Evil liberal here, I agree with you guys. Just because you identify with a different gender doesn't change the fact that you have developed differently due to biological differences. In most every aspect of life I support trans people but in an athletic competition it's just messed up.
10/10 in misogyny wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I'm not sending money anywhere so I don't support either side, but I believe transgender athletes are here to stay and the good news is that athletes coming from a pool equal to about .5% of the population will never have a significant affect on women's sports.
Dropping a single female swimmer's result by one place in one race is a significant effect, and if you don't understand this then ask yourself how you ended up with such a low opinion of the value of female athletes.
OK. What's is going to take for the N.C.A.A. to ban transgender athletes? Ten of thousands of posts on LR is not going to get it done.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
OK. What's is going to take for the N.C.A.A. to ban transgender athletes? Ten of thousands of posts on LR is not going to get it done.
It's not going to get done. Women's sports is not a high enough priority for the NCAA to let itself in for the kind of treatment that, say, JK Rowling is getting if they acknowledge that trans women are different than biological ones. It's going to be female athletes themselves, their spouses, parents, etc., i.e. the people actually affected by this refusing to compete against trans women to force a change and it doesn't seem like many of them are willing to expose themselves to the kind of abuse they'll almost surely face if they take a stand.
HRE wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
OK. What's is going to take for the N.C.A.A. to ban transgender athletes? Ten of thousands of posts on LR is not going to get it done.
It's not going to get done. Women's sports is not a high enough priority for the NCAA to let itself in for the kind of treatment that, say, JK Rowling is getting if they acknowledge that trans women are different than biological ones. It's going to be female athletes themselves, their spouses, parents, etc., i.e. the people actually affected by this refusing to compete against trans women to force a change and it doesn't seem like many of them are willing to expose themselves to the kind of abuse they'll almost surely face if they take a stand.
The athletes affected by competing against Thomas might be about 100 compared to a total 224K in women's sports. Them saying Thomas has an unfair advantage will not subject them to abuse. What do mean by "take a stand".
The N.C.A.A. is not worried by what happened to Rowling but rather being sued. If they banned Thomas tomorrow she would receive a court injunction almost immediately.
Well, here's the thing; A 'Trans Athlete' is not the same as an 'Intersexual Athlete'. Therefore, at what point does an athlete's body become 'Too Male' to compete against women?
When Mariya Savinova won her Gold Medal in the 2012 Women’s 800 meters Olympic Final, she was taking drugs (testosterone) to increase her performance (to become more “Male”) Caster Semenya who finished second in that race, who biologically was born ‘Intersexual’, was taking drugs to suppress her masculinity – to bring down her testosterone levels to compete with fairly with women (Bizarre!) So, when Savinova got busted later for drugs, her defense was ironically that she only took those drugs because she “Knew no matter how hard she trained, she would never be able to beat Semenya” – That was her defense, those were her exact words - Talk about a paradox! This is so messed up my friends.
Although I have not kept track of the stories, I have already seen people being insulted for stating that trans women have a physical advantage over biological ones. Yes, being sued is undoubtedly a major reason the NCAA isn't anxious to ban transgender athletes from women's competition but I also doubt that they want to deal with protesters, nasty editorials, etc. I think I explained what I meant by taking a stand in the previous post; refusing to participate in events where they'll be competing with trans women. And I just don't see that happening on any significant scale.
Suggest the woman stand in the blocks for 13 seconds then start. Why 13? Taylor Swift of course. Let the trans win but the real race would have a delayed start.
ExtremistMan!!! wrote:
When Mariya Savinova won her Gold Medal in the 2012 Women’s 800 meters Olympic Final, she was taking drugs (testosterone) to increase her performance (to become more “Male”) Caster Semenya who finished second in that race, who biologically was born ‘Intersexual’, was taking drugs to suppress her masculinity – to bring down her testosterone levels to compete with fairly with women (Bizarre!) So, when Savinova got busted later for drugs, her defense was ironically that she only took those drugs because she “Knew no matter how hard she trained, she would never be able to beat Semenya” – That was her defense, those were her exact words - Talk about a paradox! This is so messed up my friends.
You don’t know what the word paradox means.
HRE wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
OK. What's is going to take for the N.C.A.A. to ban transgender athletes? Ten of thousands of posts on LR is not going to get it done.
It's not going to get done. Women's sports is not a high enough priority for the NCAA to let itself in for the kind of treatment that, say, JK Rowling is getting if they acknowledge that trans women are different than biological ones. It's going to be female athletes themselves, their spouses, parents, etc., i.e. the people actually affected by this refusing to compete against trans women to force a change and it doesn't seem like many of them are willing to expose themselves to the kind of abuse they'll almost surely face if they take a stand.
What's JK Rowling got to do with it? She's literally trashed her career because she wanted support a women who was fired for making continual unsolicited comments to a transgender colleague about transgender issues. She's also written (using a pen name) a very unsubtle book about a man who dresses as a woman to murder girls in public restrooms.
And for what?
And why should Rowling's career get trashed for expressing her opinion? Anyway, Rowling has nothing to do with the NCAA but came to mind as an example of someone who got really hammered for saying that there's a difference between biological and trans women. The same thing happened to Martina Navratilova .My point has nothing to do with anyone's specific situation other than to say that administrators as a group are not going to be anxious to put themselves in a position where they're the target of things like lawsuits, protests, attempts to "trash" their careers, etc., to make sure that the fastest women's swimmer in the Ivy League Championships, as the easiest example here, was a woman at birth.
HRE wrote:
Although I have not kept track of the stories, I have already seen people being insulted for stating that trans women have a physical advantage over biological ones. Yes, being sued is undoubtedly a major reason the NCAA isn't anxious to ban transgender athletes from women's competition but I also doubt that they want to deal with protesters, nasty editorials, etc. I think I explained what I meant by taking a stand in the previous post; refusing to participate in events where they'll be competing with trans women. And I just don't see that happening on any significant scale.
What would you do as a coach if your athletes refused to participate in a race? If I was the coach, they would be off the team. I wouldn't have trained them to make a political statement and it would be disrespectful to me for them to pull off such a stunt. Whether or not it's a noble cause, they don't get to decide when they want to compete.
If you have an entire team decide not to compete would they all be off the team? Again, I don't see anything like this happening. It's not a big enough issue for most people to deal with the fallout.
HRE wrote:
And why should Rowling's career get trashed for expressing her opinion? Anyway, Rowling has nothing to do with the NCAA but came to mind as an example of someone who got really hammered for saying that there's a difference between biological and trans women. The same thing happened to Martina Navratilova .My point has nothing to do with anyone's specific situation other than to say that administrators as a group are not going to be anxious to put themselves in a position where they're the target of things like lawsuits, protests, attempts to "trash" their careers, etc., to make sure that the fastest women's swimmer in the Ivy League Championships, as the easiest example here, was a woman at birth.
It’s not the government trashing Rowling’s career; it’s the public.
If you do or say something that people don’t like, they have the right to not support your artistic endeavors anymore. That’s just basic marketplace economy.
She’s not entitled to book, movie, and licensing sales.
Jeff Albertson wrote:
HRE wrote:
And why should Rowling's career get trashed for expressing her opinion? Anyway, Rowling has nothing to do with the NCAA but came to mind as an example of someone who got really hammered for saying that there's a difference between biological and trans women. The same thing happened to Martina Navratilova .My point has nothing to do with anyone's specific situation other than to say that administrators as a group are not going to be anxious to put themselves in a position where they're the target of things like lawsuits, protests, attempts to "trash" their careers, etc., to make sure that the fastest women's swimmer in the Ivy League Championships, as the easiest example here, was a woman at birth.
It’s not the government trashing Rowling’s career; it’s the public.
If you do or say something that people don’t like, they have the right to not support your artistic endeavors anymore. That’s just basic marketplace economy.
She’s not entitled to book, movie, and licensing sales.
I agree. No one asked her for her opinion and being a successful writer doesn't make her's more valid than anyone else's. She also seemed to reject the legitimacy of transgenderism and not specifically about them competing in sports. She can say whatever she wants, but if she can't stand the heat she should have stayed out of the kitchen.
HRE wrote:
If you have an entire team decide not to compete would they all be off the team? Again, I don't see anything like this happening. It's not a big enough issue for most people to deal with the fallout.
Please think it through. Thomas will only swim in 2-3 events so everyone on the team, including the divers, who been training hard, will also boycott the meet? For sure, all of them will be suspended by the N.C.A.A for rejecting its rules.
The boycotting swimmers would be sacrificing their collegiate athletic careers even though it will not change the transgender athlete policies. Many posters have called for a righteous refusal to compete against Thomas but what sacrifice will they be making to support the cause?
IMHO there will not be any true public outrage until a female dominated televised event is shown. I see this in about 5-10 years in figure skating if an individual changes from male to female and can do multiple quads or whatever. Only a few woman have quads, but many men do. I’d also like to see 2 males in pairs figure skating much like the movie Blades of Glory.
Ultimately, no one cares. It just sports and it’s not my money. If my daughter was a swimmer at PENN, I’d simply sit back with popcorn and watch the show. It’s a dandy.
Danicmic1 wrote:
IMHO there will not be any true public outrage until a female dominated televised event is shown. I see this in about 5-10 years in figure skating
It will be sooner than that. Katie Ledecky better be looking over her shoulder in Paris in 2024. I hope it happens. I want to see this guy trounce Ledecky on the Olympic stage in front of a television audience of over 1 billion people. This nonsense will end very quickly.
Danicmic1 wrote:
Only a few woman have quads, but many men do.
I never knew that. I guess that explains why men can jump higher/farther than women. As far as I know I have them but I was never able to jump very far. You've got me intrigued.
Thomas wins gold in Paris wrote:
Danicmic1 wrote:
IMHO there will not be any true public outrage until a female dominated televised event is shown. I see this in about 5-10 years in figure skating
It will be sooner than that. Katie Ledecky better be looking over her shoulder in Paris in 2024. I hope it happens. I want to see this guy trounce Ledecky on the Olympic stage in front of a television audience of over 1 billion people. This nonsense will end very quickly.
Danicmic1 wrote:
Only a few woman have quads, but many men do.
I never knew that. I guess that explains why men can jump higher/farther than women. As far as I know I have them but I was never able to jump very far. You've got me intrigued.
Why do you feel ill will towards Ledecky? She didn't do anything wrong. If I was a swimming fan, I would be rooting for her to beat Thomas.
Jerry Maguire wrote:
keepgoing wrote:
How old is this veteran of the sport? I'm a fan of leaving to make a statement, but if you could have retired years ago, this is really not much of a statement.
She works at USA Swimming. She’s not an athlete
She does not "work at USA Swimming". She is an official. Just like track and field officials are not employees of USATF.