LRC posters legitimately interested in debate: what do we do about this guy? Do we simply ignore him and hope he gets bored? Do we report his posts because he trolls (engages in bad faith) and insults people?
As a proponent of free speech, I'm reluctant to report him (I never have). But I'm pretty sure he reports some of us.
Ever heard of a scroll down key? I think your computer has one of those things.
I suspect greater numbers of American and British poll respondents would say they oppose allowing male adults and adolescents in women’s and girls’ sports, restrooms, prisons, SA and DV refuges based on the gender identity claims that the males who want in make if polling orgs asked their questions using language that's plainer, more accurate, clearer, and which makes it easier for respondents to understand what they’re really being asked about.
By which I mean if professional pollsters eschewed intentionally misleading terms like ‘transgender women/girls” and instead used terms such as “males/men/boys who identify as transgender,” “males/men/boys who claim to be transgender,” “men who claim they are women” and “men/boys who claim they are girls.”
That’s hilarious that you seem to have just discovered that the phrasing of a question can turn survey results upside down. If Verbosa wrote the survey, it would presumably ask readers what they think of males many of whom are known to be wont to perverted, voyeuristic or sexual predatory behavior being allowed to enter little girls’ bathrooms, and then declare success in its chowder head imagining that no one would say yes to that.
This is incorrect. There are at least several states that ban female to male trans students from competing in HS boys' sports.
For people who support that ban, it is not about physiological advantage.
I’d say for most transaverse posters here, it’s hardly just about physiological advantage. There’s a much deeper seated visceral aversion towards everything about trans, which explains the number of comments calling them delusional, mentally ill, defaulting to judging then as guilty until proven innocent, constant ridicule, and even exhorting violence against them if not for the mods (presumably reluctantly) removing that last category of posts.
The intersex & trans issue in sports is entirely about womens sports. Nobody cares about women competing in the male category because there is no physiological advantage there.
Everyone involved in sports knows this, so I wonder if you are from outside of sports, just here for this debate, perhaps?
This is incorrect. There are at least several states that ban female to male trans students from competing in HS boys' sports.
For people who support that ban, it is not about physiological advantage.
According to the website of TransAthlete, most of the laws that US states have passed to address the thorny issue of "trans inclusion" in school sports either don't mention "female to male trans students" at all, or offer them considerable latitude to do as they wish.
24 individual US states have passed bills restricting "trans inclusion" in sex-segregated school sports in HS and lower grade levels - but most of them are aimed solely or primarily at limiting the incursion of male athletes into female sports.
More than half the bills - 13 - are totally silent on whether female students who claim to be trans - or have adopted another special gender identity at odds with their sex - can compete on boys' teams.
Seven of the bills say that female students who identify as/claim a trans identity can go out for boys' HS sports, and they are free to compete in them if they can make the team.
Four states ban girls from boys' HS sports, but only in schools that offer a girls' team/program in that same sport.
I haven't looked at each state law separately, but the laws that allow females to go out for male sports based on gender identity or any other reason probably include some fine print and caveats limiting or totally prohibiting female athletes - regardless of their identities - from boys' HS sports in those particular sports where playing on a boys' team in HS and competing against male HS students would put female athletes at undue risk of physical injury or death.
Just as there's now much more awareness than in the past about the alarming risks of longterm brain damage from concussion that male athletes face in American football and ice hockey, there's now much more attention paid to the fact that due to differences in head, neck and shoulder anatomy, female athletes are much more likely to incur concussion, whiplash and serious neck injuries, and to suffer longterm brain damage from such injuries, than males are. As a result, regulations and style of play are changing in female sports like girls' and women's soccer and volleyball so as to lower the risk of these types of injuries.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
According to the website of TransAthlete, most of the laws that US states have passed to address the thorny issue of "trans inclusion" in school sports either don't mention "female to male trans students" at all, or offer them considerable latitude to do as they wish.
24 individual US states have passed bills restricting "trans inclusion" in sex-segregated school sports in HS and lower grade levels - but most of them are aimed solely or primarily at limiting the incursion of male athletes into female sports.
More than half the bills - 13 - are totally silent on whether female students who claim to be trans - or have adopted another special gender identity at odds with their sex - can compete on boys' teams.
Seven of the bills say that female students who identify as/claim a trans identity can go out for boys' HS sports, and they are free to compete in them if they can make the team.
Four states ban girls from boys' HS sports, but only in schools that offer a girls' team/program in that same sport.
I haven't looked at each state law separately, but the laws that allow females to go out for male sports based on gender identity or any other reason probably include some fine print and caveats limiting or totally prohibiting female athletes - regardless of their identities - from boys' HS sports in those particular sports where playing on a boys' team in HS and competing against male HS students would put female athletes at undue risk of physical injury or death.
Just as there's now much more awareness than in the past about the alarming risks of longterm brain damage from concussion that male athletes face in American football and ice hockey, there's now much more attention paid to the fact that due to differences in head, neck and shoulder anatomy, female athletes are much more likely to incur concussion, whiplash and serious neck injuries, and to suffer longterm brain damage from such injuries, than males are. As a result, regulations and style of play are changing in female sports like girls' and women's soccer and volleyball so as to lower the risk of these types of injuries.
This seems like a much more sane approach to making sports safer than banning people based on whether they like to wear skirts or pants. You may be coming around to a logical thought before too long.
According to the website of TransAthlete, most of the laws that US states have passed to address the thorny issue of "trans inclusion" in school sports either don't mention "female to male trans students" at all, or offer them considerable latitude to do as they wish.
24 individual US states have passed bills restricting "trans inclusion" in sex-segregated school sports in HS and lower grade levels - but most of them are aimed solely or primarily at limiting the incursion of male athletes into female sports.
More than half the bills - 13 - are totally silent on whether female students who claim to be trans - or have adopted another special gender identity at odds with their sex - can compete on boys' teams.
Seven of the bills say that female students who identify as/claim a trans identity can go out for boys' HS sports, and they are free to compete in them if they can make the team.
Four states ban girls from boys' HS sports, but only in schools that offer a girls' team/program in that same sport.
I haven't looked at each state law separately, but the laws that allow females to go out for male sports based on gender identity or any other reason probably include some fine print and caveats limiting or totally prohibiting female athletes - regardless of their identities - from boys' HS sports in those particular sports where playing on a boys' team in HS and competing against male HS students would put female athletes at undue risk of physical injury or death.
Just as there's now much more awareness than in the past about the alarming risks of longterm brain damage from concussion that male athletes face in American football and ice hockey, there's now much more attention paid to the fact that due to differences in head, neck and shoulder anatomy, female athletes are much more likely to incur concussion, whiplash and serious neck injuries, and to suffer longterm brain damage from such injuries, than males are. As a result, regulations and style of play are changing in female sports like girls' and women's soccer and volleyball so as to lower the risk of these types of injuries.
This seems like a much more sane approach to making sports safer than banning people based on whether they like to wear skirts or pants. You may be coming around to a logical thought before too long.
Other posters like Just Another Hobby Jogger take the view that separate divisions in sports - and eligibility for girls' and women's sports in particular - should be based on the clothing styles, colors, hairdos and accessories that people like to wear. Or rather, that they liked to wear when they were little kids. Not me. I think that where there's cause to have separate categories in sports, the dividing line should be based on fundamental physical factors that make a real difference in performance potential such as sex, age, health/disability status - and in sports like boxing and wrestling, athletes' weight.
But I think you know that already.
As for skirts verus pants: in most of the USA, girls and women were in the habit of wearing trousers or slacks of a wide varity of types - bloomers, dress pants, blue jeans, bibbed overalls, jodphurs/riding pants, chinos, cords, ski pants, cigarette pants, harem pants,capris, fashion stretch pants, sweat pants, sailor pants, painter's pants, stirrup pants, pedal pushers, cargo pants, military pants, duty pants, coverall pants, work pants - long before we won the legal right to have school sports.
Other posters like Just Another Hobby Jogger take the view that separate divisions in sports - and eligibility for girls' and women's sports in particular - should be based on the clothing styles, colors, hairdos and accessories that people like to wear. Or rather, that they liked to wear when they were little kids.
I don't know which posters have made this absurd argument, but I am not one of them. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Nobody cares about women competing in the male category because there is no physiological advantage there.
Everyone involved in sports knows this, so I wonder if you are from outside of sports, just here for this debate, perhaps?
You’re incorrect. The “physiological advantage” argument was brought up by the anti-trans movement to move the goalposts when they realized there wasn’t enough support to just ban trans athletes based on their gender.
I’ve been involved with the sport for over 20 years. I coach real athletes. I know both sides of the debate very well. There is a very small, very vocal minority of people who are against trans athletes competing. Overwhelmingly, actual athletes, coaches, and families are in favor of letting people participate in sports based on their identified gender. Win or lose, doesn’t matter.
This is simply not true. There was a boy in my daughter's soccer league. We thought it was a bit weird, since it was a girls' league, but nobody cared because it was 4th grade. If it had been high school, the kid would probably have been bigger, stronger, and faster than most of the other players, and I guarantee you it would have been an issue.
Isn't this case moot? The NCAA was more or less following the guidelines of the USST as well as the international association and it's own rules? Plus this happened two years ago. The rules changed in early 2023, and NCAA is soon following. There are no transgender swimmers in D1, correct. Riley Gaines just wants attention and money.
You’re incorrect. The “physiological advantage” argument was brought up by the anti-trans movement to move the goalposts when they realized there wasn’t enough support to just ban trans athletes based on their gender.
I’ve been involved with the sport for over 20 years. I coach real athletes. I know both sides of the debate very well. There is a very small, very vocal minority of people who are against trans athletes competing. Overwhelmingly, actual athletes, coaches, and families are in favor of letting people participate in sports based on their identified gender. Win or lose, doesn’t matter.
This is simply not true. There was a boy in my daughter's soccer league. We thought it was a bit weird, since it was a girls' league, but nobody cared because it was 4th grade. If it had been high school, the kid would probably have been bigger, stronger, and faster than most of the other players, and I guarantee you it would have been an issue.
It’s often simply not an issue even in sub-elite sport. A while back when a trans woman won a USA cycling race (“playing bikes with friends” woman), people like T. Verbosa and its merry band of white knights were losing their poop here while I had posted a link to the runner-ups’ instagram congratulating and showering her with affection and posing for smiley pics with her.
There sure are some women in sport blanket opposed to trans women in women’s sport, but this cesspool is very far from representative of the real world in grade school, NCAA, or elite sport.
This is incorrect. There are at least several states that ban female to male trans students from competing in HS boys' sports.
For people who support that ban, it is not about physiological advantage.
According to the website of TransAthlete, most of the laws that US states have passed to address the thorny issue of "trans inclusion" in school sports either don't mention "female to male trans students" at all, or offer them considerable latitude to do as they wish.
24 individual US states have passed bills restricting "trans inclusion" in sex-segregated school sports in HS and lower grade levels - but most of them are aimed solely or primarily at limiting the incursion of male athletes into female sports.
More than half the bills - 13 - are totally silent on whether female students who claim to be trans - or have adopted another special gender identity at odds with their sex - can compete on boys' teams.
Seven of the bills say that female students who identify as/claim a trans identity can go out for boys' HS sports, and they are free to compete in them if they can make the team.
Four states ban girls from boys' HS sports, but only in schools that offer a girls' team/program in that same sport.
I haven't looked at each state law separately, but the laws that allow females to go out for male sports based on gender identity or any other reason probably include some fine print and caveats limiting or totally prohibiting female athletes - regardless of their identities - from boys' HS sports in those particular sports where playing on a boys' team in HS and competing against male HS students would put female athletes at undue risk of physical injury or death.
Just as there's now much more awareness than in the past about the alarming risks of longterm brain damage from concussion that male athletes face in American football and ice hockey, there's now much more attention paid to the fact that due to differences in head, neck and shoulder anatomy, female athletes are much more likely to incur concussion, whiplash and serious neck injuries, and to suffer longterm brain damage from such injuries, than males are. As a result, regulations and style of play are changing in female sports like girls' and women's soccer and volleyball so as to lower the risk of these types of injuries.
Long winded seven parabarf just to agree with “There are at least several states that ban female to male trans students from competing in HS boys' sports”.
Just get ride of the women/girls division. So no more Boys Mile Run and Girls Mile Run... it's just The Mile Run.
It would be very interesting to see what the clamour for "inclusion" would look like if there was no chance of being in the top three of such an event. Naturally there would have to be no sex based prizes.
