It is a tiny percentage. Each state has several divisions and t&f has many events. We’re talking a tiny fraction of participants and state winners are trans.
Get over it.
One Boy in Girls ONLY Competition, Is one too many
Womens sports have come a long way since 1970 and Title IX. Only to be taken over by biological males who like to dominate women.
Hopefully these states lose federal funding and the elected officials can explain why they need to raise taxes to pay for the transgenders competing in female sports when 98% of the voters do not support their policy.
100% of those voting for liberal dems do in fact support this policy by continuing to vote for the liberal dems.
The thing about math is that three (or more) things can be true at the same time. Here is an example:
In my example below (not about trans runners), it was similarly confusing for people who didn't know much about our sport:
Fact 1 - only three women in the 800m at the 2016 Olympics were DSD. How can it be a "big problem" if only three runners in the entire Olympics are DSD?
Fact 2 - 100% of the 800m medals that year were won by DSD females.
Fact 3 - Every single DSD athlete took home a medal and 0% of non-DSD women won medals.
So does "only three girls" represent a tiny amount or a huge problem? I think the problem isn't the number, but the impact. The impact, in my opinion, is bigger than just the number.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
100% of those voting for liberal dems do in fact support this policy by continuing to vote for the liberal dems.
By you logic, everyone who voted for Trump voted for him because of his record on sexual assault. If you voted for him, you support "grabbing them by the pssy," right?
Oh, wait, maybe you don't agree with that part of Trump's personality, but you like other things about him?
It is probably the same for Democrats. They don't support trans athletes in girl's sports but they care about health care, education, the environment, and other issues; so they turn a blind eye to one thing they don't support.
What events?? I was there and no one stood out to me. The kid from the 200 and 400 last year wasn't there.
This is a valid question. I don't know why you got downvoted? Maybe you didn't say in Oregon in your thread. I think California did have a trans kid racing, but I know people who were at the Oregon state meet and they didn't mention anything.
Does anyone know if there actually was a trans kid in Oregon this year? The kid from last year was not there...
The thing about math is that three (or more) things can be true at the same time. Here is an example:
In my example below (not about trans runners), it was similarly confusing for people who didn't know much about our sport:
Fact 1 - only three women in the 800m at the 2016 Olympics were DSD. How can it be a "big problem" if only three runners in the entire Olympics are DSD?
Fact 2 - 100% of the 800m medals that year were won by DSD females.
Fact 3 - Every single DSD athlete took home a medal and 0% of non-DSD women won medals.
So does "only three girls" represent a tiny amount or a huge problem? I think the problem isn't the number, but the impact. The impact, in my opinion, is bigger than just the number.
Okie dokie. Let’s see you use math to explain how 3 individuals, each in a different state, winning 3 high school track events out of over 2,000 across the country is such a big problem that warrants multiple threads and numerous articles and uproar.
I hear you loud and clear... it is a question of perspective. A lot of people don't see it as a big problem at all. That's valid.
But it is also valid to say that if only three trans athletes are competing at State, and all three win State, that should be proof enough that this sub-set of athletes is not the same as the rest of the girls in the girls-only division as it has traditionally existed.
Here's a thought experiment: If the there were sixty trans girls in these meets and they took all the top spots and ran the top times, would you agree that it is a problem?
So by your logic, the fact that it is only a small number means we can "ignore it" but that doesn't make it right.
This is a great day for all women. Trans women are women and as the world gets more inclusive for them it elevates the rights of all women. This is, indeed, a great day for all humanity.
There are many more athletes in the girls divisions on PEDs than are trans.
If I identified as a woman 6 hrs ago, would I now be considered female in your eyes?
Yes, absolutely. I'll go one further and if you want to identify as male at 2:00 and run in the men's race and then identify as female at 3:00 and fun in the women's race I support it 100% regardless of what gender you were assigned at birth.
I hear you loud and clear... it is a question of perspective. A lot of people don't see it as a big problem at all. That's valid.
But it is also valid to say that if only three trans athletes are competing at State, and all three win State, that should be proof enough that this sub-set of athletes is not the same as the rest of the girls in the girls-only division as it has traditionally existed.
Here's a thought experiment: If the there were sixty trans girls in these meets and they took all the top spots and ran the top times, would you agree that it is a problem?
So by your logic, the fact that it is only a small number means we can "ignore it" but that doesn't make it right.
How did 3 become 60??? Your way of using math is to make up numbers?
Here's a thought experiment: If the there were sixty trans girls in these meets and they took all the top spots and ran the top times, would you agree that it is a problem?
The thing about math is that three (or more) things can be true at the same time. Here is an example:
In my example below (not about trans runners), it was similarly confusing for people who didn't know much about our sport:
Fact 1 - only three women in the 800m at the 2016 Olympics were DSD. How can it be a "big problem" if only three runners in the entire Olympics are DSD?
Fact 2 - 100% of the 800m medals that year were won by DSD females.
Fact 3 - Every single DSD athlete took home a medal and 0% of non-DSD women won medals.
So does "only three girls" represent a tiny amount or a huge problem? I think the problem isn't the number, but the impact. The impact, in my opinion, is bigger than just the number.
"Fact 3" is incorrect unless you isolate 800m from all the competitions. Dutee Chand also competed in Rio Olympics and was 7th in the heat.
And what about DSD athletes who did not qualify for the Olympics? Are they entirely irrelevant?
I hear you loud and clear... it is a question of perspective. A lot of people don't see it as a big problem at all. That's valid.
But it is also valid to say that if only three trans athletes are competing at State, and all three win State, that should be proof enough that this sub-set of athletes is not the same as the rest of the girls in the girls-only division as it has traditionally existed.
Here's a thought experiment: If the there were sixty trans girls in these meets and they took all the top spots and ran the top times, would you agree that it is a problem?
So by your logic, the fact that it is only a small number means we can "ignore it" but that doesn't make it right.
There are way more than three trans athletes competing in high school track & field.
You don't hear about those who don't win the awards, either because they are not newsworthy or only a few people around them know they are trans. For example. Parker Tirrell has competed in track as well as soccer. But she ran 14.xx in 100m and finished in the middle of the pack in a small meet. No one cares about that.
As a former, long-time Democrat, it's simply insane that Democrats want to allow men in our sports. How could anyone with common sense who cares about women's sports vote for them?
Look, I'm a democrat and I don't support biological males in women's sport, BUT I'm certainly not going to vote for folks who support the MAGr agenda and our current president, over this issue. Part of the problem we're dealing with is folks using culture war issues to help to sway elections, with far greater things at stake. Like your health care.
This this this this this. Of course transwomen shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's events, but this nonsense helped get a maniacal lunatic elected to the White House who has set about destroying civil society. There are so many other issues that matter more. Very few people on the left support this, and most are angry at those within the Democratic Party who let this issue get Trump elected. This is not the fault of Democrat supporters, but those in power within the party do need to read the writing on the wall and actually listen to their base, or else Trumpists will continue to win elections, and do so so so much more damage than they already have. The guy is a maniac.
If I identified as a woman 6 hrs ago, would I now be considered female in your eyes?
Yes, absolutely. I'll go one further and if you want to identify as male at 2:00 and run in the men's race and then identify as female at 3:00 and fun in the women's race I support it 100% regardless of what gender you were assigned at birth.
This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard and is why no one takes you people seriously.
It's getting to the point where parents are going to have to intervene. Booing the trans athlete, or even stepping out onto the track to stop the athlete from competing in a non violent fashion is what is needed.
I don't have a problem with what you wrote and dont think it should have been deleted.