Trans athletes: comp. adv. is the wrong ?

Not a lawyer wrote:

I like your stance, in that it is looking at the decisions that actually allow trans athletes to compete.

I am not by any stretch a Constitutional lawyer, but I think the issue is that if you are to exclude someone from participation in an organization, in particular, an organization that receives funding from the state or federal level, such as the NCAA or base state high School association, based on a part of their background, it could be a violation of their civil rights.

So, this issue has a lot to do with the Constitution, more so than human rights treaties that were made by the United Nations. For example, internationally people like Caster Semenya have been excluded from competition, and if you wanted to argue that based on constitutionality, you would have to be going up against the Constitution of Switzerland, which is where the legal part of the IAAF is located.

I think it's very clear, as a coach, having interacted with transgender athletes and female athletes, that the transgender athletes are actually infringing on the rights of female athletes to have a fair and open competition. It has even been a source of demotivation at times, for some athletes on my team and in my area. Keep in mind, none of the above have any desire to negate someone's identity or make them a person with a target on their back for demonization. As far as competition goes, I have heard girls say that they are giving up on the idea of winning conference their senior year, because they have a transgender athlete in their grade.

samcallan wrote:

Not a lawyer wrote:

I like your stance, in that it is looking at the decisions that actually allow trans athletes to compete.

I am not by any stretch a Constitutional lawyer, but I think the issue is that if you are to exclude someone from participation in an organization, in particular, an organization that receives funding from the state or federal level, such as the NCAA or base state high School association, based on a part of their background, it could be a violation of their civil rights.

So, this issue has a lot to do with the Constitution, more so than human rights treaties that were made by the United Nations. For example, internationally people like Caster Semenya have been excluded from competition, and if you wanted to argue that based on constitutionality, you would have to be going up against the Constitution of Switzerland, which is where the legal part of the IAAF is located.

I think it's very clear, as a coach, having interacted with transgender athletes and female athletes, that the transgender athletes are actually infringing on the rights of female athletes to have a fair and open competition. It has even been a source of demotivation at times, for some athletes on my team and in my area. Keep in mind, none of the above have any desire to negate someone's identity or make them a person with a target on their back for demonization. As far as competition goes, I have heard girls say that they are giving up on the idea of winning conference their senior year, because they have a transgender athlete in their grade.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution in the US. It has t do with a law called Title IX that was passed in the early 70s.

Also, the NCAA does receive a dime of federal money (short of grants it might apply for) but just about every member college in it does and those schools are subject to Title IX since they receive federal funds. State organizations are in the same situation as the NCAA.

There was a case in the appellate court in the WV area that addressed this and it will eventually get to SCOTUS. A big problem is the court decided in 2020 in a case called Bostock that in EMPLOYMENT (so there could be the wiggle room) employers cannot discriminate against transgender people as the court equated "gender" with "sex" since gender does not appear in Title VII (the employment law) nor in Title IX.

nottheGOATbutamtngoat wrote:

Hello,
As a WSU Murrow College ‘22 and ‘23 grad and NCAA DI XC qualifier with plenty of reporting experience under my belt, I am tired of articles about trans athletes in sport that point out the same tired talking points.
Obviously, competition is an inherent part of every sport. Each sport makes their own rules as they may. But the true question reporters should be asking is not: “Do trans athletes have a competitive advantage in sport, or do they not have a competitive advantage?”
Instead, reporters should be asking: “Are sports a human right?”
If sports are not a human right, then does that change how they should be governed? Conversely, if sports are to be a human right, should that change how they are to be governed?
And if sports are a human right… what would that mean? What would it even mean for sports to be a human right?
Sincerely,
Erin Mullins

(PS: Jonathan Gault, my grandmother was basically sort of British, so of course I would say sincerely.)
(PPS: Never forget the legacy before you. “Bad Girls,” M.I.A.)

Not a lawyer wrote:

Will Nelson wrote:

1) Participation in Athletics is not a Human Right. End of Story.

2) The most fair and elegant solution is to create a third 'Open Division' in which any individual can compete-- biologically-born males, biologically-born females, individuals who identify other than their biological sex, individuals who are in the process of transitioning (pharmaceutically, or pre-op), and individuals who have already transitioned. All comers welcomed, subject to qualifying times. No inspections, no verifications. No drug-testing. Prize money awarded.

"If you've got the (winning) time, honey, we've got the money."

Your second point is often brought up, but it isn't an "elegant" solution. (As an aside, people need to stop using the word "elegant" to mean efficient or simplified or effective. A few scientists say "elegant" on some podcasts, and now everyone's saying it...)

When you look at the non-binary category (which I think is used as a catch-all, when it comes to race organization) in a race as recent as Boston, the top athletes were all born male... And they were running times similar to top American females, despite obviously not being professional-level marathoners. The same disparity will exist in a third category along the lines of sex at birth. As good as she is, Hiltz wouldn't stand a chance against even a moderately talented u20 athlete who was born male

Transgender athletes whose circumstances are debated on in terms of fairness (Born male, identify as female) want to compete in the female category. They do not want to compete in a third category. If you're going to kick them out of the female category and put them in a third category, why not just kick them out of the female category and put them in the male category? In either case, they are not in the female category, which is where they want to be.

Will Nelson wrote:

Not a lawyer wrote:

Your second point is often brought up, but it isn't an "elegant" solution. (As an aside, people need to stop using the word "elegant" to mean efficient or simplified or effective. A few scientists say "elegant" on some podcasts, and now everyone's saying it...)

When you look at the non-binary category (which I think is used as a catch-all, when it comes to race organization) in a race as recent as Boston, the top athletes were all born male... And they were running times similar to top American females, despite obviously not being professional-level marathoners. The same disparity will exist in a third category along the lines of sex at birth. As good as she is, Hiltz wouldn't stand a chance against even a moderately talented u20 athlete who was born male

Transgender athletes whose circumstances are debated on in terms of fairness (Born male, identify as female) want to compete in the female category. They do not want to compete in a third category. If you're going to kick them out of the female category and put them in a third category, why not just kick them out of the female category and put them in the male category? In either case, they are not in the female category, which is where they want to be.

Apparently, you're not a scientist either? In science, an 'elegant' theory is one that has simplicity, clarity, and explanatory power. Scientists have described great theories as 'elegant' pretty much forever. (Probably longer than you've been alive. Don't feel too self-conscious or embarrassed if you're unaccustomed to hearing it. But as a linguist, I think I'll keep using 'elegant' if it's all the same to you? Thank you for understanding.)

By extension, an 'elegant' solution would be one that has simplicity, clarity, and let's substitute 'equity' for explanatory power, with the added bonus of 'inclusivity'.

An 'Open Division' solution would be simple, clear-cut, inclusive (to transgendered athletes) and equitable to cisgendered (born-as) female athletes.

The example you provide of Nikki Hiltz running against U20 born-as males in an Open Division is irrelevant.

Why would Hiltz run in an Open Division race when Hiltz can compete at an elite level against other female athletes, without any advantage from hormone therapy or testosterone? An athlete like Nikki Hiltz would continue to run appropriately against other elite cisgender (born-as) females.

Now that we've dispensed with your 'red herring' example, let's turn to some of your other half-baked thoughts that you present as arguments.

Contrary to "kicking them out of the female category", Open Division would include transgender athletes, providing them a platform to compete at the highest level possible, and rewarding them for excellence.

Further, your stated objection to an Open Division solution seems to imply that transgender athletes only want to run in a division in which they will have an unfair advantage, which violates the 'equity' principle insofar as cisgender (born-as) female athletes' interests are concerned.

Ultimately, Open Division is an equitable compromise, balancing: 1) the inclusion of transgender athletes in running events with 2) equity for cisgender (born-as) female athletes in elite-level competition.

nottheGOATbutamtngoat wrote:

Hello,
As a WSU Murrow College ‘22 and ‘23 grad and NCAA DI XC qualifier with plenty of reporting experience under my belt, I am tired of articles about trans athletes in sport that point out the same tired talking points.
Obviously, competition is an inherent part of every sport. Each sport makes their own rules as they may. But the true question reporters should be asking is not: “Do trans athletes have a competitive advantage in sport, or do they not have a competitive advantage?”
Instead, reporters should be asking: “Are sports a human right?”
If sports are not a human right, then does that change how they should be governed? Conversely, if sports are to be a human right, should that change how they are to be governed?
And if sports are a human right… what would that mean? What would it even mean for sports to be a human right?
Sincerely,
Erin Mullins

(PS: Jonathan Gault, my grandmother was basically sort of British, so of course I would say sincerely.)
(PPS: Never forget the legacy before you. “Bad Girls,” M.I.A.)

nottheGOATbutamtngoat wrote:

Hello,
As a WSU Murrow College ‘22 and ‘23 grad and NCAA DI XC qualifier with plenty of reporting experience under my belt, I am tired of articles about trans athletes in sport that point out the same tired talking points.
Obviously, competition is an inherent part of every sport. Each sport makes their own rules as they may. But the true question reporters should be asking is not: “Do trans athletes have a competitive advantage in sport, or do they not have a competitive advantage?”
Instead, reporters should be asking: “Are sports a human right?”
If sports are not a human right, then does that change how they should be governed? Conversely, if sports are to be a human right, should that change how they are to be governed?
And if sports are a human right… what would that mean? What would it even mean for sports to be a human right?
Sincerely,
Erin Mullins

(PS: Jonathan Gault, my grandmother was basically sort of British, so of course I would say sincerely.)
(PPS: Never forget the legacy before you. “Bad Girls,” M.I.A.)

Not a lawyer wrote:

samcallan wrote:

This has nothing to do with the Constitution in the US. It has t do with a law called Title IX that was passed in the early 70s.

Also, the NCAA does receive a dime of federal money (short of grants it might apply for) but just about every member college in it does and those schools are subject to Title IX since they receive federal funds. State organizations are in the same situation as the NCAA.

There was a case in the appellate court in the WV area that addressed this and it will eventually get to SCOTUS. A big problem is the court decided in 2020 in a case called Bostock that in EMPLOYMENT (so there could be the wiggle room) employers cannot discriminate against transgender people as the court equated "gender" with "sex" since gender does not appear in Title VII (the employment law) nor in Title IX.

Unless I am mistaken, Title IX and other civil rights laws are based on rationale from the 14th Amendment.

I had forgotten that about the NCAA, but in any case, my point is that any school that receives any form of federal or state funding is worried about violating someone's civil rights, which would be something in contrast to, say a private or religious organization.

Not a lawyer wrote:

Elegant is a word that refers to an aesthetic. "Elegant solution" is a cliche that is in vogue with people who want to sound smart. In any case, your solution doesn't fit what you think "elegant" means.

If Nikki currently identifies as non-binary (which they do, please be basically informed) that would mean that they would compete in a non-binary category in track and field, if such a category was available (seems to be the emerging model in Marathons already). Thus, any u20 athlete (read: rising/sub elite, dummy) who was born male and identified as non-binary would be able to compete against Nikki and mop the floor with them.

You really do seem pretty dumb. A transgender athlete who was born male and identifies as female does not want to be put into a category other than female. I have heard this from the horse's mouth from 100% of the trans high school and college athletes that I have spoken with, one of whom I know fairly well personally. If you want to put them in a non-binary category, you are kicking them out of the female category and putting them into a third category. It may seem very "elegant" to you, but not to them.

There are more trans kids appearing by the moment, for whatever reason you might want to say ... And there aren't yet any circumstances where a significant number of born-female athletes are in a third category with born-male athletes, where money or scholarships or prestige are on the line.

When there are large numbers, there will still have to be some kind of split. I'm sure it will be dumb and unethical, such as demanding that minors take significant hormone therapies when they may not even want to, in order to try to level the playing field...which it still won't. You can't have a sport where people aren't supposed to try their hardest and highly talented athletes have no chance whatsoever of winning. So your solution pushes the identical problem several years into the future, and confuses everyone in the meantime. Not elegant.

nottheGOATbutamtngoat wrote:

Hello,
As a WSU Murrow College ‘22 and ‘23 grad and NCAA DI XC qualifier with plenty of reporting experience under my belt, I am tired of articles about trans athletes in sport that point out the same tired talking points.
Obviously, competition is an inherent part of every sport. Each sport makes their own rules as they may. But the true question reporters should be asking is not: “Do trans athletes have a competitive advantage in sport, or do they not have a competitive advantage?”
Instead, reporters should be asking: “Are sports a human right?”
If sports are not a human right, then does that change how they should be governed? Conversely, if sports are to be a human right, should that change how they are to be governed?
And if sports are a human right… what would that mean? What would it even mean for sports to be a human right?
Sincerely,
Erin Mullins

(PS: Jonathan Gault, my grandmother was basically sort of British, so of course I would say sincerely.)
(PPS: Never forget the legacy before you. “Bad Girls,” M.I.A.)

samcallan wrote:

This has nothing to do with the Constitution in the US. It has t do with a law called Title IX that was passed in the early 70s.

Also, the NCAA does receive a dime of federal money (short of grants it might apply for) but just about every member college in it does and those schools are subject to Title IX since they receive federal funds. State organizations are in the same situation as the NCAA.

There was a case in the appellate court in the WV area that addressed this and it will eventually get to SCOTUS. A big problem is the court decided in 2020 in a case called Bostock that in EMPLOYMENT (so there could be the wiggle room) employers cannot discriminate against transgender people as the court equated "gender" with "sex" since gender does not appear in Title VII (the employment law) nor in Title IX.

nottheGOATbutamtngoat wrote:

Hello,
As a WSU Murrow College ‘22 and ‘23 grad and NCAA DI XC qualifier with plenty of reporting experience under my belt, I am tired of articles about trans athletes in sport that point out the same tired talking points.
Obviously, competition is an inherent part of every sport. Each sport makes their own rules as they may. But the true question reporters should be asking is not: “Do trans athletes have a competitive advantage in sport, or do they not have a competitive advantage?”
Instead, reporters should be asking: “Are sports a human right?”
If sports are not a human right, then does that change how they should be governed? Conversely, if sports are to be a human right, should that change how they are to be governed?
And if sports are a human right… what would that mean? What would it even mean for sports to be a human right?
Sincerely,
Erin Mullins

(PS: Jonathan Gault, my grandmother was basically sort of British, so of course I would say sincerely.)
(PPS: Never forget the legacy before you. “Bad Girls,” M.I.A.)

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

samcallan wrote:

This has nothing to do with the Constitution in the US. It has t do with a law called Title IX that was passed in the early 70s.

Also, the NCAA does receive a dime of federal money (short of grants it might apply for) but just about every member college in it does and those schools are subject to Title IX since they receive federal funds. State organizations are in the same situation as the NCAA.

There was a case in the appellate court in the WV area that addressed this and it will eventually get to SCOTUS. A big problem is the court decided in 2020 in a case called Bostock that in EMPLOYMENT (so there could be the wiggle room) employers cannot discriminate against transgender people as the court equated "gender" with "sex" since gender does not appear in Title VII (the employment law) nor in Title IX.

The 4th circuit just struck down a West Virginia law that categorically banned trans girls from sports. (BPJ v. WV State Board of Education.) If another circuit court upholds a similar law in another state, the case will land in the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court supported injunction in this case last year by 7-2).