UPenn swimmer comes out as trans / switches to women's team after competing on men's team for 3 years and is dominating NCAA

HBHS 220y wrote:

For example: Among Olympic sports, XY chromosome athletes will be prohibited from participating in the female division of sports like track and field, weight lifting and swimming.

XY athletes will be permitted to participate in the female division of sports like table tennis, equestrian and sailing.

1. Maria Jose Martinez Patino says hello to you. There is a good reason that IOC stopped chromosome test.

There should an exception for people like her.

2. It looks like you have never seen a mixed doubles match in table tennis.

What an out of touch and pitiful response. But not surprising. The university is just being "inclusive ", which roughly translated means that the female athletes have no right to complain while the university alllows a guy to beat them senseless at their own sport. Maybe after they recommend psychotherapy the university can send the female athletes to reducation camp.

I am on a temporary ban wrote:2. It looks like you have never seen a mixed doubles match in table tennis.

I am referring to speed under anaerobic conditions, as in moving from one place to another (running, swimming, etc.) not speed of reaction time. While fast reactions can give an advantage in mixed doubles table tennis (and several other sports), this advantage can occur in both males and females.

I am on a temporary ban wrote:

1. Maria Jose Martinez Patino says hello to you. There is a good reason that IOC stopped chromosome test.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678415.pdf

Saludos desde Madrid, Profesora.

For anyone who hasn’t really been following this topic in general, Professor María José Martínez Patiño is one of the experts on the subject, having lived these questions in her personal life and studied them in her professional life.

While her story is poignant, I think we have to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

As I said in my earlier posting, there will be exceptions and outliers, but we are looking for the greatest good for the greatest number of athletes.

And I am afraid that the XY chromosome is incompatible with competing in a truly Women’s category of sports involving strength, speed or stamina.

It is difficult to put it more clearly than Dr. Tommy Lundberg, researcher in exercise physiology at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm:

"We know that testosterone suppression for 12 months does not remove the male advantage that you acquire through the male puberty, so that's why, currently, fairness and inclusion cannot coexist in a competition. They are mutually exclusive." (Emphasis mine).

So you think people like Martinez Patino should be excluded from women's competition. I wonder why.

1. You think they have unfair advantage. or

2. You think their inclusion will open the door for inclusion of other people with unfair advantage.

There is no scientific evidence for #1. So that will not withstand legal challenge. In fact, that's the very reason IOC stopped chromosome testing. You are trying to turn the clock back by 25 years. For what?

#2 can also be easily rejected by the court, because there is no reason to throw the baby with the bath water when it is not complicated to medically identity people with CAIS. And many athletes with CAIS are currently competing in various sports.

I would bet that those with that condition are competing in women's sports only, despite having male chromosomes and testes. They are unlikely to be successful at any higher level in male sports. Women's sports has now become a catch-all for all those of gender ambiguity, because to compete against males would offer many of them much less chance of success. Yet they may possess genetic and other physical characteristics that would make them eligible to compete as males, should the same sort of criteria be applied as for women's sport, which now seems to come down to what the athlete identifies as rather than the biological characteristics they share with the great majority of competitors in that class.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I would bet that those with that condition are competing in women's sports only, despite having male chromosomes and testes. They are unlikely to be successful at any higher level in male sports. Women's sports has now become a catch-all for all those of gender ambiguity, because to compete against males would offer many of them much less chance of success. Yet they may possess genetic and other physical characteristics that would make them eligible to compete as males, should the same sort of criteria be applied as for women's sport, which now seems to come down to what the athlete identifies as rather than the biological characteristics they share with the great majority of competitors in that class.

I was just writing something along these lines today.

The fundamental question at hand here is: should there be a category of sports exclusively for biologically female people born with female sex chromosomes, no SRY gene, female gonads (ovaries, not testes), female repro organs and female physiology so that we get to compete fairly and have a chance to excel solely amongst ourselves, not against anyone of the opposite sex?

It seems that behind the scenes, the powers-that-be in Western society have decided on a paradigm shift. In the old paradigm, girls' and women's sports were for the benefit of female participants, and rules were in place to protect the category from male interlopers. But in the new paradigm, girls' and women's sports is now a catchall category meant to be the sports world equivalent of the "odds and ends" bin, the kitchen junk drawer or island of misfit toys.

First, women's sports were turned into consolation prizes for XY persons born with differences of male sex development. Now, women's sports are also the playground, stomping ground and "happy hunting ground" for XY persons who claim to "identify as" women and think the best way to demonstrate their inner "woman essence" and "femininity" is to trounce female athletes in sports - and then crow about it whilst complaining of being victimized, marginalized and mistreated by mean bigoted transphobes who keep committing the cardinal sin and "violence" of misgendering.

In the new paradigm, female athletes are still permitted to participate in girls' and women's sports, but only so long as we keep budging up and moving over in order to make room for males with DSDs, males with gender identity issues and presumably in the future any other males who might want in - and only so long as we do as we're told and STFU about it and seek mental health services to help us accept that this new regime of unfairness is "just the way things are now, so suck it up buttercup."

I wonder who will demand inclusion in women's sports next. Guys who've had the misfortune to lose their dick or balls, or both, or who've suffered severe injury to them, due to combat, explosions, accidents or assaults like Jake Barnes in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises or John Wayne Bobbitt? Guys who've lost a testicle to cancer like Lance Armstrong? Guys who like do do drag? Guys others see as insufficiently manly and rag on for being "wimps" and "sissies"? Guys other guys deride for "running/throwing like a girl"? Skinny guys? Short guys?

I usually try to avoid hackneyed feminist phrases and buzzwords, but the new movement to invade, conquer and colonize women's sports, spaces, services and "womanhood" more generally sure seems like "male privilege" and "patriarchy" to me.

100%. If a couple of white trans women start winning some of the sprint events in T&F beating out Black women, it will get attention.

A subtle but interesting distinction, RunRagged. Instead of trying to define EXclusion, define INclusion. And call it the XX category (Suggested in another posting, above). The division for

RunRagged wrote:

biologically female people born with female sex chromosomes, no SRY gene, female gonads (ovaries, not testes), female repro organs and female physiology .

So, as RunRagged recommends, only those who meet those biological characteristics compete in the XX category. Not “how I feel,” not “on my driver’s license,” not “how I was raised,” not “trapped in a man’s body.” Female, never having been anything but female.

Of course, checking all this could be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Cries of “Unfair!!??” What’s unfair is what we have now.

HBHS 220y wrote:

A subtle but interesting distinction, RunRagged. Instead of trying to define EXclusion, define INclusion. And call it the XX category (Suggested in another posting, above). The division for

RunRagged wrote:

biologically female people born with female sex chromosomes, no SRY gene, female gonads (ovaries, not testes), female repro organs and female physiology .

So, as RunRagged recommends, only those who meet those biological characteristics compete in the XX category. Not “how I feel,” not “on my driver’s license,” not “how I was raised,” not “trapped in a man’s body.” Female, never having been anything but female.

Of course, checking all this could be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Cries of “Unfair!!??” What’s unfair is what we have now.

Sure, but when and how are the N.C.A.A. rules for transgender athletes, which have been in place for 10 years, going to change? It's not currently an open issue.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Sure, but when and how are the N.C.A.A. rules for transgender athletes, which have been in place for 10 years, going to change? It's not currently an open issue.

I suspect that the policy will continue unless there's a mass protest where women simply refuse to race against such athletes. That probably won't happen. Right now, those that cry "unfair advantage" are labeled "transphobic."

The Narwhal wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Sure, but when and how are the N.C.A.A. rules for transgender athletes, which have been in place for 10 years, going to change? It's not currently an open issue.

I suspect that the policy will continue unless there's a mass protest where women simply refuse to race against such athletes. That probably won't happen. Right now, those that cry "unfair advantage" are labeled "transphobic."

That's a strawman. Polls show about 60% of people are opposed to transgender female athletes and many states are banning them. So long as they don't make personal attacks against Thomas, pointing out she has an unfair advantage will not result in a negative reaction. It's a fair and accurate statement.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

That's a strawman. Polls show about 60% of people are opposed to transgender female athletes and many states are banning them. So long as they don't make personal attacks against Thomas, pointing out she has an unfair advantage will not result in a negative reaction. It's a fair and accurate statement.

It seems like the issue is being framed around inclusivity and discrimination...

HBHS 220y wrote:

A subtle but interesting distinction, RunRagged. Instead of trying to define EXclusion, define INclusion. And call it the XX category (Suggested in another posting, above). The division for

RunRagged wrote:

biologically female people born with female sex chromosomes, no SRY gene, female gonads (ovaries, not testes), female repro organs and female physiology .

So, as RunRagged recommends, only those who meet those biological characteristics compete in the XX category. Not “how I feel,” not “on my driver’s license,” not “how I was raised,” not “trapped in a man’s body.” Female, never having been anything but female.

Of course, checking all this could be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Cries of “Unfair!!??” What’s unfair is what we have now.

Sorry about taking your request for "comments" literally. I didn't know you already had all the right answers, and only soliciting support for your impeccable solution. I will not waste your time by asking you any questions.

HBHS 220y wrote:

A subtle but interesting distinction, RunRagged. Instead of trying to define EXclusion, define INclusion. And call it the XX category (Suggested in another posting, above). The division for

RunRagged wrote:

biologically female people born with female sex chromosomes, no SRY gene, female gonads (ovaries, not testes), female repro organs and female physiology .

So, as RunRagged recommends, only those who meet those biological characteristics compete in the XX category. Not “how I feel,” not “on my driver’s license,” not “how I was raised,” not “trapped in a man’s body.” Female, never having been anything but female.

Of course, checking all this could be a challenge, but not insurmountable. Cries of “Unfair!!??” What’s unfair is what we have now.

It like a one drop rule though isn't it. Intersex, and both trans men and trans women barred from women's competition. If someone transitions to living as a man but later de-transitions (a rare but also something that needs consideration), do they also get barred?

The Narwhal wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

That's a strawman. Polls show about 60% of people are opposed to transgender female athletes and many states are banning them. So long as they don't make personal attacks against Thomas, pointing out she has an unfair advantage will not result in a negative reaction. It's a fair and accurate statement.

It seems like the issue is being framed around inclusivity and discrimination...

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-shttps://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-arguments-against-trans-athletes-are-bigoted-and-irrational

A couple of opinions don't represent the attitude of the general public and those articles address other claims such as transgender athletes destroying women's sports. Just pointing out that a teammate was good as a male swimmer and outstanding as a female is not controversial. That Thomas has an unfair advantage as a woman is an undeniable fact. If her teammates want to take it a step further and boycott races, then they will become fair game for criticism as they will be rejecting an eligible N.C.A.A. athlete.

OK, has this topic reached absurdity, or total inclusiveness? Now the wife of the French President, Emile Macron, is revealed / accused / accepted as a trans female. No problem if she is, and little proof has been offered. But what we do know is that she started banging the dude when she was his high school teacher (they later married). And AlSal gets banned for commenting on a runner’s butt? Definitions of scandal differ depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The Narwhal wrote:

It seems like the issue is being framed around inclusivity and discrimination...

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-shttps://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-arguments-against-trans-athletes-are-bigoted-and-irrational

A couple of opinions don't represent the attitude of the general public and those articles address other claims such as transgender athletes destroying women's sports. Just pointing out that a teammate was good as a male swimmer and outstanding as a female is not controversial. That Thomas has an unfair advantage as a woman is an undeniable fact. If her teammates want to take it a step further and boycott races, then they will become fair game for criticism as they will be rejecting an eligible N.C.A.A. athlete.

A core point to the debate is whether the advantage she has is unfair.That can’t be resolved on the facts rather on conflicting values.Now how on earth do we resolve that one.Which rule book do I pick up to help?

Shall I start with Kant?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I lost you with your second paragraph.

“…on purpose because that’s easier than having to answer your question” would be the rest of that sentence.

But seriously - is it wrong for men to compete as women or isn’t it? If it is, shouldn’t it be banned? I’ll type this as clearly as possible: what confuses me about your position if that it seems to be “it’s wrong, but it’s not worth doing anything about it because there aren’t that many of them, so the women who are impacted by trans athletes should just deal with it.” That strikes me as a very goofy position to take, which is why I’m trying to figure out if that’s really what you think.