https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/07/01/penn-transgender-athletes-ban-lia-thomas-title-ix/84438014007/

Penn to erase Lia Thomas records, ban transgender athletes from women's sports in Title IX agreement

The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and strip the record of former swimmer Lia Thomas as part of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.

Penn entered the resolution agreement Tuesday, July 1 to comply with Title IX, the DOE announced, as the university had been under investigation surrounding the case of Thomas, who became the first openly transgender athlete to win a NCAA Division I title.

Under the agreement, Penn will restore the swimming records and titles of its female athletes that were broken by Thomas. The university will also not allow transgender athletes to compete in female athletic programs, and it has to send personal apology letters to impacted swimmers

The decision comes as the Trump Administration has focused on banning transgender athletes from competing girl's sports. In May, President Donald Trump had promised "large scale fines" on California after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and won two medals in the track and field state championship.

"Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the University for future generations of female athletes,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

The DOE's Office for Civil Rights’ opened a Title IX investigation into Penn on Feb. 6 − a month into Trump's presidency − surrounding Thomas. Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that forbids sex discrimination in at any academic institution that receives federal funding.

On April 28, the office concluded the university violated Title IX and issued a resolution agreement proposal, or it would either refer the case to the Justice Department or begin another process to cut the school's federal funding. In March, the White House cut $175 million in federal funds for Penn related to the issue.

The university said in a statement it will comply with Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. University president J. Larry Jameson said it is a "complex issue" and he was pleased to reach the agreement for the investigation.

"Our commitment to ensuring a respectful and welcoming environment for all of our students is unwavering," Jameson said in the statement. "At the same time, we must comply with federal requirements, including executive orders, and NCAA eligibility rules, so our teams and student-athletes may engage in competitive intercollegiate sports."

Jameson added the university has "always followed – and continues to follow" Title IX, as well as following NCAA and Ivy League policies. Penn will begin the process to review and update the women's swimming records set during Thomas' season on the team "to indicate who would now hold the records under current eligibility guidelines."

>>1417667 (OP)
>Me when the government starts extorting schools but it's cool because it's fucking over less than a 100 trans people

>>1417670
>NOOOOOOOOO you can't just enforce Title IX that's EXTORTION!
okay then let's get rid of Title IX
>NOOOOOOOOO you can't just get rid of Title IX that's MISOGYNY!
lmao

>>1417671
Thomas was in compliance with all rules and requirements when she competed. Also, this isn't in violation of Title IX; the Trump admin is just saying it is to justify their own cutting of funds to extort them to fuck over one particular student.

>>1417673
>Thomas was in compliance with all rules and requirements when she competed.
Except for not being a woman.

>>1417673
>in compliance with all rules and requirements
of the NCAA which doesn't have any legal authority and were themselves going against reality. UPenn as in violation of Federal law
>this isn't a violation of Title IX
yes it is. Title IX says that schools need to have women's sports (Lia Thomas is not a woman btw). Blame woke feminists.
>Trump admin
lol this didn't start with Trump, for example here's a case from 2012 when Obama was President:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0807/US-appeals-court-agrees-Quinnipiac-violated-Title-IX-what-it-did-wrong
and there are cases a lot older than that saying that schools have to have women's sports. Here are some:
https://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/significant-court-cases-involving-title-ix-and-2097758.php

>>1417675
>>1417677
Thomas fulfilled all requirements when she competed for every physical aspect. Trump's argument was they could force Penn to strip all her titles because they retroactively changed the definition of gender to sex and then extorted Penn by withholding all their funding. Penn literally had no choice because even contesting it would result in a semester with no fucking funding. It's brutal levels of government overreach.

>>1417667 (OP)
I'M OUTRAGED!111 THEY OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!!11

>>1417677
I'm glad you get to lie about trannies in this thread.
You really like talking about and looking up information about transexual people so this is probably a great day for you.

>>1417670
So exactly like how the government from 4 ish years ago extorts and coerces federal employees and military goyim (the entire population really although federal agencies especially) into getting the vax; but you know, it's only bad when orange man aka the marauder from the Doom franchise is running the government cause orange man bad or something

>>1417681
An additional vaccine requirement is nowhere near changing the rules, accusing someone of breaking them retroactively, and then taking all their funding unless they do exactly what you want.

>>1417678
>Thomas fulfilled all requirements when she competed for every physical aspect.
Not a woman.
>Trump's argument was they could force Penn to strip all her titles because they retroactively changed the definition of gender to sex
You could look at any biology textbook before 2012 and know you're being retarded.

>>1417686
Legally changed it you fucking retard. Thomas was completely in accordance with all rules when she played; then Trump changed the rules, claimed it was retroactive discrimination by his new definition, and took their funding hostage.

>>1417670
Glad to know 100 men are more important to you than the hundreds of women who are being sexually abused by being forced to share a locker room with them.

>>1417689
>Thomas
>She

No.

>>1417691
so it's somehow sexual abuse to peek at someone's genitals when they're changing, but only if you see penis instead of vagina.

>>1417691
Like you give a shit what some roastie thinks.

>>1417689
>Thomas was completely in accordance with all rules when she played
Yeah, but humans are sexually dimorphic species, and this is very explicitly a competition only for women.

>>1417695
>The penis gives a massive advantage in the water
If your t-levels are within legal bounds, there's no difference between you and the bounds of a cis woman you retard. Beyond genitalia of course, but again I don't think dick is an advantage in swimming.

>>1417695
And this explicity was in the rules and therefore violated? No? Then what the fuck is your point?

>>1417695
Thomas was cleared for participation. This is like declaring Michael Phelps is actually cheating because of his body structure and forcing the Olympics to redistribute his medals to other people. The literal only reason Trump got away with this was by taking their entire federal funding hostage unless they did otherwise, on completely bullshit grounds he can only claim by changing the definition and claiming it counts retroactively.

>>1417697
>there's no difference between you and the bounds of a cis woman you retard
Male puberty gives men a greater lung capacity, thicker muscles, a larger frame, better shock absorption (long distance running, swimming etc), thicker bones, makes them taller, and makes them several times stronger.

This situation is analogous to putting a chimpanzee in an arm wrestling competition and watching it rip the arms off full-grown men. You're retarded for thinking any of this shit is fair or legitimate.

>>1417707
Hmmm, yes, and what causes those? What is the source of all those?

I'll give you a hint: starts with a T, ends with an rome, and was also something Thomas was within the legal limit for you fucking retard.

Literally the only people that think this ruling has any merit didn't think the prior standings had any merit in the first place. Conversely, nobody that thought the previous rulings were fair either technically or in terms of sportsmanship are going to have their minds swayed by "It didn't count because Trump says so."

So who the fuck is this for?

I would at least understand if they were making an argument from within the rules that this outcome is justified, but they aren't. All arbitrary decisions do is make anyone that cares about fair play check out.

>>1417709
>What is the source of all those?
Puberty, retard. Puberty is not the same as dosing yourself with testosterone you tranny retard fuck.

>>1417712
>Puberty is not the same as dosing yourself with testosterone you tranny retard fuck.
>Local anon doesn't know how puberty works
Puberty causes the female body to produce estrogen and the male body to produce testosterone you fucking retard. That hormone is what causes all the changes, hence why Thomas had to be medically checked to have a certain level of it consistent within the range of Cis women to compete in the first place.

>>1417713
>why Thomas had to be medically checked to have a certain level of it consistent within the range of Cis women
pseudo science

>>1417717
If you can't explain how sex impacts development and vice versa, you really shouldn't be arguing for sex based segregation of sports in the first place.

>>1417694
>>1417693

USDA Prime Grade A Choice misogyny right here.

>>1417720
You are precisely the reason why democrats lost the election.

>>1417667 (OP)
It’s finally happened. They banged the drum of “erasure” to empty air for so long that they’ve manifested it into existence. They’ve summoned the exact problem they hallucinated to begin with.

>>1417720
How does it impact one’s ability to play chess or fighting games?

>>1417691
Given that the theoretical discomfort of a hypothetical woman has been used as the wrecking ball that has demolished countless male institutions, women can just grin and bear it this time.

>>1417701
Still not as bad as the dear colleague letter.

>>1417728
>How does it impact one’s ability to play chess or fighting games?
Chess isn't segregated. Nor should it be.

>>1417725
Cool response bro. If you care more about a few dozen trans athletes than all other Dem policies combined, then you were never going to vote Dem anyway. This shit isn't a wedge issue and pretending it is makes you sound like a fucking lunatic.

And you still don't know how sex or development work, you ignorant worm. Keep voting your feefees while Republicans rape your country.

>>1417731
Yes it is

>>1417733
No, it isn't. Women are allowed to compete with men.

>>1417713
It's not puberty. Men are born physically stronger than women and puberty can't change that. You're mentally ill

>>1417735
lol that's how it is in most sports, "men's sports" don't exist, women are allowed to compete with men they just aren't good enough.
The gender segregation is in women's sports where men are not allowed, and there are women's-only chess and video game tournaments. They've had the same controversies over whether to allow transwomen to play in women's tournaments.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/yosha-iglesias-to-make-history-as-1st-transgender-wim
Transwoman achieved the "woman international master" title. He got it after coming in second place in a women's tournament

>>1417741
>there are women's-only chess and video game tournaments
This should go to show that the segregation is entirely driven by psychological and societal reasons instead of physical.

Fun fact: the current record for power lifting matches the men's record from a few decades back. Did we as a species somehow get physically stronger in that time, or has the women's scene become more popular in that time?

>>1417744
>>1417744
>>1417744

A quick check of the WRs gives:

100m: women 9% slower

Marathon: women 9% slower

Javelin: women 27% shorter

Deadlift: women 46% less

>>1417764
Thanks I wanted this information but was too lazy to look it up. I'm surprised the gap for marathon and sprint is the same, sprint requires explosive strength and I heard women had decent long distance endurance. I knew men still had faster marathon times but I guess I expected the 100m to have a bigger gender gap

>>1417764
Yes and that still doesn't disprove my point that these were the mens world records a few decades back. Did our species collectively get stronger in that time?

>>1417771
Basically yes. Better nutrition, better exercise science, better rehab, better PEDs. It's like you didn't notice that the men's records also went up significantly

>>1417772
Women's records are progressing at a faster rate than men's. At the start of the 1900s the men's marathon record was around 170 minutes time. It took about 20 years for the record to hit 150 minutes. Meanwhile, women were able to go from 210 minute range being the record to 150 minute range in the 10 year period from the 1970s-80s. Even now the difference has been shaved all the way down to a mere 9% time difference between the men and women world record, something already estimated to likely be made even closer as time goes on.

>>1417731
>This shit isn't a wedge issue
You're retarded.

>>1417780
Nothing special about that
Simply more women are competing than they would in the past. Staying at home, and out of sports and college to house wife about aren't nearly as popular life paths as they used to be

>>1417789
He's right you know

>>1417731
>This shit isn't a wedge issue
It kinda is tho.
Most Americans believe that men should play men sports, and women should play women's sports, and sports segregation is due to biological factors and not the mental illnesses of people who want to compete.

Thus, it is a wedge issue amongst the Democrat party, because they have a significant number of people who agree with the rest of Americans, and a significant number of people who think the mentally ill should be able to decide who they compete against

>>1417790
You're really close to my point that those things are more of a reason for the difference.

>>1417792
The joke's on you, democrats don't care about sports at all.

>>1417793
Cool. Then let's just go ahead and abolish women's sports. Make all competition gender neutral. And all locker rooms. And restrooms.

>>1417791
No, he's not. This is a wedge issue. In fact, it's literally the most important issue in contemporary American politics.
Democrats have convinced themselves, in their unceasing attempts to make equalize all unfairness, that a man can magically become a woman and fairly compete with other women.
This isn't just a political stance, it's a complete rejection of the reality of evolutionary biology, which subsequently informs every other aspect of our culture.
The entire reason why we have men and women's bathrooms, changing rooms, competitions etc is because we understand that certain demographics in our society are weaker than others. That also necessarily means that they are more vulnerable and need special considerations. That's why women feel uncomfortable when trannies walk into their spaces. It's a product of evolutionary psychology.
These fucking retards think the real world is like an anime where you can just magically transform yourself into an entirely different person with the right medication, and that if you disagree with them you're literally hitler. They are uncompromising, have no love for humanity, and are the aggressors in every space.

>>1417799
breathtakingly wrong

>>1417799
>In fact, it's literally the most important issue in contemporary American politics.
The president is a convicted felon trying to eliminate due process and birthright citizenship.

>>1417891
Birthright citizenship was never intended to allow the situation we're in. It was passed in a specific context and is now detrimental, so we're ending it.

>>1417911
>we
LOL. LMAO

>>1417912
Yes, we.

>>1417911
Hm. Ok. So we can apply the same to the 2nd amendment, right?

>>1417913
everyone here knows you're not american and you are ruthlessly bullied for it daily

>>1417911
I like how you didn’t deny that the president is a convicted felon or that he’s trying to end due process.

>>1417914
No, because the second amendment was always meant to apply. Birthright citizenship was specifically a way to keep jurisdiction over the newly freed slaves (which also involved segregation) and almost didn't pass because people worried that it might apply to Chinese people living in California, to which it was argued that they were simply male workers who travel without women and run no risk of becoming US citizens in anything other than the most bizarre circumstances. Now we're in a situation where it's a path to citizenship for millions of unassimilable people who were never intended to be US citizens anyway. So, they're fixing it.

>>1417928
2nd amendment was made for a less advanced world without nuclear weapons or police states. It was also intended to supplement the fact we weren't supposed to have a standing army; since we do and in modern day not only do we have no risk of war from either neighbor AND an armed uprising from the populace is effectively impossible, it's completely lost original purpose.

Sorry you hate having your own shit thrown back at you, but it's the truth.

>>1417947
>2nd amendment was made for a less advanced world without nuclear weapons or police states
Doesn't matter, they felt that the right to own firearms, in and of itself, was important, and a right that the advancement of technology does not change. It was made by the men who founded the country and is deemed a core part of the United States..
The 14th amendment was made to deal with the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and specifically free negroes, not as a routine way for foreign peoples to obtain citizenship. Only because they believed that the US would never have to deal with an invasion of Chinese or hispanic or whatever other group giving birth in their territory, that they didn't write the law more tightly. It's a loophole in our legal system that is now being corrected to better fit the intentions of the people who made it in the first place.

>>1417949
>Guys it wasn't added later so it has to be important!
Slavery was there too and that got removed. Sorry retard, if the 14th amendment lost it's purpose, the 2nd has too.

>>1417952
>Slavery was there too and that got removed.
No it wasn't. They just made it so prisoners could legally be slaves and started arresting black people en masse

>>1417667 (OP)
>The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and strip the record of former swimmer Lia Thomas as part of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.
>Penn entered the resolution agreement Tuesday, July 1 to comply with Title IX
Thank you, MR PRESIDENT Donald J Trump!

>>1417949
>The 14th amendment was made to deal with the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and specifically free negroes
The 14th amendment was made to permanently settle the issue of whose flag people born in the USA belong under and discussions at the time of its creation explicitly addressed groups other than former slaves.

It doesn't apply to children born with diplomatic immunity, children born to foreigners in territory under the military and legal control of an occupying force, and (formerly) members of Native American tribes legally associated with those tribes (the tribes being functionally stateless nations within the US with quasi-independent legal status). The children of Native Americans living independent of their tribes were, however, granted citizenship, so don't bother trying trotting out some 19th century racist bullshit about Latinos.

You know cause it's good to permanently settle issues. That's a thing we used to do in this country before politicians became a bunch of fucking cowards that would rather do temporary fixes usually with a bill due in conveniently 5 years time.

>>1417989
>The 14th amendment was made to permanently settle the issue of whose flag people born in the USA belong under
Nope. It was a post-Civil War matter with a purpose directly related to the aftermath of the war for immediately practical reasons, and not meant to make a statement about who is an American or whatever you take from it. Americans had already been a defined people, as the Founders established and the cabinet of Lincoln/Johnson agreed with.
>and discussions at the time of its creation explicitly addressed groups other than former slaves.
It addressed them in the form of concern, that it would be a problem if the amendment allowed non-white foreigners a path to citizenship. Immigration and naturalization laws of the time, which were built around white people from Europe to the exclusion of everyone else, was another reflection of that concern. The reason the 14th amendment passed in its final form was because it was a convincing argument in the 1800s that there was no chance that millions of people from south of the border would storm into our country uninvited, have children, and even be protected by Americans in doing so, to become US citizens en mass. Knowledge of this future event would have prevented the 14th amendment from even being proposed. This is on record.
>The children of Native Americans living independent of their tribes were, however, granted citizenship
In 1868, that was virtually nobody. As I said, expected in only the most bizarre of circumstances. As in Elk v. Wilkins, one could not even renounce any tribal allegiance and become an American citizen, as that was not our nation's intention.
>don't bother trying trotting out some 19th century racist bullshit about Latinos.
Your position is that there is no 19th century racism. If that isn't your position, then you lose automatically. Since it is, good luck explaining history.

>>1417799
Underrated post and the only truth ITT.

>>1417994
>Nope. It was a post-Civil War matter
Free Black people existed before the Civil War.
>Americans had already been a defined people
Yeah, and they were changing the definition to eliminate the stateless underclass. I didn't say Americans hadn't been defined.
>Immigration and naturalization laws of the time, which were built around white people from Europe to the exclusion of everyone else, was another reflection of that concern
We didn't have exclusionary immigration laws for over a decade past the 14th. The first was in fucking 1882.
>In 1868, that was virtually nobody.
Ah yes, I'm sure natives never impregnated hookers not to mention every other way you could end up with disconnected natives. Virtually nobody isn't nobody and laws addressing disconnected natives predated the 14th by literal decades.
>Your position is that there is no 19th century racism
My position is that I've heard dipshits trot out the Latinos don't get citizenship at birth cause they all have native blood argument in discussions like this over and over again and I wanted to preempt it.

Congratulations on being wrong in new and equally uninteresting ways.

>>1418002
>Free Black people existed before the Civil War.
In relatively small numbers in small pockets of the country, and were not eligible for citizenship.
>Yeah, and they were changing the definition to eliminate the stateless underclass.
You'll have to explain the before and after of this if that's what you think. Why weren't these previous free black people considered? Why was there 100 years of segregation and "second-class citizenship" afterwards?
>We didn't have exclusionary immigration laws for over a decade past the 14th. The first was in fucking 1882.
The first law on the matter was a result of the first meeting of the first US congress, 1790.
> Virtually nobody isn't nobody
Yet the point made is important when discussing intent of a law or policy. It's the difference between a dozen odd cases vs 1/3 of your country's demographics.
>My position is that I've heard
I'll stop you there and remind you for your own benefit what your position is. You believe the intent of the historical policies of the US on citizenship is progressive anti-racism. Somehow they intended everyone to be American citizens by any means necessary, and yet made it as inaccessible and restricted as they could. Explain it.

>>1418007
>In relatively small numbers in small pockets of the country, and were not eligible for citizenship.
I didn't say they were eligible for citizenship. Why would I? My point is they weren't.
>You'll have to explain the before and after of this if that's what you think. Why weren't these previous free black people considered?
Because the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed?
>Why was there 100 years of segregation and "second-class citizenship" afterwards?
Plessy v. Ferguson signing off on "separate but equal" and rampant racism
>The first law on the matter was a result of the first meeting of the first US congress, 1790.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 didn't restrict immigration. The first law to deal with citizenship *and* immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
>Yet the point made is important when discussing intent of a law or policy.
You talk as if matters of intent favor you. We have the debates at the time. You're just god damn wrong.
>[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
>I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.

>You believe the intent of the historical policies of the US on citizenship is progressive anti-racism
No. That would be you, arguing that it was meant to help out freed slaves. Nothing anti-racist about it. Having a stateless class is bad, actually.

>>1418010
>My point is they weren't.
>Having a stateless class is bad, actually.
Wasn't a concern until there was suddenly millions of them densely packed in large chunks of the country, enough to constitute the majority of many counties. The first thing they did was to try to get them to leave. What they settled for was creating a legal framework for them and segregating them away from American society.
>Because the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed?
They had nearly 100 years to do it if they wished it.
>Plessy v. Ferguson signing off on "separate but equal" and rampant racism
Thus undercutting your rosy-viewed defense.
>The Naturalization Act of 1790 didn't restrict immigration.
It prevented any non-white resident from becoming a citizen, and the primary non-white foreigners were the Chinese, who customarily returned to China after working for a while in the US, thus not deemed a threat. Conversations about this are in the congressional record.
>You talk as if matters of intent favor you. We have the debates at the time.
Yes, we do. At one point in the debates about the 14th amendment, a senator suggested a clause in which a safety precaution could be implemented so that if the Chinese in California managed to reproduce to a worrisome level and begin gaining power within the state as now-citizens, that American whites should be able to strip them of their citizenship and expel them. The response to this proposal was a simple scoffing at the idea that such a scenario could exist in the first place, given the behavior of the Chinese to come as men only to work and then return home, not to start families.

>>1418011
>Wasn't a concern until there was suddenly millions of them densely packed in large chunks of the country, enough to constitute the majority of many counties. The first thing they did was to try to get them to leave. What they settled for was creating a legal framework for them and segregating them away from American society.
The presence of millions of stateless people in the country was not "sudden".
>They had nearly 100 years to do it if they wished it.
The government has had over 150 years to repeal the 14th Amendment if they wished.
>Thus undercutting your rosy-viewed defense.
My view is hardly rosy.
>It prevented any non-white resident from becoming a citizen, and the primary non-white foreigners were the Chinese, who customarily returned to China after working for a while in the US, thus not deemed a threat. Conversations about this are in the congressional record.
The first Chinese immigrant to the United states didn't arrive until 57 years after the Naturalization act of 1790.
>Yes, we do. At one point in the debates about the 14th amendment, a senator suggested a clause in which a safety precaution could be implemented so that if the Chinese in California managed to reproduce to a worrisome level and begin gaining power within the state as now-citizens, that American whites should be able to strip them of their citizenship and expel them. The response to this proposal was a simple scoffing at the idea that such a scenario could exist in the first place, given the behavior of the Chinese to come as men only to work and then return home, not to start families.
So what you're saying is, the 14th Amendment does exactly what it says on the tin and they knew at the time it would apply to every race in perpetuity when considering passage of the law.

Glad we sorted that shit out.

Honestly you're doing a better job arguing you're a fucking idiot than I am and I thought I was doing great.

>>1418012
Also, before the inevitable follow up about how they didn't think other races would immigrate and breed at the rates that ended up happening, I literally do not care.

I never claimed racists are smart.

>>1417667 (OP)
Your side just added like 4.5 trillion to the debt and made sure rural hospitals can’t treat anyone anymore because they cut medical benefits. You’re trash but I guess you “owned the libs” so it’s a win? Pathetic

>>1418014
kill grandma to own the libs, isn't this a great timeline

>>1418012
>The presence of millions of stateless people in the country was not "sudden".
We're talking about the end of slavery in the South, which was quite sudden, causing a 10x increase in the population of free negroes virtually overnight.
>The government has had over 150 years to repeal the 14th Amendment if they wished.
They had little need to until the later 20th century, and now they are in response to its exploitation by foreign peoples.
>The first Chinese immigrant to the United states didn't arrive until 57 years after the Naturalization act of 1790.
And every new version of the act until the mid-20th century renewed this policy, and when the Chinese started unexpectedly increasing in numbers (after the 14th amendment, not before), they then excluded them from coming altogether. Now you can understand the intentions behind these policies. We can go into the debates of the 39th congress directly if you need a better understanding.
>So what you're saying is, the 14th Amendment does exactly what it says on the tin and they knew at the time it would apply to every race in perpetuity when considering passage of the law.
See above.
You're in an awkward position where you want to argue that the goal of birthright citizenship was so that everyone in the world could come in droves and use it as a means to become American citizens, but also that the country was extremely xenophobic and racist and that's why the laws worked to limit and minimize them and its founders and politicians saw America as country of white people. Well, which is it?

>>1418072
Hey you wanna argue this I can argue the 2nd amendment has outlasted it's original intended purpose (making it so the US doesn't have a standing army) and is now being exploited by gunmakers to profit off of violence.

>>1417667 (OP)
>The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and strip the record of former swimmer Lia Thomas
the country is finally healing

>>1418073
Is that the end of your argument about birthright citizenship then?

>>1418072
>We're talking about the end of slavery in the South, which was quite sudden, causing a 10x increase in the population of free negroes virtually overnight.
But not a x10 increase in the population of Black people overnight. Citizens could and still can be slaves.

By the way, you're also conveniently ignoring the 14th extended citizenship to women who were over half the country at the time. And before you bitch about that being ahistorical, that interpretation was held up in court as far back as 1875.

>They had little need to until the later 20th century,
There has never and will never be a need.
>and now they are
No, they are not.
>Now you can understand the intentions behind these policies.
The intention was to settle the question of citizenship. As stated at the time. And the follow ups by racists and sexists attempting to ignore or peel away the 14th show it accomplished exactly that. You don't need to get around a road block that isn't there.

You are essentially arguing racists couldn't have done something that goes against their interests, but racism itself goes against the interest of racists.

>You're in an awkward position where you want to argue that the goal of birthright citizenship was so that everyone in the world could come in droves and use it as a means to become American citizens
I have literally never claimed that. I'm sure the 14th Amendment wasn't passed out of good will towards other races or women. It was designed to settle a legal issue.

Really your argument is just that racists aren't stupid which is just laughably wrong at face value.

>>1418072
>We can go into the debates of the 39th congress directly if you need a better understanding.
The debates of the 39th congress were quoted at you multiple times already and you didn't register that.

>>1418080
>But not a x10 increase in the population of Black people overnight.
Right, a 10x increase in the free negro population who weren't under the control of a master, which is a very different situation.
>you're also conveniently ignoring the 14th extended citizenship to women
Nope, they had always been citizens. You're confusing citizenship with the right to vote.
>The intention was to settle the question of citizenship. As stated at the time.
Not stated-- in fact, naturalization laws made a better statement about citizenship, while the creation of the 14th amendment was a post-war provision made to keep the negro population under the jurisdiction of the United States government (while also segregating them away from white society), and careful discussion was given to the possibility that it could be used incorrectly in a way that would allow other races of people to become citizens in more than isolated cases, which was deemed at the time to be extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Now we know that it is possible and is happening in very large numbers, and so, as you can agree, a better legal framing would be necessary to patch up this loophole.
>I have literally never claimed that. I'm sure the 14th Amendment wasn't passed out of good will towards other races
Then you agree that the 14th amendment isn't suiting its intended purpose in its current form, and you want it repealed.

>>1418158
>Right, a 10x increase in the free negro population who weren't under the control of a master, which is a very different situation.
Not as a practical matter for the discussion at hand.
>Nope, they had always been citizens. You're confusing citizenship with the right to vote.
Yeah, I stopped reading here. You're an absolute dumbfuck and just openly wrong on the law and unwilling to admit it. I'm not confusing citizenship with the right to vote. The citizenship of unmarried women was an open question before the 14th amendment if they were born of one or more noncitizen parents. There was no national standard, just local interpretations of common law.

>>1417744
>Fun fact: the current record for power lifting matches the men's record from a few decades back. Did we as a species somehow get physically stronger in that time, or has the women's scene become more popular in that time?
Steroid protocols that wont completely fuck up a woman were discovered. Holy shit you're retarded.

>>1418173
You've given up your argument, then?

>>1418188
There isn't any point in arguing further if your last refuge is just lying about documented history because you're cornered.

>>1418196
You've given up trying to argue anything.
>just lying about documented history
Your job is to explain how it's a lie, and you're frustrated that you're unable to. Moreover, you're frustrated by being in the unwinnable position of trying to claim that 14th amendment was created as a statement about all people being American and illegal immigration from anywhere being encouraged as an intended primary pathway to citizenship, and also that America was (and still is) a racist country with a white supremacist history. Well, decide.
The congressional record, again, argues against your point, so you're not representing the people who passed the amendment correctly. Your fight is not with me, but with them. Do you want the amendment to fulfill its actual purpose or not? If so, then repeal it and replace it with something better constructed, and thank Trump while you're at it.
And before you start up again, I'll say again, as an invitation, that we can go into the debates of the 39th congress if you want to settle what the sentiments and intentions of the congressmen were in passing the amendment. Your views are not supported by them.
*dangles string*
Catch it.