> And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?

Why not separate competitors by the physical abilities that matter in their sport, rather than by genitals? We already do this partially within some sports, such as with the different weight classes in boxing. And of course it is routine in school sports to separate athletes by age so that the smaller, less experienced kids don't get totally whomped on.

Besides dealing with the transgender issue, it would also provide more competitive and challenging and fun sports for many non-transgender kids that currently do not get that, either because they are on the smaller/lighter/weaker side of the boy's bell curve and can't get on the team (and would get creamed if they did), or because they are on the taller/heavier/stronger side of girl's bell curve and aren't really challenged on the current girl's team.

> rather than by genitals

Human biology is binary in terms of gametes.

Gametes are intrinsically linked to hormones and human development.

It makes sense to separate leagues in terms of natural, general groups like women/men.

Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors? How are lawyers writing legislation qualified to pre-determine the outcomes of these doctor visits?

Do you have evidence that this safeguards children?

> And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?

There is no "point" to any children's sport. It's a way to get exercise, entertainment, and a better understanding of teamwork.

If a child identifies as a girl, looks like other girls, and has been treated by a doctor to have a body that matches their brain, why should anyone force them to play on a boys' team?

> Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors?

Because this is what we've accepted and allowed for many decades? The government controls prescriptions, standards, certification, etc. You may not like some of the laws, but probably agree with others.

I'm making no statement on the topic from the article, just pointing out that we've long given government the power to regulate health care decisions.

The difference is that doctors are given discretion with any safe treatment. They can give drugs off-label, for example.

Alabama is trying to ban all known treatments for trans people. There is no analog for that because it is based on the underlying condition, not the treatment.

Even in the war on drugs, where drug use is often criminalized, there is not a blanket ban on all treatments for drug addiction. In fact, doctors can give people highly addictive drugs to get them off of even-more-addictive drugs.

They’re banning them for _minors_ so it’s not a complete ban either.