First transgender athlete June Eastwood to compete in women’s DI XC this fall, has pbs of 1:55/3:50/14:38

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

I would hope that any of you that run across June this year will be respectful. Don’t be a dick. It’s a human being. If I’m at a meet and someone starts spewing hate I can promise you that I have zero problem confronting you.

Let's hope Jonathan will be respectful and won't compete against girls.

His hate for women is apparently so deep that he wants to destroy women's sports.

I can promise lots of feminists have zero problem confronting him.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

There’s no way in the world that this person would subject themselves to this amount of scrutiny and he just so they could have some sort of competitive advantage. It’s a person is transitioning in life that just so happens to be a good runner.

Just like there is no way in the world that an athlete would take dangerous drugs to get a competitive advantage?

Some people do everything for money, attention and fame.

The fact that he is already making a tv series about this tells everything.

Wow. You can tell from the tone of your post that you’ve got a lot of angst inside you. Welp...good luck with that. Hope it works out for you.

Yeah. Definitely the same thing by the way. Taking dangerous drugs. Well since June is basically taking the pill for the last 12 months I guess it must all be for fame and glory.

You’re entitled to your opinion no matter how narrow it seems to be. :)

Meanwhile, shockingly, the world will keep turning.

~Kevin

i agree.shes actually very femenine.she doesnt look like a guy.

Semenya is not a transgender. Why hasn't your fake transgender appeared in women's tennis? The opportunity has been there for over 40 years. In addition to growing long hair and shaving, hormone treatment is required which would be a dealbreaker for any sane person. People are predicting the end of women's sports, but your examples amount to a drop in an ocean.

Semenya is a biological (XY) male competing against biological females.

She also does not engage in hormone suppression or estrogen supplement. She was born with outward female Genitalia and it was unbeknownst to her until well into her adult life that she had internal gonads as opposed to ovaries.

Taking a very narrow view of the situation then yes, you are correct, it is an XY male competing against women. But this is more about transgender and someone transitioning from male to female Through the use of hormones.

It will all sort itself out and it won’t be the end of the world. This will all be a faded memory pretty quickly.

jeff tallon wrote:

i imagine she'll be much faster than that,if cece telfer is anything to go by.cece wasnt far off her pb's as a male,and she is on female hormones.june will slow,but by how much,can only be guessed at,at this stage.i think perhaps she may run close to 2 minutes flat,in the 800,4.04-4.03 in the 1500,and 15 minutes in the 5000.maybe a bit slower.given that shes young,she'll still improve.

Cece looks dramatically more masculine than June. I think the majority of people would agree with that.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned June's runs were on Running2Win. I wasn't able to find the details of the runs, but it was suggested her runs were significantly slower than one would expect to see for someone in 1:55/3:50/14:38 shape.

Semenya is not a transgender. Why hasn't your fake transgender appeared in women's tennis? The opportunity has been there for over 40 years. In addition to growing long hair and shaving, hormone treatment is required which would be a dealbreaker for any sane person. People are predicting the end of women's sports, but your examples amount to a drop in an ocean.[/quote]

Yes, Semenya and other intersex people are not transgender. Bringing Semenya up here is not a perfectly analogous situation in terms of specifics, but the inherent biological differences she has due to being xx is certainly valid.

As to whether June is doing things entirely for notoriety or sanity seems to be a moot point. As noted, going through this entire situation for some trivial amount of attention seems to be so counter intuitive that it seems like an absurd statement. She is already getting scrutinized and is getting no real gain from it.

In terms of these situations being a drop in the bucket/ocean or being the downfall of women's sports, simply looking at the number of people doing this does not coincide with the affect they are having on the system. It will always be the case that biologically female women will be the dominant group in women's sports by numbers given they are the larger group in the population. What should be worrisome is with the fact that we see situations where trans women, in proportions that are not random (or by chance), seem to end up at the top of heap in competitive environments. It literally is a statistical question as to whether it is random, and it can be easily shown to not be. A semi-rigorous explanation with probability would demonstrate that or a quick simulation (use a hypergeometric in both) would also show this. So assuming that all other factors (ie training, health, etc) are relatively equal, it would be unlikely to see so many trans women achieve the successes they given their small proportions in the population.

When women take drugs they have been shown to dominate women's sports. China, Russia, East Germany, etc. are all clear examples that when institutional doping was going on, that performances were raised. Now, without the need of drugs, we have the same potential. It seems clear that to protect the vast majority of biological women, something should be done to entirely eliminate the competitive advantage someone may have due to either innate or extraneous sources of a hormone that gives them an unfair advantage.

Here is a thought for trans people: If you were deemed in college/international competition to have to compete in your birth gender, what is the issue? If people say, then they would never win or be competitive, then it illustrates that it is not about being able to compete, but the outcome (ie rank). It is also antithetical to the argument of fairness. If biological men who aren't on hormones have an advantage over trans women who would be induced to compete with them if this policy were used, then using that logic, it is unfair for women who were never men to compete with trans women as they never had the full advantage of testosterone. It would simply be unfair as it would create a tiered system where it was clear that one group was given an unfair advantage.

Any person should have the right to compete. However, that doesn't mean they should have the right to compete in their chosen category. A 24 y/o can't decide to go back to junior sports and compete there. However, what is always acceptable is for those who may have a disadvantage, to compete in higher levels. We do allow juniors to compete in senior events if they are good enough. That situation seems to be more analogous to what is deemed fair play. So, yes, trans women might be at a disadvantage to compete against men, but that is more like allowing a junior to compete in senior events. Allowing trans women to compete against women is more analogous to allowing a senior athlete to compete against juniors. That we don't allow.

Renee Richards is now opposed to trans gender competing in women's sport. When she transitioned she was in her thirties. She said that even at that age she was competitive with most top female players. She now says she recognises that if she had transitioned in her early twenties no woman would have been able to beat her.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

In 1977, Renee Richards won, in court, the right to compete in professional women's tennis as a transgender woman. Just like now, people were predicting that it would be the end of the sport as there would be a horde of transgenders coming to dominate women's sports.

Richards did not go to court for the right to compete as "a transgender woman," a term that today simply means a male who self-identifies as female but who still has his balls and dick and might - or might not be - taking, or have taken, some estrogen for a time.

Richards went to court for the right to compete in women's tennis as a transsexual whose testicles had been surgically removed and penis inverted into a facsimile of a vagina.

Contrary to what you state, no one back in 1977 predicted that "there would be a horde of transgenders coming to dominate women's sports" because

a) the term "transgender" had not come into use at the time;

b) everyone back then knew that while gay transvestites and heterosexual cross-dressers were commonplace, only a teeny-tiny number of these men would go so far as to even think of getting their balls cut off and their dicks refashioned to look more like female genitals.

And, significantly, as revealed to "Slate" in 2012, since 1977 Richards has had a total change of heart:

...Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy. (Note: this article came out several years before the IOC changed the rules so that surgery is no longer necessary and "hormone therapy" is required for only a year.)

...“Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.” She adds, “There is one thing that a transsexual woman unfortunately cannot expect to be allowed to do, and that is to play professional sports in her chosen field. She can get married, live as woman, do all of those other things, and no one should ever be allowed to take them away from her. But this limitation—that’s just life. I know because I lived it.”

SDSU Aztec wrote:

In 1977, Renee Richards won, in court, the right to compete in professional women's tennis as a transgender woman. Just like now, people were predicting that it would be the end of the sport as there would be a horde of transgenders coming to dominate women's sports.

Some LRers like to claim there are 1,000 male players that could beat Sabrina. Assuming those players cycle through every 5 years there have 8,000 male players capable of becoming the #1 female player, were they to transgender, but even with significant financial incentives, there hasn't been even one TG mtf player since Richards. Not one.

There are people on LR who post that they could win a Gold Medal as a woman, so they should fake a transgendering, win some championships and prove me wrong.

A couple of more minor points about language:

Today's wokeabulary rules say that using the word "transgender" as a noun the way you did in your post is transphobic and hateful. And that "transgender" should never, ever be used as a verb or gerund.

What's more, amongst the trans population and their allies today, old-school transsexuals like Richards are routinely derided as "truscum."

This is because transsexuals long have held that being trans requires having gender/sex "dysphoria" that causes deep unhappiness and should involve making some real efforts to mimic the opposite sex, such as taking cross-sex hormones and having surgery. By contrast, today's transgenderists say the only thing required to be trans is to have an inner feeling that you are the opposite sex or would prefer to be. To today's transgenderists, the "old-fashioned" transsexual POV view ufairly pathologizes trans people, puts them on a path to needless medical interventions, and denies the fact that many of today's trans "folx" are not motivated by the unhappiness of gender dysphoria, but by the erotic thrills and ecstasy of "gender euphoria."

These are not my views; I'm just passing along what today's gender vendors say.

YMMV wrote:

crwnikeboy wrote:

Disgusting. Men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.

I am going to make a proposal that allows all of us who believe that XY men should be barred from XX women's sports: contextual pronouns. If an XY person wants to be recognized as a woman, with pronouns of "she" "her" etc.; I will honor that wish as long as they stay out of women's sports, which I believe should be segregated along biological, not sociological lines. If an XY person chooses to participate in women's sports under any circumstance, I will use the male pronouns, "he" "him" "his" etc..

At this point, I will address June as "he".

This is something that I believe that we can apply fairly and consistently. Who is with me?

Not me, because I'd rather not be a dick. Deliberately using incorrect pronouns is incredibly disrespectful. If the rule bothers you, then try to change it. Don't attack an individual who is doing nothing wrong, according to the rules.

I’m thinking about the “rules” for a winning argument to keep XY humans out of what should be XX sports. I’m open to thoughts.

1) Always show support for trans people in every area of life, except in this limited issue of the sporting domain, and recognize that it is challenging, difficult and not a decision made lightly.

2) Refer to people by their preferred pronouns.

3) Avoid arguments about testosterone levels. Instead focus on the other advantages from having been born XY that will never, ever go away regardless of hormone therapy. Have a list of advantages at the ready. Some have been shared in this thread.

4) Support women who are willing to push back, like Martina Navratilova. Let them be the face of the resistance. Women are going to have to unite in this.

5) Discuss the long, difficult road that women fought for equality in sports and question whether that will all be sacrificed.

6) Don’t speculate on what could be. Hammer away on what is already known to be true. Beat the Connecticut issue into the ground.

7) Humanize the girls and women who have fought and worked and want to win, only to be beaten down in the end. Humanize the runners-up in Connecticut and elsewhere. There has to be a repositioning of the identity of the “victims.” People will feel for and want to support a victim. The victims can’t be seen as the trans athlete (so be respectful of them.) The victims are the XX athletes who can’t compete.

What am I missing? Am I on the right track?

MikeMach1977 wrote:

Semenya is not a transgender. Why hasn't your fake transgender appeared in women's tennis? The opportunity has been there for over 40 years. In addition to growing long hair and shaving, hormone treatment is required which would be a dealbreaker for any sane person. People are predicting the end of women's sports, but your examples amount to a drop in an ocean.

Yes, Semenya and other intersex people are not transgender. Bringing Semenya up here is not a perfectly analogous situation in terms of specifics, but the inherent biological differences she has due to being xx is certainly valid.

As to whether June is doing things entirely for notoriety or sanity seems to be a moot point. As noted, going through this entire situation for some trivial amount of attention seems to be so counter intuitive that it seems like an absurd statement. She is already getting scrutinized and is getting no real gain from it.

In terms of these situations being a drop in the bucket/ocean or being the downfall of women's sports, simply looking at the number of people doing this does not coincide with the affect they are having on the system. It will always be the case that biologically female women will be the dominant group in women's sports by numbers given they are the larger group in the population. What should be worrisome is with the fact that we see situations where trans women, in proportions that are not random (or by chance), seem to end up at the top of heap in competitive environments. It literally is a statistical question as to whether it is random, and it can be easily shown to not be. A semi-rigorous explanation with probability would demonstrate that or a quick simulation (use a hypergeometric in both) would also show this. So assuming that all other factors (ie training, health, etc) are relatively equal, it would be unlikely to see so many trans women achieve the successes they given their small proportions in the population.

When women take drugs they have been shown to dominate women's sports. China, Russia, East Germany, etc. are all clear examples that when institutional doping was going on, that performances were raised. Now, without the need of drugs, we have the same potential. It seems clear that to protect the vast majority of biological women, something should be done to entirely eliminate the competitive advantage someone may have due to either innate or extraneous sources of a hormone that gives them an unfair advantage.

Here is a thought for trans people: If you were deemed in college/international competition to have to compete in your birth gender, what is the issue? If people say, then they would never win or be competitive, then it illustrates that it is not about being able to compete, but the outcome (ie rank). It is also antithetical to the argument of fairness. If biological men who aren't on hormones have an advantage over trans women who would be induced to compete with them if this policy were used, then using that logic, it is unfair for women who were never men to compete with trans women as they never had the full advantage of testosterone. It would simply be unfair as it would create a tiered system where it was clear that one group was given an unfair advantage.

Any person should have the right to compete. However, that doesn't mean they should have the right to compete in their chosen category. A 24 y/o can't decide to go back to junior sports and compete there. However, what is always acceptable is for those who may have a disadvantage, to compete in higher levels. We do allow juniors to compete in senior events if they are good enough. That situation seems to be more analogous to what is deemed fair play. So, yes, trans women might be at a disadvantage to compete against men, but that is more like allowing a junior to compete in senior events. Allowing trans women to compete against women is more analogous to allowing a senior athlete to compete against juniors. That we don't allow.[/quote]

Whether TGmtf's should be allowed to compete was litigated over 40 years ago and has not been challenged since. The remaining point of contention is whether the NCAA should strictly enforce maximum T-levels.

June is the first transgender whose PRs as a male would be world class for a woman. If she sets a WR, AR or CR in the 1500, her T-levels will be checked and if it turns out she wasn't taking the treatments, the NCAA will be forced to ensure compliance with hormonal treatment requirements. If she has acceptable T-levels and it turns out a mediocre male runner can become a world-class female athlete, a compelling argument can be made for not allowing any TG's to compete.

If she runs 16:30 then it will be evidence that, in her case, the treatments leveled the playing field.

After over 40 years of predicting the end of women's sports, we will finally have a data point.

Several good points, but a bit naive I am afraid. You are assuming the other side is rational and of good faith. They aren't.

1) I don't want to always show support for them. They are deranged, they even have 4 years old transitioning these days:

2) They have created hundreds of genders and as much pronouns. I don't want to let their fantasies ruin the English language:

4) Navratilova has tried this, but she was bullied, harassed, threatened... relentlessly. They labeled her a transphobe, a racist etc.

7) Excellent point, but this will be hard as the media likes to focus on the transgender individuals who were so "brave" to come out. They are already creating a documentary about June, not about his victims. They never spoke about the women who lost medals due to Caster.

You need a hug bruh? Sad to see you spending so much time and emotion on the subject it doesn’t directly affect your life one iota. You must be an absolute joy to be around.

Your "they" doesn't wield any power so it doesn't matter what they think. Do you have any evidence that less than 99% of the population doesn't think the parents of the 4-year old aren't absolutely nuts.

I understand where you're coming from, but one of the main things your missing is the difference between those who have transitioned used hormones versus those who have not. Have you looked at the study I posted earlier in this thread? I realize it's hard to look at things that won't support our stance on a subject, but the data compiled in that study indicates there aren't advantages that "never, ever go away." A lot of people cite increased bone density, but that would actually be a disadvantage in a body that doesn't have the need for that bone density anymore as it would become dead weight. Beyond that the body would decrease the bone density over time so that it stays in line with the demands put on it by the muscles.

The more science the better as it eliminates the emotional aspect of this discussion. In my opinion, those bringing up Semenya are not realizing this is completely different because Semenya was not trying to transition and still had much higher testosterone levels than even women that are natural outliers and she still got slower. Imagine if Semenya was taking hormones such that the resulting level of testosterone was that of a normal woman. Semenya would no longer be able to compete and the international level and nobody would care anymore. The problem is the IAAF set the testosterone limit exceptionally high, equivalent to what a normal woman would be at if taking testosterone exogenously.

When you take a male distance runner, who will already be on the low-normal side of testosterone levels and put them on medication that further suppresses and block their testosterone while also increasing their estrogen what ends up happening is they have the same relative talent level for a woman as they did when they were not taking anything as a man. If June is transitioning with hormones she's not going to be under 16:30 for 5000 and very likely she'll be slower than that. It's still fast for sure, but it's nowhere near the level of professionals.

If June is getting an athletic scholarship that prevents another female from getting one on her team, maybe the NCAA should consider allowing an additional scholarship for cisgender females for any team that has a transgender female getting a scholarship. So if June is getting a 1/4 athletic scholarship let Montana have an additional 1/4 athletic scholarship they can grant to a cisgender female. I can't imagine school without any transgender runners on their team freaking out about that.

The world is constantly evolving whether or not we like it. It's a lot easier to change our own perspectives and go with the flow than it is to fight the tidal wave of inevitable change.

A study that concludes that there aren’t permanent advantages can essentially be debunked with a few questions.

Does being 6’8” go away?

Do hands shrink?

Does Q-angle change?

Do shoulders narrow?

Look, I’m all for a thoughtful, science-based argument/discussion. But the position that there aren’t permanent advantages of being born male, benefiting from testosterone through adolescence and transitioning later in life (say in one’s 20s) is just untenable.