I thought "they should be allowed" explained my position fully. I think while I understand explicitly the trans question is hotly debated, I fully support any trans person playing. 'The article didn’t say “Sports are moving against trans folks, but fans don’t want that”', I am saying I do want that I think it would be awesome if some transperson made it into the NFL, or a woman. Like I am not against that happening at all. In fact, I would support those trying/succeeding. I think the reality is that the even the most well-meaning people don't have constant interactions with transpeople who are into pro or collegiate/high school sports, so it becomes hard to hardcore advocate for people who you don't have regular interactions with. It is the same reason why it never made sense for conservatives to be so damn concerned about it. I obviously can't speak for your experience, but taking the modern neo-fascist conservative opinion as the opinion of all, seems a bit disingenuous; they simply bitch at everything and louder than most.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

but taking the modern neo-fascist conservative opinion as the opinion of all, seems a bit disingenuous; they simply bitch at everything and louder than most.

This isn't about fascists opinions. It's about the fact that they are explicitly and openly banning us from involvement in an ever growing list of sports.

Cricket, football, chess, swimming, athletics, cycling, disc golf, weight lifting... The list goes on...

This isn't opinions, it's not about who speaks loudest, it's about the explicit exclusion of trans folk from sports.

And you can't talk about an apparent golden age of acceptance when the list of explicit exclusions is greater than it has ever been, especially when they don't even mention those exclusions in the article!