Ah the unintended consequences

What's horrible about it?

I think it's horrible that girls are being forced to compete against boys in a physical sport such as this.
I'm sure this kid will be called many names in her lifetime. Which is one of many reasons I think it's not a choice. Honestly, I feel like if you're not willing review the research behind why transgenders exist, your opinion holds less weight.

I remember cheering for Powder Springs Cowboys in the early eighties and there was a girl who played football.
 
I'm sure this kid will be called many names in her lifetime. Which is one of many reasons I think it's not a choice. Honestly, I feel like if you're not willing review the research behind why transgenders exist, your opinion holds less weight.

I remember cheering for Powder Springs Cowboys in the early eighties and there was a girl who played football.
She probably will get called names. It's not nice or fair; but children have called other kids who were different names since the human race began. I got teased as a child; I was smallish (if you can believe that) and had a honker of a nose. I also wore glasses, so I got the 4-eyes jokes. Most of us got teased about something.

I'm not sure any of us really know what's going on inside a transgender's head. Some of you think they really are a ___trapped in a___'s body. I lean toward psychological issues. But actually having surgery or taking drugs to alter one's body is a choice. There are always consequences, whether good or bad, to every choice we make. And though teasing or bullying isn't nice, it's a reality we should be prepared for when we make such choices.

The reality is that transgenders will never fully be what they seek to be. They are both and yet neither. Realistically, how many guys will date the "girl" referenced in this story? Sadly, she will always be considered a freak by most of society. I find this heart-breakingly sad that this child will have to endure this. Is "she" really better off now? And "she" will never be able to have children now. That probably doesn't matter at this time, but it very well might later on.

Honestly, I have a real issue with a parent allowing a minor child to change their gender. To large degree, there's no turning back from what you're done to your body. What if it was mental illness that drove this child to change it's gender? What if it could have been treated with therapy so he could have become a happy and healthy boy? The poor child will never know now.

Did you know that over 40% of transgenders attempt suicide? That doesn't indicate that their gender reassignments are solving their problems.

Do you still think I haven't reviewed the research? Do you think I don't care?

I just think we're dealing with this the wrong way. And many of the transgenders are the victims.
 
I remember cheering for Powder Springs Cowboys in the early eighties and there was a girl who played football.
Yes, thank you title ix. But a boy couldn't play on the girls flag football team if there were one in high school. The girl on the other hand could choose to play tackle or flag football.
At rec level both groups play together.
 
That is a horrible statement and I am frankly shocked you just made it. This is a kid we are talking about in this thread. And two people liked it. Wow. I think I need a break.
The truth is neither horrible nor kind. It's a genetic fact and all of the PC mascinations in the toolbox can't change it. Kid or not, this child is XX.

Males have higher hemoglobin levels and a larger lung capacity, even at comparable body sizes. Males have longer leg and arm bones and stronger ligaments. They have a larger ratio of muscle mass to body weight. They can convert glucose to energy faster.

None of this is based upon their genitals, mental state, feelings, or how they are treated by their peers. It's simple biology and a condition assigned at conception.
 
The truth is neither horrible nor kind. It's a genetic fact and all of the PC mascinations in the toolbox can't change it. Kid or not, this child is XX.

Males have higher hemoglobin levels and a larger lung capacity, even at comparable body sizes. Males have longer leg and arm bones and stronger ligaments. They have a larger ratio of muscle mass to body weight. They can convert glucose to energy faster.

None of this is based upon their genitals, mental state, feelings, or how they are treated by their peers. It's simple biology and a condition assigned at conception.
I do not care about your statement that he is not a she and your reasoning. You are entitled to any opinion you want. I do care that you called a kid a "little pecker." Which I find repulsive. If I called anyone here that I would be in trouble. Yes, as Jenilyn stated she will be called many names in her life, but as educated adults do we really need to make statements of kids that use the phrase "little pecker?" I am still bothered by that and that others think it is okay. I know you are a brilliant man, and can make your opinions known without having to resort to name calling, of a kid.
 
I do not care about your statement that he is not a she and your reasoning. You are entitled to any opinion you want. I do care that you called a kid a "little pecker." Which I find repulsive. If I called anyone here that I would be in trouble. Yes, as Jenilyn stated she will be called many names in her life, but as educated adults do we really need to make statements of kids that use the phrase "little pecker?" I am still bothered by that and that others think it is okay. I know you are a brilliant man, and can make your opinions known without having to resort to name calling, of a kid.
So, your not upset about his post? Just the use of "little pecker" and that others agreed with the whole post, or do you think they are agreeing with the little pecker part? I was one of the persons that "liked" his post in it's entirety, and understood the point. Truthfully the "little pecker" part didn't register with me, and if that is all you got out of what he said............. well maybe you should just go back and read it again.
 
I think the "little pecker" part was just an expression. Like calling someone a dork or a doofus.

Nothing to get upset about.

LTD was spot on with the "science" portion of his post.
 
So, your not upset about his post? Just the use of "little pecker" and that others agreed with the whole post, or do you think they are agreeing with the little pecker part? I was one of the persons that "liked" his post in it's entirety, and understood the point. Truthfully the "little pecker" part didn't register with me, and if that is all you got out of what he said............. well maybe you should just go back and read it again.
:whacko:
 
I think the "little pecker" part was just an expression. Like calling someone a dork or a doofus.

Nothing to get upset about.

LTD was spot on with the "science" portion of his post.

I am sorry, but if I came on here and called an adult a "little pecker" I would be in trouble. There was more to his post I did not like, but it was his opinion, because the kid did not cheat, but I digress. I just do not get calling a kid names when we are adults.
 
I am sorry, but if I came on here and called an adult a "little pecker" I would be in trouble.

Not unless it was another member, and it was meant as a serious insult.

Are you connecting the term "little pecker" with the kid's genitalia? 'Cause that's not how I took it. I can see though, given the context, how it could be taken that way.
 
The point that I was trying to make (trying to get this back on track) is, how will this affect the girls going forward? The way I read title IX is that it came about so that girls will have more opportunities to be able to compete in interscholastic sports, and to hopefully earn athletic scholarships so they can further their education.
But, if you have boys passing as females does that not defeat the purpose of title IX?
Put another way, what about a white person passing as a black to get the black scholarships? Don't you know that there would be all kinds of heck going on about that? I can see it now....... demanding DNA testing before awarding race based scholarships.
 
Not unless it was another member, and it was meant as a serious insult.

Are you connecting the term "little pecker" with the kid's genitalia? 'Cause that's not how I took it. I can see though, given the context, how it could be taken that way.
Yes, given the context, that is how I took it. I just think when discussing this stuff calling names does not help anything and it is bothersome as we are speaking of kids in this thread. I know most of you do not agree with transgenders or the fact that they have rights, and I have no problem having discussions on that or people disagreeing with any of it. I am used to that. :) But again when talking of high school students it is so very wrong to call them names. I have never heard that used in the same way as calling someone a dork, and by the context of her cheating and the it is not right, it also did not seem to be the same as me saying, "GD, you are a dork!" (while that is true...)

I am just going to let this go, because it is ridiculous how much time is spent debating something that there are rules in place allowing it. We do not have to like or agree with any of it, but if it is allowed, we must live with it or try to change it. Changing it will not come from our back and forth on this board.
 
The point that I was trying to make (trying to get this back on track) is, how will this affect the girls going forward? The way I read title IX is that it came about so that girls will have more opportunities to be able to compete in interscholastic sports, and to hopefully earn athletic scholarships so they can further their education.
But, if you have boys passing as females does that not defeat the purpose of title IX?
Put another way, what about a white person passing as a black to get the black scholarships? Don't you know that there would be all kinds of heck going on about that? I can see it now....... demanding DNA testing before awarding race based scholarships.
Title IX encompasses more than sports and it is for all students.
 
Title IX encompasses more than sports and it is for all students.
You're correct. To a point. The original intent was for girls only.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/22/the-truth-about-title-ix.html

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 had a simple goal: to end sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money. Had the ERA passed, however, it wouldn’t have even been needed. But as approval of the constitutional amendment stalled in the states, Title IX became the law that endured—and made a difference.

Edith Green, a congresswoman from Portland, began working on the law in the early 1970s. Nicknamed “Mrs. Education” for her many years of work on higher education, she was appalled to learn that public schools could create special programs for boys that excluded girls. At the time, girls were often discouraged from taking advanced math and science classes, female teachers rarely became principals, and many law schools and medical schools had quotas that kept women to no more than 10 percent of the class.

All she wanted was for girls and women to get a fair deal. But over and over, her male colleagues told her, women just want to stay home and raise families. Men need those opportunities, but women don’t.

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/qa/s_145343.html

Actually as I have read other links. Title IX had nothing to do with sports, or anything else. It was solely designed for academics. Now that is interesting.
 
I do not care about your statement that he is not a she and your reasoning. You are entitled to any opinion you want. I do care that you called a kid a "little pecker." Which I find repulsive. If I called anyone here that I would be in trouble. Yes, as Jenilyn stated she will be called many names in her life, but as educated adults do we really need to make statements of kids that use the phrase "little pecker?" I am still bothered by that and that others think it is okay. I know you are a brilliant man, and can make your opinions known without having to resort to name calling, of a kid.
I was going to ask if you were serious, but I kept reading and realized you had your panties truly in a wad. I would say get over yourself but I don't know if that is possible. I could have just as easily said shit ass but that would have gotten me sensored.

ETA: You took one word out of a long explanation, blew it way out of proportion, and railed against me for using it. That's a common tactic of someone who has no rational response left. V You don't need a break, you need a rationally defensible point of view.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top