patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,191,721 comments by 13,863 users - AmericanKulak, Ceffer online now
Sexism is ok as long as it's directed at boys
invite response
2012 May 10, 4:09pm 2,646 views 8 comments
Comments 1 - 8 of 8 Search these comments
It's so unfortunate how men are underrepresented and underfunded in school athletics programs. Everyone knows that the whole system is rigged in favor of female athletes. That's why women's college and professional sports are so popular.
Dan8267
2012 May 10, 7:39pm
Translation: Sexism against a 13-year-old boy is justified because there are so many other boys who are already into sports. So fuck the individual kid, so we can pretend that we're helping girls even though we're not.
That's a great message to send to the kid. I'm sure it won't affect his psychology at all when he's deciding whether or not to hire that woman twenty years from now.
Either you believe in equality or you don't. Equality is by definition symmetric. I.e., if x equals y, then y equals x. Otherwise, it's not really equality; it's hypocrisy.
Not necessarily. If an existing imbalance exists, a program to correct it also needs to be imbalanced. Same deal with affirmative action.
Tenpoundbass
2012 May 11, 3:34am
His father must be that dink that demanded to be a Hooters girl a few years back...
Or not, Same lawyer though I'm quite sure.
bdrasin
2012 May 11, 5:22am
I don't think there's a good answer in this case. Obviously the school is just trying to provide a fair sporting environment for girls
Dan8267
2012 May 12, 1:54am
Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
It lists a few exceptions, none of which applies to hockey or sports.
The bottom line is that this is one of the few times that Title IX protects a male child instead of a female child. However, the language of Title IX is clearly indicated to provide equal protection under law to both genders. Failing that, it would be a worthless law.
Just because it is inconvenient in this one case to let the boy play, does not mean he should be denied. It was certainly very inconvenient to many institutions to start complying with Title IX when it was first introduced. Convenience is no excuse for violating federal law.
If there is a conflict between federal law and state law, federal law takes precedent. Just ask all the marijuana growers in California. Or think about how many states or local government could bypass Title IX simply by passing an anti-"Title IX" bill.
If the situation had been reversed and a girl was seeking Title IX protection, there wouldn't even be a discussion. If this boy did decide to become a transsexual, he'd be allowed to play no matter how good he is. If a girl were as good of a hockey player -- and I don't hear anybody saying that's impossible -- then there is no way she'd be kicked off the team for being too good. The bottom line is that this is a clear case of a double standard in Title IX, and that just reeks of hypocrisy.
http://www.fox10tv.com/dpps/news/strange_news/ny-boy-seeks-to-remain-on-girls-field-hockey-squad-ob12-jgr_4164244
So, there you have it. A law intended to ensure that all children regardless of gender have an opportunity to participate in athletics has been perverted into being a sexist law itself, baring an athlete for "performing too well while in the possession of a penis". I wonder what would happen if the situation were reversed and a 13-year-old girl was "superior to the boys she plays against, creating an unfair advantage"? Hell, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Yep, that's equality for you.
Still, it's this 13-year-old boy's own fault. He should know that he has to become a pre-op tranny in order to play hockey. And if he's not willing to give up his penis, he deserves no respect and love from the rest of us.
The hypocritical left needs to start realizing that you cannot discriminate against groups. You can only discriminate against individuals. They are the ones who bare the consequences of bigotry.
Still this goes to show that the left and liberal are not the same thing any more than the right and small government is. The true liberals and fiscal responsible are orthogonal to the left-right line of shame.