this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
234 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19352 readers
3001 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Utah has introduced strict guidelines for transgender girls in high school sports, requiring testosterone levels below 66 ng/dl—far stricter than NCAA or Olympic standards—and proof of ongoing gender-affirming care, which was banned in the state in 2023.

Critics argue the rules effectively bar all transgender girls from participating, contradicting the law’s intent to only ban cases of safety or competitive advantage.

Advocates warn the policy harms trans youth by excluding them from the mental health and social benefits of sports.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 138 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And this will lower my grocery prices how?

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s almost like it was never about the price of eggs.

[–] CharlesDarwin 9 points 1 day ago

What's weird is that qons keep bleating that donvict was "good at economy" or something of that nature. What a fucking load that is. If it was even remotely true, I might see how these dumbasses might use "but mah eggs!" as an excuse, but the record of donvict's first term in reality is absolutely abysmal. But I guess if donvict and those around him keep repeating stupid meaningless mantras like "promises made, promises kept", I guess enough intellectual lightweights will buy into it.

I suppose if one of the promises was to kill more Americans than anyone in history, I guess that was kept?

[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I wonder how many cis gendered girls are going to get dinged.

[–] captainlezbian 3 points 8 hours ago

More than trans girls for certain. Just like every law against trans girls

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If it hurts cis women as well as trans people, Republicans will consider it a bonus.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago

They'll happily eat a shit sandwich as long as you have to smell it

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Very many I'll bet. The medically accepted "normal" range for free T in women is 15 to 70 ng/dl (quick and dirty google), so 66 is already inside of that. And thats not counting the huge swath of women with pcos/endo/etc disorders that tend to result in higher T as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

I can also guarantee some testing company owned by a Republican is now salivating at the idea of testing every girl. Lobbying probably won't even be hard, just say "secret trans" and Republicans will be chomping at the bit to pass that law.

[–] Frozengyro 12 points 1 day ago

Not sure how T works in women, but men who workout and are physically active also produce more. If it's similar that will put more in the top end of that range.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would imagine that this would only apply to trans athletes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

just like how puberty blockers would only apply to trans kids, ie it didn't

[–] RoidingOldMan 55 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So frustrating that I've lived long enough that we are passing laws with the specific purpose of excluding one minor group of people.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago

While these laws are expressly exclusionary, the overall intent is to erode civil rights protections. It's easier for them to argue against civil rights when they can present a legal justification for it.

[–] CharlesDarwin 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, we can thank the qons for always focusing on things that affect everyday Americans.

What will this do for the price of eggs, I wonder?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Well, well, well, now you think of the eggs. Real Women just have 'em free you know. /s

[–] flames5123 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At least there’s a way for them to compete in the sports of their gender. In many red states, it’s just banned with no thought of doing this. I wish it wasn’t more strict than the NCAA, but at least it’s better than other red states.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

there's not tho. they need to meet unrealistic testosterone standards, and they need proof of care they can't get.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

I could see some company cashing in on this and saying you need to test all girls for secret trans... and then I picking up girls with PCOS and other disorders that change testosterone levels.

[–] flames5123 3 points 1 day ago

Oh yea, definitely. But they could get that number changed. At least it’s not a blanket ban. It’s les than 1/4 the NCAA number.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Proof of care that is banned?

How long before you need a Doohicky license, and they just don’t issue Doohickey licenses because it’s not a real. Just submit form G8–217. OK, where do I get the form? That’s the neat part, you don’t!

[–] WoodScientist 5 points 1 day ago

Exactly. That's what's so callously ridiculous about it. That T level, 66 ng/dl, is quite achievable by trans women with the proper treatment. Puberty blockers or T-blockers and E? That's quite doable. It would be a quite reasonable bar for most trans women to reach for.

Except, they then of course outlawed that treatment for minors.