Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoes bill banning male-born athletes from female sports

[Rawley]

Its all conservatives have to hang their hatred of trans people on. Bathrooms seems to have faded as their issue.

Nah. We leave the hatred to progressives. It's their driving force in life.

 

[GummyVitamins]

But the right suddenly really cares about women's sports. Surely they must be watching them a lot.

It's an issue of morality and fairness as well as safety for biological women.

 

[VanceMack]

So you wouldn't watch women's sports if they were given equal time? Do you think that faux viewers wouldn't tune in?

Are you serious? Do you watch the WNBA??? Would you pay to go see a game???

 

[Helix]

yeah, I am a full time coach these days. I was resident athlete at the OTC for a couple months over 40 years ago. I played several sports in college, and started coaching in college as well and have not stopped since then

Good work. I hope that you don't spend a lot of your days worried about transgenders.

 

[Helix]

Are you serious? Do you watch the WNBA??? Would you pay to go see a game???

I don't really watch sports. Maybe part of the Super Bowl, as it's sort of a news event / cultural thing.

 

[VanceMack]

I don't really watch sports. Maybe part of the Super Bowl, as it's sort of a news event / cultural thing.

If you did you'd learn quickly why mens sports are profitable...even with paying much higher salaries...and womens sports...especially team sports...fail and have to be subsidized by the mens leagues.

 

[bluesmoke]

none. irrelevant though.

Yes. Being female via trans is irrelevant when trans female are competing in women's sports. Same thing with black people.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes. Being female via trans is irrelevant when trans female are competing in women's sports. Same thing with black people.

your ignorance of reality is surpassed by the silliness of throwing a stupid race card

 

[MTAtech]

If one likes "our democracy" one would think a "simple majority" of the representatives of the people would be enough to pass any law, no?

You don't hate "democracy," do you?

Not if the law violates fundamental constitutional rights, is arbitrary or capricious or has no governmental purpose -- the standards for whether a law is valid.

On the main issue, I see both sides:

I agree with the individual that if they identify as female but born male, they shouldn't be forced to participate as a male. However, I see the obvious unfairness with someone who was male, no being female, but whose body is 230 pounds of muscle and 6 ft 5, competing against women who are genetically smaller and not as strong.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Not if the law violates fundamental constitutional rights, is arbitrary or capricious or has no governmental purpose -- the standards for whether a law is valid.

On the main issue, I see both sides:

I agree with the individual that if they identify as female but born male, they shouldn't be forced to participate as a male. However, I see the obvious unfairness with someone who was male, no being female, but whose body is 230 pounds of muscle and 6 ft 5, competing against women who are genetically smaller and not as strong.

Yes, I know that issues of fundamental rights aren't subject to democratic vote. That's because democracy isn't always good, and sometimes the individual is paramount.
Nobody is forcing anyone to participate. Sometimes what we do has consequences in what choices we can make in life. Remember when it was vogue for the Left to say "nobody has a right to..." some specific thing that the right was clamoring about? Well, nobody has a right to participate in a sporting event. If the choices one makes results in a fundamental unfairness in the rules of the game, why not sit it out? Imagine if Bruce Jenner identified as female at the height of his career? Should he have been able to participate in women's sports?

And, what's with the gender binary being all we talk about when it comes to sports. Suddenly it's "so and so identifies as male, not female" or vice versa. Nobody is saying anything about the 70 other "genders" we are told exist. Where do they compete? What are they? Chop livah?

 

[Doug64]

Yes, I know that issues of fundamental rights aren't subject to democratic vote.

True, fundamental rights aren't subject to democratic vote, but the question of what should count as a fundamental right is--and not just a democratic vote, but a consensus. It requires a 2/3 vote in Congress to pass an amendment or 2/3 of the states to hold a constitutional convention, after all, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the results of those votes. And under the US constitutional system, a constitutional amendment is what is truly required to recognize a fundamental right.

 

[multivita-man]

The place to settle this in the courts, not by partisan legislation. The GOP are adding this to their 2022 and 2024 culture wars list. Too bad they couldn't run on policy but they can't.

The way this court has been rigged, I'm fine with settling these matters at the ballot box.

 

[PirateMk1]

Which is exactly why they are doing it.

As long as it results in victory the tactics need not matter.

Apparently taking a page from the Democrat playbook. Though to be honest Beshear should have signed the bill. If he runs for office again, people are going to run ads on how he wanted to allow men, to continue to beat girls. Not going to be fun for him.

 

[The flaming lib]

Moderator's Warning:

Graphic image removed

 

[MrNiceGuy]

True, fundamental rights aren't subject to democratic vote, but the question of what should count as a fundamental right is--and not just a democratic vote, but a consensus. It requires a 2/3 vote in Congress to pass an amendment or 2/3 of the states to hold a constitutional convention, after all, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the results of those votes. And under the US constitutional system, a constitutional amendment is what is truly required to recognize a fundamental right.

The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think the idea was that the federal government was only delegated or assigned certain powers, and that it had no authority outside of those powers. Everything else was retained by the people or the States. However, there was disagreement as to the extent of federal powers due to differences in interpretation of the provisions of the constitution delegating those powers to the federal government. So, the Anti-Federalists demanded a bill of rights to ensure that it was explicit that certain areas were most definitely outside the scope of federal power. But then some folks were like, "if you list some, then it will be concluded that the ones you didn't list are not protected rights..." and so Madison suggested a provision to guard against that, which was then transformed into the 9th amendment.

Then the big questions becomes, can there be any rights "retained by the people" which were not discovered or addressed by the Court in the last almost 250 years? I think there can be, but the court would have to find some evidence that Englishment in the 18th century considered something to be a fundamental right of Englishmen at the time. That doesn't mean it has to be the same technology or circumstance, of course, but there would have to be an over-arching right that would encompass the new activity or technology.

 

[Doug64]

I think the idea was that the federal government was only delegated or assigned certain powers, and that it had no authority outside of those powers. Everything else was retained by the people or the States. However, there was disagreement as to the extent of federal powers due to differences in interpretation of the provisions of the constitution delegating those powers to the federal government. So, the Anti-Federalists demanded a bill of rights to ensure that it was explicit that certain areas were most definitely outside the scope of federal power. But then some folks were like, "if you list some, then it will be concluded that the ones you didn't list are not protected rights..." and so Madison suggested a provision to guard against that, which was then transformed into the 9th amendment.

You almost got it right. During the ratification debates the Federalists argued that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary but actually dangerous--that the existence of a list of areas where Congress was forbidden to legislate would imply that Congress was free to legislate in all other areas. And it was a valid argument, because that is one of the canons for judicial interpretation. So they included an amendment stating that the existence of the Bill of Rights didn't allow Congress to legislate beyond the areas enumerated in the Constitution. It's a companion amendment to the 10th. But I have to disagree that it allows the Supreme Court to recognize any fundamental rights not listed in the Bill of Rights or any of the following amendments. That is left to the citizens of the states, working through their own state legislatures and constitutions.

 

[yankintx]

The Right spends far too much time on this, it's a distraction from the lack of solutions.

 

[Paragonia]

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoes bill banning male-born athletes from female sports

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed Wednesday legislation barring male-born athletes from female scholastic sports, setting up the possibility of an override in the Republican-controlled state legislature.

www.washingtontimes.com

Seems we're looking at another veto override on the issue, and that much more weight on the inevitable Supreme Court case coming down the pike.

And another example of the differences between states--in Kentucky the legislature can override a governor's veto with a simple majority?! What's the point of a veto at all, then?

Basically, these bills are all going to be passed - eventually on a nationwide and international level, and there's nothing that an irrelevant minority of socially-maligned deniers and dissenters can do about it, assuming that they even have the self-loathe to voice their inane opinion anywhere with a modicum of public view to begin with.

It's a matter of time, just like the R vs. W decision.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Right spends far too much time on this, it's a distraction from the lack of solutions.

The lack of solutions fall upon the democrats now, That is why they continue to whine about Trump to drown to the noise concerning the incompetence of Biden. And the people who push for trans women competing are trying to advance a radical social agenda, while harming real women' sports

 

[yankintx]

The place to settle this in the courts, not by partisan legislation. The GOP are adding this to their 2022 and 2024 culture wars list. Too bad they couldn't run on policy but they can't.

What was the GOP 2020 platform?

Subservience to one man is not a solution or even an idea to fix the countries problems.

 

[Paragonia]

Since rage potatoes are so interested in women's sports now,

Please kid, no one's interested in women's sports when women who have over 300 confirmed sniper kills against the Nazis are so much more interesting:

But you and the other incels didn't know that women shoot guns, did you? Or you're scared. Or some combination of both.

I support a law requiring ESPN and the major networks to give the games equal time.

I support a law that people who still watch ESPN and the major networks on cable TV in the age of on-demand, streaming sports be forced to start using typewriters instead of computers, banned from using indoor plumbing, and given a free, lifetime supply of metamucil and viagra.

I also support a law officially declaring that watching men's sports on TV (which you've never played yourself) is usually pretty gay.

This will ensure that transphobes will finally have a convenient way to watch the women's sporting events that they care so passionately about.

No, rather, it will insure that the transphobes like this Helix kid - and those other incels whining about "transphobia" and "Steven Universe fan fiction" from their mother's basement (and thinking their irrelevent and uneducated little prattling has any bearing on our laws and society, and the future directions it will take) have something to masturbate to other than their Dragonball Z porn collection and Hillary Clinton body pillows.

This would also do a lot to inspire girls to get involved in sports.

Much to your chagrin, I know... Sure, it will be harder for you to jack off than what you're used to, but over time you'll learn that girls with a little beef on their bones can be just as sexy as Dragonball Z porn. Give it a try, champ.

 

[yankintx]

View attachment 67389925

Why is the Right obsessed with this particular issue?

Live and let live

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You almost got it right. During the ratification debates the Federalists argued that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary but actually dangerous--that the existence of a list of areas where Congress was forbidden to legislate would imply that Congress was free to legislate in all other areas. And it was a valid argument, because that is one of the canons for judicial interpretation. So they included an amendment stating that the existence of the Bill of Rights didn't allow Congress to legislate beyond the areas enumerated in the Constitution. It's a companion amendment to the 10th. But I have to disagree that it allows the Supreme Court to recognize any fundamental rights not listed in the Bill of Rights or any of the following amendments. That is left to the citizens of the states, working through their own state legislatures and constitutions.

Well, the issue of what the Supreme Court was supposed to do is a fair point. The way the SCOTUS operates, it can find laws unconstitutional, and it finds what the common law is, interprets and applies statutes, and part of that is to determine the nature and extent of fundamental rights. However, of course, it was controversial at the time, until Marbury v Madison in 1803, whether the SCOTUS would be permitted to invalidate statutes.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "You seem … to consider the judges as ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."

Also, the idea of "fundamental rights" is interesting, in that the Constitution doesn't say there are "fundamental rights." What it does is say in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law...." (expressly applying only to Congress, and not the President/Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch), or like the second amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." (which is broader in that it's worded in the passive voice, implying nobody can infringe that right). The third amendment declares that soldiers shall never be allowed to stay in people's houses without the owner's consent, except in time of war in accordance with a law passed by Congress. The fourth amendment refers to "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fifth just and sixth says people aren't to be required to answer to capital/infamous crimes except on Grand Jury indictment, and that witnesses don't have to testify against themselves, confront witnesses against them, assistance of counsel, etc. The sixth talks of the right of accused to speedy and public trial, imipartial jury, not to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, and the right to due process of law. Seventh says that there is trial by jury for suits at common law, and eighth talks about no excessive bail.

Then nine says that the listing of those rights don't disparage other rights not listed -- so, that implies that there are other rights, not listed. And, ten says that any powers not delegated to the feds are left to the people and the States, but which powers to the people and which to the States are not specified, etc.

So, it's all very vague, and there is no "right of free speech" set forth - only a limitation on Congress not to make laws abridging "the freedom of speech."

After the Civil War, SCOTUS then used its assumed power under Marbury v. Madison to take the 14th Amendment due process clause, which said that states can't deprive someone of liberty, etc., without due process of law, and they said that what that means is States can't abridge the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, or commit unreasonable searches and seizures, deny people jury trials, etc.., except under rare circumstances, if any, thus adopting the "incorporation" doctrine. I never understood or accepted the rationale that the SCOTUS could just say that "you can't deprive people of liberty without due process of law" means that "a state faces the same restriction as Congress in not being allowed to abridge freedom of speech..." Don't get me wrong, I love freedom of speech, and I'm glad my State can't infringe on it either, but from an academic perspective, I don't think SCOTUS needed to "incorporate" (most of) the bill of rights into the 14th amendment to do so.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Why is the Right obsessed with this particular issue?

Live and let live

I don't see anyone but the Left being obsessed with it. They won't stop talking about it, and they won't stop insisting that the rest of us agree with; their bullshit.

It's one thing for John Doe to insist he feels like a woman. Hey, buddy, whatever floats your boat. It's quite another to sit there finger pointing at me for not giving a ****, and for not catering to John's personal issue by pretending he is a woman AND insisting that it is hate speech and bigotry for me not to ignore biology and thousands of years of human history.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Since rage potatoes are so interested in women's sports now, I support a law requiring ESPN and the major networks to give the games equal time. This will ensure that transphobes will finally have a convenient way to watch the women's sporting events that they care so passionately about. This would also do a lot to inspire girls to get involved in sports.

But ESPN is a "private organization which can do whatever it wants," right? Why would you support such a law? LOL. But as an aside, if the televised Olympics which recently occurred is any indication, the networks are already preferring televising women's sports, as every ****ing time I turned over to a channel showing the Olympics it was women's curling or women's soccer or other female events. They definitely had at least equal time. Which is just fine with me, as ESPN and others can choose what to broadcast for all I care.

My interest in women's sports, though, relates primarily to my daughters. I mean, I generally like women's World Cup Soccer, as over the last few World Cups, the women have been more entertaining than the me, and the men never fail to disappoint me with their cheating and faking being hurt CONSTANTLY. Every men's world cup is ruined by incidents of bullshit penalties and players flinging themselves to the ground over and over again. The women's world cup, while slower and less skilled, has been a purer game.

But as for my daughters, I want them to compete against girls, not boys. I know full well how tween and teen boys play games and sports differently than girls, and how boys just are faster, stronger, and more aggressive/dangerous than girls. That's a fact. So, we need sex based leagues, because otherwise 50% of the population has nothing to compete in in high school and college. it's not rage - it's a desire to have some parity between men's and women's sports. That's all.