A woman speaks out! Competing vs trans women is unfair.

uhhh guys? wrote:

This is affecting fair competition in women's sports.

This should not be a liberal versus conservative issue. Come on, can everybody just use some sense?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/

Liberal here.

Agree with OP. Sucks for trans girls but I don't see how they can be included in girls sports without making it unfair to XX girls.

I think that being inclusive and allowing opportunities for everyone is a worthy goal. I just don't see how placing trans girls in the XX girls division works for XX girls.

To me a complicating factor is that no matter what decision is made someone is impacted so there is a "rights" conflict here. If a state allows trans athletes then cis girls are affected negatively (most likely). If a state does not allow it, then that athlete is affected.

One thing that has bothered me is both sides act as if there are no negative consequences here. Also, often headlines are written that trans athletes are being denied the ability to play sports and that is a mischaracterization.

I think the state legislatures passing these laws are not doing it with any real study or debate. If you want to hear how to do it, check out Science of Sport podcast with Ross Tucker. Start with an earlier episode where he specifically talks about how World Rugby went about setting its policy (hint: open and robust debate from several angles) and then the more recent one where he talks about the issue again in broader terms.

One of the other issues is that people who are for allowing often resort to calling those who are against it names like transphobic. Once that happens honest and open debate cannot be had. It is a tool of the weak who are unwilling to address the facts in an argument. Sort of like calling someone a Nazi or racist.

A second issue is that if you come to the conclusion not to allow trans athletes to compete as their gender identity through thoughtful debate and reasoning you are now lumped with a lot of people who I think are approaching it from a bad faith perspective. It's like being for low taxes and then you see David Duke for low taxes, well that does not make me a racist klansman because we agree on that issue.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

This is old news. And don’t pretend that this isn’t racially motivated. This would not be an issue in states that aren’t predominantly white.

Trans girls are girls. They run against girls. Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative.

5/10

it's 50/50 whether this is serious moral posturing, or parody. And that's how bad the moral posturing has been, for a long time now.

The world is full of people who live to be bent out of shape in absurd ways.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

This is old news. And don’t pretend that this isn’t racially motivated. This would not be an issue in states that aren’t predominantly white.

Trans girls are girls. They run against girls. Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative.

1) All states are predominately white in the US.

2) Not sure what race has to do with it although one of the winners is black.

3) I would agree that in just about every case trans girls are girls, but sex divisions were initially set up for fairness and here is a case where fairness and inclusion might well be at odds.

As for the just about every case: sports and medical care are 2 areas where I am not sure you can ignore the biology. No trans girl is ever going to need to be check for prostate cancer. A trans girl might still get testicular cancer. A trans girl will be at much lower risk for breast cancer. In terms of legal protections, she should be allowed to pursue any career and many other areas.

uhhh guys? wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

don’t pretend that this isn’t racially motivated. This would not be an issue in states that aren’t predominantly white.

This happened in CONNECTICUT. Over 75% white. 10% black. 15% other. What's your point?

Girls in high school had to compete against "male bodies" as the young lady who wrote the article put it. That's the issue here.

Ah yes, the “How can we be racist? Black people don’t even live here!” Defense.

uhhh guys? wrote:

bone to pick wrote:

Life isn't fair, the sooner these kids learn that the better.

Ok, following your point:

We should have one open class of competition. Middle schoolers competing against Olympians. What, you are handicapped? Too bad, life isn't fair, no more Special Olympics. Everyone competes together in one open class.

lol

supporteofwomenrights wrote:

Your argument that “trans girls are girls” is wrong and you proved it yourself in your statement.

Trans girls are like you said, trans girls.

30 plus states have already disagreed with you and have voted to ban trans girls (males who transitioned to female) from women’s sports.

https://savewomenssports.com/

Support women’s rights and sign petitions put forward by

https://savewomenssports.com/

Really need to be clear on language here. At one time "transitioning" meant one was on the path through medical interventions (hormone treatments and then surgery) from male to female. In the case of high school students in states like CT, there is no requirement for any medical action. One has to say "I am a girl" and one is allowed to compete.

Also, I wish mainstream folks would distinguish better between the biological construct of "sex" (which is not always cut and dried either) and the social or psychological construct of "gender". The Bostock decision, to me, did a poor job when SCOTUS rendered a decision that the two are interchangeable now.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

when these athletes registered for the meet, someone asked them for their gender. They put down female. They were allowed into the meet to compete in the female category.

That should have been the end of it.

I guarantee that if I, as a HSer in the 90s, had felt feminine, changed my pronouns etc, and entered a meet as a girl then ran my normal 51 sec 400 meters, I would have gotten DQd big time.

Same thing should be happening now, and THAT should be the end of it.

I fully support trans folks' right to be whoever they are in society. As a separate matter, competition in classes exists for good reason.

If you have a male body, run against the males. If you have an 80 year old body, run in the 80+ age group. If you are disabled (not sure, is that the wrong term nowadays? Differently abled? No offense intended) then run in the proper class at the Special Olympics.

Can't there be a way to acknowledge and appreciate trans girls/women, and still keep girls'/women's sports as a specific class of competition?

INCORRECT! California is only about 37% white.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

uhhh guys? wrote:

This happened in CONNECTICUT. Over 75% white. 10% black. 15% other. What's your point?

Girls in high school had to compete against "male bodies" as the young lady who wrote the article put it. That's the issue here.

Ah yes, the “How can we be racist? Black people don’t even live here!” Defense.

How the heck did racism get in here? I thought this was about issues involving transsexuals. So, sexism might be expected to come up. But racism? WTH?

Agreed

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

[quote]uhhh guys? wrote:

This is affecting fair competition in women's sports.

This should not be a liberal versus conservative issue. Come on, can everybody just use some sense?

...

Bur if I am not mistaken, both trans girls got slower in their senior season (their HRT was kicking in), and Ms Mitchell beat both of them to win the state and New England titles. So she WAS the fasted girl in Connecticut whether trans girls were included or not.

She is also on D1 scholarship (William & Mary), while the two trans girls are not competing in college.

So congratulations to Ms Mitchell on her great achievement, and best of luck on her college career.

The argument you make is not a good argument.

The fact that they didn't beat her doesn't mean they don't have an unfair advantage. It means they were not so genetically gifted to begin with.

If a guy in the top 0,2 % of runners, but not among the very best runners, would decide to go trans, he/she would easily beat the best women.

There is a reason there is a separate category for males and females; males are faster and stronger; they also have a different body composition. The advantages males have are not completely undone by just blocking testosteron and adding estrogen.

The only fair thing for both trans girls and regular girls is to create a separate category for trans girls.

CrispyChicken wrote:

"Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative."

I read nothing in Ms. Mitchell's opinion that she is afraid of transgender people. In fact, she was willing to toe the line with transgender people. So, why do you call her narrative "transphobic"? She simply does not believe that a biological male should compete against a biological female. Apparently, many people agree with her because there are separate competition categories for biological males and biological females and I don't think the competitors in each category are afraid of those in the other category.

There is one law that is very discriminatory against males, and that is the requirement for males to register for Selective Service or else risk losing access to federal benefits. So, must a transgender woman register for Selective Service. or must a transgender man register for Selective Service?

First, calling someone a name like "transphobic" is a way to stifle debate. Often I see it as the unwillingness to confront the arguments put forth by the object of the slur (and yes I think it is a slur).

The selective service thing is interesting as there is a case in the courts now. Any interesting case in light of the Bostock decision would be if a transwoman was denied something (thus harmed) and sued saying she was being discriminated against based on sex since Bostock basically said that in federal statutes the term "sex" is equivalent to "gender". (Interesting that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion which probably shocked many.)

Lenny Leonard wrote:

supporteofwomenrights wrote:

Your argument that “trans girls are girls” is wrong and you proved it yourself in your statement.

Trans girls are like you said, trans girls.

30 plus states have already disagreed with you and have voted to ban trans girls (males who transitioned to female) from women’s sports.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. By saying “trans girls are girls” I am very much saying that the term “trans girls” does not need to exist in sport. YOU are the person who are saying that there needs to be some sort of distinction.

Also, your “30 states” thing is false. Prove it. You can’t because you are just making things up, whereas I am dealing in reality.

That person is conflating the number of states where laws have been proposed and those that have passed them.

So no, 30 states have not passed laws, but many have.

Viking21 wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. By saying “trans girls are girls” I am very much saying that the term “trans girls” does not need to exist in sport. YOU are the person who are saying that there needs to be some sort of distinction.

Also, your “30 states” thing is false. Prove it. You can’t because you are just making things up, whereas I am dealing in reality.

Dealing in reality? And I'm a facking unicorn. Your posts have caused my eyes to roll so far back into my head that I gave myself a concussion. I'm entering the Special Olympics as a result.

Was the Special Olympics thing really necessary?

Luv2Run wrote:

Viking21 wrote:

Dealing in reality? And I'm a facking unicorn. Your posts have caused my eyes to roll so far back into my head that I gave myself a concussion. I'm entering the Special Olympics as a result.

Was the Special Olympics thing really necessary?

Inasmuch as I have no more business competing with legitimately handicapped athletes than biological males have competing with biological females, yes, it was necessary. But feel free to take offense anyhow.

What state requires evidence of an trans girl having to be on hormone blockers to compete? The NCAA and IOC have rules for that, but to my knowledge no high school requires that as a condition to compete. The states that do allow it allow you to declare your gender and compete accordingly.

Also, there is very mixed data on how long one retains the male benefits. If an 18 year old bio male starts taking the T blockers today, it does erase a lot of the benefits accrued through puberty such as height (maybe not a huge factor in track in determining outcomes but certainly in other sports a huge advantage) and bone density.

This is tricky because not a lot of good data exists. Here is a write up about Air Force personnel that were tracked. The study did not look at the training the women did during this transition, but it underscores the challenges. It was also retrospective. But it shows that a year of treatment might not be sufficient.

(1.5%2Dmile,after%201%20year%20on%20testosterone.%E2%80%9D

Lenny Leonard wrote:

uhhh guys? wrote:

This happened in CONNECTICUT. Over 75% white. 10% black. 15% other. What's your point?

Girls in high school had to compete against "male bodies" as the young lady who wrote the article put it. That's the issue here.

Ah yes, the “How can we be racist? Black people don’t even live here!” Defense.

I thought that you prided yourself on bringing "facts" to a debate? You are a walking, talking liberal trope. Have you no substance?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Viking21 wrote: Point out any untrue statement I have made.

Viking21 wrote:

Dealing in reality? And I'm a facking unicorn.

That was a lie.

Viking21 wrote:

Your posts have caused my eyes to roll so far back into my head that I gave myself a concussion.

That was a lie.

Viking21 wrote:

I'm entering the Special Olympics as a result.

That was a lie.

Here is a fact: when these athletes registered for the meet, someone asked them for their gender. They put down female. They were allowed into the meet to compete in the female category.

That should have been the end of it.

You, sir, are just a simpleton. That is not a lie. I won't pick on you anymore. I'm starting to feel like I slammed that weird kid's head in the locker door.