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

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

Seemed to have left out a few facts, haven't you?

https://www.bigtrial.net/2021/12/lawsuit-pillow-talk-conspiracy-between.html

Fierceton was indeed removed from her mother's home after being physically abused and she entered foster care at the beginning of her junior year in high school. She had also bounced from one foster family to another while working a series of jobs to pay her own way.

None of the members of her foster family had ever been to college and neither her foster parents nor her biological parents were helping to pay her way at Penn.

"Mackenzie had in fact never denied that she came from a well-off, educated background prior to entering foster care, and her student records at Penn had always made that abundantly clear," wrote Penn professors Anne Norton and Rogers M. Smith in an yet unpublished article that they have submitted to The Chronicle of Higher Education, entitled, "The Mendacity of the Meritocrats, A Tale of Student Abuse."

"Still, in selecting Rhodes candidates, Penn officials had heard what they wanted to hear, and told Mackenzie’s story in the way that they wanted to tell it," the professors wrote. "The Philadelphia Inquirer had done the same when reporting on her Rhodes award. As the media buzz grew, Mackenzie’s high school time in foster care was made to sound like a lifetime in foster care, despite the precision of Mackenzie’s own statements and her subsequent efforts at correction."

Be "more forward looking"? Are you a demonstration of this yourself or just another old-fashioned guy? A guy, in other words. And not "adventurous".

Tatar... wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]astro wrote:

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10969683

Thanks. I somehow missed that thread. Well, I'm a fan of turning the men's division into an open division and letting everybody except biological women compete there. Some would call that queering the open division. Great! Let's do that.

In the thread you've flagged, I agree with poster middle ground. But yes, if there's a third, non-binary division, there's always theoretically the possibility of somebody gaming the system.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think trans athletes who want to compete in the category of their gender identity are all "woke revolutionaries"? Do you think people in the "LGBTQ+" community speak with a single voice? I think of them more like "an alliance of convenience." They have to band together because they are such small minorities on their own. But deep down, there are many discords within their movement. For example, many in L and G look at B with suspicion, and LGB and T are often at odds. But they don't want those disputes to come to the surface because that will be exploited by rightwing cultural warriors. Regarding this issue, I think the idea that "gender is fluid" is incompatible with serious gender dysphoria that starts in early childhood. After all, if gender is fluid, why would anyone find such consistent dysphoria with their assigned sex? You can grow your hair, wear makeups, skirts and dresses, etc. without being a "girl." But that is apparently not enough for some. They want to be treated as "girls." This is the exact OPPOSITE of gender fluidity. They are not denying the existence of non-binary or agender people. But they think they are girls, and not agender, non-binary or gender fluid. I don't know how actual trans athletes who compete in high school and college think about this issue. And they are not likely to tell how they really feel, because they could face backlash if they say something politically incorrect. (Just ask Natalie Wynn, who got cancelled by trans activists.) And I would not be surprised if there is significant disagreement amongst themselves.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]astro wrote:

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10969683

Thanks. I somehow missed that thread. Well, I'm a fan of turning the men's division into an open division and letting everybody except biological women compete there. Some would call that queering the open division. Great! Let's do that.

In the thread you've flagged, I agree with poster middle ground. But yes, if there's a third, non-binary division, there's always theoretically the possibility of somebody gaming the system.

As I wrote on another thread, that will not satisfy the vocal minority who would not want to allow trans athletes in ANY category.

Somehow missed it three days ago, but the Washington Post carried a long-ish article about Lia T. My reading is that it tries hard to present “both sides” but the overwhelming evidence is against trans women competing in women’s sports. And that is the general tone of the 6367 comments that the story generated. Here are just a few, from the first 200 or so:

Ms Thomas is playing the system. She is abiding with the rules but the rules are not ethical. She cannot ignore that she has an unfair advantage over all the girls in her team.

You’re asking the girls on her team to « wait » and not complain while they are losing scholarships and opportunities is both cruel and sexist.

Would Lia Thomas supporters have thought it was fair if the former Will Thomas decided that he identified as a 60 year old man, and insisted on competing in some masters or seniors class against swimmers who were decades past their prime, when he himself was in his early 20s?

Lia is psychologically female but biologically male. Not competing against biological women seems a small price to pay for living the rest of your life the way you feel.

Choices carry trade-offs… All creatures must bow before biology to some extent. It is just an ineluctable fact. We cannot create our own reality beyond a certain point.

And glimmer of hope and reason:

Just a few months ago in the Comments section of stories like this I would be immediately labeled an ignorant transphobic (or worse) for suggesting that women should not have to compete against men. Where have all those people gone? Could it be that the tides are turning?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

As I wrote on another thread, that [adding new categories or making the male category an open one] will not satisfy the vocal minority who would not want to allow trans athletes in ANY category.

https://globalsport.asu.edu/sites/default/files/resources/gsi_national_snapshot_poll_summer_2021_key_takeaways.pdf

To me, the most salient finding of the ASU poll of 1,800 Americans you've posted about is that 90% of the respondents said they support trans-identified people being able to participate and compete in sports. The disagreement was and is over the issue of which sex category they should compete in. Page 24: "Respondents were united in the belief that transgender people should be allowed to compete in sports but divided on where they should compete."

Only 10% of people polled think people who "identify as" the opposite sex, or as "trans" should "not be allowed" to compete in sports.

To my view, the fact that 90% of Americans polled think those who "identify as" other than their sex should be able to compete in sports is a hugely positive sign. It suggests that nearly all the general public have no issue with people adopting a "trans" identity per se.

Indeed, in terms of social acceptance and support, people who claim to have a gender identity different to their sex are way, way ahead of many of other historically marginalized groups who've fought long and hard for acceptance, tolerance and equal rights in US society.

For example, Gallup has found that much smaller percentages of Americans support equal marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples. In 2021, Gallup reported that 70% of Americans polled supported marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and in 2014, 63% believed same-sex couples should have the same right to adopt as heterosexual ones.

Equally noteworthy, a YouGov survey done in May 2019 found that 36% of US adults believe it's acceptable for adoption/foster agencies to decline to place a child with a same-sex couple citing religious reasons, and 49% found this practice unacceptable.

The considerably lower degrees of acceptance for homosexual persons compared to persons with trans identities today is evident in the sports world too. Especially in male sports, homophobia still is rife and coming out as a gay boy or man in many male sports such as American football, basketball and international soccer is still pretty rare.

In women's sports, which used to be full of and quite accepting of lesbians, most girls and young women who are same-sex attracted today "identify as" trans or as non-binary because being a female who is exclusively same-sex attracted and doesn't do dxck, and won't make exceptions for the "girl dxck" of "transbians," is seen not just as uncool and old hat, but as transphobic, "exclusionary," bigoted and akin to "sexual racism." Martina Navratilova, who singlehandedly has done more than any other athlete over the past 40-50 years to advance acceptance of lesbians and gays in the world of sports and in the public eye generally - and to support people who "identify as" trans too - is now reviled by many "progressives" as a "transphobe" and is a persona non grata in mainstream "LGBTQ+" circles and organizations because she says it's unfair for male athletes like Lia Thomas to compete in women's sports.

In light of the attitudes towards others in "the LGBTQ," I think the fact that 90% of Americans surveyed were found to support trans-identified people being able to compete in sports is very good news that should give athletes like Lia Thomas and the "trans community" in general cause to celebrate. Fact is, most people in the US and many other countries today have no problem with people like Thomas "identifying," dressing, wearing their hair and leading their lives as they want. We simply don't believe that "transition" results in anyone actually changing sex, or that "transition" causes males magically to lose all the physical characteristics that give them such a big advantage over females in most sports. Moreover, we don't agree with gender ideologues who say that sex either isn't important, or that sex and sex differences don't exist at all - they're just made-up bollox like phrenology. On the contrary, many of us believe that in certain realms such as sports, sex matters, and it matters a whole lot.

Finally, most people who've lived through some history or studied it know full well how long and hard women had to fight to obtain basic rights in the US - including the right to play school sports of any kind, even intramural, and the right to establish, build and participate in interscholastic competitive sports. These are rights American girls and women only obtained in law in 1972-74, and it took another decade or so after that for women to start interscholastic sports programs from scratch and really get them off the ground. People familiar with the history of women's rights and sports are aware that opening up women's sports to male athletes like Lia Thomas in the name of "diversity, equity and inclusion" means adversity, unfairness and exclusion for female athletes - the group for whom the women's category was created in the first place. What trans activists and lobby groups portray as a step forward in human progress would mean a big step backwards for the half of the human race who are female.

Men do women's gymnastics better than women.

the world turned upside down wrote:

Thomas returns to the pool this Saturday at noon in a home meet against Dartmouth and Yale. Just a few days ago, Penn announced that their winter sports will continue without any spectators. Eliminates any possibility of booing or a team protest in front of the public.

Curious how many people can pick out Thomas in this photo in less than 3 seconds.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/pennswimdive-instagram-lia-thomas.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

Immediately.

As they say, "she sticks out like dog's balls"

Aaand the U Penn President resigns / retires.

Maybe she thought she had better things to do with her time than try to sort out or defend Lia Thomas and MacKenzie Morrison-Fierceton. Now, where's that lap that these headaches can fall into?

KudzuRunner wrote:

On the other hand: when it comes to HS, collegiate, and Olympic athletics: two divisions (men's and women's) and ONLY two divisions.

Get rid of the gender categories in sports, it's antiquated. Men and women compete for the same jobs in today's society - do the same for sports. Everyone will be treated fairly and equally and should be happy under such a system.

equality for everybody wrote:

KudzuRunner wrote:

On the other hand: when it comes to HS, collegiate, and Olympic athletics: two divisions (men's and women's) and ONLY two divisions.

Get rid of the gender categories in sports, it's antiquated. Men and women compete for the same jobs in today's society - do the same for sports. Everyone will be treated fairly and equally and should be happy under such a system.

Actually, everyone would be unhappy besides you. Ending women's sports because of a single competitive NCAA athlete, makes sense to you?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

equality for everybody wrote:

Get rid of the gender categories in sports, it's antiquated. Men and women compete for the same jobs in today's society - do the same for sports. Everyone will be treated fairly and equally and should be happy under such a system.

Actually, everyone would be unhappy besides you. Ending women's sports because of a single competitive NCAA athlete, makes sense to you?

No but because its the correct thing to do. Why is there an extra category based on genetics? We dont have extra university courses for less intelligent people either. One category is the most fair

Spainflyer wrote:

Aaand the U Penn President resigns / retires.

Maybe she thought she had better things to do with her time than try to sort out or defend Lia Thomas and MacKenzie Morrison-Fierceton. Now, where's that lap that these headaches can fall into?

Amy Gutmann's departure from the Penn presidency has nothing to do with any controversies involving any current or former Penn students. Gutmann had been scheduled to end her tenure as president of Penn at the end of June 2022. But in early July 2021, she announced she might have to leave earlier than that after Joe Biden selected her as his nominee for USA ambassador to Germany. From her July 2, 2021 "message to the Penn community":

As you know, I have previously signaled my plans to conclude my Presidency of Penn at the end of my eighteenth year, on June 30, 2022. I will continue to avidly work as Penn President until then or the time when there is a Senate confirmation, which would likely mean that I would be leaving the presidency several months earlier than previously planned.

Gutmann had confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in December. The committee just approved her, so next she'll have confirmation hearings before the full Senate.

Also, whilst Penn is defending and supporting Lia Thomas, that's certainly not the case with Fierceton. The university and Amy Gutmann did praise Fierceton when her Rhodes scholarship was first announced, but Penn later withdrew its support of Fierceton, investigated her, concluded she had lied to the Rhodes Trust and to Penn, and decided to withhold her master's degree.

Fierceton is currently suing Penn, on the grounds that university officials conspired amongst themselves and with the editorial staff of the Philadelphia Inquirer to smear Fierceton and force her to forfeit the Rhodes award. The lawsuit

claims that Penn officials targeted her for retaliation after she became a key witness in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the university.

As part of the alleged conspiracy, the lawsuit claims, Penn officials conducted a "sham" investigation that forced the student to voluntarily give up her Rhodes scholarship, after Penn officials threatened to rescind the student's undergraduate degree and withhold her master's degree. On top of that, the lawsuit claims that Penn officials had threatened to send the student to jail for allegedly fraudulently representing herself in her application to become a Rhodes scholar.

...last week Penn broke its official silence by filing an 80-page answer to the complaint that was mostly filed with denials. In its brief, Penn denied that it retaliated against Fierceton, or colluded with "co-conspirators" at the Inquirer to smear her.

Instead, Penn claimed that an internal investigation by the university, as well as the Rhodes Trust, had concluded that "Fierceton had not been truthful" about her background, and that's why the university had put her degrees on ice.

On Friday, the high-brow Chronicle of Higher Education weighed in on the fray with a long story about Penn's brutal inquisition of Fierceton entitled, "The Dredging." It's a story that will only serve to further fuel the battle that will be waged over Fierceton in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

The lawsuits lists as defendants the university and its trustees, as well as three Penn officials: Beth Winkelstein, interim provost; Wendy White, senior vice president and general counsel; and Louisa Shepard, news officer for the Office of University Communications, none of whom could be reached for comment.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Dion Rassias of The Beasley Firm, claims that as part of the conspiracy to smear and retaliate against Fierceton, Louisa Shepard, Penn's news officer, leaked "false and baseless accusations" against Fierceton to her husband, Gabriel Escobar, editor and senior vice president of the Inquirer, as well as "presently unnamed co-conspirators at The Philadelphia Inquirer."

As a result of what the lawsuit describes as "orchestrated pillow talk" between Shepard and Escobar, the "conflict-laden editor" subsequently assigned Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Wendy Ruderman to conduct a year-long investigation of Fierceton, the purpose of which was to "dig up any dirt possible."

The lawsuit claims that during her investigation, Ruderman, who did not respond to a request for comment, interviewed "anonymous unreliable sources" that included Fierceton's biological mother, a doctor in St. Louis who lost custody of Fierceton in high school after Missouri state officials determined that the mother had physically abused her daughter, sending her to a hospital for nearly a month.

But Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, the law firm defending Penn, had a decidedly different take on Fierceton -- namely that everything that happened is all the grad student's fault.

"Mackenzie Fierceton was selected as a Rhodes Scholar because she offered an inspiring story -– an ambitious and driven student who succeeded in the face of extraordinary odds, having grown up in the State of Missouri’s foster-care system, 'bouncing' from one location to the next, the first in her family to attend college," Penn's legal brief states.

"That story unraveled after acquaintances from her hometown -- who knew Fierceton as Mackenzie Morrison, before she changed her name –- read about her selection as a Rhodes Scholar and wrote to Penn and the Rhodes Trust, saying that her claims of hardship were made up for personal gain. "

"After those who knew Fierceton raised questions about her story, it was investigated – - not just once, but several times, and not just by Penn faculty and staff, but also the Rhodes Trust," Penn's legal brief states.

"Those investigations revealed that for the first 17 years of her life, Fierceton was raised by her mother, Dr. Carrie Morrison, an accomplished physician. Fierceton grew up in a wealthy community and attended an elite private school in a St. Louis suburb," Penn's lawyers state. "She entered foster care only at the age of 17, after making a complaint of abuse against Dr. Morrison –- a complaint that a court later found not to be credible."

sayyestonepotism wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Actually, everyone would be unhappy besides you. Ending women's sports because of a single competitive NCAA athlete, makes sense to you?

No but because its the correct thing to do. Why is there an extra category based on genetics? We dont have extra university courses for less intelligent people either. One category is the most fair

You think it's fair, but if schools tried to do such a thing, it would take about 5 minutes for them to lose in court. It seems that you don't like women much.

If some male athletes with really good lawyers protest, Title IX would be ruled unconstitutional.

lawyer knock wrote:

If some male athletes with really good lawyers protest, Title IX would be ruled unconstitutional.

Title IX made it illegal for educational institutions that receive federal funds to engage in discrimination against persons based on our sex. At the time in the 1970s whenTitle IX was drafted, made into law and revised, and the first versions of the voluminous implementation guidance were written, provisions were made that allowed for sports and certain spaces, services and social and political organizations and events to be for one sex or the other where there was/is a legitimate, justifiable reasons for doing so.

As a result, whilst girls and women could no longer be barred across the board from admissions, certain academic classes and programs, and scholastic and interscholastic sports, solely because of our sex as we once were, schools still could provide separate restrooms, sports programs, PE classes, locker/change rooms, dorm rooms and sleeping accommodations, health education and services, etc for males and females. Similarly, students could still have school-sanctioned sex-specific/exclusive organizations and events, such as fraternities and sororities, feminist groups, single-sex support groups, and clubs and events exclusively for gay men or lesbians like gay men's choruses, gay men's parties, lesbian separatist clubs and Sapphic celebrations.

The governing principle of Title IX and other nations' similar laws such as the UK's Equality Act of 2010 isn't that everyone of both sexes has to be thrown in the same category, use all the same facilities, and compete together in the same sports as though there were no physical differences between females and males. It's that equivalent and proportional provisions and programs be provided for the two sexes that take into account the fact that male and female human bodies are physically different in myriad ways.

The governing principle of Title IX has never been that the facilities and programs for the two sexes have to be the exact same, either. Take, for example, restrooms. School restrooms for males and females are designed differently and have different fixtures and equipment because males and females have different urinary anatomy and because females have additional bodily processes we deal with in restrooms. It's not illegal sex discrimination to outfit school restrooms meant for boys and men with urinals in addition to sit-down toilets but to outfit restrooms meant for girls and women with only toilets and no urinals. Just as it's not illegal sex discrimination to kit out girls' and women's restrooms with specialized waste receptacles for menstrual products, and vending machines for tampons and menstrual pads, but not to provide these in restrooms meant for boys and men.

In sports, Title IX doesn't mean that male and female students must be offered the same exact array of sports options, or they must be trained in exactly the same ways. It's that

The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally and effectively accommodated. Compliance with this factor is assessed by examining a school's: (a) determination of the athletic interests and abilities of its students; (b) selection of the sports that are offered; and (c) levels of competition, including opportunity for team competition.

While designed specifically for intercollegiate athletics, the general principles and compliance standards set forth in the Policy Interpretation will often apply to inter-scholastic athletic programs operated by elementary and secondary school systems, and to club and intramural athletic program

A college or university is not required to offer particular sports or the same sports for each sex. Also, an institution is not required to offer an equal number of sports for each sex. However, an institution must accommodate to the same degree the athletic interests and abilities of each sex in the selection of sports.

A college or university may sponsor separate teams for men and women where selection is based on competitive skill or when the activity is a contact sport. Contact sports under the Title IX regulation include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports in which the purpose or major activity involves bodily contact.

Equally effective accommodation also requires a college or university that sponsors a team for only one sex to do so for members of the other sex under certain circumstances. This applies to contact and non-contact sports. For example, a separate team may be required if there is sufficient interest and ability among members of the excluded sex to sustain a team and a reasonable expectation of competition for that team. Also, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular non-contact sport for members of one sex, it must allow athletes of the other sex to try-out for the team if, historically, there have been limited athletic opportunities for members of the other sex.

Since you say that male athletes specifically - as opposed to male students - would be able to convince courts to rule Title IX unconstitutional, I assume the case you imagine them bringing would be principally concerned with how Title IX affects scholastic and interscholastic sports. Exactly on what grounds do you think male athletes could make a case against Title IX as it pertains to sports that would cause jurists to declare the entire law unconstitutional?

I can see where male athletes in some cases would have a good chance of succeeding in court with cases that challenge some of the ways specific schools have decided to implement Title IX in administering their sports programs. But I don't get on what basis male athletes could successfully argue that Title IX itself and the principles behind it are unconstitutional. Unless, that is, you believe that the rights and freedoms granted in and protected by the US Constitution apply solely to males and never should have been extended to females.

lawyer knock wrote:

If some male athletes with really good lawyers protest, Title IX would be ruled unconstitutional.

This article calls him or a sensation, more like Cheating to the Extreme, A Man pretending to be A Woman to compete against Woman.

I don't know why they put up with this nonsense. This wouldn't fly 10 years ago or in most countries now.