Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Rep. Tulsi Gabbard defends "Protect Women’s Sports Act"" video.

@gknowles9172 sure, the DNC picked her up again, but you can't deny she got taken down democratically.
14
@nathanjuste6778 hm, what evidence do you have to back that claim up? I came across this: "No transgender athletes are known to have competed at an Olympic Games since 2003, Budgett said.", with Richard Budgett being "The IOC's medical and scientific director".
8
@gknowles9172 I never claim it was something new. Well, your speculation is interesting, but it is just that, speculation. She got extremely lucky that George died, otherwise I seriously doubt she'd be the upcoming VP. If she was just going for VP, it wasn't a smart move to "you're not racist, but..." Biden, so I doubt your speculation is correct.
6
@nathanjuste6778 but it is more complicated than that, right? Like: "Athletes would also be required to demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to their first competition - with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition." If there is no federal law that talks about testosterone levels, are the situations really comparable? "Please don't be dense." Don't be rude when I ask legitimate questions. Do you want an honest discussion or not? I let your first transgression go, but don't test me.
5
@nathanjuste6778 before we discuss things further, what do you know about my view? I have no interest in discussing this with someone who isn't interested in an honest discussion, so please clarify what you mean with "This means that the IOC fundamentally disagrees with your view" and what you base that on.
4
@gknowles9172 indeed! And nevertheless fascinating :) Will be fun to see the 2024 process play out one day!
3
@nathanjuste6778 I ask because your answer is vague, and as soon as I look it up by myself I find a crucial nuance you haven't mentioned. So no, the rules you pointed out in no way made it clear. I ask these questions as your initial claim rests on your full understanding on the IOC past and current rules as well as the local U.S. rules. "Regulation isn't opposition." is true, but your initial claim relies on the regulations being the same for the things you want to compare. "... with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition." is anything but "very clear". Regarding the "Regulation isn't opposition." position, at what point does it become the same? Would you be fine with them lowering the regulation from 10 nmol/L to 5 nmol/L, given that "... females, with “normal” levels considered to be between 0.3 and 2.4 nmol/L". If yes, what about 3 nmol/L? If no, why not 30 nmol/L given that "... males is anywhere from 9.2 to 31.8 nmol/L"
2
@nathanjuste6778 is it clear enough if they can prohibit any trans athlete by just saying that they haven't shown low enough numbers for long enough "... to minimize any advantage in women’s competition."? Notice how it says minimize, not eliminate. And also, regarding the claim made by OP: "It puts most biologically-born females at a distinct disadvantage if they compete against trans athletes." is recognized as true if ciswomen in america have competed against transwomen who have not had to follow the same restriction. You called out that comment as wrong, yet you don't seem to know what rules there are in the relevant areas of the U.S. that Tulsi talked about. This is what I oppose, you claiming something without enough evidence.
2
@nathanjuste6778 no, I mean the original comment in this comment section, from Gary K, that you replied to. "As for it not being set in stone, I'll have to look into it." It would indeed be interesting to know if such "confidential case-by-case evaluation"s have occurred.
2
@nathanjuste6778 who says I disagree with the stance of IOC? What is their stance, specifically? Is it different to the stances of local US organizations related to what Tulsi said?
1
@nathanjuste6778 but the 12 months is not set in stone, they can argue that for one person it has to be 36 months. OP = original poster.
1