Lindsay Crouse calls effort to keep biological men out of women's sports an "excuse for transphobia"

wejo wrote:

Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman. Maybe we just leave it at "transgender woman" but if someone wants to say "biologically male" to make sure people don't pretend she is a woman, I don't have a problem with it and it is accurate.

Why isn't she a woman? She obviously ain't a CIS woman but nobody thinks that. Obviously the problem is a lot of people use woman when they mean CIS woman.

You know sort of like in the 1700s when people wrote male voter when they ment white male voter. Got to adapt with the times.

Tatar wrote:

Yes, because women are defined by their ability to give birth aren't they? Forget any other ideas ladies - your job is to have children. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so profoundly anti-feminist.

Are you stupid?

I'm not trying to define women by their ability to give birth. If you think that's what I'm trying to do, then honestly you must not be very smart or totally disingenuous.

I'm trying to define a special category of athletics we have for people of lesser athletic ability by using that as the main focus point. In youth sports, we go by the date people were born - we don't let them choose the date they wish they were born. In wmmen's sports, we should go by biological sex/not gender. It's really not that complicated. I want facts - not opinions - to define the eligiblity criteria. To me, the focus on gender is sexist. It implies if you act or feel a certain way, you must be labelled in a certain way.

I'm trying to celebrate the women who do have the biological ability and choose to give birth. Without them, society would not exist.

I think people like Alysia Montano and Diljeet Taylor should be celebrated as kick ass powerful women.

The anti-feminists are people like yourself who think that someone assigned the name at birth of Bruce Jenner should be celebrated as the greatest women's athlete in history. If we are just assigned a sex and name at birth, then please tell me why women's world records are inferior to men's?

Hey Kitty Girl wrote:

They are assigned male at birth. Rhetoric matters. Why do you still choose to call them 'biological men' when they are trans women?

When my son came out, no one assigned him anything. THe doc saw that he had a penis and announced that he was a boy. The doctor didn't assign him a sex - our sperm/ovaries/God (if you believe) did.

So you think Caitlyn Jenner was just randmoly assigned a gender at birth? No. She was born male.

She now doesn't identify as male. Allt he more power to her. And notice how I say her. I'm willing to call her whatever the hell she wants me to call her.

Feminists for decades have been saying that expecting women to wear dresses, be nurses, etc. is wrong. Not it seems like if a biological male wants to do that, they must transition.

Why don't we just get rid of the notion of gender in every day society?

We have our biological sex and then we can act however the hell we want. If you want to wear a dress or pants or be a nurse or a construction foreman, all the more power to you. If you want to sleep with a man or woman or two men or women, go ahead.

What does it mean when Catilyn Jenner says "I'm a woman." Like I just don't get it. It seems so backwards in many ways. We are trying to empower women to be president and yet now we are saying if you wear high heels and a dress you are a woman.

I recently read some liberal woman talking about her daughter who transitioned from female to male. She said the whole thing was jarring to her as she didn't understand why her daughter couldn't just be a "butch lesbian." She found it all initially to be very misogynistic.

the left is eating their own wrote:

the idea that trans women are the same a biological women is just so stupid it reminds me of the emperor has no clothes.

I have always wondered about this idea as well. You can not just makeup something and say that it is the same as the original.

Now, here is something that comes to mind whenever I see/hear something about trans women. I do not want to come out as someone who wants to discriminate against trans women, but since society came up/ made this idea of trans women, why can society create a league that is for trans women? So people do not have to worry/fight about trans women not being able to compete. Create a league for trans women, therefore giving them an equal advantage when it comes to completion.

Again, I just want to emphasize that I am not here to discriminate again trans women.

The Truth Today wrote:

Let's be clear, these kids NEED to be able to play sports. How do we make that happen fairly? That needs to be discussed.

I agree. Why can't they plan on the men's team? I mean my three year old at recess doesn't care if he's playing with a boy or girl. He just wants to play.

They trans athletes are the ones who are being close minded.

rojo wrote:

If we are just assigned a sex and name at birth, then please tell me why women's world records are inferior to men's?

Not sure I follow this argument. It is a fact that people are assigned a gender and name at birth.

It’s also a fact that women’s world records are inferior to men’s.

There is no correlation between these two facts. If transwomen compete as women, the women’s records will still be inferior to men’s.

Letting women (all women, including transwomen) compete in the women’s category will not ruin male or female athletics. You can hypothesize all you want about it, but it’s really a non-issue that people use to be hateful.

It is very similar to people who are against foreign athletes switching citizenship in international competition. They may say that it’s unfair or taking spots away from natural-born citizens, but it’s a front for them to just speak their bigotry out loud.

Precious Roy wrote:

Pay inequity in women's sports is largely due to the fact that women are still socialized away from being consumers of sports. .

Your post here shows where this whole let's be protrans and pro women at the same time argument falls apart logically.

Have you ever thought that maybe women simply aren't as interested in sports ? Socialization likely has something to do with but so does interest. The whole pro trans / pro women's equality argument makes no logical sense when put together.

On the one hand, we are told the trans women are biologically the same as xx women - at least in their brains. So that means and women's brains are different. But then when someone uses that argument to explain why certain jobs are male-dominated or popular with men or why sports are more popular with men, then we are told we are sexist bigots.

You can't play it both ways.

In college, my buddy's girlfriend sat in the same room as us for four years every Sunday and hung out as we watched the NFL. She never once learned the rules. She just liked to hang out.

I do think brojos are being pretty consistent here.

Think of a transwoman as a super shoe in the form of extra testosterone.

They view it as cheating.

Honestly, I don't see what the two things have to do with each other.

1. men don't belong in women's sports

2. women's sports are undersupported and female athletes are treated unfairly.

What does one have to do with the other? Her whole argument is predicated on the fact that these two things are somehow related.

OK, I guess it's to point out the hypocrisy of random people who care NOTHING about women's sports that are suddenly angry about transgender women in women's sports. But that doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant

fka Armin Tamzarian wrote:

Not sure I follow this argument. It is a fact that people are assigned a gender and name at birth.

It’s also a fact that women’s world records are inferior to men’s.

There is no correlation between these two facts. If transwomen compete as women, the women’s records will still be inferior to men’s.

.

You are wrong.

There is a 100% correlation between the two facts. If a doctor was just randomly assigning a sex, then the world records of both genders would be the same. The women's world record would 50% of the time be better than the men's.

The doctors, after about 1 second of research assign a sex and are like 99.9% of the time dead on correct. In fact, no doctor has ever in the history of the world assignedat birth a sex of woman to a child who has gone on to set an open (aka male) world record.

Imagine the odds of that, every doctor in the history of the world within 5 seconds of delivery has been able to rule out 50% of the population from ever setting an open world record. And many of these doctors have zero training in sports. What a coincidence.

This Crouse column comes on the heels of a story she completely made up about returning to training after a COVID-induced anxiety layoff, which in turn followed a number of other dishonest accounts and complaints that don't even rise to the abysmal level of journalism of, say, the Huffington Post. She was too lazy to even make her sob story consistent with her public Strava profile.

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/runnings-influencers-editors-and

Her latest is just another mailed-in bunch of screeching from someone who writes and thinks like an unusually ambitious and neurotic sixth-grader and continually abuses her undeserved platform.

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/even-the-nyt-can-find-better-bad

No matter the issue at hand, Crouse is reliably and completely unreliable and would be canned from any editorial position with useful ethical standards. She therefore perfect for the now Wokester-run, propaganda-first version of the NYT.

biological woman wrote:

Honestly, I don't see what the two things have to do with each other.

1. men don't belong in women's sports

2. women's sports are undersupported and female athletes are treated unfairly.

What does one have to do with the other? Her whole argument is predicated on the fact that these two things are somehow related.

OK, I guess it's to point out the hypocrisy of random people who care NOTHING about women's sports that are suddenly angry about transgender women in women's sports. But that doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bingo.

They have nothing to do with eachother. In fact, I would argue if anything they go against each other.

But she lumps them together as she's following the "algorithm." If I'm liberal, I'm pro enviornment, pro trans, pro women, etc. (On the flip side, I've never understood what global warming and abortion have to do with eachtoher).

The problem is protrans and prowomen clashes in this instance.

I was replying to RunRagged's bizarre post about lactating men.

It sounds like you are making childbirth and breast feeding a defining characteristic of womanhood. Are men defined by the biological ability to grow facial hair? Or is that reductionist? You can celebrate beards without needing to say clean shaven men are not men.

Giving birth has nothing to do with track competitions and Alysia Montano has nothing to do with trans and she was widely celebrated. You can honor her and Caitlyn Jenner. What Jenner achieved is in the past and in no way impacts the now.

None of what you've said is relevant to why trans women shouldn't compete alongside cis women in the women's division.

I'm fine with having separate M/F divisions in sports but if you want to use 'biological sex' then you'll get trans men competing in the women's division after experiencing the effects of testosterone treatment. In other words it's not any fairer. So nothing's perfect and there is a massive overreaction to this issue.

Transphobia is sexism, if you are born with a penis you are not expected to wear dresses, high heels and be feminine. They are not reinforcing stereotypes, they are busting them. Also, trans men can't be "butch lesbians", some of them are attracted to men!!

Yes, a defining feature of females is their ability to give birth. I know, shocking stuff.

This example you give is exactly ‘assigned at birth.’

She was assigned male at birth due to her genitals. We're all assigned a gender at birth based on our external genitals. Case in point: intersex people.

Your genitals, as we all know, do not dictate your gender and many times, not even your sex.

You’re a grown man……. No offense, you can’t honestly believe women and women’s rights movements are as simplistic as donning a dress. Seriously, man...

On top of that, many people do get rid of gender in their own lives; not everyone lives in the binary, including intersex men and women and trans men and women. And when people DON'T follow that binary, you get backlash like you often see on this forum.

I see that you think you are being quite ‘liberal’ and open-minded but in the end, no offense, this is just really really reallllly juvenile.

What it means when Caitlyn Jenner or any trans woman says “I’m a woman” is exactly that: they are women. It isn’t a bunch of men cross dressing to look like women. It is that they are women. Wearing high heels and a dress does not make you a woman. They may not be the same women as 99+% of the XX women of the world, but they are women. Call it mutations, call it intersex on a microscopic scale, whatever. They are still women. I get that you haven’t experienced it so you cannot wrap your mind around it but it is a real thing.

For the 3rd time: ‘biological sex’ isn’t an accurate scientific way to describe people simply because a) chromosomes are not always binary or following gender and b) other sexual dimorphisms exist beyond. Caitlyn is not ‘biologically male’ she is a trans woman. It isn’t just about respect, it’s about actual human physiology and psychology.

Once again, I don't understand why people who have a platform use it to say obvious and useless things. The main point of this article seems to be noting that some people are hypocrites when they us "protecting women's sport" as a reason to ban trans athletes, since those people don't care about women's sports in the first place. Ok. I mean, that's pretty obvious. Is it furthering the discourse on either topic? Is it advocating for solutions?

There are so many useful ways to approach these (somewhat unrelated) topics. You could talk about the complexities of inclusivity vs. keeping a protected category of sports - like at which times and places is one more important than the other. You could do some research and talk about the studies of trans women athletes suppressing testosterone. You could interview some trans athletes and people who compete with/against them to get some viewpoints.

You could go to the other topic and talk about the inequities between men's and women's sports. You could talk about which women's pro sports are the most successful financially and theorize on why and how we might apply those models to the less successful sports. There are so many angles on these two topics that might further discussions or help people think about things in a new way.

Or you could point out that there are hypocrites and reiterate a few headlines that have been splashed over the news in the recent past. Because I'm sure there are a lot of sports fans that didn't already hear about the weight rooms in the respective NCAA basketball tournaments. Seems like another wasted opportunity to me.

Tatar wrote:

I'm fine with having separate M/F divisions in sports but if you want to use 'biological sex' then you'll get trans men competing in the women's division after experiencing the effects of testosterone treatment. In other words it's not any fairer. So nothing's perfect and there is a massive overreaction to this issue.

Transphobia is sexism, if you are born with a penis you are not expected to wear dresses, high heels and be feminine. They are not reinforcing stereotypes, they are busting them. Also, trans men can't be "butch lesbians", some of them are attracted to men!!

Exactly this.

I support the inclusion of intersex and trans women in Women's division based on if they are on hormone suppression. It isn't perfect, but Women's category imo should be reserved for using XX women as a baseline.

It doesn't mean intersex women and trans women are any less women. They just cannot compete un-suppressed against XX women for obvious reasons. Trans men (who have XX chromosomes) should not be allowed to compete against XX women if they are on hormone therapy.

Should essentially be 2 divisions: Open and under 5nmol/L testosterone.

biological woman wrote:

Honestly, I don't see what the two things have to do with each other.

1. men don't belong in women's sports

2. women's sports are undersupported and female athletes are treated unfairly.

What does one have to do with the other? Her whole argument is predicated on the fact that these two things are somehow related.

OK, I guess it's to point out the hypocrisy of random people who care NOTHING about women's sports that are suddenly angry about transgender women in women's sports. But that doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant

100% Agreed.

After reading the article I was like "Where is she going with this"? Two separate issues. Also, I'm not a fan of the "Trans-bashing" or "Trans-phobia" accusations from some of the previous posts. Saying and believing men don't belong competing in women's sports is not "Trans-Bashing" or "Trans-phobia". As per rojo's earlier post, it's entirely up to the individual as to how they wish to be viewed upon. Great for you and everyone else! I for one don't give 2 sh^ts about who or what you think you are, as long as you're a good person is all that matters, but when you want to create an unfair advantage in an athletic competition I have to draw the line. I'm all in for creating another division/league for trans-gendered athletes. Don't forget, we're talking about athletic competition, in which a level and fair playing field is a must.

"Go Run One"

The people who want to “save women sports from trans-individuals” are the same people trolling the young women who are hoping for equality in the NCAA.

They don’t care about women’s sports.