But the current WA rule states that trans women are allowed to compete if they started medical transition before puberty.
If you think the rule is unfair, then you need to convince them by presenting your evidence.
No, I don't, because WA doesn't care what I think, or what you think. We're just arguing on a message board. So, do you have a study showing early transition negates male advantage? If no, then men, which is what transwomen are, should not compete in women's athletics.
But then trans athletes who are eligible under the WA rule are not breaking the rule as you suggest.
And whether this HS student in Maine is breaking the rule depends on whatever the rule of Maine HS sport association rule is. If the student is eligible under the existing rule, then no rule has been broken. Whether you like the rule or not is an entirely different question.
I take it you don’t disagree with anything I actually said.
Why would that be your take?
HS boys have testosterone and girls do not, giving the boys a major advantage in running. Hence a boy running as a girl in an all girls race has a huge advantage over every girl in the race.
This ain't brain surgery
Quote specific sentences of mine verbatim and state what you disagree with. I don’t don’t care to respond to silly rhetorical questions asking if I’ve heard of testosterone.
Really? How come trans runners are not clearing up global medals then? Not a single one. Zero.
What evidence makes you think the current rules are unfair to cis women as opposed to being unfair to transwomen? Is there some study showing that prepubertally transitioned transwomen with T < 2.5 for at least two years outperform cis women with similar training, diet, age, and other relevant control variables? Nobody even on this transphobic site thinks the current rules give trans- or even intersex women any shot at winning.
You are trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are arguing that men should be allowed to compete in the women's category, i.e. they should be allowed to break the existing rules. The burden should be on you to prove that it would not unfairly impact the existing women in the competition. Do you have a study showing early transition negates male advantage? If no, then men, which is what transwomen are, should not compete in women's athletics.
No sweetie, I am arguing that women should be allowed to compete in the women’s category. I am not asking for anyone to break existing rules.
I asked for proof that the current rules are unfair to cis women because the other poster claimed there was evidence. I wasn’t even talking to to but sounds like you don’t have any evidence either.
What guy would pass up competing aganst other guys to play with girls? Something is broke and needs fixing there, that just isn't how thngs are done. If I was a girl and some guy showed up to play I'm walking away and hopeing the rest of my friends do also, this is totally stupid and I want no part of this craziness.
Obviously not talking grade school kids or co ed sports. Not talking a mixed 4x4.
You can't pick and choose your sex, no more than you can your race, You are what you are, really is that simple.
You get arrested no cop is buying how you identify as a girl, you will be tossed in with the other guys in a holding cell. There is a toliet and a roll of TP, so all is not lost.
Oh Deno dear, your predictable bumbling naïveté and relentless machismo is so cute —like a Flintstone — that I’ll pass on beating up on you. Others do that plenty in other threads already.
Black people were asking for the same treatment as white people.
Transgirls are asking for the same treatment as cisgirls.
No perfect analogy for anything exists, but this one you have to admit is very very very similar.
They aren't asking for the same treatment. Your glossing over the fact that the trans person's ask is a three step process.
1. They are asking everyone ignore a biological fact.
2. They are asking that everyone recognize them as their chosen gender.
3. Then they are asking to chose the category that they compete in.
In this case, the competitor is asking that you ignore that they are a biological male and recognize them as a female and allow them to compete as a female.
In the case of Nikki Hiltz they are asking that you ignore that they are a biological female and recognize them as neither male nor female and allow them to compete as a female.
In the Leah Thomas they are asking you to ignore that they are biologically male and recognize them as female and allow them to compete as a female.
This is not asking for the same treatment. This is asking for special treatment. It is not even remotely close to same thing.
The length of your post notwithstanding, it’s far from clear anyone is getting special treatment. Sounds like different peoples are getting different treatment, which is how society works, e.g. with taxes, food stamps, medical care etc.
No, I don't, because WA doesn't care what I think, or what you think. We're just arguing on a message board. So, do you have a study showing early transition negates male advantage? If no, then men, which is what transwomen are, should not compete in women's athletics.
But then trans athletes who are eligible under the WA rule are not breaking the rule as you suggest.
And whether this HS student in Maine is breaking the rule depends on whatever the rule of Maine HS sport association rule is. If the student is eligible under the existing rule, then no rule has been broken. Whether you like the rule or not is an entirely different question.
Here is a list of transgender athlete policies by state:
A growing number of states and sports governing bodies are passing legislation that restricts transgender athletes' ability to participate in sports. What does science say, and how is legislation affecting athletes?
When you're arguing that *not going through* male puberty substantially evens the playing field, it would be really advantageous to your point if girls had approx 50% of youth world records, as it would show that they at least started even. Like, really advantageous to your point. So yeah, you should totally tell everyone about all the youth world records in track and field held by girls. It would certainly help convince me.
If you think your evidence is so good, why don't you present it to World Athletics? Actually, they already know it and determined it was irrelevant.
No, World Athletics don't actually have any evidence that would enable them - or you - to claim they "already know" that it's completely fair to open up women's competition to normally-developed male athletes whose parents and doctors decided to chemically castrate them at/by age 12, or Tanner Stage 2, and who've been ingesting gobs of Big Pharma estrogen products ever since.
The loophole for males who "medically transitioned" prior to age 12, or Tanner 2, whichever came first, that WA put in the new rules in late March 2023 are a sop.
That loophole was put in the new rules so that WA could give the appearance that it was trying to "thread the needle." This was a carefully-calculated political move done with the aim of mollifying advocates of fairness for female athletes and, at the same time, throwing a bone to the gender identity ideologues in hopes of staving off lawsuits from the extremely demanding, well-funded and highly-ligitious T lobby.
Another aim of adding that loophole and sop was to help counter and quiet the tidal wave of wailing, weeping and teeth-gnashing about "transphobia," "hate" and "denying trans existence" that WA knew would come crashing in once Seb Coe announced that WA had decided that the time had come, finally, to say "no" to all the pushy, intrusive, entitled trans-identified males who think their "gender identity" claims give them a divine right to horn in on women's track & field.
Since you seem unaware of this: the loophole that WA put in the new rules for athletes with the kinds of differences/disorders of male sex development that notables like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Christine Mboma all have, through no fault of their own, happens to be a sop too. A politcally pragmatic sop that's inevitably going to serve as a stopgap measure solely for the time being.
But then trans athletes who are eligible under the WA rule are not breaking the rule as you suggest.
And whether this HS student in Maine is breaking the rule depends on whatever the rule of Maine HS sport association rule is. If the student is eligible under the existing rule, then no rule has been broken. Whether you like the rule or not is an entirely different question.
Here is a list of transgender athlete policies by state:
It seems that the runner in Maine could be disqualified for being too fast.
Are you on the ME school Gender Identity Equity Committee? If they let her run, it would appear they didn’t conclude she had an advantage. In any case, she didn’t even medal, and it’s high school, so it’s much ado about not very much.
If you think your evidence is so good, why don't you present it to World Athletics? Actually, they already know it and determined it was irrelevant.
No, World Athletics don't actually have any evidence that would enable them - or you - to claim they "already know" that it's completely fair to open up women's competition to normally-developed male athletes whose parents and doctors decided to chemically castrate them at/by age 12, or Tanner Stage 2, and who've been ingesting gobs of Big Pharma estrogen products ever since.
The loophole for males who "medically transitioned" prior to age 12, or Tanner 2, whichever came first, that WA put in the new rules in late March 2023 are a sop.
That loophole was put in the new rules so that WA could give the appearance that it was trying to "thread the needle." This was a carefully-calculated political move done with the aim of mollifying advocates of fairness for female athletes and, at the same time, throwing a bone to the gender identity ideologues in hopes of staving off lawsuits from the extremely demanding, well-funded and highly-ligitious T lobby.
Another aim of adding that loophole and sop was to help counter and quiet the tidal wave of wailing, weeping and teeth-gnashing about "transphobia," "hate" and "denying trans existence" that WA knew would come crashing in once Seb Coe announced that WA had decided that the time had come, finally, to say "no" to all the pushy, intrusive, entitled trans-identified males who think their "gender identity" claims give them a divine right to horn in on women's track & field.
Since you seem unaware of this: the loophole that WA put in the new rules for athletes with the kinds of differences/disorders of male sex development that notables like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Christine Mboma all have, through no fault of their own, happens to be a sop too. A politcally pragmatic sop that's inevitably going to serve as a stopgap measure solely for the time being.
There is no evidence either way: that Tanner2/12, 2.5/2 imposes an unfair competitive disadvantage on trans or that it gives them an unfair advantage, but hardly anyone, you included, will actually bet good money that the trans have any shot with the current rules.
What are you fantasizing is the ultimate measure for which Mar’23 was a stopgap? It makes little sense to call them “loopholes” unless you believe WA secretly desires to create a backdoor for them, otherwise it’s just an overtly intended narrowing of the participation path.
But then trans athletes who are eligible under the WA rule are not breaking the rule as you suggest.
And whether this HS student in Maine is breaking the rule depends on whatever the rule of Maine HS sport association rule is. If the student is eligible under the existing rule, then no rule has been broken. Whether you like the rule or not is an entirely different question.
Here is a list of transgender athlete policies by state:
It seems that the runner in Maine could be disqualified for being too fast.
Thanks for the link. I agree this runner could be considered having an "athletic advantage." But what is the process? Here is the actual policy. Transgender eligibility is on pages 19-21.
My first question is why was this student approved (assuming that is the case)?
The policy says once the student is approved, it is valid through the duration of the student's high school career. (Procedure 2 d.) However, they may approve for shorter duration if there is reasonably foreseeable that the athletic advantage may increase as the student matures.
So my second question is, was this student given approval for the entire duration of high school, or for a shorter period? If it is the latter, when is the first opportunity the approval can be not renewed? If it is the former, is there any way to change that without changing the policy itself?
My third question is, what is the procedure to change the policy itself if that's the only way to change this student's eligibility before graduation?
It seems irresponsible to give a student eligibility for the entire high school career without seeing how much athletic advantage the student has in actual competitions. (If that's what they did.) What were the basis for their decision?
Since you seem unaware of this: the loophole that WA put in the new rules for athletes with the kinds of differences/disorders of male sex development that notables like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Christine Mboma all have, through no fault of their own, happens to be a sop too. A politcally pragmatic sop that's inevitably going to serve as a stopgap measure solely for the time being.
DSD policy could change again if Mboma runs too fast in her return. (She seems to be the only one with any realistic chance to make the Olympics or the World Championships.)
But why would they want to change their transgender policy? No trans athlete will qualify for the Olympic or World team under the current policy. Are they going to invite litigation from "well-funded transgender lobby" over nonexistent athlete? The only reason they might have is to appease the overzealous, well-funded anti-trans lobby. After all, no trans athlete made the Olympics or the World Championships team under the old policy. But that was not good enough for the anti-trans lobby. So not having the actual trans athlete to take away a spot on the team is not good enough to avoid the continuing outrage from the anti-trans lobby.
Why would a guy even want to compete in anything physical vs a girl? They really can't figure this out they don't get how damn uncool that is, really? Something just ain't right there.
I like most people couldn't care less about what somebody wants to be, its when they start being a bad situation for others, that is the problem. And the really bad thing is they don't care, it's all about them, and that will never be ok with me or anyone else. No class being shown at all.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Why would a guy even want to compete in anything physical vs a girl? They really can't figure this out they don't get how damn uncool that is, really? Something just ain't right there.
I like most people couldn't care less about what somebody wants to be, its when they start being a bad situation for others, that is the problem. And the really bad thing is they don't care, it's all about them, and that will never be ok with me or anyone else. No class being shown at all.
That’s about the 100th time you’ve posted the same opinion.
