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.
Except that states, cities and leagues play against each other. What if one state or city or league allowed biological males to play female sports and the city they're playing against doesn't? Seems like yet another unfair advantage.
This is the second time you asserted this. Guess what? It isn't close to being true.
"It is what you learn after you know it all that counts" - Earl Weaver or John Wooden or Harry Truman or ...
I’m confused because you wrote “I would say no” when I asked you if a trans male taking testosterone should be allowed to participate in women’s sports. Now it seems like you’re saying the opposite.
I think trying to move heaven and earth for a significantly small % of the population is folly. They should be conforming to the 99.9%. The 99.9% should NOT be conforming to the .000004%.
Okay, now I'm just confused. is a "trans male" someone who was born female but is taking testosteronal supplements? If so, then that person should be playing female sports but stop taking supplements since that will give her an unfair advantage over the other women.
These figure are not accurate. And not all cis people are in agreement on this issue. I’m a cis man but I think trans people should be able to play sports. Don’t put me in the group that is forcing trans people to “conform.”
You're not a "cis man", you're a man if you were born male.
1. Yes
It was an exaggeration to prove that men will ALWAYS have more testosterone than women, naturally and even when women are taking testosterone supplements. But, yeah, thanks for proving my point.
This could also be a good lesson for a cis female athlete that’s upset about losing to a trans female.
The Executive Order simply states that the federal agencies will apply the law of the land. The law that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County.
2. The whole purpose of sports is to play with the best and the elite, not to check of some box to make ourselves feel better.
Again, that's absurd. that person won because they cheated or, at best, had a massive advantage over the others, not because they were better.
So your best argument in an exaggeration, a lie? Something you made up out of thin air?It was an exaggeration to prove that men will ALWAYS have more testosterone than women, naturally and even when women are taking testosterone supplements. But, yeah, thanks for proving my point.
Yeah seriously. I play basketball all the time and I have never once played with the best and elite.
People that are trans or people that love trans people or people that know stuff about trans people. That’s just speculation though.
What things? What awful ideas? Not sure if you are against Biden enforcing federal law or against the conservative blowback?
I agree. This is one of those issues that would probably generate a little more light and little less heat if we start from first principles, in part because most of us probably agree on most of them. Here's where I come down, and my guess is that you and I are probably on the same page at first:
I see you're being the king of petty. Congrats!
The real issue is that the president of the nation signed an executive order that the law of the land will be enforced. The horror!
Cool. If it's so small then it's not that big of a deal to NOT make 99.9% of the population conform around them.
Kind of like the Biden wasn't wearing a mask after signing a EO to follow CDC guidelines on wearing mask, as he followed CDC guidelines on wearing a mask
Yeah, not so simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
To use one example, the number of people who can play center competently in the NBA is statistically insignificant. Those people would destroy the WNBA if -- for some weird reason -- they were forced to play in that league. We all get that, and we all understand that that's why the WNBA exists as a women-only league.
Thanks for the response I'll try to provide my perspective.
Yeah, I think we're pretty good through here. Nothing worth quibbling about at least.
I agree that sports can be structured differently, but I'm not sure why you created the strawman of "open leagues" that nobody seems to be advocating for here. Right now we're talking about whether it's better to segregate leagues by: 1) how people were assigned their gender at birth; or 2) how people identify now. So really I think the most useful way to approach the question is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches as compared to one another.
I agree that people assigned male at birth as a general matter are more likely to be stronger or faster for physiological reasons, although there are wide variations within each gender so there are plenty of people assigned female at birth that are stronger or faster than a significant number of people assigned male at birth. I don't agree with your point about the nomenclature but that seems somewhat irrelevant right now.
Agreed.
I feel like you skipped some steps in your reasoning here. If we're trying to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches, you haven't made much of a list. So far you have identified one possible "pro" for the "segregate athletes by the gender they were assigned at birth argument" -- namely that it may be somewhat better than the alternative at dividing the superior athletes and the inferior athletes into different leagues. Before moving on, I think it's worth discussing this "pro," Firstly, it's not THAT much of a pro, because under both systems there are some athletes in the higher-level league that are worse than athletes in the lower-level league. If your objective is to have similarly-talented athletes compete against each other, both systems are kinda lousy. Secondly, I think in a lot of instances this pro is actually fairly insignificant. Lets say someone who was a pretty crappy male soccer player transitions and then becomes a pretty good female soccer player (but not some sort of superstar). That doesn't really ruin things for anyone as far as I can tell. It's just like if some good female soccer player joined one of the teams. It really only seems like this has the potential for ruining stuff if the player is really, really good.Once you accept that we're segregating by biological sex, not gender identity, then the issue of trans women in sports isn't difficult. They're males, and they can compete with other males if they want. Probably that means that most trans women won't be winning a lot of medals, but some people aren't good at sports for one reason or another, and that's not a problem in need of fixing.
I voted for Biden but I do not want my daughters who play soccer and BB competing against biological men in a female sport. To me that is an awful idea.
We are playing sports locally and different schools and counties have different rules regarding wearing a mask. Some schools allow players with medical exemptions to play without the mask. Some do not and force those players to sit out (or they refuse to play that team). These decisions are about both public health (spread of covid) and competitive advantage (playing without a mask is an advantage over playing with one). It's no different. If someone was trying to play someone that was born a male but identified as a female against my daughter I wouldn't let her play. It's a competitive disadvantage physically and a safety issue because of that disadvantage.Except that states, cities and leagues play against each other. What if one state or city or league allowed biological males to play female sports and the city they're playing against doesn't? Seems like yet another unfair advantage.
It has to be all or nothing. I don't see any other way.
Would you also pull your daughter out of playing if she faced a team with a cis female player that was really good and physically imposing? If not, why not? Seems like the same competitive and safety issues.
WTH is a "cis female " and why do you keep using "cis" in your posts? That's not a word.
It’s short for “cisgender” and I suspect that word, if not the shortened version, is in every English language dictionary.
So can't we just say "female" and "male"? Y'know, like we have for all of recorded human history?
Not if we’re trying to distinguish between cis females and trans females. For this thread it’s important to keep those groups distinct because that’s the issue being discussed.
female = biologicial female (born XX and a uterus/ovaries)
These topics tend to get everybody on edge, and it's best not to inflame things like with "sex identity crisis." It's factually true to say that trans women are male, but their mental state isn't relevant for the topic at hand and feels like piling on to people who have a rough go of it anyway.
