Also... this bill completely undermines the entire reason to protest. What would be the point of protesting if there is nothing to lose? Then it just becomes "mean" to the trans kid.
This is a very weird bill at a strange time. Somwthing is fishy here
I guess incremental change is a thing but im not buying this. Most school sports don't start till 7th grade. Single sex sports start in town leagues in 2nd grade. The differences in athleticism and skill are very apparent even un 2nd/3rd grade.
I can't support a bill that leaves out elementary age kids.
But/and it misses the point entirely. The kids want to PLAY. This bill favors one child over a whole team. Its NOT a good bill or a good strategy.
Yikes! Sorry Charlie. Im just now seeing your comment 😬. I know it passed and that's fine. Parents may feel a bit safer I suppose. But my gripe was basically this...
Sitting out in protest is loss of playing time which IS the reprocussion... but now the protest has no teeth. If a girl or several sat out in protest before this bill there might be some newsworthy draconian penalty but now it just comes down to loss of playing time for the kid who should be playing but is too afraid to. That's bill solely hurts the protesting player(s). The "remedy" only removes a stricter penalty kids girls who protest. It doesn't give them their playing time back. And that's the most important part. The girls still lose as long as there is any man on their playing field.
But also, the bill only allows opposing teams to sit out in protest. It does nothing for girls (or boys) who have to practice with the minority sex or scrimmage with them, or share locker rooms, or what have you.
Basically I think it's a step below "incremental" change. Instead of "severly" punishing the wronged party this bill says it's ok to "simply" punish the wronged party. But the wronged party is still being punished. If there is no high school girls football team and a girl wants to play the answer should be "no it's unsafe and unfair for the team". Likewise if there is no boys field hockey team and a boy wants to play on the girls team the answer should be "no it's unsafe and unfair to the team"
I do understand the impulse toward safetyism (it is a phenomenon on the left and the right of the political spectrum) but I feel like this one gave up some leverage for the cause of girls sports. A protest isn't a protest if it is allowed. It's just "sitting out" for your own safety.
I found the premise odd that's all. A little bit missing the point. But we'll see. Im definitely open to it being a good thing! I just dont see the logic.
Kudos! Wish I still lived in Mass so I could support this bill.
Terrific initiative. Well done, and good luck!
Also... this bill completely undermines the entire reason to protest. What would be the point of protesting if there is nothing to lose? Then it just becomes "mean" to the trans kid.
This is a very weird bill at a strange time. Somwthing is fishy here
I guess incremental change is a thing but im not buying this. Most school sports don't start till 7th grade. Single sex sports start in town leagues in 2nd grade. The differences in athleticism and skill are very apparent even un 2nd/3rd grade.
I can't support a bill that leaves out elementary age kids.
But/and it misses the point entirely. The kids want to PLAY. This bill favors one child over a whole team. Its NOT a good bill or a good strategy.
I don’t understand your arguments here. Could you be more specific?
To me this seems like a good bill, following a policy that a school district passed at the district level and applying it to the state level.
What is fishy?
Yikes! Sorry Charlie. Im just now seeing your comment 😬. I know it passed and that's fine. Parents may feel a bit safer I suppose. But my gripe was basically this...
Sitting out in protest is loss of playing time which IS the reprocussion... but now the protest has no teeth. If a girl or several sat out in protest before this bill there might be some newsworthy draconian penalty but now it just comes down to loss of playing time for the kid who should be playing but is too afraid to. That's bill solely hurts the protesting player(s). The "remedy" only removes a stricter penalty kids girls who protest. It doesn't give them their playing time back. And that's the most important part. The girls still lose as long as there is any man on their playing field.
But also, the bill only allows opposing teams to sit out in protest. It does nothing for girls (or boys) who have to practice with the minority sex or scrimmage with them, or share locker rooms, or what have you.
Basically I think it's a step below "incremental" change. Instead of "severly" punishing the wronged party this bill says it's ok to "simply" punish the wronged party. But the wronged party is still being punished. If there is no high school girls football team and a girl wants to play the answer should be "no it's unsafe and unfair for the team". Likewise if there is no boys field hockey team and a boy wants to play on the girls team the answer should be "no it's unsafe and unfair to the team"
I do understand the impulse toward safetyism (it is a phenomenon on the left and the right of the political spectrum) but I feel like this one gave up some leverage for the cause of girls sports. A protest isn't a protest if it is allowed. It's just "sitting out" for your own safety.
I found the premise odd that's all. A little bit missing the point. But we'll see. Im definitely open to it being a good thing! I just dont see the logic.