Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Ban Biological Men From Women’s Sports

Really? Most of the time people do it for no real reason.

at this point in time wrote:

With more and more research coming out it's becoming clearer that there needs to be stricter rules over who can compete in the women's category. This is not to say that we exclude trans women. But we should be looking into how to make the rules the most fair.

When mens and women's sports were separated it wasn't due to gender identity. It was due to physical differences. Let's not forget that. On the same token, excluding an entire group of women is antithetical to sports and humanity. Let's remember that too.

So stricter rules. But with that, let the trans women play.

I expect that if the NCAA rules of needing hormone suppression for a year are followed, this is pretty much a non issue for distance running. Transwoman might still be faster than biological woman but the evidence suggests that the gap shrinks from ~10% to less than 2%. You aren't going to have hoard for 4:20 boys switching genders and dominating. When some 3:58 miler decides he is transgender, those couple of seconds though could make a difference. In some other sports, I am not as sure. And obviously this all assumes that the drugs and hormones are being taken.

This is a non-sequitur. We are discussing actions not intentions, who cares what the reasons are for transitioning. The point is what is fair or equitatble -- biological males who transition into women have an unfair advantage and as such should not competing against cis women.

samesame wrote:

It’s super hard to imagine someone making the choice to take hormones and get a sex change because they wanted to win a running race.

It's also not an issue because there aren't any transgender female distance runners.

samesame wrote:

It’s super hard to imagine someone making the choice to take hormones and get a sex change because they wanted to win a running race.

Strawman, nobody’s ever said that’s the sole reason people do it. It just happens to be a consequence of that choice that has a direct negative unfair impact on other people.

FINALLY!! SOMEONE WITH SOME COMMON SENSE!! AND TRUE SCIENCE BEHIND THEM!holy cow!

Tulsi Gabbard forgot all about him. Talk about a blast from the past.

A RHINO if you ask me.

RINO*

I consider myself a pretty progressive liberal democrat. Left of Joe Biden but slightly right of the AOC crowd.

This is one topic I take a hard line on.

If a man wants to transition to a women I fully support that, embrace it and applaud their courage.

I do not believe that same woman should be allowed to compete against other woman though. I think you give up that right when you transition.

If I was a woman competing against a trans-woman I would forfeit in protest. I think trans- women competing against naturally born women is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the high school and collegiate systems. Women deserve the right to compete against women who don’t have the benefit of elevated testosterone even if suppressed. .

SDSU Aztec wrote:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

I expect that if the NCAA rules of needing hormone suppression for a year are followed, this is pretty much a non issue for distance running. Transwoman might still be faster than biological woman but the evidence suggests that the gap shrinks from ~10% to less than 2%. You aren't going to have hoard for 4:20 boys switching genders and dominating. When some 3:58 miler decides he is transgender, those couple of seconds though could make a difference. In some other sports, I am not as sure. And obviously this all assumes that the drugs and hormones are being taken.

It's also not an issue because there aren't any transgender female distance runners.

I dunno what your definition of of "distance runners" is, but June (formerly Jonathan) Eastwood of the U of Montana trounced all the female competitors in the mile at an NCAA regional event in February of this year:

RunRagged wrote:

I dunno what your definition of of "distance runners" is, but June (formerly Jonathan) Eastwood of the U of Montana trounced all the female competitors in the mile at an NCAA regional event in February of this year:

https://youtu.be/acEwFJBerIU

That's Big Sky Conference championships. Even if Eastwood had qualified for NCAA, she would have been a non-factor.

First of all, the NCAA transgender inclusion rules as they currently stand do not specify a level to which a male athlete's level of testosterone has to be lowered for 12 months in order to compete in the female category. Nor do the NCCA rules require that a male athlete who wants to compete in female sports has to have his T levels tested by an objective or dispassionate body, or even that such a male athlete need provide test results from his own physician.

A doctor's letter saying that a male athlete has suppressed his T to some extent over the prior 12 months is all that's needed for a male athlete to compete in female sports per the NCAA.

Any male who takes a single or occasional dose of estrogen from his girlfriend's BC pills in a 12 month period would be eligible to compete in the female category per the NCAA's current "transgender inclusion" rules.

As to your claim that "the evidence suggests" that after a year of testosterone-suppression a grown male's advantage diminishes in distance running from "10% to less than 2%," this seems to be wishful thinking. A lot of recently published, peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that the sports advantages of males who've gone through male puberty do not appreciably diminish after a year - or even more - of T suppression.

Going through male puberty confers a hosts of physical advantages that cannot be undone by testosterone suppression afterwards.

samesame wrote:

It’s super hard to imagine someone making the choice to take hormones and get a sex change because they wanted to win a running race.

Really? People undergo surgical body modification all the time to appear more attractive, and take hormones to feel younger.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

I dunno what your definition of of "distance runners" is, but June (formerly Jonathan) Eastwood of the U of Montana trounced all the female competitors in the mile at an NCAA regional event in February of this year:

https://youtu.be/acEwFJBerIU

That's Big Sky Conference championships. Even if Eastwood had qualified for NCAA, she would have been a non-factor.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that all Big Sky Conference sports abide by the NCAA's eligibility rules and governance standards generally. If I am wrong on this, I apologize. Are you saying that Big Sky makes up its own rules about who is allowed to compete in the female category?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

I dunno what your definition of of "distance runners" is, but June (formerly Jonathan) Eastwood of the U of Montana trounced all the female competitors in the mile at an NCAA regional event in February of this year:

https://youtu.be/acEwFJBerIU

That's Big Sky Conference championships. Even if Eastwood had qualified for NCAA, she would have been a non-factor.

She still beat a bio women who otherwise would be the conference champion.

samesame wrote:

It’s super hard to imagine someone making the choice to take hormones and get a sex change because they wanted to win a running race.

Lots of people take hormones for all sorts of reasons, including sports advantage. Body builders and athletes in virtually all sports from MLB to pro bicycling take and have taken exogenous testosterone, human growth hormones and other such substances. It's why doping regulations are such a big thing.

And what is this "sex change" you are referring to that you seem to think most "trans" people go through?

Most males who've gone through puberty and claim to be the opposite sex nowadays have no surgeries - and when they do have surgeries the procedures they elect to have only rarely involve their balls, dicks, prostates or other male sexual organs.

Instead, the "gender confirmation" surgeries and procedures done on post-pubescent males who claim to be the opposite sex today are nearly all above the waist and cosmetic: "facial feminization" surgery, facial hair removal, tracheal shaves, implantation of sacs of fluid or gel into the chest to mimic women's breasts, lip and cheekbone fillers, hair plugs and transplants, body sculpting, butt and hip injections, removal of ribs to get a more hourglass shape, dental contouring of the upper front teeth to make the upper lip look more "feminine."

A paper titled "Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery" published in a pro-trans medical journal in 2019 said:

In studies that assessed transgender men (females) and women (males) as an aggregate, chest surgery has been reported at rates between 8–25%, and genital surgery at 4–13% (8,9).

Genital GCS is generally less common than chest surgery, with prevalence rates of 5–10% for transgender women (males) (7,9,32).

This is consistent with the findings of large surveys of transgender people, such as the 2015 US Transgender Survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality:

I don't think trans women should be allow to compete against biological women. Trans women have a biological advantage. If it can be proven that we hormone treatment they have no advantage I could change my mind, but that is not the case.

A trans woman could have the option of competing against men or find a rare trans event.

Hmm, seems the paper I quoted and linked to from PubMed has been blocked from being posted on Lets Run. I will try again.

If the link doesn't work a second time, the title of the paper is "Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery" and it was published in Translational Andrology and Urology in June 2019. Lead author is Ian T. Nolan.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/

Yes, why can't males who ID as trans compete against others of their sex - and use the male locker rooms, showers, toilets and other facilities as well?

Girls and women have accepted members of our own sex with varying "gender presentations," "identities" and sexualities in our sports, locker rooms and other spaces for decades. Most girls and women don't much care if our teammates or competitors are "girly girls" or stone butches. We just care that we're all female.

The issue with males who "identify as" the opposite sex and adopt a "feminine" gender presentation seems to be within their own heads and the minds of other males. This is not a problem of girls' and women's making, yet we're being told we must give up our sports and spaces to solve it, when it's clearly a problem rooted in males not being accepting of other males who are different to themselves.

Why can't boys and men be tolerant, welcoming and "inclusive" of all your brethren? Why are "non-conforming" males being foisted off into the female sphere once they show a taste for donning a bit of lipstick and growing their hair long?

Why are girls and women constantly told we must be "inclusive" of members of the opposite sex - and their willies and leering eyes - in our sports and spaces like locker rooms, but boys and men are allowed to be as rejecting and exclusive of "non-conforming" members of their own male sex as they/you want?

Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has been reporting on the situation of males with DSDs such as Caster Semenya in female sports since the beginning of Semenya's career, and he's done a lot of excellent, incisive work regarding whether it's fair to allow males who identify as women to compete in female sports coz "trans rights" as well.

The more Tucker has studied these matters, the more hard-line he's become that no males of any kind - no mater what their DSDs, "gender identity" or other issues - should be allowed to compete in the female category in any sports.

A recent Twitter thread of his on these topics: