SDSU Aztec wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I agree that the right to marry or sleep with who you want is a fundamental right.
Choosing to run in female races just because you identify as a woman is not a fundamnetal right. Transgenders can identify with whatever sex they choose but only be allowed to compete in the sex of the anatomy they were born with. That should be the end of the story.
If a guy starts taking estrogen at 16 or 17. He still has the benefits of the years of testerone. Plus being physically stronger, lower fat, higher bone density, etc. This argument is asinine.
As a male athlete if I were allowed to compete with female athletes in high school the records would be unbreakable. I ran 1:54 in the 800 and 48.7 in the 400. No hs female should be objected to that.
There might be some benefit. So far the evidence is that it is pretty tiny in most sports. You ran 1:54. How fast do you think you will be after 12 months of estrogen when you gained 10lbs of fat and don't have the benefits of test to recover from training? Probably be lucky to break 2:10. I.E. about inline with your male performance plus or minus a couple seconds. At the olympic level, that matters. HS track? Who cares.
Of course we have no clue what level of transitioning these girls has done. There is a vast gap between saying you can just pick a gender on the entry form and if you have undergone say 9 months of hormone therapy. My impression is that at least initialy when these CT sprinters showed up, there was no hormone therapy involved.
Wrong. Hormone therapy doesn't put on pounds of fat, or we would see most elite female athletes are overweight. They aren't. Jessica Ennis-Hill? Miller-Uibo? Sifan Hassan?
The advantages of a male physiology don't simply disappear at transitioning. The tennis player Renee Richards, who trained Martina Navratilova, has said that if she transitioned in her twenties and not her thirties no female players would have stood a chance against her. She is now opposed to trans competing in women's sport.
A lot of posters believe that the decision as to whether or not to allow transgender females to compete is based on an assessment of fairness, but it's not. Women's tennis was vehemently opposed to Renee Richards competing and the case went to court in New York:
In a 13‐page decision that could become a landmark, (State Supreme Court Justice) Ascione said the requirement that Dr. Richards pass the (sex chromosomes) test in order to become eligible for the United States Open was “grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and violative of her rights under the Human Rights Law of this state.”
His decision had nothing to do with any opinion as to whether Richards had an unfair advantage.
If the NCAA, USATF or IOC decide to ban transgender athletes, their decision will be challenged in court and the focus will again be on an interpretation of human rights.
The issue was still fairness, but not competitive fairness. The quote from the Judge was that the sex chromosome testing was "grossly unfair". There it is - fairness, but fairness to Richards. The test was seen as discriminatory.
But competing in sports is not an unqualified or absolute right. If that were so there couldn't be selection or qualification criteria, weight or age criteria, and finally gender criteria. A judge today would hear arguments that human rights of the kind raised by Richards (who's since changed her views) are subject to the context that categories of competition require; the rights of biological females to compete in their protected category would have to be acknowledged and there is plenty of science now to support it, which there wasn't in Richards' era.
That there is science to support that there is an advantage is still a theoretical argument against people that don't yet exist. In women's T&F, there is just one competitive transgender athlete that is graduating this year and probably won't compete as a professional. The two Connecticut sprinters are a different issue as they are not taking hormone treatments. So far, the transgender marathoner has run 2:43 and is no threat to have am impact on the sport. Who will be the agreived party when the previous ruling is challenged in court? The woman who finished 21st instead of 20th at the trials?
You say that the right to compete in sports is not an absolute right, but the court ruled that if a transgender athlete is legally recognized a woman, not allowing her to compete is a violation of her human rights.
Yes, some transgender female athletes could have an advantage. I'm not an attorney, but I believe the logic in the defense of allowing transgender females to compete against women will be that if they are considered to be women, it's not unfair for biological women to have to compete against them. The requirement of hormone treatment is legally acceptable because it can be defined as a requirement of becoming a woman.
No matter how much people rant against transgender female athletes, it's unlikely they will ever be banned. The remaining issues are the effects on performance of testosterone, how the rules are enforced and whether athletes from a subset of less than 1% of the population will have ever evenly remotely have an impact on women's sports. That there will be cheaters is nonsense.
The science that exists shows the physical advantages that males have over biological females. Transgender are biological males - however few they are in sports. Identifying as female doesn't change that fact and hormone suppressants don't remove all the biological advantages that come from being male. Their participation in women's sport comes at the cost of biological females being able to compete fairly in their protected category. Against the rights, so-called, of the very few transgender (as you say) who wish to compete in women's sport, there are the competing rights of countless women to fair participation in sports. To achieve a status of full equality with men in sports, women have required their own competition. Allowing biological males to compete in that category is an attack on that equality.