HS track coach Vicki Huber (former Olympian) is latest to claim that allowing trans-women to compete as women ruins sports

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I don't get it. wrote:

We are, well have been, talking about transgender athletes in US high school and colleges here. You know , Connecticut and Jonathan Eastwood and how this may expand, or be stopped, domestically.

What's the point of shifting it to Caster and the Olympics?

Again, the different levels cannot act unilaterally. That's just the way it is.

You are saying the US can not ban "treated"transgender athletes in high school and college unless the ban is innacted at all international levels?

IDOn'tGetIT wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Again, the different levels cannot act unilaterally. That's just the way it is.

You are saying the US can not ban "treated"transgender athletes in high school and college unless the ban is innacted at all international levels?

Yes. The CAS is the near equivalent of the Supreme Court for T&F. As I said before the USATF cannot ban athletes eligible for the Olympics. Allowing one group of potential professionals athletes to compete in college, but not another won't work. If transgender athletes are allowed to compete in college and possibly receive scholarships, they can't be banned in HS.

Just because something was litigated 40 years ago, which it wasn't (a lie on your part), doesn't mean that it can't be re-litigated again and return society to a NORMAL, MORAL place it should be.

2 sexes - Male / Female - determined at BIRTH. Birth defects are exactly that...defects.

One does not CHOOSE their sex. Choosing to "feel" like the other sex is a MENTAL ILLNESS. Period.

End of Story.

Good for Vicki to speak out about this travesty.

Javman wrote:

Just because something was litigated 40 years ago, which it wasn't (a lie on your part), doesn't mean that it can't be re-litigated again and return society to a NORMAL, MORAL place it should be.

2 sexes - Male / Female - determined at BIRTH. Birth defects are exactly that...defects.

One does not CHOOSE their sex. Choosing to "feel" like the other sex is a MENTAL ILLNESS. Period.

End of Story.

Good for Vicki to speak out about this travesty.

Bigotry won't win court.

Well, Thanks for going on the record there.

There are entire countries where changing gender is illegal. So while IOC may have guidelines, it certainly isn't universally enforcing sports gender policies. In the US different states have different rules for high schools , so how can they do that and support you logic about universality?

Various high school policies already don't match other high schools or NCAA policies which don't match other college divisions, and in fact toward the extremes are not even close on the inclusiveness/exclusiveness test. They certainly are not following international guidelines. In the US high school system , this varies from de-facto bans because the requirements to cross in sport is so restrictive to almost unlimited inclusion( surpassing the leniency of CAS and IOC).

So , possibly the international bodies could tell the US or other countries that they can't participate in an event if there is a ban crossing in sport at the high school and college level. but they certainly can't stop the ban. Arab countries, where transitioning is completely illegal can still send athletes to the Olympics.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Javman wrote:

Just because something was litigated 40 years ago, which it wasn't (a lie on your part), doesn't mean that it can't be re-litigated again and return society to a NORMAL, MORAL place it should be.

2 sexes - Male / Female - determined at BIRTH. Birth defects are exactly that...defects.

One does not CHOOSE their sex. Choosing to "feel" like the other sex is a MENTAL ILLNESS. Period.

End of Story.

Good for Vicki to speak out about this travesty.

Bigotry won't win court.

Neither will wishful thinking.

Dufus wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Bigotry won't win court.

Neither will wishful thinking.

Which side is wishful thinking on?

Arab countries, where transitioning is completely illegal can still send athletes to the Olympics.

Most of the Iranian female soccer team has been transgender. The Ayatollah decided this was a superior moral decision in the circumstances.

But of course, this predated the Western obsession with the issue, so in fact their media was not so sure whether to applaud this or not (particularly if the Nordic women were whining about it). As they didn't win, it never bubbled to the top.

No gotcha.,

That makes for an nteresting aside, but it still doesn't decide the issue pending and that will be pending in U.S courts. Not does it prove that international organizations can policy universally.

gotcha?

Do you trolls even read?

From the Iranian soccer team Article.

"Gender change operations are legal in Iran according to a fatwa - or religious ruling - pronounced by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution."

Also, Iran is a Persian country.

"Closer to the 4:00 mark" than 4:12:33, is 4:12:32 and below. What do those numbers look like?

In comparison, a 4:12 mile for a high school boy is commendable, but many of the state champions would be closer to the 4:00 mark

Closer to 4:00 than 4:12 means anything 4:11:59.9999999999 and faster. All of those times are indeed closer to 4:00 only a hater of biological women would argue otherwise.

Pendejon wrote:

In comparison, a 4:12 mile for a high school boy is commendable, but many of the state champions would be closer to the 4:00 mark

Closer to 4:00 than 4:12 means anything 4:11:59.9999999999 and faster. All of those times are indeed closer to 4:00 only a hater of biological women would argue otherwise.

I'm not sure why Huber referred to state meet winners and close to 4:00, but there have been hundreds of HS milers that have run faster than the women's WR.

If the German Democratic Republic would have been half as creative as the U.S. bi-coastal wackos then they could have easily won many women's Olympics events with this dress-up parlor trick and not had to resort to high-level biochemistry.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Dufus wrote:

Neither will wishful thinking.

Which side is wishful thinking on?

Both apparently, but specifically to your side, because you are counting on laws being immutable and the the US not being a sovereign state. Good luck with that.

It is fact that makes have advantages from androgenisation. That’s the last point of fact.

The null is that this situation remains after hormone treatment. If it is claimed that hormone treatment removes the unfairness then the burden of proof is in that claim. That a decision was made to permit it without any such evidence dies not shift the burden of proof, it simply demonstrates that the decision is utterly without merit.

Dufus wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Which side is wishful thinking on?

Both apparently, but specifically to your side, because you are counting on laws being immutable and the the US not being a sovereign state. Good luck with that.

I would assume the posters that want transgender females to be banned do not want to see one win a Gold Medal. Things to consider with the CAS include these:

1) Who will be the plaintiff and the aggrieved parties? The Connecticut case includes a girl that was bumped from going to the a state meet by the inclusion of two transgender females, but not a single professional female distance runner has ever competed against a transgender female (Semenya is not transgender).

2) The CAS will not want to spend time on considering changing policies for

a type of athlete that does not yet exist and will not be impressed by the prediction of hordes of cheaters on the horizon.

3) Semenya lost her argument that she should be considered a woman and the requirement of hormone treatment drove from the sport. She is the only data point outside of June Eastwood and it shows that although we don't know if it fully levels the playing field, the effects are significant.

In regard to the domestic situation, the USA Tennis Association was vehemently opposed to Renee Richards being allowed to compete, but lost in court, including an appeal. What has changed since then? The Connecticut case is centered on two athletes that are not receiving hormone treatments. And since the NCAA does not enforce its rules regarding hormone treatment, it's possible that CeCe Telfer is not doing so.

I don't see a blanket ban against transgender females in all sports. The argument about the advantage of a larger body is compelling regarding several sports, but not so much in distance running. If Eastwood runs at a significantly higher as level as a woman, it could push the needle.

How is the argument that sport is divided by biological sex not an easy one. Male puberty makes people different to female puberty. If there is no advantage then don’t have make and female classes, but where they exist then they should be sex based with exceptions based on the person, eg males with total androgen insensitivity or trans men could compete outside of sex class, but not spirt by sport. If there’s no advantage then get rid of the division.

Ultraboy wrote:

It is fact that makes have advantages from androgenisation. That’s the last point of fact.

The null is that this situation remains after hormone treatment. If it is claimed that hormone treatment removes the unfairness then the burden of proof is in that claim. That a decision was made to permit it without any such evidence dies not shift the burden of proof, it simply demonstrates that the decision is utterly without merit.

Hormone treatment lowers performance level. There are already plenty of empirical evidence to prove that. The "null hypothesis" that the situation does not change has been already rejected by empirical data. The problem is not that it does not lower the performance level, but that it does not lower the performance level ENOUGH.

The only way it could change is to present more empirical data.