Transwoman wins 2nd consecutive U23 national title in Skimo

For those scouring the web, this story is going to be far more impactful because it’s already a dispute being adjudicated in the federal courts and will end up before the SC (already is to an extent). You can all read the facts of the case, but it comes down to whether or not state laws barring trans athlete participation in their identified gender category rather than sex category violate the 14th amendment and violate Title VII and IX.

https://www.courthousenews.com/high-court-invited-to-tackle-fairness-for-trans-athletes/

washingtonpost.com

Supreme Court asked to allow West Virginia’s transgender athlete ban

The case involves a 12-year-old transgender girl who is taking puberty blockers and wants to stay on the girls’ track and cross-country teams at her middle school.

Open link

Jeff,
Do you believe Caitlyn Jenner is a biological male? I assume most people on there would say Caityln is transgender and that she is a biological male.

You seem to be denying the sex of transgender people.

Caitlyn herself does not think transgender women should compete against biological female in elite sport. Does this make her a bigot?

If that is your definition of a bigot then I think the vast majority of people who follow elite sport can be called bigots.

@Jeff People who believe males should compete against biological males are not denying transgenderism exists, see Caitlyn Jenner, Martina Navratilova. They are saying sex is what sport should be what society divides sport on rather than gender.

I'm not sure why we are asked our gender at all on government forms. How I dress or identify isn't relevant to much at all. If I get in a car accident, the doctor needs to know if anything my sex, not my gender.

The Catholic analogy is only the appropriate analogy if beliefs on transgenderism are a religion and not based on science. But in some ways I think that is the appropriate analogy because some people want to call Caitlyn Jenner a female. For the longest time, women and man denoted gender and sex to most people. Now people are saying, no man and woman denotes gender. Fine maybe we can change the language, so I'll settle on male and female. Nope, I've seen the NY times refer to transgender women (biological males) as transgender females. It was my understanding of language that that wasn't even possible. Female/Male denote sex.

So then I guess I will be forced to adjust and fall back on the term "biological male" and "biological female."

But I think that may not be good enough for many of the strongest transgender advocates or if I want to use a religious term "believers". I think in your ideal world Caitlyn Jenner is a female or biological female. But that isn't the case. We're debating terminology. Some on the other side of this argument would say thus she isn't a woman or that a transgender woman is different than a non transgender woman. Many on the opposite side of this say that is highly offensive, but it's a matter of semantics.

However, no matter the words we use, the main thing that stands and can not change is Caitlyn Jenner is a biological male. If you want to believe she is a biogical female, that is more along the lines of a religion but I would argue I can prove via science she isn't. Now you might say the same thing about the Holy Catholic Communion but in that instance I think Catholics would argue you can't prove it doesn't happen.

Seriously- the general public HATES the trans athlete thing and they have NO CLUE. I got into it with a group of people who thought that Caster Semenya has a sex change.

They're clueless and always offer an opinion somewhere along the lines of:

If God made you a man then you're man.

I'm not sure why we are asked our gender at all on government forms. How I dress or identify isn't relevant to much at all. If I get in a car accident, the doctor needs to know if anything my sex, not my gender.

But your gender is relevant from a legal standpoint because it’s a protected characteristic and discrimination in the work place at least based on gender is prohibited based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If you changed your gender and your employer fired you for that reason, that’s unlawful. Sex based discrimination is unlawful too. In just about every walk of life both gender based and sex based discrimination are unlawful by law or precedent. Rarely are these issues at odds with each other. The question is whether or not in one particular area, athletics, is there a carve out, so that gender based discrimination is now ok? You can argue that forcing a person to compete in a category not aligned with their gender, or creating a separate category, is not discriminatory, but that’s not clearly logical according to Title VII. If you were forced at work to be in a separate office because of your gender, that would be unlawful, but maybe a separate road race is ok? So people are left claiming that treating people differently because of their gender is unlawful in just about every case except athletics, or going back and claiming that gender should NOT be a protected category, and only sex matters after all.

The preferred terms among trans activists are AMAB (assigned male at birth) and AFAB (assigned female at birth). You don't have to use those terms, but it might be good to know that those terms exist. (Or "natal male" and "natal female" which are less ideological terms.)

But here is the question. What's wrong with calling trans women just that. trans women? It is clear that we are not referring to cis women. Isn't that enough for the purpose of clarity?

If I say "trans women should not be allowed to compete against cis women in elite sports", isn't that clear enough?

Huh? Why would there be an issue with someone not Catholic who calls themselves Catholic participating in an athletic event organized "only for non-Catholics"? (Also, are there such events?)

A scenario that's more relevant here would be one in which male Catholic clergy - priests, bishops, monks/brothers, cardinals, the pope - show up at an athletic event for female Catholic clergy dressed in nuns' habits and demand they be allowed to participate based on their claims that they now "identify as" and "feel like" sisters. If the nuns said, "but you're not sisters, you're men of the cloth," would you say that makes the nuns bigots?

As to your insinuation that the only reason anyone would ever mention the sex of the males who are using gender identity claims to muscle in on girls' and women's sport nowadays is "to assert some kind of power and authority over a group you feel is lesser than your own" - that's poppycock.

What's more, it's poppycock that hides the reality of what's going because it reverses the roles of the parties involved so as to make the males who are moving in on girls' and women's sports - and locker rooms, loos, rape crisis centers etc - seem like utterly blameless oppressed victims, whilst painting everyone who objects as baddies and bad sports.

Fact is, the group asserting power and authority here are the male interlopers and those who back them. Moreover, the group these male interlopers are lording it over, punching down on, putting in our place and showing total disrespect and disregard for in women's sports, locker rooms and life in general nowadays are female human beings - the very same group that male humans throughout history have always felt is lesser than their/your own.

cbsnews.com

Connecticut Girls Sue To Block Participation Of Transgender Track Athletes

The families of three female high school runners filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block transgender athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls sports.

Open link

Transgender females are winning in HS in our sport, which includes sprinting. Part of being a virtue signalling social justice warrior is getting the facts and the science right no?

Doesn't the same argument suggest that separating competitions by sex/gender in the first place is discriminatory? If everybody competed in one unsegregated competition, all these issues would be resolved.

Those terms are also loaded with bias.

"Assigned" implies that someone made a declaration of your sex, not that there was a penis or vagina or explicit physical markers of sex. It takes what is a material fact and obfuscates it as a fallible opinion.

'at Birth" further implies that this "assignment" of sex is something fluid, malleable, transient. It's the same as '8lbs at birth'.

IMO the issue with the term 'trans women' and 'trans men' is that most people have no idea which direction it points, meaning they don't know if 'trans woman' means a biological woman who identifies as a man or a biological man who identifies as a woman.

Actually, there are several areas other than sports in which conflicts have arisen, and will arise, insofar as legal efforts to protect different groups of people from discrimination based on sex and gender are concerned.

Prisons, for example.

As I am sure you know, in many states in the US, adult male convicts are now placed in either men's or women's prisons based on their claimed gender identities. This hasn't worked out well for the female convicts these males are locked in with. Quite a few of the male convicts placed in women's facilities have raped, assaulted, menaced, intimidated and sexually pursued female inmates. In New Jersey, one male murderer impregnated two female inmates at the Edna Mahan women's prison pretty soon after arriving there. In Ilinois, the first male inmate transferred to a female prison based on gender identity claims was another murderer - and on the first day "she" was allowed in with the general pop, "she" raped a female inmate and is accused of raping a second female prisoner later on.

So whose rights come first here? The rights of male inmates to serve their time behind bars in female prisons if they say they "identify as" and "feel like" women themselves? Or the rights of female inmates not to be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of being locked up behind bars with male criminals who are twice their size and strength - and many of whom so far have been brutal murderers, rapists, child molesters and serial killers of women?

Whatever crimes some female inmates have committed, how is it constitutional, just and humane to lock women in cages with male convicts based on the males' claims about their self-perceptions and identities?

Other areas of conflict are communal toilets, changing rooms, showers, spas, dorm and bunk rooms, hospital wards, nursing home accommodations, shelters, rape refuges, in-home health care, barracks, medical services and research, support groups, crime statistics, etc.

I believe people of both sexes should be protected against discrimination based on our sex, sexual orientation, and gender, gender expression and gender identity (if we have one). But these are very thorny areas of law that are as-yet unsettled - and it's naive and a grave mistake to pretend that there aren't conflicts all over the place between rights and protections based on sex and rights and protections based on gender, gender identity and expression.

But generally speaking, I think it would be a huge step backwards if women's and girls's sports, women's locker rooms and loos, etc, and women's rights were redefined as sports, spaces and rights for "feminine" people rather than for female people.

Are you that misogynistic that you think that females are inferior to males in sports for some reason other than biology? If so, what is that reason, Jeff? Do you think they are mentally weak? That they don't have courage? That they don't want to win as much or practice as hard? That because they are more likely to wear dresses and make-up they are not tough enough to be an athlete?

Please tell us Jeff, if we don't use biology to determine classification in sport, why have two classifications at all? Maybe that is what you want. Perhaps your lack of interest in the WNBA is really about a disdain for female sports in general, a fundamental lack of respect for females as a whole and as individuals, a belief that they are inferior to the male of the species, and should be treated as such.

I hate to break it to you Jeff, but females are not on this earth for the entertainment of the male.

Own your misogyny, Jeff. Say it loud and proud.

Well, didn't someone indeed make a decision on the sex of a new born based on the external genitalia, whether that "someone" is a doctor, a midwife or a parent?

And if you go by that definition, are you okay with calling Caster Semenya a "woman"?

The last point is about people's ignorance, and is not worth discussing.

Transgender women are biological males. That's the whole point. Otherwise they would just be "women". Are you trying to erase transgender women by denying their existence?

Wokeness is a religion.

Cheating. Plain and simple. Nothing anti-anyone about it.

It's not so much a decision as it is an observation. "Assigned" makes it sound more arbitrary than it really is.

As to Semenya, that's the other problem with "assigned at birth". Sometimes there are cases like hers, where evidence arrives later on, so the "assignment" at birth may turn out to be wrong or incomplete. As to your question, yes, Semenya should probably be called a woman, as she has both male and female characteristics, but identifies as female. But no, she should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.

Did someone make a decision about a light being on or off? Or the direction of threads on a screw? Or the length of a 400m track? You can reduce anything to 'someone's decision' but that doesn't mean that the decision isn't backed by measurables. This is tantamount to saying "Well didn't someone indeed make a decision on the day of birth?" Yes of course, but it's silly to suggest that they did so on a whim, or that their opinion should be discounted.

Caster Semenya is intersex which is a different discussion, but there is a debate about physiological v psychological afflictions, freedom of will, and bad actors, namely, there's no way to fake being intersex. Not saying trans people are faking, saying that the door is open for bad actors to exploit it.

People's ignorance is always worth discussing. Everybody is ignorant about most things. Not many people know about loop quantum gravity, seems like if that ever became a pertinent issue we should make sure there's a basic understanding and agreement on terms.

The solution shouldn't fall upon the victims. The governing bodies of these sports need to learn to use the word NO.