[cardbored]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

I recommend refinement of the "no politics" rule. Every human social activity is political to some extent. In sports, for example:

• Many of the competitors are political entities (public schools and universities).
  
• Many of the sanctioning authorities are political entities.
  
• Many of the facilities are completely or partially funded by political means.
  
• Federal law ("Title IX") affects every school or university that receives federal funding.
  
• Military engagement, e.g., flyovers and color guards, is commonplace in professional and amateur sports.
  
• Lawsuits involve federal and state courts in sports.
  
• The federal government subsidizes athletes in Olympic events.
  
• Some sports receive antitrust exemptions.
  
• (and so on)
  

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

[cardbored]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

I recommend refinement of the "no politics" rule. Every human social activity is political to some extent. In sports, for example:

• Many of the competitors are political entities (public schools and universities).
  
• Many of the sanctioning authorities are political entities.
  
• Many of the facilities are completely or partially funded by political means.
  
• Federal law ("Title IX") affects every school or university that receives federal funding.
  
• Military engagement, e.g., flyovers and color guards, is commonplace in professional and amateur sports.
  
• Lawsuits involve federal and state courts in sports.
  
• The federal government subsidizes athletes in Olympic events.
  
• Some sports receive antitrust exemptions.
  
• (and so on)
  

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.