Ms Williams had to “run for 2nd” in this race. So what? In the CA southern section she would be running for 100th against girls. Would she feel better in that scenario? The real lesson of all this is being missed in the midst of a lot of trans bashing.
Following your logic, why have sex-based divisions at all? Just put boys and girls together, let 'em compete in one race. Girls can't crack the top 25 of these races? Suck it up, buttercups.
It’s funny when people think they can obviously complete the logical thought of an antagonist with whom they fundamentally disagree.
It just indicates an incapacity for detecting biases, understanding nuance, and logical thinking itself.
Lenny - based on your posts here, that would be the correct solution. Just run everyone together. We already have altitude, non-altitude; better coaches, worse coaches; genetically gifted, not gifted.
Male physiology, female physiology? Whatever. Because who can really separate out the differences amongst competitors, right?
What you aren’t getting is that I am not the one saying we have a broken system that needs to be fixed. You are.
I’m fine with separating the sport by boys and girls. Keep it that way. The girl in Maine who won regionals is a girl, so everything is perfectly fine there.
Lenny - based on your posts here, that would be the correct solution. Just run everyone together. We already have altitude, non-altitude; better coaches, worse coaches; genetically gifted, not gifted.
Male physiology, female physiology? Whatever. Because who can really separate out the differences amongst competitors, right?
What you aren’t getting is that I am not the one saying we have a broken system that needs to be fixed. You are.
I’m fine with separating the sport by boys and girls. Keep it that way. The girl in Maine who won regionals is a girl, so everything is perfectly fine there.
Gender-identifies as a female, has competitive advantage of male physiology.
This is really not that hard. Separate the sport by the key element that provides the competitive difference: born males, born females. Done.
Lenny - based on your posts here, that would be the correct solution. Just run everyone together. We already have altitude, non-altitude; better coaches, worse coaches; genetically gifted, not gifted.
Male physiology, female physiology? Whatever. Because who can really separate out the differences amongst competitors, right?
What you aren’t getting is that I am not the one saying we have a broken system that needs to be fixed. You are.
I’m fine with separating the sport by boys and girls. Keep it that way. The girl in Maine who won regionals is a girl, so everything is perfectly fine there.
What you aren’t getting is that I am not the one saying we have a broken system that needs to be fixed. You are.
I’m fine with separating the sport by boys and girls. Keep it that way. The girl in Maine who won regionals is a girl, so everything is perfectly fine there.
A girl with testicles. You left that bit out.
I left it out because it’s irrelevant. Testicles or not, still a girl.
People aren’t opposed to allowing trans athletes in sports. People are simply opposed to biologic males competing against biologic females. A trans athlete has always been allowed to compete against athletes of their same biology and always will be (unless they are doped to the gills). Sports are divided along biological lines, not ideological lines.
No, they are not. Transwomen that you refer to as “biologic [sic] males” are considered female by WA, but maybe running isn’t the sport of which you are thinking.
I left it out because it’s irrelevant. Testicles or not, still a girl.
Lenny, if you're actually a bot, well done. I think you nearly passed the Turing Test. The tell, though, is that you are challenged to process new information that is relevant here. You can only focus on the way person identifies, not on the biological differences.
Gender-identifies as a female, has competitive advantage of male physiology.
This is really not that hard. Separate the sport by the key element that provides the competitive difference: born males, born females. Done.
Nope, it is pretty hard and probably beyond the intellectual and moral capacity of the “just because you feel like a chair doesn’t make you a chair” types.
WA is ostensibly indeed trying to “separate the sport by the key element that provides the competitive difference“ but the simps probably wouldn’t know it even if they see it because they get inexorably blindsided by their imagined unacceptability of a woman with testicles. It’s like religion — thou shalt not possess a penis and be of the women — even though it’s actually not part of any religion because trans and intersex have always been around and recognized.
Following your logic, why have sex-based divisions at all? Just put boys and girls together, let 'em compete in one race. Girls can't crack the top 25 of these races? Suck it up, buttercups.
So go back to pre-Title IX? That’s the TERF solution?
But prior to Title IX, school sports in the USA weren't open to both sexes with boys and girls competing together like you're suggesting.
Prior to Title IX, school sports in the US publicly-funded education system were exclusively or primarily for boys and men.
Before Title IX, girls and women attending taxpayer-funded educational institutions in the USA were either
1) completely barred from having/doing school sports - and from using school sports facilities and equipment, except in rare,special circumstances;
2) confined to one or a couple of school sports (field hockey, basketball, say) with zero or bare-bones funding, limited access to practice and playing facilities, no paid coaching, no locker rooms, little or no equipment provided for/paid for by the schools, little or no instituional support, etc.
For example, prior to Title IX, the public school districts in the well-heeled metro NYC towns where I grew up offered a wide array of sports for JHS and HS boys - basketball, football, baseball, track & field, cross country, wrestling, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, swimming, diving, volleyball, golf, ice hockey - and no school sports whatsoever for JHS and HS girls.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
So go back to pre-Title IX? That’s the TERF solution?
But prior to Title IX, school sports in the USA weren't open to both sexes with boys and girls competing together like you're suggesting.
Prior to Title IX, school sports in the US publicly-funded education system were exclusively or primarily for boys and men.
Before Title IX, girls and women attending taxpayer-funded educational institutions in the USA were either
1) completely barred from having/doing school sports - and from using school sports facilities and equipment, except in rare,special circumstances;
2) confined to one or a couple of school sports (field hockey, basketball, say) with zero or bare-bones funding, limited access to practice and playing facilities, no paid coaching, no locker rooms, little or no equipment provided for/paid for by the schools, little or no instituional support, etc.
For example, prior to Title IX, the public school districts in the well-heeled metro NYC towns where I grew up offered a wide array of sports for JHS and HS boys - basketball, football, baseball, track & field, cross country, wrestling, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, tennis, swimming, diving, volleyball, golf, ice hockey - and no school sports whatsoever for JHS and HS girls.
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.