We have merged two threads on this topic into 1 and kept the title of the longer thread. The other thread was called, "Adeline Johnson, high school senior, misses state due to biological male taking the last spot in California."
Gay marriage does not take anything away from other people. It does not trample on the rights of other people. When gay people marry, a wedding is not denied to a heterosexual couple. Nobody "loses."
I welcome you to compare that to what happens in sports when one person wins (another loses), when one person earns a spot in a final (someone else doesn't), when one person makes "All-NCAA/State/Conference" (someone else does not).
Sure, I’ve presented the premise for what you are asking in bold multiple times in posts on these boards. We are comparing the happiness of a tiny fraction of competitive women athletes (and a vanishingly small fraction of all women) that would have medaled move down a spot and thereby lose earnings against a tiny fraction of the already small fraction in the population of trans women facing at least the same consequence; in fact, with today’s rules, they have no shot at all at competitive sport.
Why is one tiny group’s happiness more important than the other’s and what is the quantifiable impact? Please show me an economic analysis. (I’m uninterested in stupid responses like “because it is inherently unfair for biological males blah blah blah”.)
Consider this hypothetical scenario of eligibility rules (based on T or others) that result in the fraction of trans women winning medals being comparable to that of cis women. What exactly would be unfair about such a scenario?
We currently don’t have practical eligibility rules ensuring the above outcome, but the current WA and FINA rules leave trans girls with no shot at competitive sport and force them to transition before 12, even as red states are clamoring to make transition therapy illegal until 18. On what moral basis can you consider this fair for trans girls? Why shouldn’t a small fraction of them, a fraction comparable to those among cis girls, win medals?
Has anybody confirmed that Adeline Johnson was giving the thumbs down to Athena or related to her finishing place because of Athena? Has Adeline commented post race? I tell you one thing, this is likely the first and last time the outcome of the CA north coast section girls’ 1600 will be reported in the NY Post, Fox News, etc. Sinclaire Johnson could smash the US 1500 record at the trials and none of these outlets would bother reporting on it. So much for truly championing women’s sports.
But there was a similar situation here in Maryland a mom told me the kids on the team do not care at all. I guess they've been brainwashed since birth that everyone is the same. You can do whatever you want - biology be damned.
I think most kids in HS sports (or younger) are just having fun. I don’t think they take these sorts of things that seriously. More about camaraderie with your teammates than anything else.
College, however, is different.
I don't think you spend any time around any serious youth or HS level athletes.
(I’m uninterested in stupid responses like “because it is inherently unfair for biological males blah blah blah”.)
This is not an issue about economics. It IS an argument about fundamental fairness. We will favor one small group's pursuit of happiness over the other's because one group has more of a right at stake than the other.
XX humans clearly have more of a right to participate in girls' sports than XY humans do.
The bold sentence is the only one I agree with. The rest conforms to silly unquantifiable claims I said don’t interest me. There is no science without numbers.
Sure, I’ve presented the premise for what you are asking in bold multiple times in posts on these boards. We are comparing the happiness of a tiny fraction of competitive women athletes (and a vanishingly small fraction of all women) that would have medaled move down a spot and thereby lose earnings against a tiny fraction of the already small fraction in the population of trans women facing at least the same consequence; in fact, with today’s rules, they have no shot at all at competitive sport.
Why is one tiny group’s happiness more important than the other’s and what is the quantifiable impact? Please show me an economic analysis. (I’m uninterested in stupid responses like “because it is inherently unfair for biological males blah blah blah”.)
Consider this hypothetical scenario of eligibility rules (based on T or others) that result in the fraction of trans women winning medals being comparable to that of cis women. What exactly would be unfair about such a scenario?
We currently don’t have practical eligibility rules ensuring the above outcome, but the current WA and FINA rules leave trans girls with no shot at competitive sport and force them to transition before 12, even as red states are clamoring to make transition therapy illegal until 18. On what moral basis can you consider this fair for trans girls? Why shouldn’t a small fraction of them, a fraction comparable to those among cis girls, win medals?
How is it that boys and men think that they should be allowed to compete against girls/women if girls and women want, and have fought for, the right to their own competitive playing field? The arrogance in taking the position that girls/women should just move over from within their own, legitimately earned playing fields because these boys/men want to take over is simply breath taking.
Consider this hypothetical scenario of eligibility rules (based on T or others) that result in the fraction of trans women winning medals being comparable to that of cis women. What exactly would be unfair about such a scenario?
We currently don’t have practical eligibility rules ensuring the above outcome, but the current WA and FINA rules leave trans girls with no shot at competitive sport and force them to transition before 12, even as red states are clamoring to make transition therapy illegal until 18. On what moral basis can you consider this fair for trans girls? Why shouldn’t a small fraction of them, a fraction comparable to those among cis girls, win medals?
How is it that boys and men think that they should be allowed to compete against girls/women if girls and women want, and have fought for, the right to their own competitive playing field? The arrogance in taking the position that girls/women should just move over from within their own, legitimately earned playing fields because these boys/men want to take over is simply breath taking.
You have the terminology wrong. We are talking one class of women versus another. Fix that and then we can talk.
Has anybody confirmed that Adeline Johnson was giving the thumbs down to Athena or related to her finishing place because of Athena? Has Adeline commented post race? I tell you one thing, this is likely the first and last time the outcome of the CA north coast section girls’ 1600 will be reported in the NY Post, Fox News, etc. Sinclaire Johnson could smash the US 1500 record at the trials and none of these outlets would bother reporting on it. So much for truly championing women’s sports.
Unless CIF changes its rule before the next season, won't Athena Ryan be competing again next year? So they will report it once again, and then forget about it until the next trans runner comes along.
Well, because they’re not girls. In what world does the feelings of one person trump the feelings of all other competitors and the fairness of the competition itself?
(I’m uninterested in stupid responses like “because it is inherently unfair for biological males blah blah blah”.)
(And as I have posted before, I am a Democrat, and a proud liberal).
Funny when people tout their political affiliation like that means anything. I can’t care less. FWIW, I don’t identify as a liberal (or have any party affiliation) because I’m capable of thinking for myself.
I’m a registered Democrat and support a complete ban.
I’m not a registered Democrat, but I support athletes competing in their identified gender. I don’t see this as a fairness issue. It’s a participation issue. It’s an acceptance issue. It’s a validation of humanity issue.
Well, because they’re not girls. In what world does the feelings of one person trump the feelings of all other competitors and the fairness of the competition itself?
It’s bizarre that I, like many people, read this as unabashed transphobia, but others will nod in agreement, strokes their chins, and say, “ah, yes. Science and what what.”
If one person’s feelings can be summed up as: “I want to run a race.” And the other person’s are, “your gender identity is false.” I’m sorry, the person’s feelings who just wants to run a race trumps the hateful person.
As an analogy of this concept, Jesse Owens’s feelings trumped Hitler’s feelings in 1936.
I’m a registered Democrat and support a complete ban.
I’m not a registered Democrat, but I support athletes competing in their identified gender. I don’t see this as a fairness issue. It’s a participation issue. It’s an acceptance issue. It’s a validation of humanity issue.
So if me a 4:13 miler decides I want to identify as a girl and break every record in women's history then it's okay just because everyone is forced to accept me or be called transphobic?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.