Create an Open category as mentioned.
Create an Open category as mentioned.
Which is a better lesson to teach kids: It is ok to exclude trans girls from school sports because they have too much of an advantage or it is ok to have to compete against a trans girl because it is not fair to keep them out of sports because of who they are?
If the purpose of scholastic sports is to select the best biologically female athletes to commodify their talents for college scholarships, then you would go with the former. You would also have to answer serious questions about why scarce resources should be dedicated to assisting in this process instead of helping students in need, etc.
If the purpose of scholastic sports is to help kids develop into better people by learning to work as a team, build self esteem through training and competition and learn to be accepting of everyone's differences, then you would go with the latter. And you would not have any need to defend the expenditure of public funds on school sports.
It's hilarious how worked up letsrun, rogan dittoheads etc get about this, for like a DOZEN women and in the semi or elite world like NONE
Women who are completely transitioned have a testosterone level of like ONE nmol or less. Go ask some post-menopausal woman what's it's like to run like that. Now imagine they have the same body weight of a man their size.
Imagine raging that hard against such a tiny minority. Imagine passing actual laws at a cost of what, millions? Against a dozen athletes who will never podium. Yeah that's not suspect at all.
Don't try to confuse everyone with non-ops or women in name only not even on hormones, you know damn well it's not the same thing, you just want to make scapegoats.
Go back to the pre-2016 rules before they messed with them and problem solved.
Meanwhile stop whining and targeting tiny minorities as some kind of piñata
Precious Roy wrote:
Which is a better lesson to teach kids: It is ok to exclude trans girls from school sports because they have too much of an advantage or it is ok to have to compete against a trans girl because it is not fair to keep them out of sports because of who they are?
If the purpose of scholastic sports is to select the best biologically female athletes to commodify their talents for college scholarships, then you would go with the former. You would also have to answer serious questions about why scarce resources should be dedicated to assisting in this process instead of helping students in need, etc.
If the purpose of scholastic sports is to help kids develop into better people by learning to work as a team, build self esteem through training and competition and learn to be accepting of everyone's differences, then you would go with the latter. And you would not have any need to defend the expenditure of public funds on school sports.
A great post.
missing information wrote:
It's hilarious how worked up letsrun, rogan dittoheads etc get about this, for like a DOZEN women and in the semi or elite world like NONE
Women who are completely transitioned have a testosterone level of like ONE nmol or less. Go ask some post-menopausal woman what's it's like to run like that. Now imagine they have the same body weight of a man their size.
Imagine raging that hard against such a tiny minority. Imagine passing actual laws at a cost of what, millions? Against a dozen athletes who will never podium. Yeah that's not suspect at all.
Don't try to confuse everyone with non-ops or women in name only not even on hormones, you know damn well it's not the same thing, you just want to make scapegoats.
Go back to the pre-2016 rules before they messed with them and problem solved.
Meanwhile stop whining and targeting tiny minorities as some kind of piñata
Imagine advocating for men to be allowed to destroy women in sports. Imagine men being allowed to physically pummel women to the point of fracturing their skull. This happened in MMA when Fallon Fox was allowed to compete against other women. He brutally crushed them. Tell me how that is in anyway fair.
What kind of lesson is it to teach kids that you can train hard all your life, but when a man decides he wants to be a woman, your training goes out the window.
Disko Eric wrote:
Nikki Hiltz has plenty of women.
Um ...
missing information wrote:
It's hilarious how worked up letsrun, rogan dittoheads etc get about this, for like a DOZEN women and in the semi or elite world like NONE
Women who are completely transitioned have a testosterone level of like ONE nmol or less. Go ask some post-menopausal woman what's it's like to run like that. Now imagine they have the same body weight of a man their size.
Imagine raging that hard against such a tiny minority. Imagine passing actual laws at a cost of what, millions? Against a dozen athletes who will never podium. Yeah that's not suspect at all.
Don't try to confuse everyone with non-ops or women in name only not even on hormones, you know damn well it's not the same thing, you just want to make scapegoats.
Go back to the pre-2016 rules before they messed with them and problem solved.
Meanwhile stop whining and targeting tiny minorities as some kind of piñata
You missed that it was a bunch of former Olympians, including many women amongst them, who have expressed concern about what transgender participation will do to women's sport. It isn't an invention of Letsrun. Try actually reading the thread.
Which is a better lesson to teach kids: It is ok to exclude trans girls from school sports because they have too much of an advantage or it is ok to have to compete against a trans girl because it is not fair to keep them out of sports because of who they are?(quote)
That is a false argument. The lesson is that transgender individuals are excluded from girls sports because fairness requires that males do not compete against girls. Sports categories - like age and weight - and, yes, also gender- are biological categories, not social options.
The purpose of scholastic sports is not to divide them into competing purposes. They can foster excellence amongst the best athletes as well as encourage participation by all. They have long done that. But the point being made by female Olympians in the story at the top of the thread is that transgender participation in female sports will be at the cost of female sports. Female athletes cannot successfully compete against biological males. There will have to be another formula than simply saying girls sports are open to any male who identifies as female.
Here lies the rub: it is not about emancipation or competition when you delve beneath the surface of the Trans phenomena. This category has always been able to run in the open division because biologically they are entitled to as xy. And since no trans athletes that are xx are clamoring to compete with bio men, we must conclude that an unfair advantage is at the root of men seeking to compete as women. Self interest will always point to the clearest motivation underlying the non binary athletic phenomenon.
anonymous maximis wrote:
Here lies the rub: it is not about emancipation or competition when you delve beneath the surface of the Trans phenomena. This category has always been able to run in the open division because biologically they are entitled to as xy. And since no trans athletes that are xx are clamoring to compete with bio men, we must conclude that an unfair advantage is at the root of men seeking to compete as women. Self interest will always point to the clearest motivation underlying the non binary athletic phenomenon.
Every statement in this is false.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
anonymous maximis wrote:
Here lies the rub: it is not about emancipation or competition when you delve beneath the surface of the Trans phenomena. This category has always been able to run in the open division because biologically they are entitled to as xy. And since no trans athletes that are xx are clamoring to compete with bio men, we must conclude that an unfair advantage is at the root of men seeking to compete as women. Self interest will always point to the clearest motivation underlying the non binary athletic phenomenon.
Every statement in this is false.
No, he’s on a pretty good tract. Don’t let your emotions cloud your view of the facts.
anonymous maximis wrote:
And since no trans athletes that are xx are clamoring to compete with bio men, we must conclude that an unfair advantage is at the root of men seeking to compete as women.
Mack Beggs says hello to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_BeggsYawn^3 wrote:
Imagine advocating for men to be allowed to destroy women in sports. Imagine men being allowed to physically pummel women to the point of fracturing their skull. This happened in MMA when Fallon Fox was allowed to compete against other women. He brutally crushed them. Tell me how that is in anyway fair.
w.
The same Fox who was knocked out by a girl who was never very competive in UFC? Why do you think she would have been competive at a high level? Doesn't sound like crushes to me.
Did you worry about McCanns, Tate, or any of the other skull fractures that happen every other month in MMA?
ATEA4RE wrote:
We'll get nowhere unless we can separate out the two main issues:
1. Do trans women have an unfair advantage in sports and, in some cases, pose a potential safety problem, in addition to fairness? Clearly yes.
2. What is the scope of this "problem" currently and what should be appropriately be done about it? Less clear.
It's funny.... it's seems the only argument for letting trans compete in any category they want seems to be, "well, it's a very small amount of the population and it's not a problem yet". While that may be true, and we shouldn't be making policy on conjecture, there is plenty of evidence to support that it's an unfair advantage and unfair in women's sports. Race dysphoria and age dysphoria are also rare conditions but we don't see people arguing over eliminating age categories or letting someone identify as a different race than what they were born with.
Sport needs sensible regulation even if it's a rare scenario.
ddidididid wrote:
Yawn^3 wrote:
Imagine advocating for men to be allowed to destroy women in sports. Imagine men being allowed to physically pummel women to the point of fracturing their skull. This happened in MMA when Fallon Fox was allowed to compete against other women. He brutally crushed them. Tell me how that is in anyway fair.
w.
The same Fox who was knocked out by a girl who was never very competive in UFC? Why do you think she would have been competive at a high level? Doesn't sound like crushes to me.
Did you worry about McCanns, Tate, or any of the other skull fractures that happen every other month in MMA?
You must not be a real mma fan. Read the interview from a few of the fighters who had to fight fox. They say they never felt punches like that before.
Are you really trying to argue the average man does not punch harder then the average female, or better yet, that someone like max holloway doesn’t punch harder then Amanda nunes ?
The whole business of segregating sports by sex is just as dumb as the old system of segregating sports by race. We got rid of segregated baseball leagues. Sex segregation needs to go next. Get rid of archaic categories, make one category that everyone competes in, and leave it at that.
More talented people will be more successful and less talented people will be less successful. No one complains because taller people do better at basketball. That's just life.
Slippin into the future wrote:
The whole business of segregating sports by sex is just as dumb as the old system of segregating sports by race. We got rid of segregated baseball leagues. Sex segregation needs to go next. Get rid of archaic categories, make one category that everyone competes in, and leave it at that.
More talented people will be more successful and less talented people will be less successful. No one complains because taller people do better at basketball. That's just life.
Idiot of the day award goes to you bro. There would be no women in any professional sports or in college
Yawn^3 wrote:
ddidididid wrote:
The same Fox who was knocked out by a girl who was never very competive in UFC? Why do you think she would have been competive at a high level? Doesn't sound like crushes to me.
Did you worry about McCanns, Tate, or any of the other skull fractures that happen every other month in MMA?
You must not be a real mma fan. Read the interview from a few of the fighters who had to fight fox. They say they never felt punches like that before.
Are you really trying to argue the average man does not punch harder then the average female, or better yet, that someone like max holloway doesn’t punch harder then Amanda nunes ?
Are you a fan? Seems like you are surprised by fractures and ignorant of the fact that the tranwoman didn't dominate. She lost against mediocre competition. If she would have been allowed to fight, all the evidence is she would have been in the bottom quarter of her division.
Are you really trying to argue that a tranwoman has the strength of a man? Are you that ignorant of the effects of hormones on human performance?
Yawn^3 wrote:
Slippin into the future wrote:
The whole business of segregating sports by sex is just as dumb as the old system of segregating sports by race. We got rid of segregated baseball leagues. Sex segregation needs to go next. Get rid of archaic categories, make one category that everyone competes in, and leave it at that.
More talented people will be more successful and less talented people will be less successful. No one complains because taller people do better at basketball. That's just life.
Idiot of the day award goes to you bro. There would be no women in any professional sports or in college
It's a troll/bot post - the poster you replied to disagrees with trans participation as much as you do.
They play both sides - you were the useful idiot they wanted to reply and provide the attack for them.
Why does anyone need to be "consulted" regarding women competing with other women?