Maybe you should ask if they want to be called cis-females or just females , girls or what their names are.
LBGT doesn't have the right to choose what goes before our biological sex and we don;t need anything there because there are only two of those( and some unfortunate birth defects).
Dufus wrote:
Maybe you should ask if they want to be called cis-females or just females , girls or what their names are.
LBGT doesn't have the right to choose what goes before our biological sex and we don;t need anything there because there are only two of those( and some unfortunate birth defects).
LBGT didn't didn't choose who gets to compete; it was litigated over 40 years ago during a far less tolerant time.
Many posters go on and on about how transgender females shouldn't be allowed to compete against women, but it's not an open issue and Vickie Huber's two cents won't change that.
Of course it's an "open issue"... you can just change the law.
But those who believe in some "progress of history" or something don't believe that the populace has the right to make up its own mind (think Prohibition, gambling's to-and-fro history), and decide on its own.
SDSU Aztec, has demonstrated their person to believe that laws are immutable.
IDOn'tGetIT wrote:
SDSU Aztec, has demonstrated their person to believe that laws are immutable.
Currently there is no indication that women's sports are going to be ruined. June Eastwood maybe finishing 50th at nationals is not going to put pressure on IOC to ban transgender females. June only has one year of eligibility so most likely there will no transgenders distance runners in the NCAA next year.
Transgender females have been eligible to compete in the Olympics since 2004, but not single one has competed yet. Why is the destruction of women's sports taking so long?
The high school thing will be to watch. It doesn't take waiting until there is an epidemic , which may well be on the horizon. Many government officials health professionals , other concerned parties including many transgender individuals , are worried about that. There are plenty of people who are disinterested in seeing that happen , or risking seeing it happen for a lot of reasons and for a lot people's sake including for those apparently rapidly increasing tweens and teens who could be dealing with or faking gender dysphoria .
If mainstream politicians can work across the aisles it will be on something like this. Maybe some kind of intervention would come quickly.
No room for HATE here wrote:
Pudding Proof wrote:
How many HS transwomen have run 4:12 mile and beat one of Coach Vicki's cis-female runners?
RE: HS track coach Vicki Huber (former Olympian) is latest to claim that allowing trans-women to compete as women ruins sports
Maybe it "ruins sports" FOR HER (Vicki), but what a'bout for all the OTHERS???
Only when ALL can compete, is it FAIR!!!!!
What is wrong with you people? There is no such thing as a trans-woman. A man that pretends to be a woman is still a man.
IDOn'tGetIT wrote:
The high school thing will be to watch. It doesn't take waiting until there is an epidemic , which may well be on the horizon. Many government officials health professionals , other concerned parties including many transgender individuals , are worried about that. There are plenty of people who are disinterested in seeing that happen , or risking seeing it happen for a lot of reasons and for a lot people's sake including for those apparently rapidly increasing tweens and teens who could be dealing with or faking gender dysphoria .
If mainstream politicians can work across the aisles it will be on something like this. Maybe some kind of intervention would come quickly.
I agree that allowing untreated boys to compete, as is the case in Connecticut, is unacceptable. I don't understand why some states allow that.
Another thing that needs to be changed is that the NCAA must strictly enforce the hormone treatment requirements.
For the time being, those are the only issues to be dealt with. If June runs 3:50 next Spring a new legal battle will commence, but it's more likely she will run 4:15 or so.
Not a fan of hormones at all but these young people are at least over 18. Some of them want to take them anyway.
Still a lot of wiggle room to manipulate this level or that. But non-trans kids can cheat to. Going to come down to whether the science defends advantage or no, perhaps, currently it's widely held that M-F have advantages.
It’s just common sense.
IDontGetIT wrote:
Not a fan of hormones at all but these young people are at least over 18. Some of them want to take them anyway.
Still a lot of wiggle room to manipulate this level or that. But non-trans kids can cheat to. Going to come down to whether the science defends advantage or no, perhaps, currently it's widely held that M-F have advantages.
I guess there are some issues about younger people taking hormone treatments and if they don't want to,the only option should be to compete against boys.
Treated M-Fs probably still have an advantage, but unless happens at a high level, no pressure will be put on the current rules.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Currently there is no indication that women's sports are going to be ruined.
More crucially, WHO CARES IF WOMEN'S SPORTS ARE RUINED?
Isn't it obvious that trans rights are much much more important, both directly and historically, than whether or not some priviliged population segment gets enjoyment from their closed-door concept of social athletic cheeriness?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The article does really contain much other than her opinion that men are better athletes. I didn't know that most state meet champions run near 4:00.
You mean the college men's 1500?
Title IX wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Currently there is no indication that women's sports are going to be ruined.
More crucially, WHO CARES IF WOMEN'S SPORTS ARE RUINED?
Isn't it obvious that trans rights are much much more important, both directly and historically, than whether or not some priviliged population segment gets enjoyment from their closed-door concept of social athletic cheeriness?
My answer to your first question is that I care. I enjoy women's tennis and T&F especially. The women's 1500 at the WC is one the greatest races I've ever seen.
As to your second question I think athletic cheeriness is good.
So Vick said chicks with dicks deserve the kick.......
Although I voted for Trump I am completely on SDSU Aztec’s side on this one. When our local suburban Chicago high schoolgirls mile record gets broken by a transgender I will be in the stands laughing my @ss off at the idiot pink hat suburban moms of the other girls.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Dufus wrote:
Maybe you should ask if they want to be called cis-females or just females , girls or what their names are.
LBGT doesn't have the right to choose what goes before our biological sex and we don;t need anything there because there are only two of those( and some unfortunate birth defects).
LBGT didn't didn't choose who gets to compete; it was litigated over 40 years ago during a far less tolerant time.
Many posters go on and on about how transgender females shouldn't be allowed to compete against women, but it's not an open issue and Vickie Huber's two cents won't change that.
Why do you insist that if something is "litigated" that somehow it can't still change? Last time I checked, our laws can. Also, you asked why her opinion matters. She is a woman and these rules affect women. So as women respond to these occurrences, their weight carries far more than yours or mine. If women decide by a majority that they don't want to compete against trans women, then it should be their choice. Why not simply have biological females and men/open for two divisions? If the notion that this is unfair due to competitive advantages for men, I think you are now starting to get how women feel when having to compete against trans women.
MikeMach1977 wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
LBGT didn't didn't choose who gets to compete; it was litigated over 40 years ago during a far less tolerant time.
Many posters go on and on about how transgender females shouldn't be allowed to compete against women, but it's not an open issue and Vickie Huber's two cents won't change that.
Why do you insist that if something is "litigated" that somehow it can't still change? Last time I checked, our laws can. Also, you asked why her opinion matters. She is a woman and these rules affect women. So as women respond to these occurrences, their weight carries far more than yours or mine. If women decide by a majority that they don't want to compete against trans women, then it should be their choice. Why not simply have biological females and men/open for two divisions? If the notion that this is unfair due to competitive advantages for men, I think you are now starting to get how women feel when having to compete against trans women.
Laws can change, but arguments about x's and y's and a guy is a guy have already been litigated. There needs to be evidence that the current rules are unfair to argue for a change. Not only is there no evidence, there hasn't been even a single test case at the U.S national, international or Olympic levels. What fire needs to be put out? Do you think the IAAF is going to care about a D-2 hurdler?
If a mediocre male runner like Jonathan Eastwood can run a women's1500 WR, than for sure, change could happen. But until then, a "We don't like it" argument isn't enough.
Dufus wrote:
Maybe you should ask if they want to be called cis-females or just females , girls or what their names are.
LBGT doesn't have the right to choose what goes before our biological sex and we don;t need anything there because there are only two of those( and some unfortunate birth defects).
Why is it that when I see LBGT, I think LRBF?