"My Stolen NCAA Championship" - Female Athlete Who Lost Women's National Title to Male Tells Her Side of Story

Women have the potential to become pregnant, whether or not that potential is actualized at all. Some things that could prevent actualization are: 1) age—too old or too young, 2) not having sex with a virile man at the time she is ovulating, or 3) disease. I would classify intersex as (3). I know this sounds very harsh to some ears, but being born intersex (which is a VERY small percentage of the population) is a condition which can prevent the potential of getting pregnant from being actualized (like ovarian cancer or any other condition that affects the female reproductive system without changing the fact that it is a FEMALE reproductive system).

agree that the trans movement is largely divided on goals

This is a minor issue because there are so few transgender athletes and even fewer that are good enough to win a NCAA title. The much bigger issue that needs more attention and advocacy is the LARGE AND GROWING NUMBER of 25 year old athletes from other countries who are stealing scholarships, roster spots, and titles from our deserving youth in America. We need to prioritize the bigger problem.

“As for your second point, it is true that not being able to understand what is going inside trans people's brains does not make it "true." But it does not make it "false" either. We simply don't know whether it is true or false. And when we don't know something, I think we should fault on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to people who are most directly affected. In this case, that's trans people.

I wrote "most directly affected" because other people are also affected. The issue regarding sports is the most obvious case, but there are other situations.”

I disagree. This still assumes that “trans people” are a legitimate reality, whose reality is publicly accessible to all. But we haven’t established that. What we’ve established is that we don’t know, based on the claims of psychological self-experience/professes intuition, THAT there are in fact any trans people. How can we “give the benefit of the doubt” to a class of people who we don’t know actually exist, unless of course we decide to favor one explanation (the interior psychological one) over the exterior bodily one?

None of those things are necessary to identify as, live as, or compete as the female gender.

A trans female can absolutely sing in an all girls choir and I know some who do. I also know trans males that sing in all male choirs.

Once again, trans women are women. It is correct there is no need to use the trans identifier, women are women, but since this is a discussion about trans women I'll use it for clarity.

why do all you guys sound so freaking creepy?

The essay - Objections to ‘Cis’ - by Helen Saxby from 2020 expresses the views of a lot of women I know. Some excerpts, with some edits of my own added:

Cis is short for cisgendered, and the usual definition (apart from ‘not trans’) is having ‘a gender identity which matches your sex assigned at birth’. Immediately there are two major assumptions to challenge: sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, it is recorded, and 'gender identity' is a concept which is rejected by many people and is in any case impossible to define.

Calling me cisgender does not just say I am someone who is ‘not trans’, it ties me in to a faith-based belief system I don’t share and which I see as actively harmful, especially to women and girls. This is a perfectly understandable reason to reject the word ‘cis’ and that should be the end of it… but there’s more.

The unwanted labelling of ‘cis’ is enforced whether you like it or not. Many women object to being demoted to a subset of their own sex class, when previously the word ‘woman’ was sufficient and carried meaning.

Although today's transgender movement is dedicated to the idea of always believing that people are exactly what they say they are, there's a notable lack of acceptance of the positions "I’m not cis" and "I don't have a gender identity." According to the ideology, everyone has a gender identity and if you don't identify as trans or as another special identity like non-binary or genderqueer, it means you're cis.

This imposition of a gender identity onto everyone - and the insistence that gender identity is a core component of self and a defining characteristic of everyone, even those who say they don't have a gender identity - is one of the things that is most regressive about trans ideology. I didn’t spend a lifetime trying to escape the confines of the feminine gender box only to be forced into the restrictive cisgender box instead.

But there are worse problems with this terminology than that.

If you're forced to accept the word ‘cis’ then you're essentially conceding that women come in both male and female varieties. ‘Cis’ is the other side of the coin to the ‘transwomen are women’ mantra, in that it ensures the category of women contains both sexes.

In this system a ‘transwoman’ is a male woman and a ‘cis woman’ is a female woman, and these are now equal subsets of the category ‘woman’. Cis is doing the job of letting men into the female sex class, and it means you can no longer be just a woman, you have to make a choice over what sex of woman you are.

when women express fear and discomfort about males invading our spaces and sports, we are told it's silly and wrong to worry because the males coming in are "trans" rather than "cis"- and supposedly only cis males pose a problem.

Cis works here to differentiate between the men who are really male (cis men) and those who are really female (transwomen). At the same time it puts ‘transwomen’ and women into the same exact category.

In accepting the word ‘cis’ you have lost the means to differentiate between men and women, because they both now come in both sexes.

Once ‘cis’ has done its job of mixing up the sexes into a new gender-determined classification, a much bigger problem becomes clear. The two subsets of women (cis and trans) turn out to be not so equal after all.

Cis is being used to posit an axis of oppression which subverts the usual order of things and places females as the oppressors of males: if women come in both cis and trans varieties it’s the cis ones who have the privilege. Cis privilege means that cis people oppress trans people, so it naturally follows that males are the most oppressed of all women.

Once that’s established, then it’s clear that female girls and women, with all our supposed "cis privilege," can no longer be allowed to organise, engage in activities, or have spaces and services on our own without our male ‘sisters’ being included. Women and girls who are female can never have anything just for ourselves ever again.

The result is that women and girls are increasingly being castigated as transphobic, bigoted and exclusionary when we prioritise females and don't include males in activities which were formerly perfectly well-understood as female-only. Endeavors, facilties, services and safeguarding protections that once would have been celebrated as progressive for centering women and girls, helping to promote justice, leveling the playing field, providing balance to correct the male default, are now hateful signs of ‘transphobia’.

It’s a double bind: we are apparently expected to adopt the categorisation of ‘cis women’, but then we are not allowed to organise as ‘cis women’. Everything we do must include 'trans women' aka men.

helensaxby.com

Objections to ‘Cis’

Not The News in Briefs

Many women have written eloquently over the years about their objection to the word ‘cis’. According to those who wish to impose it on us, it is just the equivalent of using the word …

Open link

RunRagged, you are dodging the question?

They are not men pretending to be girls. They are women mis assigned male at birth.

It is a talent.

I don't hate women, I respect all women equally regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth. It is more inclusive, not less inclusive and hateful. I want them all to love their best life as the gender they identify as. If that matches your birth sex cool, if it doesn't cool too.

Not really an argument.

You support biological males competing against females.

You are a misogynist.

Any guy thinking he's really a girl, yep......weirdo,.

Sometimes I do hope that there is such a thing as reincarnation and that all you bigots, including you Deno, come back as transgender folks, just so you can recognize what a piece of manure you are in this current life. And that includes many of you in this thread and on this site.

Do you think obsessing over obscure sprinters and football players from over 40 years ago is normal?

Biological male is a made up term.

Just as I think it’s a dead-end to call all people who think they’re the opposite sex “weird,”—knee jerk emotional responses don’t really suffice—I think it’s also a lame admission of defeat to cower in goopy sentimentality like this to make up for avoiding reality.

If they identify as female absolutely.

If LeBron James decides he wants to be LeBrenda and go play in the WNBA I fully support that. If Caitlin Clark decides she wants to be Calvin Clark and go play in the NBA I support that too.

My support of trans people isn't reserved only for M to F. I fully support F to M and if one beats me in a race so be it. There are plenty of born female athletes faster than my PR of 28:00 for the 5k and it won't make me mad if one beats me.

What reality am I avoiding? And be very careful here, you are way out of your league if engaging me.