SDSU Aztec wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
Long-term thinking isn't your forte, eh?
No one is going to court over a long-term, theoretical problem. Who would be the plantiff?
_________________
How about some actual plantiffs for this allegedly "theoretical problem?" Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell come to mind.
Thousands of average guys are waiting for a full ride to Oregon.
800 dude wrote:
Like most here, I'm far from a scientist, so I'm not going to make any authoritative statements about what kind of advantages MTF athletes retain after undergoing hormone therapy. My understanding is that the question (really many, many questions) are far from settled.
I will say that I think whatever we learn, we should adopt a sliding scale approach: The higher the level of competition, the more we should require certainty that there is no retained advantage. (I'm assuming the premise of this thread is that we can agree that to the extent there is a provable advantage, MTF athletes should not compete against born females.) At the pro and Olympic level, we should be quite certain that there's zero advantage. At lower levels of competition, I'm okay with MTF athletes competing as long we're reasonably confident that there's no advantage or that any advantage is very minor.
I've always been very divided on this topic and this is maybe the best idea I've ever seen. Base a sliding scale and let the people with degrees make the call. All these pseudo-scientists on here need to cool it.
GD wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
No one is going to court over a long-term, theoretical problem. Who would be the plantiff?
_________________
How about some actual plantiffs for this allegedly "theoretical problem?" Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell come to mind.
Yeah, Selina Soule was bumped from 6th place to 8th. I believe she already qualified for the Tri-States in the LJ, so her damage was limited to not being able to run a "one and out" heat. And her case has nothing to do with NCAA rules or those in other states for HS.
Based on her latest video, she seems to be greatly enjoying the attention she is receiving. She's not a compelling victim.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
By logics you use then we is say men 7 feet tall is has no business because they is got height advantage in nba. And we is say if you is too big and is too fast then not should play sport because you has advantage so you not can say just because someone taller then they not right to play because it not fair and is bigotry.
astro wrote:
Biological males have absolutely no business competing in women's sports. It is absurd. What is equally absurd is how everyone is just supposed to pander to a microscopic subset of the population and how they supposedly take precedence over all else.
Nobody is saying they don’t have the right to play. They have the right to play, they don’t have the right to win.
Go play in proper category and if you aren’t a winner any more, sucks to suck, come join the rest of us.
So being biologically male in a women's sport is no different than being tall? Nope. Sorry.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
GD wrote:
_________________
How about some actual plantiffs for this allegedly "theoretical problem?" Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell come to mind.
Yeah, Selina Soule was bumped from 6th place to 8th. I believe she already qualified for the Tri-States in the LJ, so her damage was limited to not being able to run a "one and out" heat. And her case has nothing to do with NCAA rules or those in other states for HS.
Based on her latest video, she seems to be greatly enjoying the attention she is receiving. She's not a compelling victim.
I was unaware that being compelling was a prerequisite for victimhood. What level of damage to women's sports rises to the level of being worthy of your attention? If a biological male were to win a high school state track championship in the girl's classification, would that warrant some concern on your part?
Last week in the Montana state legislature, an ACLU attorney arguing for the organization's position that female scholastic sports should be opened up to all males claiming to have opposite sex "gender identities, said it's perfectly fine if this ends up meaning the future of female sports is 100% male.
All that stunned eye blinking like a deer caught in the headlights followed by a robotic recitation of mantras that are often heard yet entirely untrue doesn't exactly make for a convincing argument. But it has earned this attorney the humorous moniker, Bambi the Blinking Lawyer.
On a more serious note, this public statement by an ACLU attorney speaking on behalf of the ACLU makes clear to the general public what many of us working in this area have known for several years now: the ACLU, along with nearly every other establishment civil rights organization in the US, opposes and is actively working to roll back the hard-won women's rights and the doctrine of fair play that previous generations of female people - and many, many male people as well - stood up for and fought for.
Guess actual girls and women are just gonna have to suck it up and get used to the stunning and brave new world order.
Biden's EO pretty much pushes women back about 75 years in terms of athletics. They will not have a place to compete.
A man who has completed hormone therapy is still going to be stronger and faster than any female because of biomechanics.
Trans males should compete against males.
Alan
Disgusted wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Yeah, Selina Soule was bumped from 6th place to 8th. I believe she already qualified for the Tri-States in the LJ, so her damage was limited to not being able to run a "one and out" heat. And her case has nothing to do with NCAA rules or those in other states for HS.
Based on her latest video, she seems to be greatly enjoying the attention she is receiving. She's not a compelling victim.
I was unaware that being compelling was a prerequisite for victimhood. What level of damage to women's sports rises to the level of being worthy of your attention? If a biological male were to win a high school state track championship in the girl's classification, would that warrant some concern on your part?
If there is a transgender state champion about once every 3-4 years, it just doesn't really matter. The transgender female will not receive a scholarship so the girls behind her will still get theirs, if they're good enough. They will get over it.
What about "one and done" basketball players? They take scholarships from true student athletes and bump others from making the team. I doubt if these O&D athletes see the inside of a classroom during their stay in college. That's far more unfair than what happened to Soule. And it really did seem like she's having the time of her life based on that video..
Every average guy will be eligible for a scholarship based on this EO.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Disgusted wrote:
I was unaware that being compelling was a prerequisite for victimhood. What level of damage to women's sports rises to the level of being worthy of your attention? If a biological male were to win a high school state track championship in the girl's classification, would that warrant some concern on your part?
If there is a transgender state champion about once every 3-4 years, it just doesn't really matter. The transgender female will not receive a scholarship so the girls behind her will still get theirs, if they're good enough. They will get over it.
What about "one and done" basketball players? They take scholarships from true student athletes and bump others from making the team. I doubt if these O&D athletes see the inside of a classroom during their stay in college. That's far more unfair than what happened to Soule. And it really did seem like she's having the time of her life based on that video..
I'll admit to being a bit impressed by your ability to make preposterous ideas sound reasonable, but come on! It just doesn't matter if a girl works her butt off for years and loses her state championship to a boy? She should just harden up and get over it? How about the transgender athlete hardens up and competes against boys instead? If no state championship is forthcoming, just get over it. And what about basketball players? Are they taking scholarships from a protected athletic class? If not, that's irrelevant here and fodder for a separate discussion.
Just been reading the EO about trans and the military.
Don’t be surprised how the tans movement will keep forcing the issue in sports both with and without hormone treatment.
Your own version of common sense may not be the version that wins and women’s WR’s will tumble but not be recognised by WA.
Disgusted wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
If there is a transgender state champion about once every 3-4 years, it just doesn't really matter. The transgender female will not receive a scholarship so the girls behind her will still get theirs, if they're good enough. They will get over it.
What about "one and done" basketball players? They take scholarships from true student athletes and bump others from making the team. I doubt if these O&D athletes see the inside of a classroom during their stay in college. That's far more unfair than what happened to Soule. And it really did seem like she's having the time of her life based on that video..
I'll admit to being a bit impressed by your ability to make preposterous ideas sound reasonable, but come on! It just doesn't matter if a girl works her butt off for years and loses her state championship to a boy? She should just harden up and get over it? How about the transgender athlete hardens up and competes against boys instead? If no state championship is forthcoming, just get over it. And what about basketball players? Are they taking scholarships from a protected athletic class? If not, that's irrelevant here and fodder for a separate discussion.
I'll take that as a compliment. In a country with a population of 340M, a transgender winning a state championship every few years just doesn't warrant all this handwringing. From a college coach's point of view and for anyone watching the meet, the 2nd place finisher will be considered the winner of the race, and if she's fast enough, she will still get her scholarship. It would be ridiculous for a girl about to leave home to compete in college sports and pursue a degree, to mope around the house and record "it sucks to be me" videos. I would be loving life with my scholarship if I was her and would put the race behind me in about 5 minutes.
As of yet, no female has lost a scholarship to a transgender athlete and at least in distance running, it's never going to happen.
Running craze wrote:
Every average guy will be eligible for a scholarship based on this EO.
I'm a liberal Californian, but If I was a coach, I would never give a scholarship to your average guy. Would you?
And for the umpteenth time, Biden's EO has nothing to do with women's sports.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Disgusted wrote:
I was unaware that being compelling was a prerequisite for victimhood. What level of damage to women's sports rises to the level of being worthy of your attention? If a biological male were to win a high school state track championship in the girl's classification, would that warrant some concern on your part?
If there is a transgender state champion about once every 3-4 years, it just doesn't really matter. The transgender female will not receive a scholarship so the girls behind her will still get theirs, if they're good enough. They will get over it.
It doesn't matter to you, because you're not the girl who's being unfairly beaten by boys. I thought liberals prided themselves on their superior empathy.
Running craze wrote:
Biden's EO pretty much pushes women back about 75 years in terms of athletics. They will not have a place to compete.
I fear what's going on is even worse than you say.
Biden's EO pushes girls and women back to the period prior to Title IX, which was passed in June 1972 but took another decade or more to implement.
Under Title IX, states, school districts, schools and sports governing bodies were originally given six years to come into compliance with the new law. But the de facto compliance period was actually much longer. So long as they were moving in the right direction, generally speaking, affected institutions were allowed to get away with dragging their feet or even acting to obstruct Title IX - and girls and women were told don't bother lodging complaints coz they won't be taken seriously.
But Biden's EO reflects a broader cultural shift in beliefs about biological sex that set back girls and women's rights to much earlier times in history.
When I was growing up in the period prior to Title IX, many people took it as a given that girls and women should be excluded from many spheres of life, and we should not have scholastic sports (or in many cases even PE classes), coz our female bodies made us deficient, inferior and second class compared to humans with male bodies.
But what's happening today is a denial that male and female bodies exist and differ in many significant ways in the first place.
Girls and women are being told that we cannot have our own separate sports from males - nor any female-only spaces and services like loos, fitting and change rooms, locker rooms, homeless shelters, rape refuges, DV shelters, barracks, dorms, prisons, nursing home rooms, etc - coz the biological sex categories male and female in humans don't exist.
In the stunning and brave new world order of gender ideology, all that matters is whether you "identify as" a boy/man or girl/woman and how closely you hew to the regressive sex stereotypes associated with the sex with which you "identify."
This new but regressive way of thinking leaves the majority of the population out coz most people do not have "gender identities." We simply know that we are female or male coz of our sexed bodies. The only people who have "gender identities" are people who wish they were the opposite sex or claim to be, or wish they were of no sex at all.
I believe the new notion that "gender identity" should supplant and override sex is harmful to males and females alike. But the group that is really screwed by this new way of thinking is girls and women.
Females who ID as males and take T will never be competitive against males in sports or a physical threat to males in locker rooms, showers, toilets and other sex-segregated spaces such as prisons (though I think females in these sorts of male facilities do deny males the right to bodily privacy).
But males - no matter how much they reduce their T, ingest estrogen, slather on makeup and nail varnish, or "girlishly" tilt their heads and flick their hair - will never be able to eliminate the enormous physical advantages they have over females that give them a leg up in sports - and which enable them to discomfort, unnerve, intimidate and potentially overpower females in other settings as well, such as locker rooms, showers, change rooms, shelters and prisons.
Moreover, since nowadays the vast majority of males (95%) who identify as girls or women keep their testicles and penises - and most (at least 75%) are also sexually attracted to females and now claim to be lesbians - the presence of trans-identified males in spaces where girls and women attend to intimate bodily functions and are in various states of undress and vulnerability causes girls and women to have concerns about sexual predation, abuse and pregnancy that should be obvious.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I'll take that as a compliment. In a country with a population of 340M, a transgender winning a state championship every few years just doesn't warrant all this handwringing. From a college coach's point of view and for anyone watching the meet, the 2nd place finisher will be considered the winner of the race, and if she's fast enough, she will still get her scholarship. It would be ridiculous for a girl about to leave home to compete in college sports and pursue a degree, to mope around the house and record "it sucks to be me" videos. I would be loving life with my scholarship if I was her and would put the race behind me in about 5 minutes.
As of yet, no female has lost a scholarship to a transgender athlete and at least in distance running, it's never going to happen.
Eh just let them have their fear porn fantasies, no amount of facts will convince them that women's sports are not on the verge of ending. I'm sure we could find several similar threads on this topic from ten years ago when the NCAA allowed trans women to compete, or twenty years ago when the IOC stopped requiring surgery for trans women.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
Would it? Sure he might be the best player (i.e. just like he was the best man) but how silly would it be? People have the delusion if Lebron transition, he would be the Lebron we see playing for the lakers. He wouldn't be. Sure he would still be 6'8 but now he will be missing all that muscle mass that lets him jump out of the building. His shooting touch is likely be trashed given his different levels of strength. His basketball IQ would be messed up beyond belief as he is now a step slower than he was.
TransLebron isn't going to be like 10% better than the best woman player. The question is he 1-2% more or 0%? For amateur athletics, nobody cares. At elite levels? It makes a difference. And there is probably some sport dependent issues.
Yes he would. He'd be 6'8. He could just dominate on height. Shooting touch? Everything would be a layup.