They should compete in the boys division because they are boys. No other "solution" is correct.
But that isn't going to happen. The train has left the station. Rather than try and stop it, we need to figure out how to make it work. In my proposed scenario, nobody gets hurt.
Your proposed scenario violates the current rules and transgender athletes would consider it to be a ban, anyway.
There are non binary divisions in road races now. What is rule is being broken by having a separate division where all competitors are equal?
The transgender athletes are allowed to compete in the girls division. Your scenario is taking that right away from them. HS sports have absolutely nothing to do with non-binary divisions in road racing.
But that isn't going to happen. The train has left the station. Rather than try and stop it, we need to figure out how to make it work. In my proposed scenario, nobody gets hurt.
Your proposed scenario violates the current rules and transgender athletes would consider it to be a ban, anyway.
You are missing the point. "The current rules" are not working. They need to be either changed or modified. If not for this year, certainly the next year and beyond.
And being "discriminatory" does not automatically mean it will be overturned in the court. The court will accept "reasonable discrimination" (e.g. not allowing blind people to drive.) That's the precedent established in Semenya v. IAAF.
I missed the California state meet in the 180LH because in the sectionals I split a hurdle in two and crashed.
In this situation, I would like to think that I and others who made it to the state meet, would scratch from the event in protest and let the two transgender's have an empty victory.
It is not the race that is important, it is the journey. Women have the right to race against women. Knowing that they made the state meet, should be enough when they tell their future families that they made the state meet and why they did what they did.
Twice I walked away from a race by boycotting them. One was a Western Canada Championship 400mH race when I learned that lanes 7 & 8 on a very windy day were given to the two fastest runners so far in that year while the rest of us drew popsicle sticks for the other 6 lanes. In fact, one of the runners had only beat me once before. The second time when I found myself in the slower heat of the Alberta Indoor Championships timed 800 finals, because another athlete had lied about his seed time from a meet he didn't attend. Both times I scratched out when the starter said, "On your marks". I got up; made a statement and walked away. I have never regretted my decisions and continue to run 66 years later.
Scientific Fact: that 2 out of 11000 people are born with both sex organs. They did not have a choice.
Your proposed scenario violates the current rules and transgender athletes would consider it to be a ban, anyway.
You are missing the point. "The current rules" are not working. They need to be either changed or modified. If not for this year, certainly the next year and beyond.
And being "discriminatory" does not automatically mean it will be overturned in the court. The court will accept "reasonable discrimination" (e.g. not allowing blind people to drive.) That's the precedent established in Semenya v. IAAF.
Semenya was not forced to compete in a separate division and neither was Lia Thomas. Neither FINA or WA went for a ban and that’s what you proposal is. The separate division will P-off just about everyone. The athletes won’t want to run it and the spectators won’t want to watch it.
You are missing the point. "The current rules" are not working. They need to be either changed or modified. If not for this year, certainly the next year and beyond.
And being "discriminatory" does not automatically mean it will be overturned in the court. The court will accept "reasonable discrimination" (e.g. not allowing blind people to drive.) That's the precedent established in Semenya v. IAAF.
Semenya was not forced to compete in a separate division and neither was Lia Thomas. Neither FINA or WA went for a ban and that’s what you proposal is. The separate division will P-off just about everyone. The athletes won’t want to run it and the spectators won’t want to watch it.
I don't think they like to watch males beating females.
Scientific Fact: that 2 out of 11000 people are born with both sex organs. They did not have a choice.
No, that's total malarkey. True hermaphroditism does not occur in humans. There's never been a case of a human being born with "both sex organs."
None of the 40 or so different medical condtions known as DSDs (differences or disorders of sex development) involve being born with or later developing "both sex organs."
Also, DSDs that cause person to be born with external sex organs that either look ambiguous or are inconsistent with their chromosomal/genetic sex and internal anatomy are extremely rare, affecting 0.018% of the human population.
If it really were true that it's a "scientific fact that 2 out of 11,000 people are born with both sex organs," how come there's never been a single case report published in scientific and medical literature documenting any these people and describing their unusual anatomy in detail?
If it were really true that legions of human being over the course of history have been born with both female and male sex organs, then it's odd that no doctor, scientist or someone associated with the "Guinness Book of World Records" or "Ripley's Believe It Or Not!" has ever taken the time to describe, draw or provide modern medical imagining showing where the prostate, seminal vesicles and vas deferens of these people are located in relation to their uterus, cervix and vagina.
If it were really a "scientific fact" that legions of human beings over the course of history have been born with both female and male sex organs, it would mean they'd have two entirely separate urethras and two urethral openings - one at the end of their penis, and one in the vulva in front of their vaginal opening. How exactly woudl they urinate? Would they urinate from urethras and openings simultaneously? Or would they alternate between the two?
It there have always been babies born with two urethras and urethral openings, how come they've never gotten a single mention in the vast written literature and oral information about the mechanics of human urination that parents - mostly mums - and nannnies, governesses, and nursery workers have relied on since time immemorial for advice about both proper diapering hygiene and how and when to toilet train children?
You are missing the point. "The current rules" are not working. They need to be either changed or modified. If not for this year, certainly the next year and beyond.
And being "discriminatory" does not automatically mean it will be overturned in the court. The court will accept "reasonable discrimination" (e.g. not allowing blind people to drive.) That's the precedent established in Semenya v. IAAF.
Semenya was not forced to compete in a separate division and neither was Lia Thomas. Neither FINA or WA went for a ban and that’s what you proposal is. The separate division will P-off just about everyone. The athletes won’t want to run it and the spectators won’t want to watch it.
Semenya played boys' sports throughout Semenya's childhood and was on a boys' soccer or football team as a teenager in HS before Semenya decided to concentrate on running.
Competing against males for many years seems to have suited Semenya fine. In fact, Semenya loved it. Since becoming a star in elite women's running, Semenya has publicly boasted numerous times about doing boys' sports growing up and about how great it was to have grown up being treated as one of the boys.
So what exactly is the rationale for Semenya switching to the female category when Semenya took up running?
Moreover, what exactly is the rationale for WA still allowing Semenya and other XY DSD athletes with male-only sex development conditions to compete in women's sports so long as they reduce the massive amounts of T that their testes pump out for a time?
Similarly, even after Penn's headline-making trans-identified male swimmer changed names from William to Lia and switched from the Penn's men's swim team to the Penn women's team, Thomas still took part in social events for the Penn men's team such as the men's annual team dinner. When women on the Penn women's squad that Thomas has inserted Thomaself into asked Thomas about this, Thomas said that the other guys on the men's squad were/are Thomas's good friends, and Thomas still enjoyed hanging out with them and benefited from their camradarie even after Thomas started claiming to be a woman.
So why, then, after Thomas adopted a new opposite-sex gender identity couldn't Thomas have remained on the Penn's men's swim team and simply switched to wearing a women's-style racing suit?
Since you seem to be convinced that it's wrong to expect athletes like Semenya and Thomas to continue competing against other males once they announce they "feel like" and "identify as" the opposite sex - and it's also wrong for males socially "transitioned" as young children like Jazz Jennings to be expected to play boys' sports ever as well - can you explain exactly why? Because I really don't get why any males should be in girls' and women's sports for any reason.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Semenya was not forced to compete in a separate division and neither was Lia Thomas. Neither FINA or WA went for a ban and that’s what you proposal is. The separate division will P-off just about everyone. The athletes won’t want to run it and the spectators won’t want to watch it.
I don't think they like to watch males beating females.
Like it or not, there are three alternatives: a ban, requiring hormone treatments or continuing with the current policy.
None of us know how this will play out. Some LRers believes it’s a huge deal similar to Lia Thomas but even she wasn’t directly banned. Another issue to consider is the feasibility of requiring minors to undergo hormone treatments and which is the only possible compromise.
I don't think they like to watch males beating females.
Like it or not, there are three alternatives: a ban, requiring hormone treatments or continuing with the current policy.
None of us know how this will play out. Some LRers believes it’s a huge deal similar to Lia Thomas but even she wasn’t directly banned. Another issue to consider is the feasibility of requiring minors to undergo hormone treatments and which is the only possible compromise.
It’s highly unlikely CIF will change its policies.
From Gavin Newsom last year:
“When asked for Newsom’s position on trans athletes, the spokesperson said the governor wants to ensure “trans Californians are fully acknowledged in accordance with their gender identity while interacting with public services”. The spokesperson added that California already allows students to “participate in activities consistent with their gender identity”, and assured voters that the state “isn’t going backwards on these issues”.
The state senator from the area covered by the NCS, Scott Weiner, was asked specifically about last weeks race:
“It’s a very dangerous time for LGBTQ young people in the U.S., and especially for trans young people,” Wiener said. “In California, it absolutely needs to go in the other direction and we support these kids and embrace them to succeed.”
From Larry Strauss a CIF member (2 yr old opinion, however)
So the bottom line, in CA, the policy is unlikely to change any time soon and protests at the meet by the parents, athletes or outsiders is very unlikely to move the needle. Yes, it will generate Fox News headlines, but in CA, at least nor cal, the headlines read like this:
I don't think they like to watch males beating females.
Like it or not, there are three alternatives: a ban, requiring hormone treatments or continuing with the current policy.
None of us know how this will play out. Some LRers believes it’s a huge deal similar to Lia Thomas but even she wasn’t directly banned. Another issue to consider is the feasibility of requiring minors to undergo hormone treatments and which is the only possible compromise.
But no matter what hormone treatments a male person takes, it still doesn't make him female.
Girls' and women's sports were established for female people to give us a chance to participate, compete, test our mettle, reach our "personal best" and win fairly and safely.
Whereas your view seems to be that girls' and women's sports should be for anyone of either sex deemed to have a "feminine" outward appearance, demeanor, personality, inner feelings or claimed sense of self because they conform to some of the most superficially obvious sex stereotypes, sexist appearance standards and sexist ideas about "gender identity" that people with rigid, regressive and misogynistic ideas about girls and women associate with us and insist on imposing on us.
If the world were to go along with the view that girls' and women's sport must include males whose hormone profiles make them atypical for males - whether because of medications they've taken to affect the appearance of "gender transition" or an organic condition or disease - then where does it stop?
After all, lots of males have physical conditions that mean they are at a big disadvantage competing in sports against others of their sex. If some blokes are allowed to use having lower than normal T as a ticket that grants them entry into female sports, why shouldn't that same privilege be granted to males with cystic fibrosis, asthma and hemophilia? And to males who are uncoordinated, slow on their feet or overweight?
What about boys and men who've lost a ball to testicular cancer, an men who've lost their dicks and both balls in accidents, blasts or combat? Do you think they too should have the option of competing in female sports?
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Like it or not, there are three alternatives: a ban, requiring hormone treatments or continuing with the current policy.
None of us know how this will play out. Some LRers believes it’s a huge deal similar to Lia Thomas but even she wasn’t directly banned. Another issue to consider is the feasibility of requiring minors to undergo hormone treatments and which is the only possible compromise.
But no matter what hormone treatments a male person takes, it still doesn't make him female.
Girls' and women's sports were established for female people to give us a chance to participate, compete, test our mettle, reach our "personal best" and win fairly and safely.
Whereas your view seems to be that girls' and women's sports should be for anyone of either sex deemed to have a "feminine" outward appearance, demeanor, personality, inner feelings or claimed sense of self because they conform to some of the most superficially obvious sex stereotypes, sexist appearance standards and sexist ideas about "gender identity" that people with rigid, regressive and misogynistic ideas about girls and women associate with us and insist on imposing on us.
If the world were to go along with the view that girls' and women's sport must include males whose hormone profiles make them atypical for males - whether because of medications they've taken to affect the appearance of "gender transition" or an organic condition or disease - then where does it stop?
After all, lots of males have physical conditions that mean they are at a big disadvantage competing in sports against others of their sex. If some blokes are allowed to use having lower than normal T as a ticket that grants them entry into female sports, why shouldn't that same privilege be granted to males with cystic fibrosis, asthma and hemophilia? And to males who are uncoordinated, slow on their feet or overweight?
What about boys and men who've lost a ball to testicular cancer, a men who've lost their dicks and both balls in accidents, blasts or combat? Do you think they too should have the option of competing in female sports?
I didn’t say whether I thought transgender athletes should be allowed to compete against women. My point is if transgender athletes are banned by the CIF, it’s likely to be challenged in court and the judge isn’t going to read your cut and paste to make his ruling.
What’s wrong with you? I said a separate division is not likely to be acceptable to the transgender athletes and that the issue is likely to go to court. Maybe the CIF will call you in as a witness for the win.
But no matter what hormone treatments a male person takes, it still doesn't make him female.
Girls' and women's sports were established for female people to give us a chance to participate, compete, test our mettle, reach our "personal best" and win fairly and safely.
Whereas your view seems to be that girls' and women's sports should be for anyone of either sex deemed to have a "feminine" outward appearance, demeanor, personality, inner feelings or claimed sense of self because they conform to some of the most superficially obvious sex stereotypes, sexist appearance standards and sexist ideas about "gender identity" that people with rigid, regressive and misogynistic ideas about girls and women associate with us and insist on imposing on us.
If the world were to go along with the view that girls' and women's sport must include males whose hormone profiles make them atypical for males - whether because of medications they've taken to affect the appearance of "gender transition" or an organic condition or disease - then where does it stop?
After all, lots of males have physical conditions that mean they are at a big disadvantage competing in sports against others of their sex. If some blokes are allowed to use having lower than normal T as a ticket that grants them entry into female sports, why shouldn't that same privilege be granted to males with cystic fibrosis, asthma and hemophilia? And to males who are uncoordinated, slow on their feet or overweight?
What about boys and men who've lost a ball to testicular cancer, a men who've lost their dicks and both balls in accidents, blasts or combat? Do you think they too should have the option of competing in female sports?
I didn’t say whether I thought transgender athletes should be allowed to compete against women. My point is if transgender athletes are banned by the CIF, it’s likely to be challenged in court and the judge isn’t going to read your cut and paste to make his ruling.
In CA there will never be a ban unless a dramatic change occurs with the state’s politics, and I think even a hormone requirement for HS sports and below is highly unlikely. Did you just see what happened to the Dodgers? The ONLY way a major change is possible in this state is if the main stream LGBTQ organizations with political clout come out and say they support a rule change with respect to trans athletes and sports. Nobody on LRC should be holding their breath. Any of the posters here can feel free to engage those organizations and the state’s political leadership instead of the LRC echo chamber. Good luck. Love to see some of them get into it with Scott Weiner.
Whereas your view seems to be that girls' and women's sports should be for anyone of either sex deemed to have a "feminine" outward appearance, demeanor, personality, inner feelings or claimed sense of self because they conform to some of the most superficially obvious sex stereotypes, sexist appearance standards and sexist ideas about "gender identity" that people with rigid, regressive and misogynistic ideas about girls and women associate with us and insist on imposing on us.
If the world were to go along with the view that girls' and women's sport must include males whose hormone profiles make them atypical for males - whether because of medications they've taken to affect the appearance of "gender transition" or an organic condition or disease - then where does it stop?
After all, lots of males have physical conditions that mean they are at a big disadvantage competing in sports against others of their sex. If some blokes are allowed to use having lower than normal T as a ticket that grants them entry into female sports, why shouldn't that same privilege be granted to males with cystic fibrosis, asthma and hemophilia? And to males who are uncoordinated, slow on their feet or overweight?
I for one don't think a person has to present "feminine" to be considered a female. I know many trans people who present as traditionally male, but their personal gender identity is female. Those people should get to compete in their gender category that corresponds to their identity. There's no misogyny there. It's just empathy.
You are the one trying to set up male vs female sports as advantaged vs. disadvantaged. It does not have to be that. The question is what does the person define themselves as. It doesn't matter if they have an advantage or not. Who are they as a person? That is the only question that matters for their gender category.
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.
