NCAA - North Carolina

#51
#51
UT_Dutchman said:
I agree, but I also believe if you are born with boy parts you are a male if you are born with girl parts you are a female. It's simple and no matter how much someone thinks or wants to be the other sex they just aren't. Jeez this country is getting so messed up.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. Having to debate that pisses me off. We need more people calling these idiots out on how stupid their position is. We are losing the argument because we are letting such a small percentage of loudmouths dictate policy. It's crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
utvolpj is the only poster on here making any bit of sense.

The bathroom "issue" is a non-issue. Extending legal protections to groups of people that have been discriminated against is a good thing. Nobody is any more or less safe except maybe the transgendered person who now has the rights that we all do specifically protected. The reason they need the added protection under law is that a certain portion of our population deems it legitimate behavior to continue to discriminate against our fellow citizens based on their own strongly held beliefs. I would venture to guess that FatherVol is not really concerned about his wife or daughter's safety. The argument is based entirely on false assumptions 1) that the transgendered persons were not already using those bathrooms 2) that transgendered people pose any threat at all to his wife and girls. As utvolpj there might be evidence that his boys are at equal or higher "risk." But there's not. I lived in JC for a while. Not really the cultural center that hundreds of transgender people are flocking to live. Next Issue.

Further the comments really show a total lack of understanding of the transgendered community. This is not something that people state one day, "tada" as one poster said, and then change their mind next week. Nobody is making this claim to get to have a free pass into to the women's locker room. This is something most people in that community struggle with for years and has led to high suicide rates among teens that try to accept themselves and find acceptance from their family, friends, and the community at large.

Even further, to think that all locker rooms and sports will basically become unisex is ridiculous. Men are not going to come out of high school and "identify" as female so they can play on the women's basketball team. How inane is that suggestion. What purchase would that get them? None. Will NBA scouts be looking at them and assessing their talent vs. women looking to make them the next NBA superstar? NO. Based on this assumption and the slippery slope this takes us down is fairly quickly all women's basketball teams will be really be men who identify as female. This, again, will not happen, nor is this the intent of the ruling.

This is not really about politics - its about how we view and treat one another as human beings. The NCAA's position is that they are choosing to respect our fellow citizens and take a stand against publicly held positions of a state that do respect the choices of our fellow man. Equality is a value we should all hold. The NCAA standing up for this is not contemptible - it is actually honorable. Whether you agree with the transgender community's choice, whether you believe it is even a choice or not, is not relevant. The same protections that allow you to have and express your opinions and lifestyle freely, are the same protections the NCAA is standing up for here.

utvolpj - Fight the good fight

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
utvolpj said:
Yes I believe if you put a male in a HS girls locker room that they will request alternative space for safety or privacy concerns. That's simply common sense

vols4sure said:
Maybe a girl's only bathroom? Oh wait, we have gone full circle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is brilliant!

I've been arguing the minutia of this issue, and with one simple example, you have presented its farcical conclusion.
 
#54
#54
UT_Alex said:
The bathroom "issue" is a non-issue . . . FatherVol is not really concerned about his wife or daughter's safety. The argument is based entirely on false assumptions 1) that the transgendered persons were not already using those bathrooms 2) that transgendered people pose any threat at all to his wife and girls. I lived in JC for a while. Not really the cultural center that hundreds of transgender people are flocking to live.

Nobody is any more or less safe except maybe the transgendered person who now has the rights that we all do specifically protected.

Further the comments really show a total lack of understanding of the transgendered community. The NCAA standing up for this is not contemptible - it is actually honorable.

utvolpj - Fight the good fight

Cheers
Click to expand...

If you had read my comments, you would have seen that I have repeatedly agreed that the bathroom issue was a non-issue, and the question I repeatedly asked was, why did the city of Charlotte feel the need to stir up a hornets nest over a non-issue?

If you had read my comments, you would have seen my acknowledgement that transgenders were already using those bathrooms (again, so why the Charlotte law). And, contrary to your assertion, what you have not seen is any claim by me that transgender people are a special threat to my wife and daughters (more on that below). But thanks for the "Johnson City is full of backwater hicks, so what would they know" comment. Was that an example of the open-minded, tolerant, treat-everyone-as-an-individual, "progressive" outlook?

I agree that these "non-discrimination" laws do not pose any additional threat to my wife and daughters from transgender people, but that's not the whole picture, is it? Under these laws, any pervert can hang around and enter the women's restroom by claiming to be transgender. Now, not only is his presence protected by law, my little girls are branded as bigots if they are frightened, or object, or complain. You are simply wrong and wholly inconsiderate to claim these laws don't affect their safety and well-being.

The Obama Administration has ruled that a person is the gender that they choose to be. Self-identification trumps all, and it is illegal to impose any further requirements. Functionally, the NCAA disagrees. In defiance of the law, they allow transgender athletes to compete as female only if they are undergoing hormone therapy. I'm guessing those bigoted hypocrites at the NCAA have a total lack of understanding of the transgendered community. Wouldn't you agree?

Fight the good fight? Hardly. We all acknowledge, before the laws and the Obama Administration rulings, this was a non-issue. The only thing that has been accomplished is to endanger women and engender resentment -- and maybe one more thing. It allows "progressives" to once again don their smug, self-satisfied, and well-practiced pose as moral superiors. Frankly, I'm sick of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
This country is gone. I genuinely pitty the country that my children will have to endure. I am totally embarrassed as an American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#56
#56
Alex, you totally missed the point.

The point is not that a legitimately transgendered person will one day say "I'm a woman. Tada!" and join the girls softball team.

The point is that some idiot who just wants to cause trouble, or make a name for himself, of sieze his 15 minutes of fame, or for whatever reason, will grab the opportunity presented to say, "I'm a woman. Tada!" and join the girls softball team.

Thereby ruining women's softball for everyone else.

You say, "this will not happen." The problem is, you know it will. Anything that can happen in this world, eventually will. There will always be one person here, and another person there, who find the niche and attempt to take advantage of it. That, sadly, is a part of human nature.

I've got no problem with people inside their heads being confused about what gender they are; that's for them to decide. My problem is entirely with the way Title IX is being applied to this issue, the way DOJ and DOE are enforcing it, and the way the NCAA is responding. Shortsighted. Not hyperbole even to call it idiotic. Will cause far more problems than it solves.

People have a tendency to be very nuanced and subjective about themselves. I like to think I'm an inch taller than the yardstick says, and that I weigh 20 pounds less than the scales report. I like to believe that I'm ruggedly handsome, when all objective evidence says I'm just an average looking fellow. I like to believe a lot of things about myself, and that's all fine. I can even convince my friends to join me in a bit of harmless self-deception.

But when I go to join the Army, they're going to weigh me and tape me and give me a full physical, and the jobs I'm qualified to try for will be based on those objective measurements, not what I like to believe about myself.

So since when is it smart for the government to join us in our subjective and nuanced views of ourselves? Be far better if someone out there were staying entirely objective.

But now no one is. And that will cause problems that could be anticipated, but weren't.

That is what makes PJ wrong in this thread. And now you as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#57
#57
VFL-82-JP said:
Alex, you totally missed the point.

The point is not that a legitimately transgendered person will one day say "I'm a woman. Tada!" and join the girls softball team.

The point is that some idiot who just wants to cause trouble, or make a name for himself, of sieze his 15 minutes of fame, or for whatever reason, will grab the opportunity presented to say, "I'm a woman. Tada!" and join the girls softball team.

Thereby ruining women's softball for everyone else.

You say, "this will not happen." The problem is, you know it will. Anything that can happen in this world, eventually will. There will always be one person here, and another person there, who find the niche and attempt to take advantage of it. That, sadly, is a part of human nature.

I've got no problem with people inside their heads being confused about what gender they are; that's for them to decide. My problem is entirely with the way Title IX is being applied to this issue, the way DOJ and DOE are enforcing it, and the way the NCAA is responding. Shortsighted. Not hyperbole even to call it idiotic. Will cause far more problems than it solves.

People have a tendency to be very nuanced and subjective about themselves. I like to think I'm an inch taller than the yardstick says, and that I weigh 20 pounds less than the scales report. I like to believe that I'm ruggedly handsome, when all objective evidence says I'm just an average looking fellow. I like to believe a lot of things about myself, and that's all fine. I can even convince my friends to join me in a bit of harmless self-deception.

But when I go to join the Army, they're going to weigh me and tape me and give me a full physical, and the jobs I'm qualified to try for will be based on those objective measurements, not what I like to believe about myself.

So since when is it smart for the government to join us in our subjective and nuanced views of ourselves? Be far better if someone out there were staying entirely objective.

But now no one is. And that will cause problems that could be anticipated, but weren't.

That is what makes PJ wrong in this thread. And now you as well.
Click to expand...

It's already happened in Alaska.
 
#58
#58
appvol said:
transbathroomfull.jpg
Click to expand...

Pro tip:

Don't shop anywhere that doesn't have stalls.
 
#60
#60
Godfatha said:
I have a real problem with sports entities like the NCAA getting involved in politics.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The NCAA is at the mercy of fan participation and it would be interesting to see how people react to their political participation.
 
#61
#61
I think the problem is people are so concerned with the rights of a very very small percentage of the population and completely ignore the rights of the majority. This is completely wrong and In the long run this will lead to problems.
 
#63
#63
VolStrom said:
I've just skimmed this thread and don't have anything to add, but I will make a comment. I'm damn glad I only have another 20 years or so to live, because this is one F'd up country.
Click to expand...
I'm glad too. This country is clearly moving ahead with out you.
 
#64
#64
vols4evah said:
I think the problem is people are so concerned with the rights of a very very small percentage of the population and completely ignore the rights of the majority. This is completely wrong and In the long run this will lead to problems.
Click to expand...
How are your rights being ignored?
 
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
Do you honestly believe their goal is to have one, unisex team operating out of one locker room?

Do you honestly believe the ncaa is incapable of handling more than one issue at a time?

Also the irony of calling out the ncaa's political peacocking when this only became an issue because of the political peacocking of the NC gop is hilarious. They started it, got slapped around and laughed at and are now trying to point fingers
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe the NCAA can handle a single issue correctly? Let alone multiple issues at a time.
 
#69
#69
This is what happens when judges get ahead of the majority of the electorate. Significant social change should occur when there is some consensus within a majority of society. The majority of the country wasn't ready for Obergfell, as evidenced by the various state laws and constitutional provisions concerning the subject that have passed in recent years. Just as we've seen several states leave federal dollars on the table under the ACA, we'll probably see some of the redder, more conservative states leave federal higher education dollars on the table to get out from under Title IX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
FatherVol said:
If you had read my comments, you would have seen that I have repeatedly agreed that the bathroom issue was a non-issue, and the question I repeatedly asked was, why did the city of Charlotte feel the need to stir up a hornets nest over a non-issue?

If you had read my comments, you would have seen my acknowledgement that transgenders were already using those bathrooms (again, so why the Charlotte law). And, contrary to your assertion, what you have not seen is any claim by me that transgender people are a special threat to my wife and daughters (more on that below). But thanks for the "Johnson City is full of backwater hicks, so what would they know" comment. Was that an example of the open-minded, tolerant, treat-everyone-as-an-individual, "progressive" outlook?

I agree that these "non-discrimination" laws do not pose any additional threat to my wife and daughters from transgender people, but that's not the whole picture, is it? Under these laws, any pervert can hang around and enter the women's restroom by claiming to be transgender. Now, not only is his presence protected by law, my little girls are branded as bigots if they are frightened, or object, or complain. You are simply wrong and wholly inconsiderate to claim these laws don't affect their safety and well-being.

The Obama Administration has ruled that a person is the gender that they choose to be. Self-identification trumps all, and it is illegal to impose any further requirements. Functionally, the NCAA disagrees. In defiance of the law, they allow transgender athletes to compete as female only if they are undergoing hormone therapy. I'm guessing those bigoted hypocrites at the NCAA have a total lack of understanding of the transgendered community. Wouldn't you agree?

Fight the good fight? Hardly. We all acknowledge, before the laws and the Obama Administration rulings, this was a non-issue. The only thing that has been accomplished is to endanger women and engender resentment -- and maybe one more thing. It allows "progressives" to once again don their smug, self-satisfied, and well-practiced pose as moral superiors. Frankly, I'm sick of it.
Click to expand...

So a couple of things:
First the Charlotte law was not that controversial. Why do you believe it stirred the hornet's nest? There were more than 225 cities and counties around the country that had added this language to the standard "not discriminate based on age, race, religion, or gender" to, you could say, update this to include, gay, lesbian, & transgender specifically. These cities had this in place prior to Charlotte. Seems like as the largest city in NC, they felt it prudent to add this language.

FYI - Chapel Hill, Raleigh, Durham, and 6-7 more cities in NC already has this passed prior to Charlotte Why did those laws not stir the hornets nest

What happened next was NC passed an oppressive law that not only overturns Charlotte’s ban: It also prevents any local governments from passing their own non-discrimination ordinances, mandates that students in the state’s schools use bathrooms corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate, and prevents cities from enacting minimum wages higher than the state’s

(Ask me what minimum wages has to do with LGBT issues, or better, explain it to me because I wont have an answer)

Next: you acknowledge that transgenders were using the bathroom, and you acknowledge this does not add a threat to you wife or daughters from transgender people. But you later still insist this law poses a threat to your wife and daughter and/or women and girls in general. In fact you insist it multiple times.

You say any pervert can do this. I guess I need you to clarify what you mean by pervert...pedophiles, rapists, etc...NOT including actual LGBT people? Again, if I go to a Walmart or Target, or a Mc Donalds, nobody is there monitoring the restrooms. So any pervert can do this now. So, again, logically, your premise and argument are invalid.

Further, I'm not inconsiderate, I am pragmatic. I am not overly emotional about issues because they MAY affect me. Facts & Evidence are a better way to make decisions than emotion or tradition. I further never said Johnson City is full of back water hicks so what would they know - I said it is not a cultural center of the type that transgender people would flock to. Is that untrue? Is there a large LGBT community there? Are there places to go, such as bars, clubs, and/or other safe havens for LGBT folks to go and gather and feel included? I know of maybe one place. Everything else they would need to really seek out on their own. Larger, more culturally diverse cities offer more. Simple fact. Further, since most of my maternal relatives live there, mother was born near there, I don't disparage the folks from there. Like I said, by choice, I chose to live in east TN for a number of years. But thanks for misunderstanding and misrepresenting my comments.

As far as your use of "Progressive" as a pejorative I will actually take that as a compliment. Yes my views and values are progressive. The root word there being progress. I do not respect discrimination, bigotry, sexism, religiophia, etc. Further, I do not believe there are differing opinions on these matters. Rarely do you hear people say, "that man is a bigot, but that's ok, he's entitled to his opinion and you have to respect that." No I don't. He can hold an inhumane opinion, but I do not have to respect it. This is not the 1800's. Progress is good.

In life we expect children to progress in life. We expect to progress in our careers - promotions and raises. We expect the companies we work for to make progress and make better products. If you are a religious person, you are expected to make progress in your faith, be a better Christian, Muslim, etc. So when it comes to government, and especially social issues, are we expected to be stagnant? Why is progress bad here. stagnation is not natural. Blame Mr. Obama all you want, but progress is needed.

Thank you for the lively discussion.
 
#71
#71
VolunteerHillbilly said:
This is what happens when judges get ahead of the majority of the electorate. Significant social change should occur when there is some consensus within a majority of society. The majority of the country wasn't ready for Obergfell, as evidenced by the various state laws and constitutional provisions concerning the subject that have passed in recent years. Just as we've seen several states leave federal dollars on the table under the ACA, we'll probably see some of the redder, more conservative states leave federal higher education dollars on the table to get out from under Title IX.
Click to expand...

The issue is the disparity of population distribution, not so much the judges getting ahead of the electorate. More than half of the United States population is clustered in just the 146 biggest counties out of over 3000 nation wide. If you look at this on a map you'll see that these areas tend to be more liberal and urban. So as a percentage, states like MS, AL, TN, KY, NC etc, are exceptionally more sparsely populated than these counties. The vast majority of the people in these states may oppose the judges positions and so pass differing legislation. The problem is that, again, since the population there is low, they do not represent a majority opinion nationally, even though they do represent the majority opinion locally. That is the driving force leading to these behaviors.

Good debate. Thanks
 
#72
#72
sammyhagar said:
yes, your children will have such a hard time "enduring" a more tolerant and progressive country
Click to expand...

"Tolerant" until someone disagrees with whatever bull**** cause it is that particular week. Then you are labeled a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot, take your pick. Then you are casted out for having a differing view. I love the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
Last time I checked, there were 30 states with constitutional prohibitions against same sex marriage, including some of those states that have lots of highly populated counties such as California, Florida and Michigan. This is clearly a case of judicial over reach. :crossfingers: that President Clinton II goes for a gun grab, Texas leads a secession movement, and we're all listening to MS. CSA sing Dixie before kickoff at Bama/FSU next fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#74
#74
Can a non-profit organization participate in political discourse?

For example, if churches espouse a political viewpoint, their non-profit status can be revoked.

Is the NCAA a non-profit?
 
#75
#75
UT_Alex said:
First the Charlotte law was not that controversial. Why do you believe it stirred the hornet's nest?
Click to expand...

The Charlotte law requires all government and business bathrooms and showers to be open to all sexes. This includes schools, Mom and Pop businesses, and all the rest. What could be controversial about that? I think the reaction of the NC legislature and the following hoopla answers that question.

And for what? Was Charlotte having a big problem with transgender people not be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice? Chapel Hill? Raleigh? Durham? Not that I've ever seen. I think the analogy of poking a hornet's nest is quite apt.


UT_Alex said:
Next: you acknowledge that transgenders were using the bathroom, and you acknowledge this does not add a threat to you wife or daughters from transgender people. But you later still insist this law poses a threat to your wife and daughter and/or women and girls in general. In fact you insist it multiple times.

Again, if I go to a Walmart or Target, or a McDonalds, nobody is there monitoring the restrooms. So any pervert can do this now. So, again, logically, your premise and argument are invalid.
Click to expand...

I repeat, the Charlotte law requires all government and business bathrooms and showers to be open to all sexes. That means that a male sexual predator has a protected legal right to be in the bathroom used by my wife and daughters. He doesn't have to dress like a woman, act like a woman, or anything else. My wife cannot summon the manager to get him out of this "unmonitored" bathroom. His presence there is protected by law. If seeing that as increased risk fails your logic test, then I guess you need to clarify what you mean by logic.


UT_Alex said:
Further, I'm not inconsiderate, I am pragmatic. Facts & Evidence are a better way to make decisions than emotion or tradition.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking a pragmatist would expect the Charlotte law to fill a practical need and solve more problems than it causes. I am willing to examine your facts and evidence that requiring bathrooms and showers to be open to all sexes filled a practical need. I am willing to examine your facts and evidence that the Charlotte law would solve more problems than it caused. Do you have any?

My definition of inconsiderate would include anyone who gives short shrift to what I feel are very valid concerns as I have outlined above and elsewhere.


UT_Alex said:
I further never said Johnson City is full of back water hicks so what would they know . . . But thanks for misunderstanding and misrepresenting my comments.
Click to expand...

I apologize for misunderstanding your reference to Johnson City, and thank you for the clarification. I thought you were inferring that people from JC couldn't possibly understand transgender because we don't have a thriving transgender community. I see now that you singled out JC because . . .

You know what? Don't worry about it.


UT_Alex said:
As far as your use of "Progressive" as a pejorative I will actually take that as a compliment.
Click to expand...

You probably shouldn't.

I don't doubt your sincerity, or that of "progressives" in general. In fact, I think I think a healthy society requires a mix of liberal and conservative -- with each group serving as a check on the excesses of the other. No doubt, liberals are more often the spur to changes, and those changes are often good and needed. But change, in and of itself, is not always a good thing.

Progressives consistently ridicule, dismiss, and deride the vital role that conservatives play in heading off their bad changes. If liberals had gone unchecked, you and I would be a couple of communists, or more likely, we wouldn't be here because our parents had been sterilized in a eugenics program to perfect mankind for a perfect society.

So, I put "progressives" in quotation marks for their strong tendency toward sanctimony; utter disdain for conservatives and their valuable role in society; and especially for their complete inability for critical introspection.

And frankly, "liberals" are the most intolerant people I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top