3 ms·

That executive order is for the benefit of female athletes who have been disadvantaged and adversely affected by male-inclusion policy. The order is not "anti-t

• xerox13ster 1y ago
  Your tortured use of language reveals the twisted thought process behind them. In your statement, you erase trans people and redefined them as something else that fits your small worldview. That is in and of itself inherently anti-trans. Someone being a trans woman does not make their participation in sports “male inclusion”. They are a woman if they transitioned to become a woman, and saying they are not and should be excluded because you said so is anti trans.
  • aaaja 1y ago
    Not sure what you find objectionable about my use of language. I thought I was being very clear. Point is that the female category in sports is constructed around female bodies, not identities. The category exists because if it didn't, sport would be dominated by male athletes and we would not be able to appreciate female athletic excellence. So, changing this to include a subset of male athletes with male physiological advantage undermines its main purpose. This executive order, and similar policy elsewhere, which ensures male athletes are excluded from competing in the female category isn't "anti-trans" because, in fact, athletes with a trans identity can and do still compete in this category. Some examples: Keelin Godsey, Hergie Bacyadan, Iszac Henig.