443
Graham Platner welcomes attacks from 'fascists and bigots' over his support for trans rights
(www.advocate.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
443 points (98.5% liked)
politics
30195 readers
2522 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Archery requires arm strength which gives the advantage to males. Sports which are seemingly not dependent on gender might be. Note that most chess players are male.
There exists XX male syndrome. Such a person is not really female.
Even if trans women athletes take female hormones, she would still have an advantage over biological women. Male hips are small in relation to their shoulders whereas female hips are wide. This gives males an advantage in running since their hands can efficiently move up and down.
We are only discussing males who are transgender competing in female sports not other trans rights.
Accuracy of archery isn't as dependent on arm strength beyond what a trained woman can provide.
Sure some sports like running should be separated.
But it's not that many. We can look at scores to determine which sports actually need separated. Instead of assuming they need separated.
Even billiards and golf is separated. For no biology reason.
Most separation came about because men wouldn't allow women into their sports so women formed their own.
Chess, like many male-centric activities has historically excluded women. This is why women are in lower numbers for many professions and hobbies. They arent welcome. The men are hostile to them. It's not easy to stay in a hobby/profession where you aren't respected and everyone gives you the cold shoulder.
The fact that biological women can and do perform at mens levels proves it's a social exclusion, not a biological one.
It's kind of why men are lower in numbers in women's hobbies/professions. Except that it isn't necessary exclusion by women but mocking by other men and having their masculinity challenged.
There are plenty of men who are great at sewing, design, cooking, and even child rearing who are cis hetero men. Only in the last 15 or 20 years has it became more acceptable for men to have baking as a hobby. Before then, cooking was women's work. Most men could barely use a microwave and would brag at their incompetence in the kitchen as an indicator of their masculinity.
I know it all gets so old so fast but these things still occur. Think of all the men who might be amazing seamstress or clothing designers. Or maybe could come up with new tasty foods to eat. Yet our society says they aren't real men if they venture out into these areas. And often they are mockes mostly by other men but even women are part of the problem and are known to mock men or ask them "are you gay or something?" When they tell you they love knitting in their free time.
How is knitting related to sexual preferences? I don't know but many people seem to think it is.
These gender role trends take a long time to change. And take specific interventions to change them. They don't change on their own.
Gordon Ramsey probably had a big role in changing the baking one. As crazy as that sounds. ( And other male chiefs and cooks on TV. )
Yeah your point about genetics proves my point.
Genetic Sex isn't binary in the first place.
That's why trying to make hard rules based on chromosomes or what genital parts are visible is invalid.
It's important to remember that all these activities we say are "for men" or "for women". Were invented long long after sexes existed and even 40,000-50,000 years or more after humans evolved into who we are today.
(estimate based on unknown age of humans).
I mean chess. Making clothes. Knitting. Archery even.
How could humans possibly evolve so that one sex is good at those things and the other isn't. ?
That's just silly. It's much more likely we are all cognitively capable and have similar dexterity with variations in genetics accounting for differences between individuals. Not between sexes.
Obviously some physical strength differences. Men have upper body strength and women have lower body for carrying babies.
But that's almost all of the difference there is. Just those related to reproduction.
From https://splicedonline.com/do-you-need-to-be-strong-to-be-an-archer/
Archers need to generate enough strength to draw back the string and hold it in position for a sufficient amount of time to take aim and release the arrow. The amount of strength required varies depending on the individual and the type of bow being used, but most archers require a combination of strength, power, and control to effectively utilize their equipment.
Some psychologists believe that males dominate in chess because they have superior spatial relationship than women.
I never said you don't need to be strong. I said women athletes are more than capable of archery. They are. They even currently compete.
The spatial thing is a myth and does not hold up when tested better.
However. Men typically have faster reflexes by like 50 ms. Its not a lot but it's consistent.
There is something important to note about xy abilities.
Men have a flatter and wider bell curve for pretty much any trait. What this means is that most women ( traits ) score close to the mean compared to men's. (For a given trait).
You often hear "men have higher iqs". Well they dont but there are more men who have high iqs than women. But. There are also more men with the lowest iqs. (Though you dont hear people bringing that up)
You get more top athletes. But also more men with incredibly poor physical condition.
Disorders are more prevalent and genetic errors related to that Y, but you also occasionally get a beneficial error.
So it's a trade off. A gamble. Being male might result in a little genetic bonus. But it's just as likely you get a handicap.
And this sort of thing is more than likely a product of the sex chromosomes for men being incomplete xx. So they have a greater chance for a non dominant gene on that Y chromosome to be expressed. It's why men are more prone to color blindness. It's carried on that chromosome. Women usually have a backup on the extra tail on the X that will overwrite the bad recessive one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
Even if men have higher variability, this is an irrelevant point for their ability to play most sports better than women.
Because there might be more athletic men. But there are comparable athletic women. It just means that it's more competition for mens teams because more potentials are available.
It doesn't mean they are better than the female team in ability. Though I acknowledge there are sports that should stay separated. Like track. Basketball.
It's like. Let's say 500 people in your city are doctors. Good doctors.
Let's say 40 people in my city are good doctors.
You can't say your doctors are better than mine just because you have more of them. They all went to med school and are board certified. The number for a given city is irrelevant.
An athlete will not be in poor health. Healthy men will perform better than healthy women in sports. Consequently, it's better to separate them.