Biological male wins Oregon girls' state championship in 200m - Crowd boos

Unfair and unacceptable in sport. Worthy of as many boos as it takes get the brain-dead powers that be to wake the F up.

I think the simple answer is that poor Lenny is just confused and ill-informed and has backed themselves into a corner they can't get out of.

Honestly I'm not even sure of the point she/he are actually trying to make anymore. I suspect neither are they.

You can’t keep trying to hide behind history here. Schools were once separated by race, and clearly you acknowledge that school segregation was terrible then and would be terrible today. Girls were once thought to be inferior in many ways and were denied access to many occupations. You don’t agree that that should continue — girls should not be put into their own math classes and confined to being nurses and teachers. So clearly you are not beholden to historical divisions and segregations.

But there is something about boys and girls in sports that makes you think it is perfectly fine to continue having different divisions.

We all just want to know what you think that is. What makes boys and girls so different in sports that girls should be given their own division?

Lenny wrote: "Trans girls are girls. Trans boys are boys."

^ That's quite a fine specimen, Lenny, of the logical fallacy of begging the question: assuming as a truth a point in dispute. That which is casually asserted can be casually dismissed or casually denied.

But not going through male puberty of adolescence doesn't turn adolescent and adult males into females. Nor does it turn them into the physical equivalent of females their same age.

When you speak of "transgender girls/women who did not go through male puberty," the group I presume you mean are males who were put on GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" at Tanner Stage 2 or age 9, 10 or 11 to stop their testes from pumping out the massive amounts of testosterone that boys' testes typically produce in adolescence.

But putting males on those drugs at the start of puberty of adolescence doesn't undo the fact that they all went through normal male development before then and accrued all sorts of male features that are to their advantage when competing against females.

Males who go on GnRHa drugs at the start of adolescence still went through normal male development from the moment of fertilization, and in the process they acquired distinctly male features that help to give them an advantage over females in most sports. Such as male muscle fibers and male tendons.

Intentionally stopping the testes of normal, healthy males from functioning properly in adolescence doesn't change the fact that their testes worked fine and produced massive amount of testosterone during two other phases of development that play a role in giving males an advantage over females in sports - male fetal devolpment in utero and male mini puberty of infancy in the first year after birth.

Also, putting males on GnRHa drugs at 10, 11 or Tanner 2 only stops these young males from going through the aspects of male puberty of adolescence that are solely driven by testosterone. It doesn't stop them from developing the male features that are an advantage in sports which are the result of male genetics alone - such as male-shaped skeletons and male stature/adult height.

From the experience of the castrati of past centuries we know that males who are castrated at 7, 8, 9 still go on to develop lungs and throats with the size, capacity and power of ordinary men. That means they have lungs that are 10-12% larger and more powerful than teenage girls and women, and throat volumes that are 40% larger.

My hunch is that castrated males probably also develop hearts that are the same size and power as the hearts of normal men. Meaning their hearts are 25-38% bigger and more powerful than a female of the same age, height and weight.

Finally, going through male development isn't the only reason that males have such a huge advantage over females in nearly all sports. Another reason that males have a massive advantage over females in sports is that males don't go through female development. Males don't have to deal with any of the consequences of having female genetics, female reproductive organs, female hormone cycles, female hormone receptors, female physiology and female biological processes.

No matter how much Big Pharma estrogen and progesterone they take, males who've had part of their male puberty blocked by GnRHa drugs still won't go through female puberty of adolescence.

None of the males you keep insisting must be allowed to comepete in female sports will ever ovulate, menstruate or experience a female hormone cycle and have to deal with all the drawbacks that come with those female processes. None them will ever have to deal with pregnancy or fear of unwanted pregnancy, labor, childbirth, miscarriage, termination, breastfeeding, menopause.

None of them will develop a female pelvis and thus a female Q angle.

You keep insisting that when it comes to sports performance potential, there is no appreciable difference between females who've gone through, or are in the midst of, female puberty of adolescence and males who've taken drugs to block the testosterone-driven aspects of their male puberty of adolescence. But you have never offered a shred of evidence showing that this is true.

Your whole theory is based on the cockamamie and misogynistic idea that females are just males minus the T and without the dangly bits in the groin. You really seem to think that males and females are basically the same except in one respect - females don't go through the testosterone-fueled parts of male puberty of adolescence. Therefore, you've concluded, if young males are given drugs or get surgeries that stop them from going through the testosterone-driven parts of male puberty of adolescence, it will magically transform them into the physical equivalent of females who've been through all aspects of female development, including female puberty of adolescence.

I’ve answered that question once already. Two divisions means a better chance of everyone getting a chance to play.

If you want to combine classifications, whatever. It doesn’t change who is a girl or a boy.

Wrong. A girl beat a girl in a race. Some people in the crowd booed, but we shouldn’t bend over backwards to placate every member of the vocal minority who boos.

ok man.

puberty is a myth

have it your way

But you think we should bend over backward to placate the minority that is participating in sports in a division they, by any reasonable standard, have no business being in.

You don't want to go down the "tyranny of the minority" road on this one.

No, you haven’t answered it.

I don’t want to combine divisions, but either (a) you do, (b) you believe that girls need their own division in order to get a “better chance to play”, or (c) you just like segregating people according to gender for no justifiable reason. I doubt it is (c).

If (b), I just really want to know why you think girls need their own division in order to get a chance to play.

A biologically born male is not a transgender female.

He's either a male or a transgender (male), but a male can not be a girl or a female.

If he wants to call himself a girl or car or a giraffe, he's deluded, but he still is not a girl, a car, or giraffe.

For myself, because a biological male is not a biological female, I'm not going to call a boy a girl, because he isn't a girl, and because doing so would be offensive and degrading to all biologically real girls and women. Also I'm not going to applaud a biological boy who's on the field abusing biological girls by wrongly competing in their events, instead of in the boy's events.

All of us should be supportive of biologically real women and women's rights, not trying to degrade and tear them down by mistakenly trying to push abusive and/or mentally ill biologically born males into girls athletic programs.

Time to end divisions based on sex. Just run open. If the males identifying as males or males identifying as girls win, so be it. It's time to merge wnba and nba, women and men's soccer teams etc..

This would make things easier. At a track meet, just 1 race instead of a men's and women's race. At professional tennis tournaments, just 1 open division for all. Same for golf and all sports. Women want to be treated as equals, now they get their chance. Of course, birthing people will have to step up their game a bit to compete. But since so many of them hate men, this is their chance to put us Neanderthals' in our place.

Again I’m not the guy in charge of how many divisions we have. Two is fine. One is fine. I truly do not care.

I'm just saying IF we separate boys and girls (we do. Again I am working in reality, not some hypothetical), then it should be ALL girls and ALL boys.

You want some situation where an athlete in your eyes is a girl when she is in her last block History class, then she magically turns into a boy to run a 200, then she turns back into a girl to go home. That is dumb. That is also mean.

I was taking pics down at the starting line; I wouldn't consider that person a protester lol. He or she just yelled something out right after it got quiet. Just a disgruntled fan

You are also not the guy in charge of deciding who goes into which division, but that doesn’t stop you from having a very strong opinion about that. Most people have opinions about things over which they are not in charge.

But to your point, it doesn’t really matter to you because you “truly do not care” whether there is even a female division.

And that is really what sets your position apart from most other people. It is not your advocacy for trans individuals; it is your disregard of females to the point that you don’t care whether there is even a female division.

Lenny, then it all about how you define girls and boys. What I propose is a objective biological definition (birth sex) and what you suggest is subjective (how do I feel/identify). One doesn't change and one can change. Our sport (Athletics) has always been primarily an objective sport. Why are you advocating for adding a change for a subjective aspect which can decimate the fairness to nearly half the participants. It doesn't make sense.

We also separate competitions based on age. That changes. Should you continue to run against 14-year-olds because you used to be 14? No. Should an athlete keep running against men or women because they used to be that gender? No.

Should boxers who used to be 130lbs. keep competing in that weight class even after then put on 40 lbs. of muscle? No.

The sport is still objective. In the Oregon 200m, two runners started at the 200m mark and ran to the finish. I consider the one who crossed the line first the winner. You and others are the one who are trying to put a subjective view on the sport by saying "Well, actually, the girl who got second is the winner because the first one [insert transphobic rhetoric]."

This is another road you don't want to go down, just like the "tyranny of the minority" road.

Do we let someone declare that they are 14 when, in fact, they are 16 or 18 or 22? Do we let them make a declaration of their "age reality" and participate with younger athletes? Do we believe that there is "age fluidity"?

Do we allow a 180-pound athlete to declare that they weigh 130 pounds and to wrestle in a division for people of that lower weight?

No, we do not. Why? Because both would be objectively, measurably, false.

The same is true when we all know that an XY human is not an XX human.

Again, I will agree that gender is a man-made construct, but sport divisions were never created to accommodate how someone feels or their perceived reality. To think that either the original creators of men's/women's divisions (or the writers of Title IX) envisioned people just declaring their division and competing in it unchallenged would be either ill-informed about history or completely disingenuous.

The history of divisions for men and women, boys and girls, always would have been just like age and weight categories. You are what you are.