument and showing you that works both ways.  If the percentage of people is so small, then we don't change anything and leave it like it was: no biological males in female sports or other female spaces.

Also, this type of stuff affects a large portion of the population via policy and legislation, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument.  Give you guys an inch, and you take a mile.  It used to be "Trannies just want to be able to use pronouns" and then that led to them entering women's locker rooms, bathrooms and sports.

Ultimately, the mentally ill need help and not catering to their every whim.

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Negative.  I'm throwing it back at you with the bogus "it's such a small percentage" argument and showing you that works both ways.  If the percentage of people is so small, then we don't change anything and leave it like it was: no biological males in female sports or other female spaces.

Also, this type of stuff affects a large portion of the population via policy and legislation, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument.  Give you guys an inch, and you take a mile.  It used to be "Trannies just want to be able to use pronouns" and then that led to them entering women's locker rooms, bathrooms and sports.

Ultimately, the mentally ill need help and not catering to their every whim.

The percentage is small. I disagree that it affects a large portion of the population.

Also, they aren't necessarily mentally ill. But even if they are- gender affirming care is about mental help as well. We should allow that. 

But either way-

Let's get back to the main point of the thread though-

This is a good policy and covers a lot of bases. Good on the LPGA for this

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Ahhh, the “exceedingly rare” argument.  A favorite of the Left.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,082]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

The percentage is small. I disagree that it affects a large portion of the population.

Also, they aren't necessarily mentally ill. But even if they are- gender affirming care is about mental help as well. We should allow that. 

But either way-

Let's get back to the main point of the thread though-

This is a good policy and covers a lot of bases. Good on the LPGA for this

They ARE mentally ill.  That is a fact.  It's called "gender dysphoria" and it is literally listed as a mental illness.

Tranny policy affects the entire population.  Let it in one place and it starts infecting other places as we have seen over the last 5-10 years.

Any policy that allows biological males into women's spaces is BAD policy.  That's not even debatable.

[edjr 6,580]

This is confusing. I thought the ladies wanted to be paid and treated equally? Being a man in a dress should be welcomed by them

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

They ARE mentally ill.  That is a fact.  It's called "gender dysphoria" and it is literally listed as a mental illness.

Tranny policy affects the entire population.  Let it in one place and it starts infecting other places as we have seen over the last 5-10 years.

Any policy that allows biological males into women's spaces is BAD policy.  That's not even debatable.

You seem to be drifting towards "I want people to be the way I want them to be." That is not going to get us anywhere

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,082]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

You seem to be drifting towards "I want people to be the way I want them to be." That is not going to get us anywhere

You seem to be drifting towards straw man arguments.  THAT for sure will not get us anywhere. Stay on point.   Trannies don't belong in women's spaces.  Period.  Full Stop.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Id like to thank Manboobs Mooney and other Leftist nutjobs for their lunatic hyper-focus on exceedingly rare trannies and their “rights”.  It was probably the thing most responsible for Trump winning in a landslide.  Even Democrats admit that the most devastating ad run during the election campaign was the trannie ad that ended with, “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You seem to be drifting towards straw man arguments.  Stay on point. 

Nope- I've stayed on my course-

I think this policy is a good compromise to cover all bases. I'm not for minors to get sex change operations. You all can argue into whatever realm you want to with that

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Id like to thank Manboobs Mooney and other Leftist nutjobs for their lunatic hyper-focus on exceedingly rare trannies and their “rights”.  It was probably the thing most responsible for Trump winning in a landslide.  Even Democrats admit that the most devastating ad run during the election campaign was the trannie ad that ended with, “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”

You are a strange person.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,543]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Good addition to the discussion at hand. Hope you didn't hurt any brain cells. 

I seem to recall a nation-wide call for change at the government level, around 4+ years ago even though, "I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits."  Mayors, governors, senators, and HoR's were running on that very agenda.

 

Weird how that was a legitimate grip, but this is essentially 'ho hum', huh?

 

Apparently only the left is allow to make a national issue out of only "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population".

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I seem to recall a nation-wide call for change at the government level, around 4+ years ago even though, "I would venture a guess that is probably less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. Like we are talking numbers that are in the single digits."  Mayors, governors, senators, and HoR's were running on that very agenda.

 

Weird how that was a legitimate grip, but this is essentially 'ho hum', huh?

 

Apparently only the left is allow to make a national issue out of only "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population".

I have zero idea what you are talking about

[TBayXXXVII 2,543]

3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I have zero idea what you are talking about

Amazing, 4 months of nationwide violence just 4 years ago, and you don't remember it.  Color me shocked!!

[Sean Mooney 1,982]

8 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Amazing, 4 months of nationwide violence just 4 years ago, and you don't remember it.  Color me shocked!!

The BLM riots? That's what you were referring to? A movement that was roughly based around "defund the police" for some people that I did not agree with?

It isn't that I don't remember it. I didn't understand the connection you were making. Settle down junior!!

[jerryskids 6,783]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

- Of course no court hears every case. They are still just doing their job of hearing cases. Transgender is a big picture thing right now because of the amount of oxygen it is given. So they are hearing it and will vote it down. The system works.

- Are you on the left? Because you said this: "I'm fascinated that you think it's a nothingburger that SCOTUS is considering making it a constitutional right for minors to get irreversible sex change operations. "......you only singled out one aspect of gender affirming care- notably it is the one aspect that is the most controversial. But I'm glad to see that you are agreeing that the people who want to make it solely about sex changes- both right and left- are dopes. 

Re: your second paragraph, I don't believe that the Tennessee law under review makes it illegal for kids to seek therapy.  If it does than I object to it.  Presuming I'm right, I'm talking about the specific topic under review, which is not the larger umbrella of "gender-affirming care."  I feel like I'm typing the same thing again at this point; I'm not sure if you get it.  

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Let's get back to the main point of the thread though-

This is a good policy and covers a lot of bases. Good on the LPGA for this

I still object to putting a system in place which encourages medical transitions of children.  Yes, it's only the LPGA now, but if this takes hold and enough people share your attitude, it will become the norm for all sports.

Imagine a future where a boy shows ability in golf (or tennis or soccer or...), but also is having questions about his gender.  Instead of riding it out for a while, the clock is ticking, he (with his family) need to decide NOW if he wants to become a girl.