Measure in blue state requires female athletes prove their sex, which critics warn could lead to ‘invasive’ genital exams

Can someone explain to me how my state got everything else right for the most part but went stupid for this one?

Literally, let’s inspect little girls privates, but not boys, because 10 trans students exist and MIGHT want to play sports with their friends? Jesus.

It was also kind of disgusting that literally all our state initiatives were funded by a 1%-er, Brian Heywood and his Let’s Go Washingtion PAC.

Edit: couple transphobes showing their colors here. Not only do they have a bad understanding of how hormones affect the body, degrading muscle mass and bone density in trans women for example, it also is just a dog whistle and avoids the real issue.

Segregating trans folk from sports is just another way to demoralize and dehumanize a small subset of the population. “If you’re not trans, you can play sports with your friends. You’re not really a girl/boy anyway.” It’s disgusting. Do we need trans drinking fountains too? It’s attempting to instill these thoughts into children. In children’s sports. Which are just kids playing together and enjoying their lives. It SHOULD NOT MATTER if a boy plays soccer with a girl or a girl plays football with a boy. Let kids be fucking kids. Ask kids after they play with each other if one of them should be excluded. The kids understand it better than the adults pushing narratives who often don’t even have children. The kids just want to play together and do a better job of being accepting in group play than these conservative, lonely incels.

  • undrwater@lemmy.world
    31·
    6 days ago

    I wonder if they’re required to satisfy the federal standard for sex identification. That would require more than a genital exam. It would require capturing a zygote.

    Pretty invasive.

    • Carl@anarchist.nexusEnglish
      7·
      6 days ago

      It would require capturing a zygote.

      Did you mean capturing a gamete? As in, a viable sperm cell or egg? Which proves that the individual is biologically capable of producing those gametes, which means they are capable of producing viable offspring?

      Because capturing a zygote (a viable egg that has been successfully fertilized by a viable sperm cell, but hasn’t yet implanted itself on the uterine wall to become an embryo) would require a woman to have a fertilized egg. And I feel like requiring impregnation just to confirm sex is a little… Impractical?

      It would mean positively identifying males would be impossible, because they’re not capable of carrying a zygote at all. That that’s before we even get into the whole “in order to confirm an elementary school girl is biologically female so she can compete, the doctor would first need to impregnate her to create a zygote” thing.