Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

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.

Hang on...it's not an identity crisis?  I get it, but these people are confused, no?

So how should i have worded that, in your opionion?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 781
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Biological males playing female sports is not a good idea.  

I do appreciate that this thread is nearly 100% cordial and respectful. If this thread popped up 10 years ago, I can't imagine the level of discourse would be anywhere near this. It is such a com

I find it very difficult to take your strong opinions in this thread seriously when you exhibit such a breathtaking lack of knowledge on the actual subject matter.   I would suggest reading some

8 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Hang on...it's not an identity crisis?  I get it, but these people are confused, no?

So how should i have worded that, in your opionion?

I'm just saying that there's a stigma around mental illness, and it's sort of predictable that when a person says "So-and-so suffers from a mental disorder" that some might read that as "So-and-so is crazy" and take offense.  If we were discussing the roots of gender dysphoria that might be unavoidable and everyone would just have to put up with it, but it's not relevant to sports IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm just saying that there's a stigma around mental illness, and it's sort of predictable that when a person says "So-and-so suffers from a mental disorder" that some might read that as "So-and-so is crazy" and take offense.  If we were discussing the roots of gender dysphoria that might be unavoidable and everyone would just have to put up with it, but it's not relevant to sports IMO.

I'm not saying their crazy, for the record.  I know it must tough living like that and no one is asking for them to suffer more or to not be treated like human beings.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

WTH is a "cis female " and why do you keep using "cis" in your posts?  That's not a word.

I find it very difficult to take your strong opinions in this thread seriously when you exhibit such a breathtaking lack of knowledge on the actual subject matter.  

I would suggest reading some stuff on wikipedia at the very least about "intersex", "sex testing" in the olympics, and the history of international sporting controversies with these issues.

Are you just picturing Tom Hanks in Bosum Buddies? This would be a complete misunderstanding of the complex medical issues involved. 

What about female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels?  This issue alone is incredibly complex and there are dozens of other aspects to this whole subject.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, growlers said:

I find it very difficult to take your strong opinions in this thread seriously when you exhibit such a breathtaking lack of knowledge on the actual subject matter.  

I would suggest reading some stuff on wikipedia at the very least about "intersex", "sex testing" in the olympics, and the history of international sporting controversies with these issues.

Are you just picturing Tom Hanks in Bosum Buddies? This would be a complete misunderstanding of the complex medical issues involved. 

What about female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels?  This issue alone is incredibly complex and there are dozens of other aspects to this whole subject.  

Give me a break.  So we all have to be experts on a subject before we can talk about it?

If that's what you got from my posts then you're clearly not reading them.  I'd appreciate it if you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Give me a break.  So we all have to be experts on a subject before we can talk about it?

If that's what you got from my posts then you're clearly not reading them.  I'd appreciate it if you did.

Well you called the whole subject a "mental issue" and made it clear you see the whole thing as black and white with no shades of gray.  

So yeah,  some more expertise in this thread besides watching that episode of South Park would be helpful to everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

So we all have to be experts on a subject before we can talk about it?

I value informed opinions. I don't value uninformed opinions. I have a bias but i also don't know much about this subject, so I am trying to absorb information and opinions from those that know more about it than I do. No matter whether it conforms to my bias or not. 

This is how one improves themself. By listening. Not by talking their way through it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I value informed opinions. I don't value uninformed opinions. I have a bias but i also don't know much about this subject, so I am trying to absorb information and opinions from those that know more about it than I do. No matter whether it conforms to my bias or not. 

This is how one improves themself. By listening. Not by talking their way through it.

This is an excellent take. All of us would be better served if we all did this more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I value informed opinions. I don't value uninformed opinions. I have a bias but i also don't know much about this subject, so I am trying to absorb information and opinions from those that know more about it than I do. No matter whether it conforms to my bias or not. 

This is how one improves themself. By listening. Not by talking their way through it.

Cool.   Then keep listening.  We'll fill you in with the deets.  :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

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.

Here is the three page executive order.  What about it is inappropriate at the federal level?

 

I’m not a lawyer and don’t read legalese but if the EO just says enforce the law of the land then I guess I would ask why do we need that?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

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.

For me, there’s a difference between fair competitive advantage and unfair competitive advantage.  In the case of what the OP suggested (and I honestly am answering that without even knowing how accurate it is) that is an obvious unfair advantage.

We don’t discriminate based on age (theoretically) in the real world but we do in sports because otherwise it is unfair and unsafe.  I see this as congruent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

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.

Any time you're talking about any competitive activity -- sports, chess, poker, whatever -- it's going to be the statistically insignificant number of people who live on the right tail of the distribution who dominate everything.  Small differences in population-level means generally translate into huge differences at the tails.  In the specific topic of men's and women's sports this is even more pronounced because the population-level differences are really large, not small.   

Yes I understand Bill James bell curve explanation and where elite athletes are on it.   But I don't know why we care who dominates.  The purpose of high school athletics and even college "where most athletes turn pro in something else" isn't to dominate but to participate.  To gain the valuable life lessons that come from the competition. 

I obviously believe that discriminations based on sex, which  the Supreme Court case of last summer finally formally included sexual orientation and gender identity should require the heightened (or whatever our lawyer friends call it) scrutiny.  That is the state needs a really strong reason to discriminate and needs for this discrimination to be very narrowly tailored.  I suspect that non trivial safety concerns would reach that level.  I suspect that there may be other legitimate reasons to carve out exceptions.  But someone might lose more often isn't really one of those concerns to me.  That being said I can see where reasonable people might disagree where lines are drawn and how legitimate a state concern might be, but a blanket you can't participate because society either wants to tell you who you are or simply doesn't want to be bothered by "those people" is never going to be legitimate. 

And again, how much of this problem goes away if we simply allow little girls to decide whether  or not they become men?  Sure there are going to be tough cases, some exceptions here or there but good policy is not created by discriminating against groups because the focus is on the exceptions.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

I’m not a lawyer and don’t read legalese but if the EO just says enforce the law of the land then I guess I would ask why do we need that?  

Because the law of the land was not enforced on this topic by the previous administration.  Arguably one could argue that the law was unsettled and open to interpretation until the end of the most recent Supreme Court session, but no longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

 

I obviously believe that discriminations based on sex, which  the Supreme Court case of last summer finally formally included sexual orientation and gender identity should require the heightened (or whatever our lawyer friends call it) scrutiny.  That is the state needs a really strong reason to discriminate and needs for this discrimination to be very narrowly tailored. 

I agree, and "competitive balance" easily clears this bar.  That's why we enforce sex discrimination in sports in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Because the law of the land was not enforced on this topic by the previous administration.  Arguably one could argue that the law was unsettled and open to interpretation until the end of the most recent Supreme Court session, but no longer.

This is really a separate discussion but if it’s the law then no EO is needed, right?  No matter the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I agree, and "competitive balance" easily clears this bar.  That's why we enforce sex discrimination in sports in the first place.

I disagree that "competitive balance" would clear the bar on its own.  Maybe an argument could be that girls are being denied the opportunities and the benefits that come from participation - you know the purpose of Title IX, but that brings us full circle to the quote that you jumped in on that an insignificant number of boys are going to be taking away these opportunities.   Except that this argument remains (except for that "insignificant" part)  no matter whether the girls we are referencing have the female box checked on their birth certificate or male box checked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

This is really a separate discussion but if it’s the law then no EO is needed, right?  No matter the topic.

The executive order instructs agencies to review their policies and to report back where they may be out of line with the law.  Earlier in the thread one of the conservative posters was talking about three track athletes in Connecticut.  The prior administration's  Department of Education told Connecticut that it was investigating their inclusive policy a violation of Title IX.  Whatever departmental language which makes this possible needs to go.  As well as in any other department (the executive order wasn't really about "destroying girl's sports").

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

I'm not "arguing" about those distinctions - I've already stated I'm not well versed in this area.  I will defer to your expertise.  I think my stance is fairly clear - if a person was assigned male at birth and has a physical advantage over people who were assigned female at birth in sports then I don't think they should be allowed to play female sports.  Due to unfair competitive advantage and the risk of injury.  Hopefully this is clear.

Totally with you here.  I know as a dad of two daughters I'd be pretty angry if someone who was born a male but was identifying now as a female injured one of them in an event.  The competitor in me would be pretty upset for them that they weren't given any sort of fair competitive shake either. 

I couldn't disagree more with an earlier comment that sports are about participating.  They aren't about winning all of the time either, but they are about competing and making yourself better, improving, and striving to win.  If the goal isn't to win, there's no point in playing.  If in the end you lose that's ok, but that's how you improve is to try and become better in order to win.  If the competitive balance is thrown so far off that winning isn't even a remotely achievable thing, it matters a lot.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

Totally with you here.  I know as a dad of two daughters I'd be pretty angry if someone who was born a male but was identifying now as a female injured one of them in an event.  The competitor in me would be pretty upset for them that they weren't given any sort of fair competitive shake either. 

I couldn't disagree more with an earlier comment that sports are about participating.  They aren't about winning all of the time either, but they are about competing and making yourself better, improving, and striving to win.  If the goal isn't to win, there's no point in playing.  If in the end you lose that's ok, but that's how you improve is to try and become better in order to win.  If the competitive balance is thrown so far off that winning isn't even a remotely achievable thing, it matters a lot.

But isn't this true in high school sports literally all of the time for some participants?  For most schools across the country, winning against Lebron James's high school basketball team wasn't remotely achievable.

I wrestled in high school.  I wasn't terrible, wasn't great.  My sophomore year, I got my butt handed to me by the state champ in my weight class (in approximately 68 seconds) in the state round of 16.  That kid was a really, really talented wrestler, but he was also ridiculously strong for the weight class, in part because his offseason weight was about 20 pounds higher.  I don't know that the rule was put in for this kid specifically, but between my sophomore and junior years, the state created a new competitive balance rule regarding body fat percentage.  Specifically, they measured your body fat percentage at the beginning of the season and calculated if it was below a certain percentage that you were cutting too much weight, and if so, the state added that weight to your actual weight and that was your official weight class for competition purposes.  To be clear, this rule was specifically intended to improve competitive balance and address safety concerns (1. kids wrestling kids that are naturally much heavier but dropping weight, and 2. kids dropping weight in an unsafe manner).  I personally didn't do any of that weight cutting stuff, and was just naturally skinny (don't worry, lots of that wore off in adulthood, so not "look at me"), such that my body fat was way below the state limit.  For me, the result was that while weighing 118 my junior year and about 130 my senior year, I was forced to wrestle at 130 and 145, respectively.  Guess what?  Winning wasn't even remotely achievable due to the rule intended to improve competitive balance.  I didn't even bother going out for the team senior year.  The reality is that virtually all competitive balance rules and safety rules will improve competitive balance in some areas and decrease it in others, as there are always exceptions and unintended consequences.

All that said, it appears that the law is already written and decided by SCOTUS, and Biden's EO simply instructs federal departments to ensure that they comply with the law already in place.  That's hardly "Biden destroyed women's sports".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I couldn't disagree more with an earlier comment that sports are about participating.  They aren't about winning all of the time either, but they are about competing and making yourself better, improving, and striving to win.  If the goal isn't to win, there's no point in playing.  If in the end you lose that's ok, but that's how you improve is to try and become better in order to win.  If the competitive balance is thrown so far off that winning isn't even a remotely achievable thing, it matters a lot.

I think it's important to put those comments in context.  This is the post we were responding to:

20 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

I don't think much of BladeRunner's perspective here, but I agree with you (Shula-holic) that important facets of sports include competing, improving, and striving to win.  But I also think that in the overwhelming majority of instances, those benefits of sports would still be possible for everyone even if trans athletes were allowed to compete in a manner consistent with their gender identity.  But if you don't allow that, you will be depriving many trans people of a genuine opportunity to get the very benefits that you describe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Of course it would.  We've discriminated on the basis of sex, which is a protected class, all this time.

Neither "of course it would" nor it has been this way "all this time" are ever compelling arguments for me.  Why do they matter?  What problem are they solving?  I have already listed at least two spin off potential problems, but I think they should actually be a problem before we go looking for a blanket solution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I couldn't disagree more with an earlier comment that sports are about participating.  They aren't about winning all of the time either, but they are about competing and making yourself better, improving, and striving to win.

And they are also about dealing with winning and dealing with losing, building self esteem (especially a problem for teen girls and the teen transgender populations), improves fitness and academic standing, creates social bonds including exposure to positive mentors, learn the benefits of being part of the larger community,  similar to what you listed they learn the three "P"s (persistence, patience and practice) along with teamwork and cooperation, gain leadership and time management skills, etc., etc.  These benefits come from the opportunity to participate . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Neither "of course it would" nor it has been this way "all this time" are ever compelling arguments for me.  Why do they matter?  What problem are they solving?  I have already listed at least two spin off potential problems, but I think they should actually be a problem before we go looking for a blanket solution.

 

I think we're going in circles on this one.  The reason why we segregate sports by sex is because we know there are very large population-level differences in athletic ability between males and females.  Normally, segregating people by sex (or any other category) is sketchy, and I agree with you that we need a compelling reason to do that.  In sports, that reason is easy and obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I think we're going in circles on this one.  The reason why we segregate sports by sex is because we know there are very large population-level differences in athletic ability between males and females.  Normally, segregating people by sex (or any other category) is sketchy, and I agree with you that we need a compelling reason to do that.  In sports, that reason is easy and obvious.

Nobody in this thread has argued for integrating all genders in all sports.  It may be "even and obvious" that there's a compelling reason to segregate sports to promote competition.  I think it is far less easy and obvious to say where the segregation line should be exactly.  It seems to me that there are compelling reasons to segregate people by their gender identification rather than by their gender assigned at birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nobody in this thread has argued for integrating all genders in all sports. 

I know.  I'm responding to a point made by a different poster about whether segregation in sports would clear some sort of legal bar.  It's an open question as to whether we should choose to segregate sports that way -- that's what this thread is about.

Edit: Maybe a clearer way to put it is that if we chose to segregate by gender identity instead of sex, I would disagree with that decision but wouldn't argue that it's somehow illegal.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

this wouldn't work because eventually the fringe groups would cry that girls are being dominated by the men and would never make the team.  Then we would have to have more "diversity" rules where teams MUST have X numbers of women on the team.  They don't want an equal starting point.  The want an equal outcome.

So sports (in this case) would be watered down.  We wouldn't have the best competing against the best.

well, sports would be dominated by men IMO

but it would be fair and equal competition

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nobody in this thread has argued for integrating all genders in all sports

why wouldn't that solve everything?  fair and equal to everyone

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine being a girl in this event...

Even though the 4x200 meters is the meet's first event, the crowd has begun to fill in the seats around the oval of the track and along the upper deck of the sprawling field house. It's the 2020 Class S indoor state championships in mid-February, and the field house will be full of fans cheering on the state's small schools. The fluorescents burn brightly overhead.

Yearwood waits as one, two, three, four teams pass the baton in front of her. She's run in different positions on relays for her team over the years, but for this one, as a senior, she's the anchor. Cromwell -- her 562-student school 28 miles north of here -- with its red and black uniforms, will start the final lap in fifth place, considerably behind.

Now the baton arrives, and Yearwood launches off the starting line. Baton in hand, she blows by Morgan High School. Three more seconds and she gets the better of the anchor for Canton. As she passes the 100-meter mark -- halfway through her lap -- she catches second-place St. Bernard.

Yearwood looks ahead and sees nothing but open track, except for a flash of orange turning the corner of the home stretch, some 25 meters ahead. Bloomfield senior Terry Miller.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I think we're going in circles on this one.  The reason why we segregate sports by sex is because we know there are very large population-level differences in athletic ability between males and females.  Normally, segregating people by sex (or any other category) is sketchy, and I agree with you that we need a compelling reason to do that.  In sports, that reason is easy and obvious.

Sure we are talking in circles.  Your argument is that it only takes a few of the 160,000 give or take transgendered high school girls (2% x 16 million  ÷ 2)  to destroy the opportunities for 3.5 million high school girl athletes because they are necessarily bigger and stronger and faster etc.  You think it is self evident.  I don't think those numbers add up.  Especially when we factor in those girls that are going to actively fight to minimize their masculinization before it is too late.  

But maybe I am wrong and you are right.  The only way to determine that is to allow participation, to allow hormone treatments, etc. and let it play out.   This doesn't work the other way around.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nobody in this thread has argued for integrating all genders in all sports. 

 

8 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know. 

 

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why wouldn't that solve everything?  fair and equal to everyone

OK, maybe not nobody.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Imagine being a girl in this event...

Even though the 4x200 meters is the meet's first event, the crowd has begun to fill in the seats around the oval of the track and along the upper deck of the sprawling field house. It's the 2020 Class S indoor state championships in mid-February, and the field house will be full of fans cheering on the state's small schools. The fluorescents burn brightly overhead.

Yearwood waits as one, two, three, four teams pass the baton in front of her. She's run in different positions on relays for her team over the years, but for this one, as a senior, she's the anchor. Cromwell -- her 562-student school 28 miles north of here -- with its red and black uniforms, will start the final lap in fifth place, considerably behind.

Now the baton arrives, and Yearwood launches off the starting line. Baton in hand, she blows by Morgan High School. Three more seconds and she gets the better of the anchor for Canton. As she passes the 100-meter mark -- halfway through her lap -- she catches second-place St. Bernard.

Yearwood looks ahead and sees nothing but open track, except for a flash of orange turning the corner of the home stretch, some 25 meters ahead. Bloomfield senior Terry Miller.

Seems exciting and fun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

OK, maybe not nobody.

I think girls sports have great value - all girls anything does. I think boys sports have great value as well as all boys things. 

But if you start allowing girls in boys things and boys in girls things, then just disband it all and go to unisex. 

Pandora's box is open - and it sucks for all the girls out there losing roster spots to trans players and eventually they'll lose scholarships and records and such as well. I remember discussing this in length on another forum and a lot of the girls are not happy they're being blown out of the water by a biological male athlete 

https://apnews.com/article/dcbca5cf940548628dba351f6c91bcd9

 

 

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I couldn't disagree more with an earlier comment that sports are about participating.  

While I already replied to this and I do think it is fair to discuss other aspects of the topic, ultimately the role that this executive order plays, the role that the federal government plays is Title IX.   You know that law that when enforced will destroy college football (as in the scene in The American President from 1995).   That law is about opportunity.  About participation

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Yeah. Watching two biological males dominate a girl's event in a state that has no requirements for hormone therapy sounds super exciting. 

You told me I was supposed to imagine that I was a girl competing in the event.  That seems exciting and fun.

I agree that watching the event seems terrible but that's because it's a high school track meet those are awful to watch in general.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

You told me I was supposed to imagine that I was a girl competing in the event.  That seems exciting and fun.

I agree that watching the event seems terrible but that's because it's a high school track meet those are awful to watch in general.

 

It is a relay. 75% of the competitors are watching. Obviously 3 of them got to watch one run by them to the foregone conclusion. And one got to wait at the finish line watching. 

But otherwise, spot on. You got me there. Good one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Sure we are talking in circles.  Your argument is that it only takes a few of the 160,000 give or take transgendered high school girls (2% x 16 million  ÷ 2)  to destroy the opportunities for 3.5 million high school girl athletes because they are necessarily bigger and stronger and faster etc.  You think it is self evident.  I don't think those numbers add up.  Especially when we factor in those girls that are going to actively fight to minimize their masculinization before it is too late.  

But maybe I am wrong and you are right.  The only way to determine that is to allow participation, to allow hormone treatments, etc. and let it play out.   This doesn't work the other way around.  

Again, if the # is so small then we shouldn't change anything and let boys compete against boys and girls compete against girls.

It's easy to turn your argument back on you and yet you keep repeating it ad nauseum.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this isn't about much else besides safety.   For lack of a better word, trans or non-trans we don't have much problem with people trying to "punch up" in sports as long as they can hang.    Example - there are women competing in men's sports (HS girl in wrestling or football for example), but even that is rare.   To my understanding we already don't allow it going the other way -  HS boy doesn't get to join the girl's LaCrosse or soccer team.   

To my knowledge that is us acknowledging that our bodies are different and there are safety issues.  (Again, I am speaking in generalities and I realize there are exceptions).  Muscle mass is different, bone density is different, body structure, hormones, on and on.   Males are stronger, faster, hit harder, etc.. and there are injury concerns there.   Somebody brought up competitive balance and I think that is secondary, but it's there.   Even in a sport like running - isn't the women's world record for the mile 4mins and 15 secs or something?   If I remember a recent podcast correctly they brought up something like it's on the level of 1000s of males have gone below that.   So I get the point of fair competitive balance too.  

Anyway, not sure where that leaves us or how to go about it.   Mostly my way of saying that I think it's OK to say that men transitioning to women might not be allowed in some of these competitions.  Not because they are trans, but because it's how we are already doing it because of safety.   That said, I am open to hearing arguments about timing of transitioning or how hormone therapy in a younger person would quell some of these concerns going forward too.   Example - there is probably a bit of a difference between a boy transitioning in his teens and competing later on in life (college, whatever) vs. Bruce Jenner training at a high level through adulthood and then transitioning and competing with women a year later.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

To my understanding we already don't allow it going the other way -  HS boy doesn't get to join the girl's LaCrosse or soccer team.   

 

Boys have been playing field hockey on girl's teams in the US for quite some time now

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Again, if the # is so small then we shouldn't change anything and let boys compete against boys and girls compete against girls.

It's easy to turn your argument back on you and yet you keep repeating it ad nauseum.

There are two different groups that you are conflating:

1) the number of trans athletes that would benefit from being able to participate; and

2) the number of trans athletes that would make girls sports non-competitive.  

When @Bottomfeeder Sports and others talk about minimal impacts, he is talking about the second group. He thinks the second group is very small.  If he is correct, then the arguments that you and others are making about competitiveness aren't very persuasive.  The small size of group 2 is an argument that strongly favors allowing trans athletes to compete.

The policy that you're advocating hurts group #1.  Both Bottomfeeder Sports and I think group #1 is much much larger than group #2.  So you aren't really turning his argument back on him, you're just misunderstanding the argument he's making and piggybacking on it to make your own argument.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

To me this isn't about much else besides safety.   For lack of a better word, trans or non-trans we don't have much problem with people trying to "punch up" in sports as long as they can hang.    Example - there are women competing in men's sports (HS girl in wrestling or football for example), but even that is rare.   To my understanding we already don't allow it going the other way -  HS boy doesn't get to join the girl's LaCrosse or soccer team.   

To my knowledge that is us acknowledging that our bodies are different and there are safety issues.  (Again, I am speaking in generalities and I realize there are exceptions).  Muscle mass is different, bone density is different, body structure, hormones, on and on.   Males are stronger, faster, hit harder, etc.. and there are injury concerns there.   Somebody brought up competitive balance and I think that is secondary, but it's there.   Even in a sport like running - isn't the women's world record for the mile 4mins and 15 secs or something?   If I remember a recent podcast correctly they brought up something like it's on the level of 1000s of males have gone below that.   So I get the point of fair competitive balance too.  

Anyway, not sure where that leaves us or how to go about it.   Mostly my way of saying that I think it's OK to say that men transitioning to women might not be allowed in some of these competitions.  Not because they are trans, but because it's how we are already doing it because of safety.   That said, I am open to hearing arguments about timing of transitioning or how hormone therapy in a younger person would quell some of these concerns going forward too.   Example - there is probably a bit of a difference between a boy transitioning in his teens and competing later on in life (college, whatever) vs. Bruce Jenner training at a high level through adulthood and then transitioning and competing with women a year later.  

Summing up pretty similar to my thoughts.  Part of it is I just don't know enough about all of it hormone wise and everything.  I get wanting to be inclusive...but definitely has to be safe for all involved.  Just as once kids get super big...they move them up and typically won't have boys who are already giant mowing down smaller kids when they get to a certain point.

 

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Oh, and the idea that Biden is "destroying women's sports" is asinine.  

That too

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dawgtrails said:

Boys have been playing field hockey on girl's teams in the US for quite some time now

I did not know this - thanks.   Is there checking allowed in field hockey?

I admit I could be off on this, I assumed it was more of a one way street, but I could see where there are boys in volleyball, gymnastics, cheer, etc. especially if there wasn't a boys version available.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

To me this isn't about much else besides safety.   

If this were true it would allow trans athletes to participate fully in all non-contact sports.  And many trans athletes could even participate in contact sports, depending on some evaluation of their physical strength, etc.  People seem to be under the impression that every trans athlete is Shaq in a dress.  That sort of person is extremely rare and it seems to me that safety issues for that sort of person in a contact sport can be dealt with narrowly instead of a blanket prohibition for all trans athletes in all sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I did not know this - thanks.   Is there checking allowed in field hockey?

I admit I could be off on this, I assumed it was more of a one way street, but I could see where there are boys in volleyball, gymnastics, cheer, etc. especially if there wasn't a boys version available.  

I am unsure of the rules of field hockey. I used to watch it occasionally when I was a high school teacher but absolutely hated it because a whistle blew like every 3 seconds. Awful spectator sport

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If this were true it would allow trans athletes to participate fully in all non-contact sports.  And many trans athletes could even participate in contact sports, depending on some evaluation of their physical strength, etc.  People seem to be under the impression that every trans athlete is Shaq in a dress.  That sort of person is extremely rare and it seems to me that safety issues for that sort of person in a contact sport can be dealt with narrowly instead of a blanket prohibition for all trans athletes in all sports.

I get that, and in my post I addressed that I get the argument from the natural competitive balance angle too.  I was just surprised at some of the stats and times as I looked at them a little more.  

I also get that we are talking about a tiny % and that there is a difference if we are talking MMA and boxing or table tennis.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...