No. I am not "protecting" your athletes from you. If you want to patronize them, it's up to THEM whether they want to speak up.
And you are really missing the point. What difference would it make if I were female? Would that entitle me to speak for young girls I have never met? I don't think so.
I could not care less. It is called peer pressure. It is an issue of basic fairness.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have remained utterly and consistently deaf to the argument made in this thread and others like it that transgender have an unfair advantage in female sports by virtue of their being biologically male. It is consistent with the principle that separates male from female sports, which is not for social or cultural reasons but the biological advantages males have.
Until you address that your arguments concerning inclusivity are irrelevant.
First off, “biologically male” is hateful speech. Don’t say it anymore.
Second, I don’t care if they have an advantage, they’re girls running against girls. I don’t know how else I need to defend against it. I don’t think it’s an issue. This girl in Connecticut didn’t win states. If she lived in Texas, she also would not have won states. Her time just is what it is.
I am pro-women’s sports, and I mean for ALL women.
1. If you think "biological males" is hate speech would you prefer the description "people with testes who identify as female"?
2. If you don't care they have an unfair physical advantage by virtue of these sex characteristics denied cis-women then you don't care about women's sport. Period. You may as well say cis-women should be allowed to dope to the gills to try to match their levels of testosterone and muscle development.
3. Sport is a physical activity, not a badge of ideological conformity or political affiliation. It is divided into categories of age and gender for physical reasons - no other.
Wow. One woman spoke out. That settles it then. Good find!
Armstronglivs wrote:
1. If you think "biological males" is hate speech would you prefer the description "people with testes who identify as female"?
I’d call them female since. See how easy that is?
Armstronglivs wrote:
2. If you don't care they have an unfair physical advantage by virtue of these sex characteristics denied cis-women then you don't care about women's sport. Period. You may as well say cis-women should be allowed to dope to the gills to try to match their levels of testosterone and muscle development.
Doping is an issue for another time. I guess we agree to disagree about the first point here.
Armstronglivs wrote:
3. Sport is a physical activity, not a badge of ideological conformity or political affiliation. It is divided into categories of age and gender for physical reasons - no other.
You’re trying to make this political. I am arguing common sense. Women should run against women.
Also, no one is entitled to winning races, which is all you seem to cate about. If a girl runs a 4:40 mile and gets 1st and another runs 4:40 and gets 10th in a different race, they both are 4:40 milers. Other than those two individuals, who really cares about who else was in the race?
bone to pick wrote:
Life isn't fair, the sooner these kids learn that the better.
True, but that doesn't mean they should just shut up and take it. I applaud those who speak out when they feel they are being mistreated.
Lenny Leonard wrote:If a girl runs a 4:40 mile and gets 1st and another runs 4:40 and gets 10th in a different race, they both are 4:40 milers. Other than those two individuals, who really cares about who else was in the race?
Don't be daft. When a HS state championship is on the line, or a college conference meet, or a school record, or any national/regional/world championship, or a WR, or an Olympic medal, it matters.
Or any rinky-dink little dual meet between two middle schools. Place matters. It affects the outcome of the meet.
In open all-comers meets, yeah fine it doesn't matter. I've run in local summer track meets where we had men, women, boys, girls, and seniors all lined up for the mile together. No big deal, everyone is just trying to run their best time for the distance on that day.
But if you are competing for top placement, in classes based on physical characteristics, then it matters.
uhhh guys? wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:If a girl runs a 4:40 mile and gets 1st and another runs 4:40 and gets 10th in a different race, they both are 4:40 milers. Other than those two individuals, who really cares about who else was in the race?
Don't be daft. When a HS state championship is on the line, or a college conference meet, or a school record, or any national/regional/world championship, or a WR, or an Olympic medal, it matters.
Or any rinky-dink little dual meet between two middle schools. Place matters. It affects the outcome of the meet.
In open all-comers meets, yeah fine it doesn't matter. I've run in local summer track meets where we had men, women, boys, girls, and seniors all lined up for the mile together. No big deal, everyone is just trying to run their best time for the distance on that day.
But if you are competing for top placement, in classes based on physical characteristics, then it matters.
I disagree agree with you 100% on this.
The situations that you describe make up less than .01% of all track events. Most people will never win a race, not even a heat. Most races don’t have championships or records at stake. But because you (erroneously) have a problem with a girl finishing one place in front of another girl in these rare instances, you think that tens of thousands of people should not be allowed to participate in sports?
bone to pick wrote:
Life isn't fair, the sooner these kids learn that the better.
Your missing the point. It's not about being fair it is simply about actual women not wanting to compete against dudes that are mentally ill and think they are female. I agree and when this happens in my daughters sports I will say something about it. If they want to identify as female they can do it off the track. As far as I am concerned cool you think your a lady but your still racing as a male or make a transgender division.
Lenny Leonard wrote:The situations that you describe make up less than .01% of all track events.
.01% means 1 out of 10,000. Moran.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
you think that tens of thousands of people should not be allowed to participate in sports?
No one said that people should not be allowed to participate in sports.
Is this guy dopey, or just a troll?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
1. If you think "biological males" is hate speech would you prefer the description "people with testes who identify as female"?
I’d call them female since. See how easy that is?(quote)
It's easy to call people with testes female? I guess it's just as easy to call short people tall, white people black, young people old and dull people geniuses.
Armstronglivs wrote:
2. If you don't care they have an unfair physical advantage by virtue of these sex characteristics denied cis-women then you don't care about women's sport. Period. You may as well say cis-women should be allowed to dope to the gills to try to match their levels of testosterone and muscle development.
Doping is an issue for another time. I guess we agree to disagree about the first point here. (quote)
The unfair advantage in doping is conveniently ducked, while you don't care about the unfair advantage in women's sport that competitors with testes will have.
Armstronglivs wrote:
3. Sport is a physical activity, not a badge of ideological conformity or political affiliation. It is divided into categories of age and gender for physical reasons - no other.
You’re trying to make this political. I am arguing common sense. Women should run against women.(quote)
I agree. Women should run against women. But not women who are biologically male, with testes. (Sorry for the "hate" speech again.) The insistence that the protected category of women's sport is open to anyone who says they are a woman is completely political. It isn't biological, as men's and women's categories have always been.
Also, no one is entitled to winning races, which is all you seem to cate about. If a girl runs a 4:40 mile and gets 1st and another runs 4:40 and gets 10th in a different race, they both are 4:40 milers. Other than those two individuals, who really cares about who else was in the race?
No one is entitled to winning races, as you say, but they are entitled to fair competition. The physical advantages of being born male are denied cis women; this is the reason women's sport is a protected category in which males do not compete.
Being male or female is determined biologically; it is not a figment of the imagination. Hospitals treat patients according to their physiology, not what they identify as.
you know it's gettin serious when somebody starts breaking out the bold font, man.
GD wrote:
Transgenderism is a Western, culturally-specific explanation for gender non-conformity, not a specific type of person. Gender nonconformity and bodily dismorphias probably have multiple causes, and these causes likely differ from person-to-person. Hormones and surgery are interventions that help some people alleviate dysphoria by allowing them to live, socially, as if they were the other sex. It does not make that person a member of the other biological sex category because it is impossible to change one's sex. Maybe it will be possible to do this in the future with CRISPR technology. It's not possible now.
You can go fly a kite with your, "What would you say to a 16-year-old?" I'd tell them to compete with their biological sex and advocate for boys' sports teams to be more welcoming to trans girls. I'd tell them that, although they face some barriers due to their gender identity, that none of these hardships give them the right to compete against people who don't have the same biological advantages they have. I'd also tell them that, if they choose to take hormones, these hormones will impede their athletic performance but not eliminate male advantage in sport. If they want to take hormones and still compete, they might advocate for more co-ed sports or for trans sports categories.
^^ one of the few good posts in this thread. As a certified lefty (tm), i fully support gender transitioning, pronouns, all that jazz. but it is NOT a reactionary view to say that a person cannot change their sex. and like it or not, sex determines testosterone production, and testosterone is a h3ll of a drug as we all know. plus the musculoskeletal development WILL be different depending on sex.
i do agree that the amount of play this issue gets is incredibly disproportionate to the impact it has. it has unfortunately become a high profile wedge issue with stupid arguments being made by both the "left" and right wing factions. that said, i am one of those dudes whose times in my prime would have put me well within national caliber women's times. i just mention it to illustrate just how much of an advantage being male is. i think that this idea of the mediocre male runner boogeyman transitioning solely for athletic glory is pretty much made up - they have other reasons for transitioning. but unfortunately at some point that conversation has to be had that athletic participation is going to have to be an exception to the transition process, and you are free to opt out of it if you want.
fethullah gulen rupp wrote:
GD wrote:
Gender nonconformity and bodily dismorphias probably have multiple causes, and these causes likely differ from person-to-person. Hormones and surgery are interventions that help some people alleviate dysphoria by allowing them to live, socially, as if they were the other sex.
s.
^^ one of the few good posts in this thread. t.
Agree. And what I find amazing is that a trans girl (for example) has a genome that is screaming "male".
Of all the genes that factor into biological sex and "what I think I am", 99++% of those genes are functioning perfectly well. Assuming there is a biological/biochemical/genetic basis for gender dysphoria, some small fraction of the genes, perhaps even just ONE gene is malfunctioning. (Are there known causes of gender dysphoria?)
Yet, the answer is to go on hard core hormone therapy and possibly undergo reassignment surgery?
Yikes.
At the same time I understand my perspective is that of someone without gender dysphoria and no doubt the actions taken are not taken lightly.
800 critic wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
T
Trans girls are girls. They run against girls. Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative.
Only because we somehow started separating competitions based on "identified with gender" rather than "biological sex at birth" which seems a somewhat better way to do it if you value fair competition. Its simply disrespectful to biological women to make them compete against those born as biological males.
I agree.
hound dawg wrote:
you know it's gettin serious when somebody starts breaking out the bold font, man.
Sorry - it was only done to separate who was saying what.
KudzuRunner wrote:
800 critic wrote:
Only because we somehow started separating competitions based on "identified with gender" rather than "biological sex at birth" which seems a somewhat better way to do it if you value fair competition. Its simply disrespectful to biological women to make them compete against those born as biological males.
I agree.
"Disrespectful" is an interesting choice of word. It isn't quite the same as "unfair".
"So you think that males who've gone through male adolescent puberty and have acquired all the male sports advantages that result are girls running against girls. "
This is a very important point. When males have gone through puberty and have acquired all the male sports advantages, this is not made undone by just blocking testosterone.
The Real Science of Sports by Ross Tucker has a very interesting episode on this subject.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
This is old news. And don’t pretend that this isn’t racially motivated. This would not be an issue in states that aren’t predominantly white.
Trans girls are girls. They run against girls. Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative.
Transphobia is a made up phenomenon that people who make things up about themselves constantly keep at the forefront of today's news. You don't have to be anything. Just say what you want and you get to have it.
rojo wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
This is old news. And don’t pretend that this isn’t racially motivated. This would not be an issue in states that aren’t predominantly white.
Trans girls are girls. They run against girls. Stop bending everything to your transphobic narrative.
Trans girls are trans girls.
They will never get their period. They will never miss time for childbirth. They will never breastfeed, etc.
And what you say about the race thing is 100% the opposite of reality. My female friend who is very upset about all of this desperate to find a trans white woman denying black cisgirls spots on the podium. People would be outraged. Imagine if the races were reversed. Imagine if the entire CT sprint final was black but two rich white trans girls from Greenwich showed up after running on the boys team indoors and sweep the podium.
I think people should let the woke people have their way and then i think a few conservative rich guys from Greenich should show up and dominate the women's state meet. Sports can't be based on feelings. And if someone says, "But you aren't living your life now as a woman." They can reply, "I'm non-binary. I was feeling female when I woke up for state but not anymore."
It was always silly to make this about race. Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who defended the two trans girls competing (and is white) always tried to make this a race issue. He neglected to mention that one of the cis girls suing is also black.
The thing that tilted me in a different direction was Cece Telfer. I just simply can't imagine being Cece or any of these trans girls and not believing that what I was doing and how I was competing wasn't insanely unfair. I think the two girls from CT may have realized that because they aren't competing in college.
This isn't trying to hate or troll. I just think there needs to be tons more research to figure out what is fair and not fair.