Women’s Sports

My guess…lawyer?

Can’t see who you are responding to…

 

Just to be clear, you are against having separate men’s and women’s teams. You seem to believe having separate teams is equal to not allowing black players on white teams.

 

So you don't care about women. You are more with the mentally ill that think they are women. They are not.

 

Nope. Have already made my stance very clear.

 

I care about women. I don’t care about this bullshit issue. I can’t even remember the last time I even saw a trans person. Y’all are ridiculous about this shit.

 

Did you not read it what I posted? I Thomas should not have been allowed to compete.

 

Reminds me of the observation (obviously intended to be humorous but not that far from the truth) of one commentator, there are more bills and pending bills prohibiting the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports than there are transgender athletes. I recall after the Utah state legislature passed a bill prohibiting the participation of transgender athletes in high school sports a commentator noted that there were around 60,000 high school athletes in the state of which four were MTF transgenders. Even if that number is off by a factor of 10, i.e. the number is around 40, it's still minuscule.

 

You've been calling people who disagree with you on this issue 'bigots' for several years now and I think you're out of line to do so. You and I tangled on this issue nearly three years ago when I posted my thoughts - that it was unfair to cis gendered females to be forced to compete against transgendered females who went through puberty as males and have a decided physical advantage. As I recall you said it was unfair to the trans females to be excluded from athletic competitions, that it was insensitive to them to reject their self identity. In turn I again ask, what effect does it have on the greater numbers of girls and women who have trained long and hard for years to compete at the highest levels of their sport to be soul crushingly defeated by the fewer numbers of transgendered females who have superior strength and speed due to their prepuberty physical history? Is that not callous and insensitive?

Only recently has women sports attained a semblence of parity, equal funding and recognition due to Title 9. It was a long time coming and female athletes have worked hard and long for the sucesses and recognition they have earned and are due. And now, adding additional insult to the decades of 2nd or 3rd class treatment, comes a relatively small group of transwomen athletes who want to compete against them. I don't view that as fair. That does not make me a bigot. It does not make anyone who has that view a bigot.

 

Irrelevant to this discussion.

No. What you advocate eliminates fairness and punishes women.

 

There is a difference between striving to maintain competitive fairness and seeking to deny the opportunity to participate. People who actually care about competitive fairness can do so through policies that do not categorically bar transgender women from competing. When people push categorical bans, it's about discriminatory animus, not competitive fairness.

No, transgender girls and women want to compete WITH them. For some, due to the nature of their transition and sport, it's not fair at present. It might become fair in the future. For others, it is fair for them to compete. Categorical exclusion is bigoted policy. And I will continue to stand on that.

 

It's only "irrelevant" because you believe one is justified and one wasn't. There were plenty of people back then who thought segregating sports on race was very much justified.

What I advocate for promotes fairness and treats all women with respect and dignity.

 

When people compete, by definition they compete against each other.

 

So you think it fair when a Trans women (biological male) competes in the class for women, and wins, that she should get the first place award and be recognized as the best woman in the competition?

 

Team sports are about so much more than competing against other people. If you truly cared about fairness, your focus would be figuring out when it is and isn't fair for transgender girls and women to compete, rather than on excluding them categorically. And if that is your focus, we're on the same team. If it isn't, you don't care about fairness. Your goal is one of exclusion.

Here's an article talking about why the past one-year rule for Olympic sports was inadequate:
Trans women retain athletic edge after a year of hormone therapy, study finds

But the study's author disagrees with categorical bans:
Proponents of such legislation have already started using Roberts’ research to support their cause [categorically banning transgender women], but he insists he’s not on board.

“I'm definitely coming out and saying, ‘Hey, this doesn't apply to recreational athletes, doesn't apply to youth athletics,’” he said. “At the recreational level, probably one year is sufficient for most people to be able to compete.”

He also underscored the data he compiled was on adults: The average age of the airmen he studied was 26. A transgender woman who transitions before or at puberty, “doesn't really have any advantage” when it comes to athletic performance, he said. “So that young lady should be allowed to compete with all the other people who are born women.”

It’s at the Olympic level where a few percentage points matter, he said, “and we need to do a few more studies to see if that's a permanent effect.”

 

Under the right circumstances (if she transitioned before or at puberty or transitioned long enough ago to mitigate her biological advantages), yes.

 

which by definition would be prior to puberty, assuming if ever. So by your definition Lia Thomas, as an example, winning is not fair. Correct?

 

I guess the only way to solve this, is to change the rules of competition away from Women’s, to female, as in a biological sense. Then the other category would be “Open”, so trans women can participate in the open category.

I have to admit, this whole trans thing makes my head spin. The science says there are males and females, and medical science says gender dysphoria is a real thing. That all makes sense. But then when we get to the assertion that gender is a social construct, I don’t know what that means. It seems to me it is “gender stereotypes are a social construct”. Previously, through women’s liberation and also gay rights movement, it was determined that you can be man or woman, but not necessarily conform to traditional gender stereotypes. But now, we seem to be saying if you adhere to a historical gender stereotype, you are in fact that gender. That seems backwards to me.

 

From what I recall of the NCAA policy, I think it came up short based on findings from recent studies on maintaining competitive fairness. That is not Lia Thomas's fault. She followed the policy and competed according to the rules. If the NCAA revises its policy in light of the findings of the studies to maintain better competitive balance, I have no issue with it.

This is incorrect. At or before puberty is ONE way to mitigate the advantages.

 

It is the definition of the word. Puzzling that a lawyer would disagree with the literal definition of the word.

 

I don’t have a huge issue with this post and I’ve never personally blamed Lia Thomas. As to the at or before puberty, I just don’t know. I don’t have enough evidence or know the medical science well enough to know if most or all advantages are mitigated. I don’t have a position on it either way, but I’m not automatically against it.