Jefe in the CO wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I don't believe a gay male has done such a thing so that's only speculation on your part. I don't know if becoming a villain is reaping the benefits of Title IX anyway.
Yes, thanks for acknowledging that I'm speculating when I state that this may become a larger problem over time.
To keep things fair, I'll acknowledge that your position that it's not a big deal now nor will it ever be a big deal in the future is speculation as well.
Cheers.
I'm agreeable.
colder and wiser wrote:
You're trying to have it both ways here. First you said that anyone who calls themselves a woman is a woman, treating woman as a purely nominal category. Now you're saying you care what someone is, treating womanhood as something essential to their being. You're being incoherent, which suggests commitment to a position beyond what facts and logic can support.
In the weight class example, the agreement between what someone says they are ("I'm a lightweight!") and reality can be empirically verified ("Do you weigh 155 pounds or less?"). You are arguing that we should treat gender in sport as the opposite of that, but not convincingly because you completely fail to deal with the giant logical hole at the heart of your argument. Your position is that men and women are indistinguishable except by what they call themselves. What people are trying to tell you is that for several important purposes, including sport, men and women are in fact physically distinguishable, and that the distinction between them is important in these contexts. You're pounding on the law, but the facts aren't on your side.
You are arguing against many things I did not say. I was succinct and deliberate with my words.
I'm not going to defend the arguments you have made against the things I did not say.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Travesty or not, there is currently only one transgender athlete and it might be be years before another one shows up in N.C.A.A. sports that can compete at her level.
There is only one that you are aware of. There are probably dozens more that we have never heard about. Joanne Harper estimates there are at least 50 trans women competing on women's teams. (That includes all three divisions of NCAA plus NAIA.) Most of them are so mediocre that they don't make the headline.
Jefe in the CO wrote:
To the SDSUs of the World; why wouldn't a gay male take advantage of becoming Trans to reap the benefits of Title IX? I don't believe that some dude would change genders willy nilly to become competitive but I do believe that a gay male categorizing himself as female to participate in sport will become all the rage in due course. Aside from societal condemnation there is more upside than downside.
why on earth would you think any gay guy is going to want to be a transwoman? Why would someone who likes to f*ck other guys in the the a$$ want to take drugs that would interfer with that?
Joe Jackson wrote:
But what if it's 5 years? It only takes one freshman every four years to ruin the entire swimming careers of a group of athletes
I posted this earlier in the thread.
200 yd Free - 1:41.93
#14 all-time US list. First place in the NCAA Championships last year was 1:42.35
500 yd Free - 4:34:06
#18 all-time US list, Ivy League record. NCAAs last year: First, 4:33.61, second 4:35.02
1650 yd Free - 15:59.71
NCAAs last year: First 15:41.86. second 15:46.41, third 15:51.09, fourth 15:52.07, fifth 15:57.80, sixth 16:00.62
At last year's NCAA Championships, the Ivy League as a group scored zero points. Thomas would have scored 50 points BY HERSELF last year with the above times. By the time the championships roll around in March and his training is peaking, what kind of times will result? Could it be three NCAA titles and 60 points?
I am on a temporary ban wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Travesty or not, there is currently only one transgender athlete and it might be be years before another one shows up in N.C.A.A. sports that can compete at her level.
There is only one that you are aware of. There are probably dozens more that we have never heard about. Joanne Harper estimates there are at least 50 trans women competing on women's teams. (That includes all three divisions of NCAA plus NAIA.) Most of them are so mediocre that they don't make the headline.
I meant to include "competitive" meaning June Eastwood's level or higher. The so mediocre one are not a threat to women's sports.
Current NCAA Rankings
200 Free
1 1:41.93 Thomas, Lia 5Y Penn 12/04/2021
2 1:42.59 Huske, Torri FR Stanford 11/19/2021
3 1:43.13 Ivey, Isabel SR California 12/03/2021
500 Free
1 4:34.06 Thomas, Lia 5Y Penn 12/03/2021
2 4:34.87 Nordin, Emma 5Y Arizona St 11/18/2021
3 4:36.96 Forde, Brooke 5Y Stanford 11/18/2021
1650 Free
1 15:47.15 Nordin, Emma 5Y Arizona St 11/20/2021
2 15:52.05 McMahon, Kensey SR Alabama 11/20/2021
3 15:57.23 McCulloh, Abigail FR Georgia 11/20/2021
4 15:57.63 Stege, Kristen JR Tennessee 11/20/2021
5 15:57.76 McKenna, Paige FR Wisconsin 12/04/2021
6 15:59.71 Thomas, Lia 5Y Penn 12/05/2021
Prior to this season, these were the Penn school records.
50 Free 22.50 Rochelle Dong 2016 (Thomas 22.78)
100 Free 49.37 Shelby Fortin 2014 (Thomas 49.42)
200 Free 1:45.69 Shelby Fortin 2014 (Thomas 1:41.93)
500 Free 4:41.34 Shelby Fortin 2013 (Thomas 4:34.06)
1000 Free 9:39.60 Catherine Buroker 2020 (Thomas 9:35.96)
1650 Free 16:09.76 Catherine Buroker 2020 (Thomas 15:59.71)
BOLD are new school records
Buroker is currently a junior on the team who set the school records as a sophomore. I wonder if she was one of the anonymous Penn swimmers who criticized Thomas in an interview. If so, I wouldn't blame her at all.
the world turned upside down wrote:
Prior to this season, these were the Penn school records.
50 Free 22.50 Rochelle Dong 2016 (Thomas 22.78)
100 Free 49.37 Shelby Fortin 2014 (Thomas 49.42)
200 Free 1:45.69 Shelby Fortin 2014 (Thomas 1:41.93)
500 Free 4:41.34 Shelby Fortin 2013 (Thomas 4:34.06)
1000 Free 9:39.60 Catherine Buroker 2020 (Thomas 9:35.96)
1650 Free 16:09.76 Catherine Buroker 2020 (Thomas 15:59.71)
BOLD are new school records
Buroker is currently a junior on the team who set the school records as a sophomore. I wonder if she was one of the anonymous Penn swimmers who criticized Thomas in an interview. If so, I wouldn't blame her at all.
Yeah, that one hurts. She could have looked back on her career some day and said she had a couple of school records, but now she will have to explain why she only sort of does.
When some of the posters on here try to feign ignorance about who this hurts, well how about biologically female swimmer that is competing with Thomas. Their records will not be recognized. Their teams will likely lose at the NCAAs because of him. And the NCAA will recognize it all while they are told to shut up.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I am on a temporary ban wrote:
There is only one that you are aware of. There are probably dozens more that we have never heard about. Joanne Harper estimates there are at least 50 trans women competing on women's teams. (That includes all three divisions of NCAA plus NAIA.) Most of them are so mediocre that they don't make the headline.
I meant to include "competitive" meaning June Eastwood's level or higher. The so mediocre one are not a threat to women's sports.
It is hardly a coherent principle to decide eligibility for women's competition based on results rather than their sex i.e. If a male athlete is not a "competitive threat" it is ok.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
real brain differences wrote:
A boxer who physically loses 100 pounds is different from a boxer who identifies as being 100 pounds lighter when he actually isn’t.
I agree. As that relates to this issue though, the University of Pennsylvania, the NCAA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America agree that Lia Thomas is a woman.
Facts don't care about your feelings. If your entire argument is "Lia Thomas" is a man pretending to be a woman, then you have no argument.
The argument is that "she" is male.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is quite clear that you don't understand why there have long been separate categories for male and female competition in the first place. Women cannot compete as equals with men. Thomas is a male competing as a female. His/her self-description doesn't change that fact.
UPenn and the NCAA disagree with you. I do too.
Then we may as well do away with separate categories for males and females. But that wouldn't suit the trans athletes, would it? They would be less likely to win against men.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What you are arguing for is the equivalent of a heavyweight boxer being able to compete in a lower-weight division. But, hey - they are all boxers so let's just be inclusive and not worry about what is fair.
No, I'm not.
I'm saying that if a heavyweight boxer loses enough weight to compete in a lower weight division, then he should compete in the lower weight division.
You are saying that a lower weight boxer could put on 100 lbs of muscle but still compete in the lower weight class because "they used to be 100 lbs. lighter."
I don't care what someone used to be. I care what they are.
A trans athlete is still male. It isn't what they "used to be".
You fail to understand the boxing analogy. A heavyweight is by definition a heavyweight and not in the same weight division as a lesser weight. That is why they cannot compete in a lower division. The point is not that a boxer may either lose weight - or put it on - the weight they are when entered for competition determines their grade. A trans athlete isn't someone who may move around weight classes, so to speak; they remain biologically male. Calling them "women" does not change their chromosomes.
slaaaaa wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How many average men do you know suppressing testosterone and taking oestrogen?
Close to 100% that are competing as trans woman after high school.... We aren't talking about guys in drag racing. We are talking trans woman...
They don't cease to be male because they may have altered some of their hormonal levels.
Armstronglivs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I meant to include "competitive" meaning June Eastwood's level or higher. The so mediocre one are not a threat to women's sports.
It is hardly a coherent principle to decide eligibility for women's competition based on results rather than their sex i.e. If a male athlete is not a "competitive threat" it is ok.
There are people that predict transgender athletes will wipe out records and sweep the medals so in that context, a mediocre one shouldn't be of concern.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
colder and wiser wrote:
You're trying to have it both ways here. First you said that anyone who calls themselves a woman is a woman, treating woman as a purely nominal category. Now you're saying you care what someone is, treating womanhood as something essential to their being. You're being incoherent, which suggests commitment to a position beyond what facts and logic can support.
In the weight class example, the agreement between what someone says they are ("I'm a lightweight!") and reality can be empirically verified ("Do you weigh 155 pounds or less?"). You are arguing that we should treat gender in sport as the opposite of that, but not convincingly because you completely fail to deal with the giant logical hole at the heart of your argument. Your position is that men and women are indistinguishable except by what they call themselves. What people are trying to tell you is that for several important purposes, including sport, men and women are in fact physically distinguishable, and that the distinction between them is important in these contexts. You're pounding on the law, but the facts aren't on your side.
You are arguing against many things I did not say. I was succinct and deliberate with my words.
I'm not going to defend the arguments you have made against the things I did not say.
Your position and its inherent flaws have been summed up quite accurately. It is enough for you that a person identifies as female for them to compete in women's sport. You have no other criteria. You remain indifferent to the concerns expressed that biological males have a distinct advantage over females by virtue of their being male. You have made it clear that you don't think that fairness is a legitimate consideration even when the principle is integral to all sporting competition. Ultimately, in your zeal to allow males who describe themselves as females to compete against women you are completely indifferent to the interests of women who are female. Misogyny has a variety of forms but yours is one of them.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is hardly a coherent principle to decide eligibility for women's competition based on results rather than their sex i.e. If a male athlete is not a "competitive threat" it is ok.
There are people that predict transgender athletes will wipe out records and sweep the medals so in that context, a mediocre one shouldn't be of concern.
Now that we've established there is no principle driving your argument. So what do you do when transgender athletes emerge who will rewrite the women's record books, as will undoubtedly happen? It is a little late to be concerned then, isn't it?
Armstronglivs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I meant to include "competitive" meaning June Eastwood's level or higher. The so mediocre one are not a threat to women's sports.
It is hardly a coherent principle to decide eligibility for women's competition based on results rather than their sex i.e. If a male athlete is not a "competitive threat" it is ok.
SDSU has some weird opinions but that one is by far the weirdest: “it doesn’t matter, it’s only one or two trans athletes a year.” Think of the equivalent. “Only one guy all year tried to claim victory in a marathon after he rode in a car and crossed the line in under an hour… let’s just give him the prize money for the sheer audacity of it!”
Less facetiously, “only a few people cut courses…” “Most runners don’t dope…” It’s either wrong or it isn’t, and dude elsewhere says he roots against these athletes. So he thinks it’s wrong, but not worth the effort? Why, Aztec?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
colder and wiser wrote:
You're trying to have it both ways here. First you said that anyone who calls themselves a woman is a woman, treating woman as a purely nominal category. Now you're saying you care what someone is, treating womanhood as something essential to their being. You're being incoherent, which suggests commitment to a position beyond what facts and logic can support.
You are arguing against many things I did not say. I was succinct and deliberate with my words.
I'm not going to defend the arguments you have made against the things I did not say.
Now you're being dishonest about what you said. Here's you, back on page 11:
If you asked her if she was a man or a woman, she would say “woman.” Maybe just ask the person? That’s my definition.
And here's you again, back on page 27:
I don't care what someone used to be. I care what they are.
Like I said, you're trying to have it both ways. You treat womanhood as just a word that people apply to themselves one moment, and then as part of their being the next. That kind of evasiveness doesn't suggest a winning argument. Do you wish to rephrase what you wrote as "I don't care what someone used to call themselves. I care what they call themselves now"? That would at least be coherent. But you need to decide what you believe and deal with the consequences of your choice.
The real problem is this: if womanhood is just a word that anyone can claim for themselves, there is no reason for a separate women's category to exist in sport. We do have categories like that - they're called "teams." You can be a "Laker" in one game, then call yourself a "Celtic" a week later, and go on competing just fine. There's no need at all for a separate "Laker" league and a "Celtic" league - that would be ridiculous. Women's teams and sports leagues are not based on these kind of nominal categories, but on the blindingly obvious fact that without separate teams and leagues, nearly no women would ever have a chance to participate at the competitive level appropriate to their situation: nearly all girls would be JV, nearly no women would run in the NCAA, nearly no women would place well at local road races, etc. Failure to deal with this basic issue really weakens your position.