Transgender law center memo. They know they are losing the sports debate.

NotPC wrote:

plasticsurgeon wrote:

I don't understand why it matters who is fighting a particular battle, as long as he or she argues logically and truthfully. It seems rather simplistic to judge truth by the color and sex of the individual making a case on its behalf.

Yeah, lots of white people fought for civil rights in the 60s, an entire nation of mostly white people fought to end slavery.. as long as people are arguing for something that is morally right, race and gender shouldn't be an issue. Such a horrible way to see the world through nothing but a racial lens.

Exactly. These so-called anti-racists think the color of your skin or your sex can disqualify you from having the right to an opinion on something.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

maxamillion wrote:

The women at Penn were going to boycott their last meet, but were afraid they wouldnt be allowed to swim at conference championships.

So I guess that the issue isn't that important to them then.

There are 224K female athletes competing in N.C.A.A. sports. Why is this small group of athletes expected to be the only ones to make a sacrifice? And for non-seniors, they might be suspended by the N.C.A.A. and not be allowed to swim next year.

and as i said before - it just isn't that important to them then. If you believe you are right then you need to make the sacrifice.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There are 224K female athletes competing in N.C.A.A. sports. Why is this small group of athletes expected to be the only ones to make a sacrifice? And for non-seniors, they might be suspended by the N.C.A.A. and not be allowed to swim next year.

I doubt that Penn swimmers will boycott. Nevertheless, it would be an absolute PR disaster for the NCAA and the transgender community if the boycotting athletes got suspended or barred from competing.

This is a great comment and I think it points out the error in the previous poster's argument:

The above poster says that they are able to prove that Letsrun's focus on this issue is transphobic by, primarily, two pieces of evidence: Firstly, by looking at the number of threads about trans athletes in women's sports vs. the number of threads about women's sports themselves (which shows that posters care more about trans people being denied access to sport than about the sport they are claiming to protect.) Secondly, that Letsrun is a bastion of old white men who regularly post transphobic things. I don't know how this poster can say either of these things without data to back them up. Do you have data on the number of threads posted on here daily or monthly or yearly on those two topics to compare? Do you have data on the average number of posts per thread on these topics? The average word count in each response? How do you know that threads about trans athletes are given more attention or get more traffic? Or is it just something 'that's easy to tell'? (Which means you really have no verifiable proof beyond your own perception and because it is convenient for your argument) Secondly, do you have the demographics for users on this site? How do you know most users are white old men? How do you know that a majority of them are responsible for the transphobic remarks? Maybe it could be a small handful of users posting a lot about the same topic? How do you know the people who posted about those topics are white? Does every post come with a racial tag attached to the username? It seems to me that any of this would be hard for you to determine, given that this site is primarily anonymous and users can't always be identified.

Now, let's look at the motivation you assign to the posters commenting on this issue: You say that that the fact that this is being discussed is further proof that there's rampant transphobia on this website. Well, how do you know the intentions of people, (whose identity is anonymous and who you've also never met) through an online post? People are very complicated and without talking to someone and knowing them at all, you claim to be the ultimate interpreter of their intentions? That's a pretty laughable claim. There's another thing you're missing here. Like you said, context matters, so let's look at the context of these postings: The running community, and Letsrun in particular, has an almost puritanical obsession about the 'purity' or 'fairness' of the sport. Love it or hate it, it's part of the culture - running isn't like the NFL or the NBA, performances and their context in history matter to many people who follow this sport. Many running fans view transgender athletes in women's sport as not an issue of gender or identity, but as an issue of fairness. So let's look at the number of threads about transgender athletes vs. the number of threads about other issues of fairness in running (which is a more fair comparison if we want to see how much attention the trans issue is getting vs other comparable issues.) How many threads are there about doping? About marathon cheats? About super shoes? About course length? So no, I don't think Letsrun users have put a particularly and specially targeted trans athletes - it is given as much attention as other issues of fairness in sport.

I don't know if you see the irony, but your whole postings reek of a zealous pseudo-religious fundamentalism, wherein you have special knowledge to see evil and insidious intent where most people cannot, even in light of a much more reasonable and obvious explanation being provided. It sounds like the Christian moms who scream about Harry Potter being satanic and JK Rowling having written the novels while possessed. Most people can see that Harry Potter is really just a kid's story. So is Letsrun really overrun with people who are conspiring against trans people and laugh gleefully when their rights are denied, or are people really just concerned with seeing that everyone gets a fair shot on a level playing field? As SO MANY posters have said. It's not an issue of denying trans individuals respect or affirmation or acceptance - everyone deserves those things, especially trans folks. But you keep talking as if that's not good enough for you: no measure too extreme in the name of acceptance. We ought to burn the books, lest they lead our children to demonic sorcery, right? Well - I think the only difference is that your god is critical theory and my lord do you worship with intense fervor.

OozmaKappa wrote:

Ironic. You come across as pretty sexist, racist, and even ageist with l your tirading against old white males. I dont think you deserve the assumption of good faith.

I don't care.

Not doing all that stuff.

Letrsun is old and white. And transphobic. Demanding proof down to the word count is a good way to try to waste my time.

Cheesy MF. "Intense fervor" do you think you sound smart?

OozmaKappa wrote: If someone does dislike Shapiro to a point where they view anyone associated with him negatively, that indicates that they probably believe a lot of things which just aren't true, including not just things about Shapiro himself but also their general worldview.

😂😂😂😂

As a liberal, female former marathon runner, I can say that I am completely against those born with XY chromosomes being allowed to compete head-to-head in sports with those of us born with XX chromosomes. I don't care who or what you identify as/with in other aspects of your life, but women have had to work too long and too hard for equality in sports to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, as is being pointed out here, only currently competing female athletes are going to be able to influence a change. So far, most seem to be pretty quiet, maybe because the vast majority aren't directly affected. Also, as other posters have mentioned, there is a stifling cancel culture voice in our colleges that is predominately spearheaded by young women. The vast majority of these women have never competed past rec-league soccer level, so they are completely accepting of biological men competing against biological women.

ritchie ritch wrote:

OozmaKappa wrote: If someone does dislike Shapiro to a point where they view anyone associated with him negatively, that indicates that they probably believe a lot of things which just aren't true, including not just things about Shapiro himself but also their general worldview.

😂😂😂😂

😂

I am another generally liberal female runner who is opposed to trans athletes competing in sports against women. And I say this as someone who has two trans co-workers (one MTF and one FTM), who I consider to be friends. I simply don't think it is fair for these MTF athletes to compete against XX women. If they "must" compete, they can compete either in the open division or they can have their own category. I think Caster Semenya is also at an unfair advantage, but that is a slightly different case.

I don't think this is only an issue for NCAA and the Olympics. Honestly, I would be upset even if such an athlete took me off the age-group podium at a local Turkey Trot.

maxamillion wrote:

The women at Penn were going to boycott their last meet, but were afraid they wouldnt be allowed to swim at conference championships.

So I guess that the issue isn't that important to them then.

Fear of retribution does not mean that it wasn't important to them.

Letrsun is old and white. And transphobic. Demanding proof down to the word count is a good way to try to waste my time.

It's transphobic to believe that allowing male bodies to compete in women's sports is detrimental to women's sports?

Hey, can't win on the merits of your argument, label away

carmine9 wrote:

Letrsun is old and white. And transphobic. Demanding proof down to the word count is a good way to try to waste my time.

It's transphobic to believe that allowing male bodies to compete in women's sports is detrimental to women's sports?

Hey, can't win on the merits of your argument, label away

You know I'm right.

carmine9 wrote:

Letrsun is old and white. And transphobic.

Yeah. I'll be laughing for sure where half the women in some heat of the olympic trials for swimming has visible penis showing through their suits.

plasticsurgeon wrote:

blame the wrong people wrote:

Yeah but look at who is "fighting" this "battle" politically in both DC and on Letsrun. Old white guys.

I don't understand why it matters who is fighting a particular battle, as long as he or she argues logically and truthfully. It seems rather simplistic to judge truth by the color and sex of the individual making a case on its behalf.

I don't get the "old white guys" claim either. It's not an accurate description of what's actually happening around "this battle" IRL or even on LRC.

Women of all colors and ages "are fighting this battle" politically in DC, in statehouses, at the local school board level and internationally. Women are protesting at sports events where men are being allowed to compete in the female category and challenging sports governing bodies like the IOC and NCCA through back channels and in courts. Lots of women have done the boring work of drafting and pressing for legislation intended to protect female-only scholastic sports in numerous states in the US - and we're working on trying to find ways to protect female-only sports at the federal level too.

Women of various ages and races - along with some notable youngish and middle-aged men of varying ethnicities - have produced reams of evidence, documents, presentations, videos and podcasts showing why policies such as the NCAA's are unfair. Women have lobbied elected officials and sports governing bodies, and testified in legislatures and courts.

Some old black guys are fighting this battle too. Daley Thompson of the UK, who won the Olympic decathlon in1980 and 1984, has been vocal in his view that girls' and women's sports should be for female participants only. Same goes for US champion hurdler Edwin Moses, who won golds in the men's 400m hurdlers in 1976 and 1984 and set four world records in the event.

Another old black guy who has actively fought in this battle is Herschel Walker.

Some old Asian guys have entered the fray too. The President of Samoa, Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi has protested policies made by various international sports governing bodies that now allow males to use gender identity claims to compete in elite international women's sport.

Black American women of various ages are up in arms and totally outraged about male athletes in women's sports, too. As a look at what they say on Lipstick Alley will show.

Lots of young , youngish or not so old black men in the US are using their platforms to "fight this battle" too. Like You Tubers Brandon Tatum (who's conservative), Ruined Leon (who I think is around 20 and seems progressive but anti-woke) and Abba and Preach.

Some of the "old white guys" with large media platforms who are in the fight to defend female-only sports identify as trans themselves. Such as prominent commentators India Willoughby and Debbie Hayton from the UK.

Some younger males and females who identify as trans also are in this fight too. Here's Sarah Higdon from the USA speaking out strongly and frankly against the NCAA policy:

The people who oppose the participation of males in girls' and women's sports based on the males' identity claims can't be written off as "old white guys." The truth is, we're of both sexes, many different ages and all races - and we come from all across the political spectrum, all walks of life and many different backgrounds. Some are conservatives, some are centrists, some are longstanding feminists of the second wave sort who lean left. Some think gender identity ideology overall is a harmful, faith-based bunch of bollocks based on regressively sexist and deeply misogynistic sex stereotypes. But others are big believers in genderism and call themselves trans, yet they disagree with the unreasonable demands, wild claims and extreme behaviors of the most radical trans activists - and they fear that those demands, claims and behaviors are going to backfire on the trans community, provoking backlash and resentment that will mean less acceptance and good will in the long run.

If you want to see "diversity and inclusion" in action on this issue, I think you're more likely to find it amongst those who base our position on the realities of biological sex and the belief that female people should have equal rights than amongst those who base their position on wishful thinking and the belief that playing nice to males who say they are women should be prioritized over playing fair to those who actually are women.

Devastating post. I don't expect any kind of reasonable rebuttal to it.

Yeah obviously some women are up in arms about it! I literally said they will take the lead on this!

Old White Conservatives, which we all KNOW comprise a large part of this site, have a f*cking image problem because of the last 20 years of opposing every single meaningful change for every single gender or LGBT group, no matter what it is. Abortion, gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, transgender military service, transgender people using bathrooms they want, any civil rights stuff, and now "CRT" aka the teaching about slavery in history class. This next thing is not about caring about womens sports, which you don't watch, but about your idealogical aversion to all things transgender.

That image problem is why the spearhead of this fight will be a college athlete, with the right motivations, not a Newt Gingrich look alike.

Gd this isnt hard to understand.

Every single thing you mentioned is bad. Youre basically whining "these people have a track record of opposing all our entire radical agenda"

Another reason why the "old white guys" trope/diss doesn't work: Over the course of history, a lot of "old white guys" have played pivotal roles in helping women and girls obtain fair play in sports and equal rights in life and law more generally.

In 1919, when the US Congress passed the amendment to the US Constitution that extended the right to vote to US citizens of my sex, the Senate and House were almost entirely made up of "old white guys." Similarly, the state legislatures that voted to ratify the 19th Amendment and thus make it the law of the land in 1920 were comprised mostly of old white guys too.

Of course, men in the US (and the UK and elsewhere) only took action to extend the right to vote to women after generations of women fought hard and relentlessly for suffrage and women's rights. But still, since women could not vote before we had the legal right to vote, changing the law could only be done by men. And in 1919-20, the men serving in the US Congress and statehouses were almost entirely white and most were on in years too. (Same goes for Britain.)

Since old white guys predominated in the US House and Senate in 1972-74, old white guys played a pretty important role in the passing and honing Title IX too, though feminist firebrand Patsy Mink and other women provided the impetus and put and kept the pressure on.

The same US Congress that made Title IX the law of the land in 1972-74 also overwhelmingly passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. So once again old white guys were key.

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal72-1250347

Not all old white guys in the 70s were on board with equality for the so-called second sex, of course. Many opposed Title IX. Including all the old white guys running the NCAA in the 60s and 70s. Funny that.

"The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) heavily opposed Title IX while it was going through congress, but their resistance did not end upon its passage. In 1976, 4 years after Title IX was passed, the NCAA filed a lawsuit against the department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). While congress delegated inspecting Title IX charges to HEW, the NCAA believed they had overstepped their bounds by overseeing college sports. In their legal argument, the NCAA chose to emphasize the portion of Title IX that specifies that the activity must receive federal funding in order to be under Title IX's rule. As sports do not receive direct federal funding, the NCAA believed they should be exempt. HEW, on the other hand, used a broader interpretation. They argued that as all universities benefit from the government in the form of subsidies and tax deductions, all programs should be under their watch. Two years later, the courts threw out NCAA's suit, as it had no legal standing. This was a huge victory for HEW and Title IX as a whole, but was only the start of many groups questioning how to interpret Title IX."

https://www.protecttitleix.com/backlash

Anyone who knows the history of women's sports in the US knows that the NCAA has never been a big fan of fair play for those of us who are female.

But anyone who has studied history, including women's history, also knows that for all the crappy things some "old white guys" have done over the course of time, none of the advances towards "diversity, inclusion and equality" and tolerance of difference, protections for minorities and the marginalized, and girls' and women's rights that have occurred in the modern era would have happened without a good many "old white guys" leading the way, lending a hand, giving a boost, tacitly going along or not being bothered enough to object.