Martina Navratilova nails transgender debate in her latest column

missing information wrote:

Still waiting for a single example of an athlete who is fully transitioned who is winning and causing "women's sports to cease to exist".

Not ONE single example, anywhere, none, nada. Name ONE.

Rachel McKinnon. Laurel Hubbard.

There's two. You may now apologize for calling Martina a bigot.

Urban B wrote:

Rachel McKinnon. Laurel Hubbard.

There's two. You may now apologize for calling Martina a bigot.

Both of these people are not fully transitioned, they are non-ops, they are simply "in name only".

If the problem is with people who are "in name only" then ban them.

Again, there is no athlete truly transitioned who is winning anything.

You can't name any because they physically cannot win so there aren't examples.

Any time you are ready to drop a name, google if they are post-op or not before you waste your time.

This entire "problem" is only because people don't understand the difference between "in name only" and truly transitioned (post-op) athletes.

missing information wrote:

Both of these people are not fully transitioned, they are non-ops, they are simply "in name only".

If the problem is with people who are "in name only" then ban them.

Again, there is no athlete truly transitioned who is winning anything.

You can't name any because they physically cannot win so there aren't examples.

Any time you are ready to drop a name, google if they are post-op or not before you waste your time.

This entire "problem" is only because people don't understand the difference between "in name only" and truly transitioned (post-op) athletes.

Why does that matter? Answer: it doesn't.

I want to push back against the argument "it has never happened so we don't need to worry about it", because I want there to be a fair pathway for transgender athletes to compete. I don't want the first one who dominates her sport to be discriminated against because she's transgender -- I don't want people to say, "Oh now that a transgender athlete is dominating it's obvious that we need to change the rules." Because cisgender women sometimes dominate too -- the performance of a small number of individuals isn't the way to establish a fair system.

I also don't know what "fair" means in this context.

David S wrote:

Why does that matter? Answer: it doesn't.

I want to push back against the argument "it has never happened so we don't need to worry about it", because I want there to be a fair pathway for transgender athletes to compete. I don't want the first one who dominates her sport to be discriminated against because she's transgender -- I don't want people to say, "Oh now that a transgender athlete is dominating it's obvious that we need to change the rules." Because cisgender women sometimes dominate too -- the performance of a small number of individuals isn't the way to establish a fair system.

I also don't know what "fair" means in this context.

Oh I get it, I totally get it - you want to "pre ban" the transgender equivalent of the first Castor in running, etc. before it happens.

Except I am telling you, it's easy. Nothing dramatic required (in fact it's what the rules rules used to be).

A person who is "in name only" and/or a person who is perpetually taking a (WADA banned diuretic) drug to suppress what their genitals is doing is in a perpetual state of constant transition. They are not fully transitioned and never will be completely transitioned. If they couldn't get the drug they would "revert" over months, years.

So only allow athletes who are fully, truly transitioned to compete in sanctioned races officially.

The problem here is ignorance. Everyone is somehow being taught incorrectly that just because someone says they are "transgender" that they are actually "transitioned".

There is a huge difference. But there is no way to educate everyone who just thinks with their gut or genuinely doesn't know the first thing about it technically.

That's not what I want.

As to the rest of your comment, "simplicity" is not thing thing we're trying to optimize. If it were, we could simply eliminate women's sports altogether and paralympics and seniors and juniors, and create a single "open" category that young men dominate.

"Rather than dividing things by male/female, create levels - A, B, C, D. And all competitors, male or female, that fall into a given category compete together. Pretty much eliminates the very divisive (and unnecessary?) gender fight going on right now. And makes a ton of sense."

I want to be compete in the level for 50-59 year olds, who are biologically male, identify as male, have black hair, are married, have fathered and raised two children, are slightly autistic, have one metal screw in a vertebrae, weigh over 180 lbs, are not a professional athlete and were born and reside in the USA.

I believe I might have the world's best time for a 25km trail run (at elevations over8000 feet) in this category.

I want to know who I submit the paperwork to in order to get this verified?

I must mention that, to my knowledge, I have never failed a drug test.

I am looking forward to winning a gold medal in future events that offer a division in the level of my choosing.

I will protest competing against any biological males that identify as female, are divorced, and who reside in the USA but were not born in the USA. It is not fair that I have to compete against those cheaters.

killermike wrote:

I think this works at the amateur level, but on the professional level, it would be the end of women's sports. There would no longer be any professional womens sports if this system were implemented. Let's say there were A, B, C and D categories. Would people have an interest in the C category simply because it was the first category that featured women, even though it also featured a lot of men that were way worse than those in the A and B category?

I've heard this proposal thrown out by a lot of people, but I don't think it works in practice on the pro level.

And that's OK. Because I want to see the best athletes compete, as in the best human athletes.

Let's say for the sake of argument you have four teams. In football, that might be 22+22=44/team, or 168 total.

Present college teams will typically carry about 110. How many women would be among the 168?

Or, in xc, there might be 10x4=40. At Midwest Regionals last year, in the 6k women's race, first place averaged 5:25/mile, and there were 91 women averaging under 6:00. 92nd-217th averaged between 6 and 7 minutes per mile. The last 8 girls averaged from 7:02 to 7:26. In the men's 10k, first place averaged 5:00/mile, 25 seconds faster per mile for the women's winner in a race that was 2/3 longer. 139 runners averaged better than 5:25/mile (the women's winner) for this longer race.

198 runners beat 6:00/M. The last six runners ran 6:04 to 6:33 pace, but the last place man ran 17:22 in high school.

Roughly 169 runners, down to 5:34 pace, were arguably better than the first place woman. It is going to be pretty difficult to get a lot of women on teams A-D in xc. If you expanded to four possible teams, you would have a lot of guys coming out of the woodwork to get on those teams. They would not be bad athletes. There were 1700 hs guys sub 5 in NJ and Colorado alone in 2016, according to a thread from a few years ago. In California alone one year, there were 4,332 boys under 5.

Athletic.net had 23,339 for the year. Now, milesplit had 2,000 boys under 4:38 in one year. Only a handful of girls at best would be under 4:38 in a given year. So, it is arguable that this science tv show guy is full of it. His proposal would virtually end women's participation in college sports. All four teams would typically be populated exclusively or nearly exclusively by men.

While I agree with you, I will just throw out, as a devil's advocate position - For every single woman you can name who would be "screwed over" by the A, B, C, D levels paradigm one could argue that there currently IS one man getting screwed over by the gender-based paradigm. How is it obvious that the male tennis player who could crush Serena but is relegated to the local amateur tennis league after high school is not getting shafted?

Yes, after I posted it I thought more about it. I think it would work great for young kids and possibly up through high school and maybe amateur, as you suggest. That would give girls a better chance to develop their fullest potential.

Thanks for your thoughts.

PS: Here is another interesting TED talk on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ2gGlLNSMY&index=3&list=PLRLhWo_wr_MFKnd0wCdglH9RPqoEhmve7

_____

killermike wrote:

I think this works at the amateur level, but on the professional level, it would be the end of women's sports. There would no longer be any professional womens sports if this system were implemented. Let's say there were A, B, C and D categories. Would people have an interest in the C category simply because it was the first category that featured women, even though it also featured a lot of men that were way worse than those in the A and B category?

I've heard this proposal thrown out by a lot of people, but I don't think it works in practice on the pro level.

____

Also, I'm trying to think about how this would work in a popular sport like basketball. Good high school boys teams could beat the best college women's teams. So would there no longer be college scholarships for women in basketball?

Men on average are better at sports because they are, on average, naturally bigger, stronger and have higher levels of testosterone. Perhaps girls aren't pushed to reach their potential, but their athletic potential is still lower than that of men due to biological differences. That doesn't really seem to be refutable.

toughprob wrote:

This is spot-on. "Sports divisions are mostly about the physical capabilities of the body, not personal identity."

+1

Nobody complains about weight classes in boxing, wrestling, MMA, etc.

Urban B wrote:

She seems to be focusing on the fundamental question: Why do we separate sports (particularly at the highest levels) by sex? The answer is obvious: The best women can't compete with the best men. Why? Physiology.

Women's athletics is interesting because they are … well, women!

Martina has played the Occam's Razor card here. It is an easy decision for most intelligent people.

Our sport is often enough of a freak show with the drugs.

I'm sorry for the others but all of these biological 800M women have been cheated.

And that Texas wrestler...hell, I would have never believed that the great state of Texas would allow such a thing. Pathetic.

Yes, I see the problem. Something struck me when I heard the proposal but I was thinking more idealistically - a different kind of world.

I'm not sure why the video links I posted aren't working, but the 2nd one is of a former female Dutch soccer player who conducted some research and found that it was better for both boys and girls to compete together. I thought it was interesting. If interested in watching, it's Vera Pauw on TEDx.

The 1st video is a TEDx talk by John Brenkus. A point that Brenkus makes is that in sport, it is not always the biggest, fastest, strongest that succeeds. He gives the example of wide receivers in football. The top ones in history have not been the tallest, fastest or biggest. T/F and XC are more straightforward, though, so I would say that argument doesn't hold.

One point I would like to make:

I don't think we know how much social conditioning affects women's development and abilities. It's possible our potential is greater than perhaps we've been able to imagine.

____

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Let's say for the sake of argument you have four teams. In football, that might be 22+22=44/team, or 168 total.

Present college teams will typically carry about 110. How many women would be among the 168?

Or, in xc, there might be 10x4=40. At Midwest Regionals last year, in the 6k women's race, first place averaged 5:25/mile, and there were 91 women averaging under 6:00. 92nd-217th averaged between 6 and 7 minutes per mile. The last 8 girls averaged from 7:02 to 7:26. In the men's 10k, first place averaged 5:00/mile, 25 seconds faster per mile for the women's winner in a race that was 2/3 longer. 139 runners averaged better than 5:25/mile (the women's winner) for this longer race.

198 runners beat 6:00/M. The last six runners ran 6:04 to 6:33 pace, but the last place man ran 17:22 in high school.

Roughly 169 runners, down to 5:34 pace, were arguably better than the first place woman. It is going to be pretty difficult to get a lot of women on teams A-D in xc. If you expanded to four possible teams, you would have a lot of guys coming out of the woodwork to get on those teams. They would not be bad athletes. There were 1700 hs guys sub 5 in NJ and Colorado alone in 2016, according to a thread from a few years ago. In California alone one year, there were 4,332 boys under 5.

Athletic.net had 23,339 for the year. Now, milesplit had 2,000 boys under 4:38 in one year. Only a handful of girls at best would be under 4:38 in a given year. So, it is arguable that this science tv show guy is full of it. His proposal would virtually end women's participation in college sports. All four teams would typically be populated exclusively or nearly exclusively by men.

And, yes, I understand that while the wide receivers were not as fast/tall/etc as other players, they were all probably considerably faster/stronger/etc than women.

Interesting perspective wrote:

The 1st video is a TEDx talk by John Brenkus. A point that Brenkus makes is that in sport, it is not always the biggest, fastest, strongest that succeeds. He gives the example of wide receivers in football. The top ones in history have not been the tallest, fastest or biggest. T/F and XC are more straightforward, though, so I would say that argument doesn't hold.

They aren't setting the all time records in CT, only the state meet records.

missing information wrote:

Urban B wrote:

Rachel McKinnon. Laurel Hubbard.

There's two. You may now apologize for calling Martina a bigot.

Both of these people are not fully transitioned, they are non-ops, they are simply "in name only".

If the problem is with people who are "in name only" then ban them.

Again, there is no athlete truly transitioned who is winning anything.

You can't name any because they physically cannot win so there aren't examples.

Any time you are ready to drop a name, google if they are post-op or not before you waste your time.

This entire "problem" is only because people don't understand the difference between "in name only" and truly transitioned (post-op) athletes.

Except right now, as it is happening now, these individuals DO NOT RECOGNIZE your distinction. In fact, they would label YOU a bigot for simply bringing it up. According to them (if you read their literature) they are women. Full stop. And they should be allowed to compete wherever they want without you determining whether or not they are 'truly' anything.

So in addition to completely missing the point, you inadvertently backed into Martina's desire for a discussion of fairness (and you really owe her an apology since you apparently agree). But, you say they first must TRULY transition and meeting your definition thereof. They do not. And they are not being required to, and they are winning. More will come as sure as night follows day, and THAT is the point.

girl watcher wrote:

Urban B wrote:

She seems to be focusing on the fundamental question: Why do we separate sports (particularly at the highest levels) by sex? The answer is obvious: The best women can't compete with the best men. Why? Physiology.

Women's athletics is interesting because they are … well, women!

Martina has played the Occam's Razor card here. It is an easy decision for most intelligent people.

Our sport is often enough of a freak show with the drugs.

I'm sorry for the others but all of these biological 800M women have been cheated.

And that Texas wrestler...hell, I would have never believed that the great state of Texas would allow such a thing. Pathetic.

Texas has a hard line about competing only against the sex you are born as, so she had to compete as she was born, a girl, but she should have then be DQed for drug use.

missing information wrote:

Urban B wrote:

Rachel McKinnon. Laurel Hubbard.

There's two. You may now apologize for calling Martina a bigot.

Both of these people are not fully transitioned, they are non-ops, they are simply "in name only".

If the problem is with people who are "in name only" then ban them.

Again, there is no athlete truly transitioned who is winning anything.

You can't name any because they physically cannot win so there aren't examples.

Any time you are ready to drop a name, google if they are post-op or not before you waste your time.

This entire "problem" is only because people don't understand the difference between "in name only" and truly transitioned (post-op) athletes.

Do we have to have some idiot trying the "true Scotsman" fallacy? Of course we do....