Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestions7mos ago

In your opinion, does the current debate about transgender athletes reflect deeper societal values around fairness and equality?

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Ideology:

Political party:

Province/Territory:

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@9ZHBQHX
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

112 Replies

 @9VSYX8PConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…6mos6MO

Transgender should compete with their original sex

 @9VH5D6WConservativefrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

I believe if you are born a male, and play male sports, it is not fair to hard-working women to let a transgender male compete in the same circuit. as men are generally more athletic.

 @9VGX7TCConservativefrom Nova Scotia  answered…6mos6MO

It is unfair because biological men are stronger than biological women.

 @9VBMTQ8Conservativefrom Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

Equality and fairness are mutually exclusive terms. I have no issues with transmen competing with other men. I only have issues with transwomen competing with natural women. This is because it removes opportunities for women in the realm of sports. This becomes more of an issue at the higher levels of sport where compensations and advantages become more apparent.

 @9V9R5P2Conservativefrom Quebec  answered…6mos6MO

I believe when it comes to transgender athletes, there is no fairness in any way possible because the genetic structure of a man is way stronger than a woman. I do not think that a woman who has transitioned has the same capability as a man who is fully well. It is an unfair thing in every aspect because for things in life to be fair, they have to be equal or close to equal. When we talk about transgender athletes, it becomes a tipping scale, and one gets a much better advantage at beating the other just because they identify as the same gender.

 @9TXX3GWfrom New York  answered…6mos6MO

Yes but i think we need to stop switching the meanings of those words.

 @9TWHXYPConservative from Ontario  answered…6mos6MO

Indeed, the discussion around transgender athletes is reflective of larger cultural ideals related to inclusion, equality, and fairness. Advocates stress the value of encouraging equality and representation in sports by enabling transgender athletes to compete in a manner consistent with their gender identity. Conversely, conflicts surrounding equality are brought to light by worries about competition fairness, particularly with relation to physiological inequalities. Deeper concerns like how society defines justice, the rights of oppressed groups, and striking a balance between inclusivity…  Read more

 @9WL6BDXConservativefrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Transgnder people should not be able to participate in their new gender's bracket

 @9WL64WZConservativefrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

No, They were born as the opposite gender therefore should compete in that gender category.

 @9WK2JPQConservativeanswered…5mos5MO

Don't care men should be men and women should be women

 @9W8NP9SConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…5mos5MO

they should not be put into the other gender areas, for it gives them an unfair advantage

 @9W6FGPVConservativefrom Ontario  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, because I truly do not believe in no way is it fair, for someone of a different gender to be participating in a sport of the opposite.

 @9VZVHH3Conservativefrom British Columbia  answered…6mos6MO

trans women who are born men shouldn't be aloud to compete with the women.

 @9V5GB5RConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…6mos6MO

I do not think transgender athletes should be able to compete with non trans people.

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies