June Eastwood Update

Maggie Bornstein wrote:

https://i-cdn.embed.ly/1/display/crop?height=300&key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbigskyconf.com%2Fimages%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2F2019_XC_AOTW_HEADER_10_22_19.jpg

Jonathan looks even more masculine than the NAU runner.

https://youtu.be/H49HkyItOrg?t=144

I'm just going to call him out: Jonathan, you are a cheater, stop taking medals, scholarships, team spots... from girls.

The ultimate male privilege is being able to dominate women's sports.

There is zero evidence that proves that June is a cheater. I believe she truly wanted to become female and to continue competitive running. Most transgender females want to take hormone treatment and most likely June is doing so as well.

As I've posted before, the transgendering to female has a horrific effect, both pysically and socially, and no one could possibly fake it.

I would hate to see a transgender woman set records, win championships or make an Olympic team, but the rules aren't going to change. However, having June maybe finish in the top 50 at XC nationals doesnt bother me.

As I've posted before, the transgendering to female has a horrific effect, both pysically and socially, and no one could possibly fake it.

This is a strong statement, with a lot of counterexamples in analogous situations. People fake a hate crime/sexual assualt/etc. You don't think people would do something like this for some type of advantage? People do crazy things all the time. You are also insinuating there is not any ego/narcissism involved at all. That is not human nature. Making it an all or nothing measurement defies the complexity of June's choice. It was probably for a myriad of reasons she has chosen to transition and also compete in the women's division. Ego is probably a part of the equation.

I would hate to see a transgender woman set records, win championships or make an Olympic team, but the rules aren't going to change. However, having June maybe finish in the top 50 at XC nationals doesnt bother me.[/quote]

Why can't rules change? In the previous post it was said no study refutes the minimum of 12 months required for hormone therapy to be effective. What rigorous studies have even been done on this? How many highly competitive male to female trans runners or athletes have signed up for a long-standing longitudinal study where hormones, training, etc are meticulously documented and then corresponding biological measures are taken? There hasn't been one. At this point, this is a new question/phenomenon. So until then, maybe we should be patient, acknowledge what is and is not known and be conservative. Why is it that we have to put biological women at a disadvantage by default? Last time I checked the NCAA, IAAF, etc have rules meetings to discuss new rules and amendments. So rules can change and should based on what we actually know.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I would hate to see a transgender woman set records, win championships or make an Olympic team, but the rules aren't going to change. However, having June maybe finish in the top 50 at XC nationals doesnt bother me.

In other words you only care about people if they are at the very top of the sport. If they are in the middle of the pack you don't care about them. You don't care about the girl who doesn't make the top 7 of the team, you don't care about the person who misses out on being an all-american by one place, you don't care that all of the team points are off by a few points and will skew the final results. I can only conclude that you either haven't thought about these things (and thus aren't very smart) or that you are an evil person that prioritizes a man's feelings over a woman's reality.

Buddy, no one really cares about hobby joggers. When you are that far down the pecking order you are running for yourself, for your PRs, for your self improvement etc. There's a reason we don't drug test the 50th finisher at a D2 conference meet.

well actually wrote:

In other words you only care about people if they are at the very top of the sport. If they are in the middle of the pack you don't care about them. You don't care about the girl who doesn't make the top 7 of the team, you don't care about the person who misses out on being an all-american by one place, you don't care that all of the team points are off by a few points and will skew the final results. I can only conclude that you either haven't thought about these things (and thus aren't very smart) or that you are an evil person that prioritizes a man's feelings over a woman's reality.

Why can't rules change? In the previous post it was said no study refutes the minimum of 12 months required for hormone therapy to be effective. What rigorous studies have even been done on this? How many highly competitive male to female trans runners or athletes have signed up for a long-standing longitudinal study where hormones, training, etc are meticulously documented and then corresponding biological measures are taken? There hasn't been one. At this point, this is a new question/phenomenon. So until then, maybe we should be patient, acknowledge what is and is not known and be conservative. Why is it that we have to put biological women at a disadvantage by default? Last time I checked the NCAA, IAAF, etc have rules meetings to discuss new rules and amendments. So rules can change and should based on what we actually know.[/quote]

The problem is that we don't know much. I don't how a study could be done on the effects of transgendering on distance running performance without a large population of results to analyze.

The issue isn't whether Eastwood is a "cheater", but whether there is an unfair advantage. I think it is clear that there is.

And you think "...the rules aren't going to change"? That is the point of this discussion. The rules need to change, to keep xy males from competing against xx females.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The problem is that we don't know much. I don't how a study could be done on the effects of transgendering on distance running performance without a large population of results to analyze.

“Transgendering”is not much different than going through puberty.

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

I saw Melissa Bishop and others complain about Caster Semenya, but that was when Semenya was not taking any hormone medication. I have seen nothing regarding June Eastwood except a bunch of paternalistic douchebags on a message board yelling about it like she only transitioned so she would be a more competitive racer, which would be a hilarious take if it wasn't so hateful and disgusting.

Being "pretty clear" isn't good enough and saying the rules need to change won't make them change. And whether they should be banned from competing was litigated over 40 years ago. From a legal perspective it's hard to argue that a transgendered female is to be recognized as a woman, but with the caveat that she can't compete in women's sports.

Again, I am not a proponent of transgender females competing against women, but the best we can hope for is that none of them ever reach the top level of a sport.

The problem is that we don't know much. I don't how a study could be done on the effects of transgendering on distance running performance without a large population of results to analyze.[/quote]

I agree that we are probably never going to have a large cohort study to do this specifically for distance running. You could start with a case control. You would probably have to get information from all levels (HS, College, Pros), but if done across national boundaries I am sure that in 1-3 years we can at least have something that more clearly delineates performance measures adjusting for a lot of things people are concerned about (age, weight, height, muscle mass, etc). If you also add in different sports, this would make it a larger pool to draw from and also allow you to examine how the results might be different according to the sports. There might be different guidelines depending on the sport, but have to start somewhere. I agree with your sentiment, that we want make sure trans women aren't unnecessarily restricted. I think priority has to be actual biological females aren't being placed at a disadvantage, which given current rules seems to be taking place.

Creaky Bones wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

I saw Melissa Bishop and others complain about Caster Semenya, but that was when Semenya was not taking any hormone medication. I have seen nothing regarding June Eastwood except a bunch of paternalistic douchebags on a message board yelling about it like she only transitioned so she would be a more competitive racer, which would be a hilarious take if it wasn't so hateful and disgusting.

Did you hear any women clamoring to have Semenya reinstated this year? Maybe you should take the lack of any support as evidence that women don't want to be compete against men or pseudo-men. There are other June posts. You can go and see what women say. They do certainly express their opinion. In terms of getting direct evidence from competitors, I am for that. Make it completely anonymous so people will answer truthfully and I think this would be good. If it is the case they don't care, then certainly let women choose the direction of women's sports. If they do, then end of story as well.

Maybe it's selfish, but as a fan of the sport I just don't care who finishes in in 50th place or if a woman is bumped from the UM XC travelling team.

Creaky Bones wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

I saw Melissa Bishop and others complain about Caster Semenya, but that was when Semenya was not taking any hormone medication. I have seen nothing regarding June Eastwood except a bunch of paternalistic douchebags on a message board yelling about it like she only transitioned so she would be a more competitive racer, which would be a hilarious take if it wasn't so hateful and disgusting.

Apparently you have never been in the presence of competitive female (born female) athletes. Myself and my peers fit none of the descriptions above, yes we care. The rest of your mentioned categories are made to accept this or be labeled as hateful, bigoted and actually lending to causing suicide.

So when would you care?

IF there is a competitive advantage (and that's a big if), I think it's reasonable to only care if June is taking hardware or accolades from someone that would have had it otherwise. So getting AA or all-conference and bumping someone from AA or all-conference, or winning a race. With respect to every race that doesn't have that accolade who gives two turtle sh*ts. There is only 1 winner in every track/CC race. Everyone else is running to do as good as they can. If someone runs 16:20 and gets 5th or runs 16:20 in the exact same manner and gets 4th, it's the same.

You can't reason with these people. They lack the ability to understand basic facts and reasoning. They are as mentally ill as the people they are defending.

Creaky Bones wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

In the video, the winner is gesturing at the end that she has to keep her mouth shut about "June" who is obviously holding back. Why? Because of mouthy, virtue signaling, perverse, liberals who will vilify anyone who stands in their way.

Muddler wrote:

Creaky Bones wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

In the video, the winner is gesturing at the end that she has to keep her mouth shut about "June" who is obviously holding back. Why? Because of mouthy, virtue signaling, perverse, liberals who will vilify anyone who stands in their way.

I'm liberal, but I believe unless she makes a personal attack on June she can say whatever she wants. It's not unreasonable for her to think June has an unfair advantage, but her ire should be directed at the NCAA.

Creaky Bones wrote:

Is there any actual evidence that the women she is running against care? Her teammates? Her rivals? Their coaches? Anyone? Or is it just a bunch of 40-60 year old Republicans on a message board and conservative male journalist?

There was at least one a young lady who expressed very well what she feels on this thread or a similar one. There is often one on a thread like this. Nobody is going to stand up for her in her real world. I am pretty sure she posted here because it's suicide to try to say it in and around a University at this time.

Instead of worrying about the demographic posting on LR, Maybe there are some people who don't understand what a stranglehold the fringe has on educational systems at this time? People are getting fired or otherwise damaged, less quality work,or projects shut down etc, at many institutions if they go against the tide.