Democrats block bill to ban transgender Men from competing against Women...

There is history here that cannot be ignored!

npr.org

Trump's anti-trans effort is an agenda cornerstone with echoes in history

Extremism experts say a now-familiar playbook to scapegoat transgender people in the wake of high-profile tragedies is part of a political strategy to sow division and expand authoritarian control.

Open link

re the purity theory, it is only one way. you seem to have no issues with girls playing men's football or baseball. they get a parade. so this is not really about keeping sexes strictly separate, it's about condescending to women as "weak" then saying they need to be protected.

this inconsistency reflects you're really just about the overall hounding of trans people out of public life, and sports is just a side issue.

that you're not really about sports, participation, and dignity is reflected in the absence of ideas other than trans people are nuts and should play as men. ditto their public lives.

you're hounding these folks in 20 other ways (pronoun laws, throwing them out of the military).

you just use sports like late term abortions, when those people then want to push not just abortion bans but also banning condoms, contraception, pills, and such.

get your hate out of sports. last thing i want is state legislatures passing stupid laws about college sports reflecting obnoxious, transient politics. college sports should be fun.

I wasn't talking about abortions.

According to the critics, puberty blockers and cross hormones that trans people take have detrimental effects on their health. That's why they are trying to ban those medicines on minors (as well as on adults in some cases). If they are so bad for trans people's health, they also have to be bad for their athletic performance. For example, puberty blockers are known to lower a person's bone density. And lower bone density is not good for any sport.

So the small advantage that trans girls might have had before puberty can be cancelled out by those negative affect as well as the lower testosterone level that stays within the normal female range. That's why you don't see any trans athlete who did not go through male puberty dominating women's / girls' sports.

But those negative effects magnify the disadvantage that trans boys had before puberty. So they can never catch up with cis boys even with their cross hormone treatment. On top of that, they don't start cross hormone until they are 14-15. And cis boys have already gone through a few years of puberty by that age.

Mack Beggs started cross hormone at age 14, and he also had to limit the amount of testosterone he took in order to stay eligible in girls' wrestling. There is no way he could catch up with his cis competitors when he was a few years behind at the start, and then had to limit himself to a lower t-level.

In order to create a level-playing field, a trans boy would have to start full-blown testosterone supplement by age 11 or 12. But there is no medical reason to do that, and he won't get any prescription for cross hormone at that age. Cross hormones are not given to create level-playing field in sports. They are given to ease the discomfort associated with gender incongruence.

Chris Mosier won titles in race walking, duathlon and triathlon. If he had been on full-blown T since age 11, he might have become a more competitive athlete. But that's an opportunity he never had.

en.wikipedia.org

Chris Mosier

Chris Mosier (born 1980) is an American advocate for transgender rights and competitive triathlete, duathlete, and racewalker. He started his athletic career before transitioning, started his transition in 2010, and in 2015 e...

Open link

F# all this woke vs anti-woke bullsh*t. Cultural war crap. GAFL.

So it sounds like the GOP lost? This is a sports forum, we all understand competition and winning / losing. Why is it that, in politics and seemingly only politics, people get all upset that they lost on an issue? Get good, GOP.

is op an ex-runner or ex-boy?

Sometimes when government refuses to protect the electorate, the people must do it themselves. Hard to compete with a broken kneecap. This seems like an obvious solution to me.

Ok, so should we let boys compete in girls sports but only if they're not very good? Seems like that would be hard to enforce fairly.

Let's be clear: most regular Democrats don't support this. But the loud minority in the party pick this as the hill they will die on. Makes no sense to me. And it helped get Trump elected. So we're all doomed.

This has nothing to do with the right to participate. If that were the case, we would not ban anyone from competition. So no cis woman needs to lose her roster spot for a trans athlete. Even if that becomes an issue, it is easy to expand the roster size to accommodate a tiny number of trans athletes.

No, this is all about WINNING. Cis women's right to win is more important than trans women's right to participate, because sports are all about winning and nothing else matters. Trans women should not be allowed to participate because that would jeopardize cis women's rights to win.

As for your rights as a spectator, 99.99% of women's/girls sports have no trans athlete involved. So your rights are not likely to be violated. Even if you happen to encounter the 0.01% exception, you can always root for cis women in that competition. Having some "villain" to root against usually enhances the enjoyment of watching sports.

you aren't enforcing the gender line uniformly, only 1 way. girls can compete as boys.

so you are leaning heavily on it being inherently unfair.

the all time biggest trans runner was telfer, whose d2 400H PR would only be 38th on the 2024 D1 outdoor performance list for women.

ergo, it is not inherently unfair.

you're like, how can i "enforce fairly?" if the "threat" wouldn't make d1 nationals, the supposed problem doesn't exist/sorts itself.

as i said, you folks inaccurately pretend a bunch of elite varsity boys are switching teams to dominate. in reality, it's effeminate boys whose times are like HS JV boy times. ergo, not inherently unfair to fast college women.

maybe you've not seen or run against an actual fast D1 woman. i ran at an all comers against a girl who ran 11.3 and wasn't too far behind me. she would beat the best trans telfer by about 5-10 yards and most of a second. she doesn't need your fake protection.

we have a problem when the trans runners are everywhere and dominating. which, tv bs aside, no.

you're missing my point. it's not that only the slow ones "should" get to compete. it's that the only ones wanting to compete as trans have thus far uniformly been slow boys.

ergo your superiority theory doesn't fly. it's like if the worst players on HS JV boys soccer play the local college women's team. the results of that are not as obvious as if the college men play the college women -- which is the false scenario you keep pushing.

you're fundamentally not getting what it likely means about an athlete that the "boy" involved wants to wear a dress all day, makeup, etc. hint: they aren't the texas kid who ran a windy 9.99 today.

you're like, but it's obvious, boy vs. girl. no, not if the trans person wouldn't score points on JV boys where i live now, would be back half of the points as a HS girl here in the final, and would lose to several d3 women i can think of.

and that's the fastest trans runner NCAA has ever seen.

btw for my pouting dem colleague, issue #1 is going to be dude lied about fixing the price of eggs and inflation, and then laid off a ton of people and crashed the economy by doing it. you didn't lose the last one over trans and you're not going to lose this one.

I'll jump in for one comment only because it's clear there is no changing your mind or anyone else that feels this way.

I lean Democrat on most issues but not this one.

The issue is not what you have seen or heard about. This is about unfair advantage and the potential under the rules for allowing this unfair advantage. We have seen it on the HS level in state track finals before as was the example in Connecticut. We can most certainly see it elsewhere.

If I child goes through puberty born as a cis-male then they will have more physiological advantages for having done so than as a cis-female. Hormone therapy has proven to not be an equalizer for the approx. 10% difference in performances between genders.

Skeletal structure, muscles mass, heart size, lung size, among other things will all be to their advantage with no significant reversal with hormone therapy.

I coached girls XC at the high school level for 15 years. I can't even fathom my top runners competing against the average cis gendered male during that time period. Athletes born female are deserving of the respect earned (and scholarship opportunities) from their accomplishments.

The claim amongst the far left is they are "not allowed to do sports." There should be two categories... female and an open category inclusive of everyone else.

It pains me to say all of this because believe it or not I support the LGBTQ+ community on most issues even when it comes to what they want to be recognized as, however, with my knowledge of physiological differences I can not support this any more than I can listen to any anecdotal evidence used to support the argument of cis male born athletes competing with cis gendered born female athletes.

The simplest way to explain this is it is just not fair.