Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I think the objection is when scholarships and such are on the line.
It's actually a really important issue for 0.00001% of Americans, so a little rich of you to dismiss it off handedly. If my options are letting a trans athlete play in amateur sports or ushering in a fascist regime hellbent on destroying global stability, gutting checks and balances, obliterating oversight, eschewing long-standing alliances, ignoring due process, and aggressively threatening allies with economic warfare and annexation, you can bet your ass I'll be standing up against the real threat of a 16-year-old trans girl competing in a high school swim competition because that's the price of freedom.
|
Voters should think that way, but they don't. They've also been gaslighted into thinking this is way more prevalent. I hear lots of variations of the post someone made above that they should just get their own league, which implies that there are enough transgendered girls/women in hs/college sports to actually have a league, when in reality it is often less than 10 across all sports in a state.
Is it wise for the Democrats to continue this fight if it leads to everything you point out in that post? If they're losing elections, they are not protecting anyone's right to play sports. The fight is also leading to the demonization of transgendered people outside of sports.
Most Republican lawmakers likely don't personally care about this issue, but they are loving setting the trap to get Democrats to vote against these bans.