State bans transgender women from participating on female sports teams in college.

[Myles]

 

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation Tuesday that prohibits transgender women from participating on female sports teams in college.

The state had previously banned transgender athletes from participating in female youth sports from grades K-12.

Under the law, students are prohibited from playing under a different gender identity even after undergoing hormone treatment. 

"Look, if you are a biological male, you are not going to be competing in women’s and girls' sports in Alabama. It’s about fairness, plain and simple," Ivey said in a statement.

The movement for the college regulations began in April when legislation advanced in the middle of the month.

The K-12 ban was put in place in 2021.

"Forcing women to compete against biological men would reverse decades of progress that women have made for equal opportunity in athletics," Republican Rep. Susan DuBose, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee last month. Dubose said "no amount of hormone therapy can undo all those advantages" of being born male.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/alabama-bans-transgender-female-athletes-participating-womens-college-sports

[+and-then]

Well, looks like "Ma Maw" finally got something right.  

[+OverSword]

I wonder what will happen when Trans competitors from universities in other states come to compete against Alabama?  Another thing is can the state make such a law when the governing body for collegiate competitions is the NCAA?  If colleges in Alabama are unable to comply with NCAA requirements are they risking being banned from competition?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I wonder what will happen when Trans competitors from universities in other states come to compete against Alabama?  Another thing is can the state make such a law when the governing body for collegiate competitions is the NCAA?  If colleges in Alabama are unable to comply with NCAA requirements are they risking being banned from competition?

Well the NCAA could and probably will flex their muscle and force the issue. But women and women athletes need to do is simply refuse to compete. Then go one step farther and let it be known that they will also vote for the party that will support them.

That'll turn a few heads and before you know it the Democrats will be on board with it.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Well the NCAA could and probably will flex their muscle and force the issue. But women and women athletes need to do is simply refuse to compete. Then go one step farther and let it be known that they will also vote for the party that will support them.

That'll turn a few heads and before you know it the Democrats will be on board with it.

If this were a federal law it may be different but since it's a state law the Universities in Alabama are now at risk of being left out of NCAA competitions if they can't conform.  Not saying right or wrong just saying my primitive legal knowledge indicates this to me.

[Zebra3]

[+and-then]

24 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I wonder what will happen when Trans competitors from universities in other states come to compete against Alabama?  Another thing is can the state make such a law when the governing body for collegiate competitions is the NCAA?  If colleges in Alabama are unable to comply with NCAA requirements are they risking being banned from competition?

Interesting questions.  I don't know.  If a ban follows, so be it.

[jmccr8]

19 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If this were a federal law it may be different but since it's a state law the Universities in Alabama are now at risk of being left out of NCAA competitions if they can't conform.  Not saying right or wrong just saying my primitive legal knowledge indicates this to me.

Do all womens teams in the States have transgender players to start with? 

They may be able to say that they don't allow transgender on their team but refusal to play another State team that does would give the other team a win by default.

[+and-then]

11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Do all womens teams in the States have transgender players to start with? 

They may be able to say that they don't allow transgender on their team but refusal to play another State team that does would give the other team a win by default.

It sounds simple but collegiate sports are a huge money-making enterprise for the schools and if a team is a particularly well-supported entity that's bringing in large amounts of income, the governing body - the NCAA - may not be so quick to ban that school from its competitions based on a state law.  As I said though, if the NCAA wants to do that, then so be it.  There comes a time when people have to decide what they believe and what they are willing to risk as a result.  It's simply wrong, even VILE to destroy the dreams of scholarships or team memberships based on allowing a male to compete against girls and women who have worked hard, all their lives to excell against their peers.  

A perfect example of how lopsided such competitions can be is a story from a few years back about the US women's soccer team preparing for the world cup by playing scrimmages against TEEN BOYS.  IIRC, once the males were past 15-years-old, the coach would not use them in the scrimmages because he didn't want the women to be demoralized.  

[Edumakated]

23 minutes ago, and-then said:

It sounds simple but collegiate sports are a huge money-making enterprise for the schools and if a team is a particularly well-supported entity that's bringing in large amounts of income, the governing body - the NCAA - may not be so quick to ban that school from its competitions based on a state law.  As I said though, if the NCAA wants to do that, then so be it.  There comes a time when people have to decide what they believe and what they are willing to risk as a result.  It's simply wrong, even VILE to destroy the dreams of scholarships or team memberships based on allowing a male to compete against girls and women who have worked hard, all their lives to excell against their peers.  

A perfect example of how lopsided such competitions can be is a story from a few years back about the US women's soccer team preparing for the world cup by playing scrimmages against TEEN BOYS.  IIRC, once the males were past 15-years-old, the coach would not use them in the scrimmages because he didn't want the women to be demoralized.  

There are very few sports where women have an advantage over men.  In almost all instances, men will dominate women. This is why it seems the issue is mainly with trans men competing against women and not trans women trying to compete against men.

This seems like such a silly issue to me and most people know it is beyond silly.  Men and women are not the same.  Putting on a dress and lipstick does not change a man into a woman.  If a man wants to tuck his junk and parade around like a woman, then I could careless.  However, if they want to compete in sports, they should do so based on their natural born gender (and don't give me this junk about gender being fluid).

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

There are very few sports where women have an advantage over men.  In almost all instances, men will dominate women. This is why it seems the issue is mainly with trans men competing against women and not trans women trying to compete against men.

This seems like such a silly issue to me and most people know it is beyond silly.  Men and women are not the same.  Putting on a dress and lipstick does not change a man into a woman.  If a man wants to tuck his junk and parade around like a woman, then I could careless.  However, if they want to compete in sports, they should do so based on their natural born gender (and don't give me this junk about gender being fluid).

You are absolutely correct.   Pretending to be a female should not get the male access to female sports.  

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, and-then said:

It sounds simple but collegiate sports are a huge money-making enterprise for the schools and if a team is a particularly well-supported entity that's bringing in large amounts of income, the governing body - the NCAA - may not be so quick to ban that school from its competitions based on a state law.  As I said though, if the NCAA wants to do that, then so be it.  There comes a time when people have to decide what they believe and what they are willing to risk as a result.  It's simply wrong, even VILE to destroy the dreams of scholarships or team memberships based on allowing a male to compete against girls and women who have worked hard, all their lives to excell against their peers.  

A perfect example of how lopsided such competitions can be is a story from a few years back about the US women's soccer team preparing for the world cup by playing scrimmages against TEEN BOYS.  IIRC, once the males were past 15-years-old, the coach would not use them in the scrimmages because he didn't want the women to be demoralized.  

Hi And Then

I am neither arguing for or against, the questions I asked were do all teams have transgender and if Alambama refuses to play a team that does wouldn't that count as a game lost?

I didn't say anything about banning anyone. Personally I don't follow sports, never have, I liked biking, canoeing, and kayaking as I didn't need anyone to team with.

Edited May 31 by jmccr8

[Zebra3]

There's nothing wrong pretending to be what you're not for personal gain. -

[Tatetopa]

Why are there women's sports in college anyway?   In fact, why are women even going to college?  They should be married and having babies, staying home baking cookies  and helping their man.  Isn't that what it was like when America was great?

College and especially women's sports make girls feel too independent and raises their self esteem.  They might be prone to having their own dreams and ambitions, not getting married right away and maybe not even having babies.

If you want to bring back the 50's you better be telling your daughters that college and sports are for men, women don't need jobs, it just makes men feel inadequate.  Tell your daughters they are worthless until they get married and have children. MAGA.  You know you want to.

[acidhead]

21 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Tell your daughters they are worthless until they get married and have children. MAGA.  You know you want to.

The whole meaning of Life is to procreate. Bringing life into the world is life's most gratifying and fulfilling experience. It's truly a miracle.  Encouraging women to not have children is probably the worst possible thing Progressives have pushed on western society. 

[Edumakated]

14 minutes ago, acidhead said:

The whole meaning of Life is to procreate. Bringing life into the world is life's most gratifying and fulfilling experience. It's truly a miracle.  Encouraging women to not have children is probably the worst possible thing Progressives have pushed on western society. 

Yup.  Feminism has destroyed our society in many ways.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

You are absolutely correct.   Pretending to be a female should not get the male access to female sports.  

Or female restrooms or prisons, FTM.  

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

The whole meaning of Life is to procreate. Bringing life into the world is life's most gratifying and fulfilling experience. It's truly a miracle.  Encouraging women to not have children is probably the worst possible thing Progressives have pushed on western society. 

'Do you think it is men's frustration and feeling of inadequacy for not being able to squeeze a living bowling ball through their pelvis that causes them to create all of the great art, philosophy, religions, and wars?  Is all of that just  second best to reproducing?

Maybe for some people it is.  Do you think some women have to be convinced not to have children because they don't think for themselves? 

The beauty of human complexity, designed by God if you will or evolution if you'd  rather  that way is that everybody is slightly different.  Not everybody makes a good parent or wants to have kids.  Its OK, some people have many.  It balances out.

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

Yup.  Feminism has destroyed our society in many ways.

Why would that be, your wife does not keep up with the cleaning and cooking?  Or does she sometimes have a mind of her own and not obey you?   Would you rather live in Afghanistan under the Taliban?  They seem to know how to keep women in their place, and their culture is about as unchanged and traditional as it gets except for modern weapons.  They did not take Afghanistan back to the 1950's  but to about 1150, or whenever Mohammed was walking around.

[spartan max2]

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

The whole meaning of Life is to procreate. Bringing life into the world is life's most gratifying and fulfilling experience. It's truly a miracle.  Encouraging women to not have children is probably the worst possible thing Progressives have pushed on western society. 

Life has no meaning. Evolution simply means that those who did not procreate did not continue passing their genes on.

Now that we have technology to control procreation people can make different decisions. 

There is a difference between telling women they have to have kids or they shouldn't have kids and telling women they have a choice.

Some men don't seem to get that. 

Edited May 31 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

Professional sports is an area where I agree on. The biological advantage differences can be too much and sports are entirely optional.

Still, some of y'all's comments are very insulting and hateful. 

It's clear who amongst you comes from a place of legitment concern about sports of who amongst you just has a hatred for trans people.

Edited May 31 by spartan max2

[Occupational Hubris]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

 

Still, some of y'all's comments are very insulting and hateful. 

It's clear who amongst you comes from a place of legitment concern about sports of who amongst you just has a hatred for trans people.

This site has become a haven for some of the more disgusting attitudes these days

[spartan max2]

Just now, Occupational Hubris said:

This site has become a haven for some of the more disgusting attitudes these days

It's like some 4chan thing half the time now.

"Feminism is the downfall of society and women's only purpose in life is to give birth. Also trans people are delusions groomer pedos"

The hell

[Occupational Hubris]

Just now, spartan max2 said:

It's like some 4chan thing half the time now.

"Feminism is the downfall of society and women's only purpose in life is to give birth. Also trans people are delusions groomer pedos"

The hell

We all know when these people became emboldened. It's a straight line back.

[Edumakated]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

'Do you think it is men's frustration and feeling of inadequacy for not being able to squeeze a living bowling ball through their pelvis that causes them to create all of the great art, philosophy, religions, and wars?  Is all of that just  second best to reproducing?

Maybe for some people it is.  Do you think some women have to be convinced not to have children because they don't think for themselves? 

The beauty of human complexity, designed by God if you will or evolution if you'd  rather  that way is that everybody is slightly different.  Not everybody makes a good parent or wants to have kids.  Its OK, some people have many.  It balances out.

Why would that be, your wife does not keep up with the cleaning and cooking?  Or does she sometimes have a mind of her own and not obey you?   Would you rather live in Afghanistan under the Taliban?  They seem to know how to keep women in their place, and their culture is about as unchanged and traditional as it gets except for modern weapons.  They did not take Afghanistan back to the 1950's  but to about 1150, or whenever Mohammed was walking around.

I know some of you can't connect dots very well between policies and outcomes.  First off, I am not arguing that women should be at home barefoot and preggers.  Nor am I saying women shouldn't vote, etc.  However, I am arguing that feminism in general had some unintended consequences that have not been good for society overall.

Wage Stagnation:  One thing that is often over looked is that women entering the workforce in droves has most likely contributed to wage stagnation.  Wages reflect supply and demand.  As more women enter professions, it is increasing the supply of workers which can reduce the salaries.    We often debate about how middle class families used to survive on one income, now it is practically impossible unless you in the upper classes.   I posit a big reason for that is the significant increase in workforce with women working now.

Further, anyone with children knows how expensive day care is these days.  A big problem now is that with both parents working because women wanted to pursue a career and be "boss chicks" you now need two incomes.

Hypergamy and relationships:  The other issue is that as women have increased their earnings, it is messing up relationship dynamics.  By in large, women are hypergamous meaning they tend to date up income wise.  The problem is that as women earn more, there are less and less men who meet their unrealistic expectations.  This is why you hear so many women complaining they can't find a good man.  A woman who is making say $300k a year often wants a guy making similar incomes or more.  Only about 2 or 3% of guys make that kind of money.  So now this women is going after 2 or 3% of men.  The problem there is that those men can be very choosy and often don't want to date a high powered woman (who is often much older than the women that a man in that income bracket could attract.

Nature's clock.  Women particulary in urban environments are putting off child rearing in order to pursue these careers.  You know what you call a 35 year old women who is pregnant?  A GERIATRIC pregnancy.  Big cities are full of maternity clinics catering to career women who are having trouble getting pregnant.  There is no sadder place.

To summarize, women have been sold a bill of goods that they can have a husband, a career, and kids.... that they can "have it all".  It simply isn't possible.  Nothing is sadder than seeing a 45 year old woman who spent her youth and beauty trying to make Partner at some law firm working 80 hour work weeks only to realize that she is single, too old to have kids, and most men her age that she finds attractive rather bang a 30 year old secretary and couldn't give a bucket of hamster p*** that she is a lawyer.  Men simply don't care about women's professional accomplishments generally and that is not what we find attractive.

Here is a great interview by one of the editors of Cosmopolitan Magazine talking about how they sold women this feminism bill of goods and she regrets it.  Also mentions the creator of Sex and the City regretting choosing career over kids.

 

And if you think I am joking, here is a Harvard Business Review study basically backing up everything I just said from 2002 where they researched why so many successful women were childless and it's affect on them.

Executive Women and the Myth of Having It All (hbr.org)

"There is a secret out there—a painful, well-kept secret: At midlife, between a third and a half of all successful career women in the United States do not have children. In fact, 33% of such women (business executives, doctors, lawyers, academics, and the like) in the 41-to-55 age bracket are childless—and that figure rises to 42% in corporate America. These women have not chosen to remain childless. The vast majority, in fact, yearn for children. Indeed, some have gone to extraordinary lengths to bring a baby into their lives. They subject themselves to complex medical procedures, shell out tens of thousands of dollars, and derail their careers—mostly to no avail, because these efforts come too late. In the words of one senior manager, the typical high-achieving woman childless at midlife has not made a choice but a “creeping nonchoice.”

 

Edited June 1 by Edumakated

[Edumakated]

Ben Shapiro sums this up perfectly...