qjdn
My apologies for posting under a shitty throwaway, but fyi, the two athletes you mentioned are XY and thus not women by the simplest and most straightforward of definitions.
It is a very common position that they should be excluded from women's sports. In fact, the fact that all three medalists in the women's 800m at the 2016 Olympics have XY chromosomes is a very strong argument for doing so!
I was curious whether you had a working definition of "criminal record". For example, perhaps you reasonably exclude "petty misdemeanors", a category of offenses which is not punishable by jail time in Minnesota; many traffic offenses fall under that category in the state. However, as mentioned, Castile's record goes beyond petty misdemeanors. As part of my research into the topic, I found that the New York Times is not willing to say "no criminal record", presumably because they believe it is false.
"Law-abiding" includes more than just convictions. For example, I was curious whether your definition excluded drug offenses, as the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law in the United States. (Possession of sufficiently large amounts remains a felony in Minnesota as well.)
Instead my clarifying question was called "shitty demeaning racist trolling". Besides being unproductive, I believe your comment violates the site guidelines.
I encourage you to assume good faith in your fellow commenters. I in fact support the criminal punishment of officer Yanez in this case, and my judgement suggests that the outcome of the jury trial is unjust. However, I am strongly opposed to attitudes and comments such as your own, which I feel make sincere discussion of facts impossible. I hope that you come to agree on some of these meta points.
> Castile was a law-abiding citizen, with ... no criminal record
I was wondering whether you could explain your definitions of these two terms, "law-abiding" and "criminal record".
In another window, I have open information from the Minnesota courts system about a case where Castile was convicted of a misdemeanor. It appears to me that this case (which is just one of many, many cases) directly shows your claims to be evidently false. I was hoping you may clear up my confusion. Thanks.