ohyeahohyeahohyeah wrote:
Amen brother. I've noticed the rampant transphobia on these boards for some time, and I've seen that the admins tend to agree with these views. Nevertheless, I was extremely disappointed to see them openly framing the inclusion of trans women as "failing women's sports."
Be inclusive people. People's identities are valid.
Ok. I identify as Kim Kardashian. Please treat me as such since my identity is valid.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The short answer to your question, "what if no young women care about transgender inclusion in their sport?", is that there would cease to be any rationale for having women's sport as a protected category. It would simply be subsumed into an open category where males and females compete together. That would certainly spell the end of women's sport.
But a group of top women's athletes think otherwise, and they have formed a policy group to seek solutions.
https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-issue/'Law and sports policy makers understood that from the onset of male puberty, male bodies develop such that they are, as a group, faster, stronger, and more powerful than female bodies as a group. The performance gap between male and female athletes that emerges from that point typically ranges from 8-20% depending on the sport and event, and “up to 50% where explosive power and complex movement skills are pivotal." If sports were not sex-segregated, female athletes would rarely be seen in finals or on victory podiums.'
It's laughable that you think that trans participation is a threat to women's sports. It is not happening now and it's not going to happen. In CA participation is based solely on declared gender and we are seeing no tidal wave of trans athletes dominating races and taking away finals and podiums from biological women. Over the past ten years of my involvement I can't think if a single example. You are all making a "slippery slope" argument of the worst kind, one that causes real injury while "protecting" women who don't need it and don't want it. I am not sure who thinks the young women of CA cannot speak their minds because they are afraid of being cancelled, but again, I can assure you that the many I have spoken to on this subject are not afraid of cancellation, they are speaking their minds and are nearly uniform in their opposition to these restrictions. Finally, we don't test for doping in youth and hs sports. In elite competition it might be reasonable to have participation rules based on sex and not gender, but for the vast majority of sports across the country, this movement to exclude athletes from participating in the gender class to which they identify is bad policy and unenforceable.
If you don’t think many people are scared of speaking out against the leftist dogma, you are sadly mistaken.
Your anecdotal evidence means little. How many girls did you speak to? Because I spoke to n+1 girls and they disagreed with your statement.
I’m guessing the girls in Connecticut would like a word with you, along with the female cyclists who lost to the man from Canada that beat them and set a world record a few years back.
yawn wrote:
ohyeahohyeahohyeah wrote:
Amen brother. I've noticed the rampant transphobia on these boards for some time, and I've seen that the admins tend to agree with these views. Nevertheless, I was extremely disappointed to see them openly framing the inclusion of trans women as "failing women's sports."
Be inclusive people. People's identities are valid.
Ok. I identify as Kim Kardashian. Please treat me as such since my identity is valid.
No, it's not. After you identify, see what happens when you go to her bank and try to withdraw some of her money. Identity theft is a crime.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The short answer to your question, "what if no young women care about transgender inclusion in their sport?", is that there would cease to be any rationale for having women's sport as a protected category. It would simply be subsumed into an open category where males and females compete together. That would certainly spell the end of women's sport.
But a group of top women's athletes think otherwise, and they have formed a policy group to seek solutions.
https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-issue/'Law and sports policy makers understood that from the onset of male puberty, male bodies develop such that they are, as a group, faster, stronger, and more powerful than female bodies as a group. The performance gap between male and female athletes that emerges from that point typically ranges from 8-20% depending on the sport and event, and “up to 50% where explosive power and complex movement skills are pivotal." If sports were not sex-segregated, female athletes would rarely be seen in finals or on victory podiums.'
It's laughable that you think that trans participation is a threat to women's sports. It is not happening now and it's not going to happen. In CA participation is based solely on declared gender and we are seeing no tidal wave of trans athletes dominating races and taking away finals and podiums from biological women. Over the past ten years of my involvement I can't think if a single example. You are all making a "slippery slope" argument of the worst kind, one that causes real injury while "protecting" women who don't need it and don't want it. I am not sure who thinks the young women of CA cannot speak their minds because they are afraid of being cancelled, but again, I can assure you that the many I have spoken to on this subject are not afraid of cancellation, they are speaking their minds and are nearly uniform in their opposition to these restrictions. Finally, we don't test for doping in youth and hs sports. In elite competition it might be reasonable to have participation rules based on sex and not gender, but for the vast majority of sports across the country, this movement to exclude athletes from participating in the gender class to which they identify is bad policy and unenforceable.
You missed that it's not me but a group of female former Olympians and top sportswomen who have formed this policy group, because they are concerned for women's sport. It is their comments that I have quoted above.
You are however naive if you think that male participation in female sports only matters at elite level. If you look at male and female sports in high school and college you will see an unbridgeable gap between the sexes in terms of performance. With transgender participation it is entirely likely that an otherwise mediocre male high school athlete could completely dominate a female category. If that doesn't matter to you or the young women you know then there is no reason to continue with female sports as a protected category. How many young women would be in favour of that?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
yawn wrote:
Ok. I identify as Kim Kardashian. Please treat me as such since my identity is valid.
No, it's not. After you identify, see what happens when you go to her bank and try to withdraw some of her money. Identity theft is a crime.
Only if you identify as an individual. But you can identify with the sex that you aren't - and that's ok (although, somewhat inconsistently, you can't identify with the race, or culture, you aren't). Identity has become a political issue.
Armstronglivs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
No, it's not. After you identify, see what happens when you go to her bank and try to withdraw some of her money. Identity theft is a crime.
Only if you identify as an individual. But you can identify with the sex that you aren't - and that's ok (although, somewhat inconsistently, you can't identify with the race, or culture, you aren't). Identity has become a political issue.
That's not what my post was about. Yawn thinks he can legally become Kim Kardashian.
Some posters need to step up the quality of their analogies. One poster seems to believe there are adult males that want to become 7th grade girls so they can dominate middle school distance running.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
It's laughable that you think that trans participation is a threat to women's sports. It is not happening now and it's not going to happen. In CA participation is based solely on declared gender and we are seeing no tidal wave of trans athletes dominating races and taking away finals and podiums from biological women. Over the past ten years of my involvement I can't think if a single example. You are all making a "slippery slope" argument of the worst kind, one that causes real injury while "protecting" women who don't need it and don't want it. I am not sure who thinks the young women of CA cannot speak their minds because they are afraid of being cancelled, but again, I can assure you that the many I have spoken to on this subject are not afraid of cancellation, they are speaking their minds and are nearly uniform in their opposition to these restrictions. Finally, we don't test for doping in youth and hs sports. In elite competition it might be reasonable to have participation rules based on sex and not gender, but for the vast majority of sports across the country, this movement to exclude athletes from participating in the gender class to which they identify is bad policy and unenforceable.
You missed that it's not me but a group of female former Olympians and top sportswomen who have formed this policy group, because they are concerned for women's sport. It is their comments that I have quoted above.
You are however naive if you think that male participation in female sports only matters at elite level. If you look at male and female sports in high school and college you will see an unbridgeable gap between the sexes in terms of performance. With transgender participation it is entirely likely that an otherwise mediocre male high school athlete could completely dominate a female category. If that doesn't matter to you or the young women you know then there is no reason to continue with female sports as a protected category. How many young women would be in favour of that?
Bring it on. If what you say turns out to be true, I may reconsider my position. In CA, a gender declaration state, so far, so good. If you think that the possibility of an occasional domination by a transgender participant is enough of a reason to put in place this policy, fine, but I think it is an extreme response to a non problem.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Only if you identify as an individual. But you can identify with the sex that you aren't - and that's ok (although, somewhat inconsistently, you can't identify with the race, or culture, you aren't). Identity has become a political issue.
That's not what my post was about. Yawn thinks he can legally become Kim Kardashian.
Some posters need to step up the quality of their analogies. One poster seems to believe there are adult males that want to become 7th grade girls so they can dominate middle school distance running.
There might be adult males who identify as young children. In fact, out of the hundreds of millions of grown men on this planet I bet there are quite a few that identify as young girls. Why shouldn’t their perceived identity be discredited while a man identifying as a woman is accepted?
Also, when can I start identifying as a black homosexual woman? If reparations become a reality I expect my check in the mail and I expect my children to reap the benefits from any and all affirmative action programs.
energeticlotuseater wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
That's not what my post was about. Yawn thinks he can legally become Kim Kardashian.
Some posters need to step up the quality of their analogies. One poster seems to believe there are adult males that want to become 7th grade girls so they can dominate middle school distance running.
There might be adult males who identify as young children. In fact, out of the hundreds of millions of grown men on this planet I bet there are quite a few that identify as young girls. Why shouldn’t their perceived identity be discredited while a man identifying as a woman is accepted?
Also, when can I start identifying as a black homosexual woman? If reparations become a reality I expect my check in the mail and I expect my children to reap the benefits from any and all affirmative action programs.
Again, that's not plausible analogy. It's currently legal to transgender but you can't become a black, gay woman. Why would you believe your example of attempted fraud is relevant to this thread?
ohyeahohyeahohyeah wrote:
People's identities are valid.
Absolutely do. Freedom to express who you are. Agreed. Except when your freedom to express who you are infringes on the freedoms of others.
Just like dopes who think taking a vaccine or wearing a mask should be a personal choice (here's a hint, vaccines are as much for the safety and protection of others as they are for you), a biological male identifying as a female competing against females AFFECTS OTHERS.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
There might be adult males who identify as young children. In fact, out of the hundreds of millions of grown men on this planet I bet there are quite a few that identify as young girls. Why shouldn’t their perceived identity be discredited while a man identifying as a woman is accepted?
Also, when can I start identifying as a black homosexual woman? If reparations become a reality I expect my check in the mail and I expect my children to reap the benefits from any and all affirmative action programs.
Again, that's not plausible analogy. It's currently legal to transgender but you can't become a black, gay woman. Why would you believe your example of attempted fraud is relevant to this thread?
You continue to miss the point of these crazy analogies. The analogies are exaggerated on purpose. The point is you say peoples identities are valid. But when someone wants to identify as black or as a different age, you say that’s no good. Age is much more conceptual then sex, but you say some one cannot be a 7th grader. Society needs a set of standards on which to recognize each other. Transgender non sense just tears down these structures and creates a mess.
If I want to be kim kardashian who are you to say I can’t be? My identity is valid identity theft laws are an out of place relic of an era gone buy.
The difference is personal responsibility. I should be able to go out maskless to the grocery store. No one is forcing you to shop yourself. I shouldn’t be responsible for your voluntary participation in society.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
There might be adult males who identify as young children. In fact, out of the hundreds of millions of grown men on this planet I bet there are quite a few that identify as young girls. Why shouldn’t their perceived identity be discredited while a man identifying as a woman is accepted?
Also, when can I start identifying as a black homosexual woman? If reparations become a reality I expect my check in the mail and I expect my children to reap the benefits from any and all affirmative action programs.
Again, that's not plausible analogy. It's currently legal to transgender but you can't become a black, gay woman. Why would you believe your example of attempted fraud is relevant to this thread?
Why is my identification as a black homosexual woman not valid but a biological man identifying as a woman is?
You’re saying it’s all a matter of what’s legal. So a transgender woman is considered a woman in places like California but he is suddenly not a woman in places like Mississippi or Idaho where transgender woman aren’t allowed to compete in high school sports against biological women? If a new president takes over in four years, signs an executive order banning transgender athletes in women’s sports are all those transgender woman now men again? When slavery was legal in the United States were those Africans not as human as their white counterparts because the government says so? Were the Nazis ok in what they did since, under their regime, everything they did was legal?
Just because a government deems something legal or illegal it doesn’t make it an objective truth. Reading a minimal amount of history will display that.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You missed that it's not me but a group of female former Olympians and top sportswomen who have formed this policy group, because they are concerned for women's sport. It is their comments that I have quoted above.
You are however naive if you think that male participation in female sports only matters at elite level. If you look at male and female sports in high school and college you will see an unbridgeable gap between the sexes in terms of performance. With transgender participation it is entirely likely that an otherwise mediocre male high school athlete could completely dominate a female category. If that doesn't matter to you or the young women you know then there is no reason to continue with female sports as a protected category. How many young women would be in favour of that?
Bring it on. If what you say turns out to be true, I may reconsider my position. In CA, a gender declaration state, so far, so good. If you think that the possibility of an occasional domination by a transgender participant is enough of a reason to put in place this policy, fine, but I think it is an extreme response to a non problem.
There may be only a few transgender who compete in women's competition, as you say, but how would you feel if they were the winners, the best, in each event at which they competed? More particularly - how do you think the women who lost to them might feel? Given the advantage that male biology confers, any halfway decent male athlete who identifies as female would clean-up in women's competition. That is exactly what the Women's Policy Group fears.
The issue is not that women's sport would see a considerable number of transgender athletes, but that those who few who do compete in women's sports would have an advantage that biological females could never achieve. If it were not for that unfair physical advantage there would be many like myself who would not in principle be opposed to inclusivity.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Only if you identify as an individual. But you can identify with the sex that you aren't - and that's ok (although, somewhat inconsistently, you can't identify with the race, or culture, you aren't). Identity has become a political issue.
That's not what my post was about. Yawn thinks he can legally become Kim Kardashian.
Some posters need to step up the quality of their analogies. One poster seems to believe there are adult males that want to become 7th grade girls so they can dominate middle school distance running.
I dont think that is the point he is making. I read it more as the proposition that insists you must be accepted for what you identify as when it applies to gender can easily become an absurdity if it applies to anything else - such as identifying with a given individual. But in principle the argument is much the same; if you so choose, you can become what (or who) you aren't. So why is that apparent absurdity accepted in respect of gender but not anything else?
Armstronglivs wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
That's not what my post was about. Yawn thinks he can legally become Kim Kardashian.
Some posters need to step up the quality of their analogies. One poster seems to believe there are adult males that want to become 7th grade girls so they can dominate middle school distance running.
I dont think that is the point he is making. I read it more as the proposition that insists you must be accepted for what you identify as when it applies to gender can easily become an absurdity if it applies to anything else - such as identifying with a given individual. But in principle the argument is much the same; if you so choose, you can become what (or who) you aren't. So why is that apparent absurdity accepted in respect of gender but not anything else?
Competing in the women's division as a transgender athlete is legal, supported by a portion of the public and is not an absurdity. A judge ruled in Renee Richard's favor years ago, but no judge has said that an adult male can become a 7th grade girl. Not only does the public not support such a person, showing up at the school will get him trip to the pysch ward.
Whatever your opinion on the issue, comparing the wishes of transgender people to nonsense, is an insult.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont think that is the point he is making. I read it more as the proposition that insists you must be accepted for what you identify as when it applies to gender can easily become an absurdity if it applies to anything else - such as identifying with a given individual. But in principle the argument is much the same; if you so choose, you can become what (or who) you aren't. So why is that apparent absurdity accepted in respect of gender but not anything else?
Competing in the women's division as a transgender athlete is legal, supported by a portion of the public and is not an absurdity. A judge ruled in Renee Richard's favor years ago, but no judge has said that an adult male can become a 7th grade girl. Not only does the public not support such a person, showing up at the school will get him trip to the pysch ward.
Whatever your opinion on the issue, comparing the wishes of transgender people to nonsense, is an insult.
I’m sure there is a small portion of the population that supports men identifying as 7th grade girls, or any demographic they wish to be identified as. I wish to be identified as a black women so one day I can maybe receive reparations- I’m sure I’m not the only person who thinks like me.
So if a judge rules men can identify as 7th grade girls you would be ok with that? Alternatively, if a judge or government rules that transgender women cannot compete against biological women then you would be ok with that? This is in fact what has happened in states like Mississippi and Idaho.
ohyeahohyeahohyeah wrote:
Amen brother. I've noticed the rampant transphobia on these boards for some time, and I've seen that the admins tend to agree with these views. Nevertheless, I was extremely disappointed to see them openly framing the inclusion of trans women as "failing women's sports."
Be inclusive people. People's identities are valid.
Will those that identify as “they” get multiple votes in elections?
bruhuh wrote:
Today I came across an article on the homepage under the "Negative News" section labeled "The NCAA Fails Women Athletes, Says It Won't Host Championship Events In States That "Discriminate" Against Transgender Athletes.
Let's be clear: The NCAA has not failed women athletes. It is states like Arkansas who are prohibiting trans women from competing in women's sports that are failing women. The NCAA's statement was long overdue.
I know transphobia is rampant on this site, but I didn't expect it to come from official headlines on the site instead of anonymous users. Don't try to twist the words of this article by creating a title that blames transgender athletes for the NCAA's necessary (and overdue) new policy. Please take it down or change the title, and please don't egg on your harmfully transphobic posters.
(and transphobic peeps, go read the rticle. There it will tell you all the NCAA is doing to ensure inclusion as well as fairness!)
Totally agree. Transgender athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympics. But Arkansas is banning them from competition.
Meanwhile we have a 100-post thread because 5 posters keep posting nonsense.
lkjhg wrote:
ohyeahohyeahohyeah wrote:
Amen brother. I've noticed the rampant transphobia on these boards for some time, and I've seen that the admins tend to agree with these views. Nevertheless, I was extremely disappointed to see them openly framing the inclusion of trans women as "failing women's sports."
Be inclusive people. People's identities are valid.
Will those that identify as “they” get multiple votes in elections?
Those people is "they" as singular. So they has one vote.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Article: Director of BU track and field, cross country steps down following abuse allegations