Parents and girls sue to block participation of transgender athletes

Lenny Leonard wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

You can train a Parrot to say I Identify as a Human,

A parrot? We should not allow these girls to run because someone might try to enter a parrot in a track meet?

Were you one of those people who was picketing Air Bud when it came out?

No just showing the foolishness of this, and these BOYS should be allowed to run against OTHER BOYS.

You referred to them as girls, so I guess you believe, you can be whatever you want to be (Or as they say what you Identify as) that is IDIOTIC and INANE. Sex is an ASCRIBED STATUS, something that does not and can not change.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wrong. Hormone therapy doesn't put on pounds of fat, or we would see most elite female athletes are overweight. They aren't. Jessica Ennis-Hill? Miller-Uibo? Sifan Hassan?

The advantages of a male physiology don't simply disappear at transitioning. The tennis player Renee Richards, who trained Martina Navratilova, has said that if she transitioned in her twenties and not her thirties no female players would have stood a chance against her. She is now opposed to trans competing in women's sport.

Let me get this straight? You think elite male athletes and elite female athletes have the same body fat percentages? I think you will find every study on the subject for the last 50 years disagrees with you.

Renne may or may not be right but lets not forgot as a male we were talking about someone that was a top flight tennis player. Coming out even slightly ahead would be enough to nudge you up a class which is why I mentioned at the pro level it matters. I also wonder how much of her opinion was a result of weak woman's tennis fields back then. At mediocre HS level? Who the heck cares. Again this is if they are undergoing drug treatment. Declaring yourself trans and running a race 2 days later I don't think many people will think is fair. After 9 months of hormone therapy? It is a heck of a lot murkier.

I remember everyone thinking that XC chic with the 14:40 PR would dominant. She didn't. Deciding if it was intentional sandbagging or the effects of treatment is an exercise to the reader. We can point out how much slower Castor (not trans) got with hormone suppression therapy as an example of a person who we know was trying.

I’m good with it. The sooner the collapse, the better.

A lot of posters believe that the decision as to whether or not to allow transgender females to compete is based on an assessment of fairness, but it's not. Women's tennis was vehemently opposed to Renee Richards competing and the case went to court in New York:

In a 13‐page decision that could become a landmark, (State Supreme Court Justice) Ascione said the requirement that Dr. Richards pass the (sex chromosomes) test in order to become eligible for the United States Open was “grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and violative of her rights under the Human Rights Law of this state.”

His decision had nothing to do with any opinion as to whether Richards had an unfair advantage.

If the NCAA, USATF or IOC decide to ban transgender athletes, their decision will be challenged in court and the focus will again be on an interpretation of human rights.

Being fat or overweight is not an issue for elite female athletes, regardless of whether they have a greater percentage of body fat than top males. Nor would it be likely be an issue for transitioned athletes.

The male advantages are not confined to higher levels of testosterone; there is plenty of research that spells that out. Renee Richards transitioned late; she now recognizes that no female athletes would have stood a chance against if she had transitioned ten years earlier.

Fairness is not an issue confined to professional athletes; if that were so the rest of us might as well give up and go home. It matters at school, college and state level (and masters) just as much. That's what sport is about. That's why more women athletes are now speaking out.

The issue was still fairness, but not competitive fairness. The quote from the Judge was that the sex chromosome testing was "grossly unfair". There it is - fairness, but fairness to Richards. The test was seen as discriminatory.

But competing in sports is not an unqualified or absolute right. If that were so there couldn't be selection or qualification criteria, weight or age criteria, and finally gender criteria. A judge today would hear arguments that human rights of the kind raised by Richards (who's since changed her views) are subject to the context that categories of competition require; the rights of biological females to compete in their protected category would have to be acknowledged and there is plenty of science now to support it, which there wasn't in Richards' era.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Being fat or overweight is not an issue for elite female athletes, regardless of whether they have a greater percentage of body fat than top males. Nor would it be likely be an issue for transitioned athletes.

.

So you are saying that adding pounds of fat (which you agree will happen) isn't going to slow down an athlete? Have you ever tried running with an extra 10lbs? Why does this subject just make people stupid?

This is so hard wrote:

On one end you have the attorneys for the three cis-girls referring to the trans girls as boys. Really? That's a low blow. Can't you argue that trans girls have an unfair advantage without misgendering them completely? Thats totally unnecessary.

The trans "girls" are males, that's scientific fact, and it is literally mental illness to believe that social/personal identification can alter something on the chromosomal, and beyond insane to try and make the rest of society complicit in this madness.

This is so hard wrote:

On the other end you have an ACLU attorney who is mocking the cis-girls calling them "Abigail Fisher" and implying that they are racist. It's unprofessional to mock kids online like this. Just ridiculous.

You're either on team sanity, or on team rebellion against science and reality; they're at war with eachother, and in the end there can be no compormise, one has to outlaw the other has hate speech eventually.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Being fat or overweight is not an issue for elite female athletes, regardless of whether they have a greater percentage of body fat than top males. Nor would it be likely be an issue for transitioned athletes.

.

So you are saying that adding pounds of fat (which you agree will happen) isn't going to slow down an athlete? Have you ever tried running with an extra 10lbs? Why does this subject just make people stupid?

I did not say that and I didn't agree with you that top female athletes are fat, and I gave examples like Hassan, Ennis-Hill and Miller-Uibo. To have female levels of hormones does not mean excess weight. Yes - the subject can make people stupid, as you say, and unfortunately you have just shown that.

You can still think about things rationally. You don’t have to pick a team.

I was a moderately successful female runner (10:30 for 3000m, sub 18:30 for 5k, etc). My problems stopping me running faster were due to being held up by biology, due to being female and my body developing accordingly. Before I hit puberty, I didn't have breasts that wobbled and were extra needless weight (I actually had them reduced surgically), or periods (not actually that bad in themselves compared to all the rest that goes along with them). Annoyingly, I have wide hips and carry more fat than muscle than if I were a man. I really hate those wide hips - I look in the mirror and see how much better I'd look if I had narrower hips (and I'm not saying that all women have wide hips, its just that women are statistically far, far more likely to have wider hips than men).

I had to watch my diet constantly even when in hard training because my damned hormones encourage me to lay down fat in the areas you don't want it to for running fast. Also annoyingly, I was 5 feet 2 inches tall, not a near 6 feet tall man. Even if I'd been an lower than average male height, for example, a nice 5 feet 7, I would have had longer legs and a longer stride length as a result. Most annoyingly of all, as I got older, I developed osteoarthritis, due to my female hip and pelvis angle causing my knees not to be as inline as a man's (an "acute Q angle", again far, far more common in women than in men). Plus, I always had to be careful where I was running, so that my emerging female body didn't get attacked by a potential rapist.

I know, taking everything into account, that if I had been born a man, I'd have been a lot faster runner. Its farcical to suggest that taking hormones for a few years can change height, bone structure and the benefits of spending a lifetime as a man and having the muscle memory of being faster and stronger. Suggesting that it levels the playing field is to me just another manifestation of male privilege and hatred against women, often by people who don't think sports should be separated on grounds of biological sex.

I love running so much, I'd change biological sex if I could. However, I know that taking testosterone for a year or two isn't going to change my bone structure, give me a narrower pelvis or make my legs suddenly 5 inches longer. I'm in awe of elite women athletes who run as fast as they do.

Make A Comeback wrote:

annoyingly, I was 5 feet 2 inches tall, not a near 6 feet tall man. Even if I'd been an lower than average male height, for example, a nice 5 feet 7, I would have had longer legs and a longer stride length as a result.

There is no basically no correlation between height and running performance until you are talking extreme heights. Being 5'2 isn't what held you back. Having short legs for your height might have.

Girl who is a party to the lawsuit wins on the track. State champ.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/16/chelsea-mitchell-beats-terry-miller-transgender-tr/

I am glad to see that a girl won. But the boy still took a spot away from a deserving girl on the podium.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Men are women wrote:

My biology teacher taught me that there were two. Leftists are science deniers. They also don't believe that a fetus can only develop into a baby and nothing else.

Luckily, in the current state of sports, there are two gender categories. So if someone is female, they run with females. These parents seem to be suing against a girl for running with girls which is an unwinnable case.

Hey, Lenny? Does it also seem to you that the Mexican border pays rent?

hgsddg wrote:

Make A Comeback wrote:

annoyingly, I was 5 feet 2 inches tall, not a near 6 feet tall man. Even if I'd been an lower than average male height, for example, a nice 5 feet 7, I would have had longer legs and a longer stride length as a result.

There is no basically no correlation between height and running performance until you are talking extreme heights. Being 5'2 isn't what held you back. Having short legs for your height might have.

Read her post again. It wasn't height or short legs that held her back - it was being female.

Facepalmerer wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Luckily, in the current state of sports, there are two gender categories. So if someone is female, they run with females. These parents seem to be suing against a girl for running with girls which is an unwinnable case.

Hey, Lenny? Does it also seem to you that the Mexican border pays rent?

Back in before someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome says "Donald Trump."

That there is science to support that there is an advantage is still a theoretical argument against people that don't yet exist. In women's T&F, there is just one competitive transgender athlete that is graduating this year and probably won't compete as a professional. The two Connecticut sprinters are a different issue as they are not taking hormone treatments. So far, the transgender marathoner has run 2:43 and is no threat to have am impact on the sport. Who will be the agreived party when the previous ruling is challenged in court? The woman who finished 21st instead of 20th at the trials?

You say that the right to compete in sports is not an absolute right, but the court ruled that if a transgender athlete is legally recognized a woman, not allowing her to compete is a violation of her human rights.

Yes, some transgender female athletes could have an advantage. I'm not an attorney, but I believe the logic in the defense of allowing transgender females to compete against women will be that if they are considered to be women, it's not unfair for biological women to have to compete against them. The requirement of hormone treatment is legally acceptable because it can be defined as a requirement of becoming a woman.

No matter how much people rant against transgender female athletes, it's unlikely they will ever be banned. The remaining issues are the effects on performance of testosterone, how the rules are enforced and whether athletes from a subset of less than 1% of the population will have ever evenly remotely have an impact on women's sports. That there will be cheaters is nonsense.

Facepalmerer wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Luckily, in the current state of sports, there are two gender categories. So if someone is female, they run with females. These parents seem to be suing against a girl for running with girls which is an unwinnable case.

Hey, Lenny? Does it also seem to you that the Mexican border pays rent?

I’m going to be honest with you, I don’t really follow any of the news about the border wall, so I don’t really know to what you are referring.

My guy says no, the Mexican border (a border has money?) does not pay rent (to whom? I don’t know.) Is that correct?