What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Biden vs Girls Sports (1 Viewer)

John123 said:
It is a new issue.  Trans wasn't common in 1977.  Most trans people would just be happy to be accepted for being trans at that time.  They weren't thinking about participating in sports.  Kudos to Richards for coming out and asserting herself.  I would have loved to see how the conversation would have went if she had been in her 20's and suddenly beating Martina and Chrissie handily.  But that didn't happen so she faded off in to memory. 
Click to expand...
Do you think in the late seventies very many people were accepted for being trans?  (Have you seen The Lady and the Dale?)  I don't think very many are now despite all of the resistance to "bending over backwards".  Allowing them to participate in sports is one small way to accept them as being trans.

I also think that the issue of a man transitioning into a woman  goes away if we as a society allow boys to transition to girls and allow them to block the onset of male puberty.   Sure that is a philosophical battle that is being raged right now as some don't trust kids to know and it would be horrible to impose it upon them  (see Heidi Krieger => Andreas Krieger), but to the degree that things change is the degree that the concern of men dominating women in women's sports goes away.  

I realize in the back and forths here that my replies can become just as simplistic and absolute as anyone elses.  To me this is a complex issue with various competing issues.  While making everyone happy is probably unattainable we should try to figure out what is best for society.  And when we think we have an answer we should just assume that is the wrong answer (the way the NCAA's inclusion policy is considered out dated as the terms and evidence has changed during the decade).  That is this is something that needs to be constantly revisited. 

Maybe as we become more accepting, more inclusive that we discover the number of trans people is a lot higher than we think and things really are disruptive.  Maybe every now a then a dominate trans athlete arrives on the scene and is disruptive to a single sport.  Maybe things happen that I am not creative enough to imagine.  I think right now the answer is the same one the NCAA and the Olympics came up with - more is gained by all athletes by being inclusive.  Maybe that isn't the answer five years from now.    While answers built on exaggerations such as "dominating all" might prove correct eventually the need for such hyperbole to support the arguments now should discount them - at least for now.     

 
KarmaPolice said:
These are the arguments that I hear, and I am trying to wrap my head around.  I get it if it's a hard NO - under no circumstance should it be allowed, (snip)
Click to expand...
This.  It's just a simple hard "no" and people are making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

If I want to compete on the women's soccer team, the answer is no.  Not because I would dominate necessarily women's soccer or because I would necessarily injure anybody or anything else.  It's because I'm a guy and I don't belong on a women's team.  If they let me compete, nothing bad would happen, probably because I suck at soccer and I have no realistic chance of ever seeing the field.  But we put a hard no in place because nobody wants to litigate every single person's participation on a case by case basis.  That's literally the reason why we have separate leagues for men and women in the first place. 

(It's also the reason why we segregate leagues by age.  If I asked to play in our local U10 league, I would get the exact same hard no).  

There's no reason why this should be a partisan issue.  There's a good, compelling reason for segregating sports by sex.  There is no good, compelling reason for segregating sports by gender identity.  It's that easy.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This.  It's just a simple hard "no" and people are making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

If I want to compete on the women's soccer team, the answer is no.  Not because I would dominate necessarily women's soccer or because I would necessarily injure anybody or anything else.  It's because I'm a guy and I don't belong on a women's team.  If they let me compete, nothing bad would happen, probably because I suck at soccer and I have no realistic chance of ever seeing the field.  But we put a hard no in place because nobody wants to litigate every single person's participation on a case by case basis.  That's literally the reason why we have separate leagues for men and women in the first place. 

(It's also the reason why we segregate leagues by age.  If I asked to play in our local U10 league, I would get the exact same hard no).  

There's no reason why this should be a partisan issue.  There's a good, compelling reason for segregating sports by sex.  There is no good, compelling reason for segregating sports by gender identity.  It's that easy.
Click to expand...
I generally have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper (posts).

This sums up my feelings on the subject bigly 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
But we put a hard no in place because nobody wants to litigate every single person's participation on a case by case basis.  That's literally the reason why we have separate leagues for men and women in the first place. 
Click to expand...
A hard "yes" would eliminate the need to litigate on a case by case basis.  It clearly not the case for a "no" , and cannot be the case. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This.  It's just a simple hard "no" and people are making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

If I want to compete on the women's soccer team, the answer is no.  Not because I would dominate necessarily women's soccer or because I would necessarily injure anybody or anything else.  It's because I'm a guy and I don't belong on a women's team.  If they let me compete, nothing bad would happen, probably because I suck at soccer and I have no realistic chance of ever seeing the field.  But we put a hard no in place because nobody wants to litigate every single person's participation on a case by case basis.  That's literally the reason why we have separate leagues for men and women in the first place. 

(It's also the reason why we segregate leagues by age.  If I asked to play in our local U10 league, I would get the exact same hard no).  

There's no reason why this should be a partisan issue.  There's a good, compelling reason for segregating sports by sex.  There is no good, compelling reason for segregating sports by gender identity.  It's that easy.
Click to expand...
There are hundreds, probably thousands of girls who play on boys teams across the country in Jr/High School.  

 
cockroach said:
There are hundreds, probably thousands of girls who play on boys teams across the country in Jr/High School.  
Click to expand...
There are hundreds, probably thousands of girls and boys that “play up” in age restricted sports . 12u, 14u etc

None play down to a different age group. Know why that isn’t allowed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
She was very tiny.  We asked for permission to let her play down an age-group, so that she was playing with kids closer to her size (she was still small in that group).
Click to expand...
Do you think they would have made that same exception if she was bigger and stronger than the group you were requesting she be allowed to play in?

 
John123 said:
Do you think they would have made that same exception if she was bigger and stronger than the group you were requesting she be allowed to play in?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Are you suggesting that bigger and stronger girls not be allowed to participate in sports?

 
cockroach said:
There are hundreds, probably thousands of girls who play on boys teams across the country in Jr/High School.  
Click to expand...
My feeling is that this isn't a trans issue in general, it's a male to female transition that people are against.  Could be wrong though.  Otherwise are we now also saying that no female can participate in men's sports too? 

 
John123 said:
Do you think they would have made that same exception if she was bigger and stronger than the group you were requesting she be allowed to play in?
Click to expand...
What if the trans female isn't bigger and stronger than the competition?   What if they have been transitioning for years with hormones?

Is there a way it could be a case by case thing, or we have lines of X amount of hormones/transitioning?  

 
KarmaPolice said:
What if the trans female isn't bigger and stronger than the competition?   What if they have been transitioning for years with hormones?

Is there a way it could be a case by case thing, or we have lines of X amount of hormones/transitioning?  
Click to expand...
I've addressed this before.  I've posted a link to a government study that showed that even years after taking hormone blocking drugs biological males have a physiological advantage over biological women. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
There is no good, compelling reason for segregating sports by gender identity.  It's that easy.
Click to expand...
If you can’t come up with any good or compelling reasons why a trans kid should be allowed to participate with the gender she identifies with, then you honestly haven’t thought about this issue carefully.  
 

I’m not saying there is a simple answer.  But your failure to acknowledge legitimate contrary arguments come across to me as blind spots.

 
John123 said:
I've addressed this before.  I've posted a link to a government study that showed that even years after taking hormone blocking drugs biological males have a physiological advantage over biological women. 
Click to expand...
Do you have that link handy?   I was just curious about the %s we are talking here.  

 
John123 said:
I've addressed this before.  I've posted a link to a government study that showed that even years after taking hormone blocking drugs biological males have a physiological advantage over biological women. 
Click to expand...
Some might.

There are some men who have a physiological advantage over other men.

There are some women who have a physiological advantage over other women.

 
I would love to see the Venn diagram of people who oppose transgendered kids participating in sports of their identity, and people who disapprove of "participation trophies".

 
IvanKaramazov said:
There's no reason why this should be a partisan issue.  There's a good, compelling reason for segregating sports by sex.  There is no good, compelling reason for segregating sports by gender identity.  It's that easy.
Click to expand...
Would you support trans males who are built like men and have beards competing in sports against women?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
I've addressed this before.  I've posted a link to a government study that showed that even years after taking hormone blocking drugs biological males have a physiological advantage over biological women. 
Click to expand...
After puberty?  Or before?  The link I remember from a few months ago was after, but I might be thinking of something different.

 
Sinn Fein said:
She was very tiny.  We asked for permission to let her play down an age-group, so that she was playing with kids closer to her size (she was still small in that group).
Click to expand...
What age group was this?

And was this little league? aka a small local “no cut” type of league?

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
What age group was this?

And was this little league? aka a small local “no cut” type of league?
Click to expand...
It was youth soccer from 8-12.

It was no-cut.  But, not mandatory play.  I would describe it as semi-competitive in that girls used these leagues as pre-cursors to high school soccer.  Some were really good.  Some were really not.

My daughter was good (skill-wise), for her size, but with small legs, and a small body, she was no match for the bigger age group (and never had any interest in competing at the high-school level).

She stopped playing, and opted for horse shows instead. It was a lot cheaper to play soccer.   :shrug:

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
If you can’t come up with any good or compelling reasons why a trans kid should be allowed to participate with the gender she identifies with, then you honestly haven’t thought about this issue carefully.  
 

I’m not saying there is a simple answer.  But your failure to acknowledge legitimate contrary arguments come across to me as blind spots.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any principled argument for why trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports but cis men can't.  (Trans men are a totally different issue -- as others have noted, we currently allow girls to compete in lots of men's sports, and that's 100% fine as far as I'm concerned).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't think there's any principled argument for why trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports but cis men can't.  (Trans men are a totally different issue -- as others have noted, we currently allow girls to compete in lots of men's sports, and that's 100% fine as far as I'm concerned).
Click to expand...
I have no issue with girls competing in no contact sports with boys.  2 years ago a local team had a girl soccer player who made the team as a kicker.   Well on a blocked FG the ball ended up about 10 yards past the line and a defender picked it up and started running..she had the angle on him and then got destroyed by a lineman with a very clean but hard block.   
 

Everyone started booing and screaming at the kid saying "you hit a girl"  Player started fighting.    The kid was caught up in the play and had no idea who he was blocking.

I guess it you put the pads and helmet on in the field of play everyone is fair game..but people did not see it that way.

 
John123 said:
After or before puberty?  Holy cow.  As Ivan said above, this is pretty simple. 
Click to expand...
We are just over two weeks from the 20th anniversary of these forums.  I don't know which day back then Ivan joined but he has earned his well respected reputation of being thoughtful and respectful representative of views I largely do not share.  As such he has many a times caused me to pause in my thinking to reevaluate my beliefs.  That didn't happen with that post.  It isn't compelling and is largely based on an already demonstrably  false premise - a hard yes means saying go ahead and play, a hard no means saying "drop your drawers" so we can check on a case by case basis whether you can play  (ever hear about Erik Schinegger (Formerly Erika Schinegger)).    

 
Alabama just passed and the governor signed a bill protecting female sports. I thought the comments in the bill were interesting:

-  Physical differences between biological males and biological females have long made separate and sex-specific sports teams important so that female athletes can have equal opportunities to compete in sports.

-  Physical advantages for biological males relevant to sports include, on average, a larger body size with more skeletal muscle mass, a lower percentage of body fat, and greater maximal delivery of anaerobic and aerobic energy than biological females.

-  Even at young ages, biological males typically score higher than biological females on cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and speed and agility. These differences become more pronounced during and after puberty as biological males produce higher levels of testosterone. On average, biological male athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and more physically powerful than their biological female counterparts. This results in a significant sports performance gap between the sexes.

-  Studies have shown that the benefits that natural testosterone provides to biological male athletes is not significantly diminished through the use of testosterone suppression. Testosterone suppression in biological males does not result in a level playing field between biological male and biological female athletes.

-  Because of the physical differences between biological males and biological females, having separate athletic teams based on the athletes’ biological sex reduces the chance of injury to biological female athletes and promotes sex equality. It provides opportunities for biological female athletes to compete against their peers rather than against biological male athletes, and allows biological female athletes to compete on a fair playing field for scholarships and other athletic accomplishments.

Is there evidence to the contrary on these points?

 
Sand said:
Alabama just passed and the governor signed a bill protecting female sports. I thought the comments in the bill were interesting:

-  Physical differences between biological males and biological females have long made separate and sex-specific sports teams important so that female athletes can have equal opportunities to compete in sports.

-  Physical advantages for biological males relevant to sports include, on average, a larger body size with more skeletal muscle mass, a lower percentage of body fat, and greater maximal delivery of anaerobic and aerobic energy than biological females.

-  Even at young ages, biological males typically score higher than biological females on cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and speed and agility. These differences become more pronounced during and after puberty as biological males produce higher levels of testosterone. On average, biological male athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and more physically powerful than their biological female counterparts. This results in a significant sports performance gap between the sexes.

-  Studies have shown that the benefits that natural testosterone provides to biological male athletes is not significantly diminished through the use of testosterone suppression. Testosterone suppression in biological males does not result in a level playing field between biological male and biological female athletes.

-  Because of the physical differences between biological males and biological females, having separate athletic teams based on the athletes’ biological sex reduces the chance of injury to biological female athletes and promotes sex equality. It provides opportunities for biological female athletes to compete against their peers rather than against biological male athletes, and allows biological female athletes to compete on a fair playing field for scholarships and other athletic accomplishments.

Is there evidence to the contrary on these points?
Click to expand...
I think everything you quoted seems accurate except I’d probably quibble with the part about injuries because most of the popular female sports are non-contact.  There’s no increased injury risk if trans females compete in track or swimming.

Even though the facts you’ve quoted seem accurate, I don’t think they give a complete picture of all the considerations that should go into making this decision. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think everything you quoted seems accurate except I’d probably quibble with the part about injuries because most of the popular female sports are non-contact.  There’s no increased injury risk if trans females compete in track or swimming.

Even though the facts you’ve quoted seem accurate, I don’t think they give a complete picture of all the considerations that should go into making this decision. 
Click to expand...
I was going to try to look it up more, but maybe you know @fatguyinalittlecoat - are these rulings just sports, or are these rulings in these states also tied to what people can do medically (access to hormone blockers, etc..)?  I thought I was reading that they are often tied together, the sports gets more focus, but the medical side is probably the more damaging part.  Wanted to verify that though.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
I was going to try to look it up more, but maybe you know @fatguyinalittlecoat - are these rulings just sports, or are these rulings in these states also tied to what people can do medically (access to hormone blockers, etc..)?  I thought I was reading that they are often tied together, the sports gets more focus, but the medical side is probably the more damaging part.  Wanted to verify that though.  
Click to expand...
There are a variety of different anti-trans laws that are being considered in various states.  This Alabama law and the similar laws in Idaho and Mississippi are just about sports.  I know that Arkansas recently passed a law (over the Republican governor’s veto) that prohibits gender-affirming medical treatment for minors.  I don’t really know the status of all the different bills being proposed around the country, maybe there are some that deal with both sports and medical treatment.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
There are a variety of different anti-trans laws that are being considered in various states.  This Alabama law and the similar laws in Idaho and Mississippi are just about sports.  I know that Arkansas recently passed a law (over the Republican governor’s veto) that prohibits gender-affirming medical treatment for minors.  I don’t really know the status of all the different bills being proposed around the country, maybe there are some that deal with both sports and medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Having a problem with this.  I feel these are more pro-women laws.  I know it's probably just quibbling because you want to frame it as some kind of Civil Rights issue, but it isn't.  Nothing is stopping trans people in competing in sports.  Nothing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
There are a variety of different anti-trans laws that are being considered in various states.  This Alabama law and the similar laws in Idaho and Mississippi are just about sports.  I know that Arkansas recently passed a law (over the Republican governor’s veto) that prohibits gender-affirming medical treatment for minors.  I don’t really know the status of all the different bills being proposed around the country, maybe there are some that deal with both sports and medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's the one that I was thinking of.  I thought there was one that doubled down on pre-18 procedures.  But to my knowledge surgery wasn't allowed anyway before 18, so mostly what it did was prohibit hormone blockers - which I understand to be safe and reversible.    I could just see states packaging both, but having the public focus on the sports side b/c that is the main focus for a lot of people.  

 
BladeRunner said:
Having a problem with this.  I feel these are more pro-women laws.  I know it's probably just quibbling because you want to frame it as some kind of Civil Rights issue, but it isn't.  Nothing is stopping trans people in competing in sports.  Nothing.
Click to expand...
Actually, he has told you what would be stopping them 

 
The most notable example of this is someone assigned F at birth - Semenya the SA runner. Under current Olympic rules she's not even eligible to compete unless she takes hormone therapy to reduce her testoserone.  I would be interested if either side here would differentiate between those currently under hormone treatment and those that are not.

There's some talk above about "not allowing doping" when it appears those who govern international track and field do not view this as doping per se, at least in Semenya's intergender situation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
Maybe that's the one that I was thinking of.  I thought there was one that doubled down on pre-18 procedures.  But to my knowledge surgery wasn't allowed anyway before 18, so mostly what it did was prohibit hormone blockers - which I understand to be safe and reversible.  
Click to expand...
My understanding is that kids can have surgery with parental consent in most if not all states.  My kid is having top surgery when he’s still 17.

 
BladeRunner said:
Having a problem with this.  I feel these are more pro-women laws.  
Click to expand...
I’m not going to call them “pro-women” laws because that seems misleading to me, but if you can think of something more neutral than “anti-trans” I’d be happy to change my terminology.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Good article on this subject here:

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/the-dishonest-trans-women-in-sports
Click to expand...
Yeah, most of this rang true.  I don’t always think he fairly characterized the publicly stated positions that he then goes on to argue are pretexts for other motives.  And I actually think that a lot of the people claiming to be worried about the impact on women’s sports are sincere.  The fact that conservatives were critical of Title IX 20 years ago doesn’t mean they hold those same views now.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yeah, most of this rang true.  I don’t always think he fairly characterized the publicly stated positions that he then goes on to argue are pretexts for other motives.  And I actually think that a lot of the people claiming to be worried about the impact on women’s sports are sincere.  The fact that conservatives were critical of Title IX 20 years ago doesn’t mean they hold those same views now.
Click to expand...
That was basically my reaction, too.  I've never had a strong opinion about Title IX one way or the other, and I've never been the type to complain about or belittle women's sports.  I know those folks exist and the author isn't nuts to have them in mind, but I think that might be a generational thing.  (If you walked up to me on the street and asked me what I thought about Title IX, my mind would immediately go to the "sexual assault in higher ed" part of Title IX which I do have strong opinions about, but that's all immaterial to this topic).  

Also, I have no interest in maintaining rigid gender roles.  My disagreements with the trans community mainly are just women's sports, at least in practical terms.  I disagree with the notion that trans women are actually women in the sense that they mean it when they say "trans women are women," but that's a second-order philosophical consideration -- I'm happy to use feminine pronouns, open up bathrooms, etc.  If somebody wants to live their lives as a member of the opposite sex or break out of the sex binary altogether, fine with me.  I just react very negatively to what I perceive as a demand that I endorse a statement that I see as as self-evidently false.  Doing so wouldn't affect me at all, but it runs exactly counter to how I'm wired.  

I think the author is definitely right that some people on the "no trans women in women's sports" side are really making an argument about "two genders only."  Probably that's a majority of people on that side.  But it's not all of us.

 
BladeRunner said:
Having a problem with this.  I feel these are more pro-women laws.  I know it's probably just quibbling because you want to frame it as some kind of Civil Rights issue, but it isn't.  Nothing is stopping trans people in competing in sports.  Nothing.
Click to expand...
Under these laws being considered, how does a transgender male student compete in high school basketball?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
1K
Prinefan
P
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks
GordonGekko
(Baby Formula Shortage): Biden ADMITS He Knew Of Crisis In Early April (4/27/22 23:53 PST)
8 9 10
Replies
494
Views
12K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top