Parents and girls sue to block participation of transgender athletes

I predict that the lawsuits will come from males also. If you are top guy on your HS team at 4:25 and get no offers and you see the 4:35 guy start his drug therapy and ends up getting a college scholarship, you won't be happy. How can a court require you to take drugs? Maybe you identify as female but don't believe in taking any drugs.

Armstronglivs wrote:

hgsddg wrote:

There is no basically no correlation between height and running performance until you are talking extreme heights. Being 5'2 isn't what held you back. Having short legs for your height might have.

Read her post again. It wasn't height or short legs that held her back - it was being female.

But its SUCH a good example of a man explaining stuff that obviously I, with my primitive female brain, couldn't work out for myself!

I did not state that I have short legs for my height. In reality, at 5 feet 2, you have to have pretty long legs for your height, particularly the calves, in order to be anywhere near a reasonable runner when combined with other female anatomy.

Without wishing to bore people, the lack of height means other stuff for women in running - I lost track of the number of coaches who told me I was "too short" to be a runner. Not that short for a female, but it was commented on a lot by coaches. As were most other aspects of my all too female anatomy and body. Its awfully embarrassing to have some of those things said to you (e.g. about chest size) when you're only 16 years old.

I can't believe people don't even acknowledge that the Q angle of the joints that is more common in women because of their wider hips means that the number of women able to run at a reasonable speed or even to withstand training is much, much smaller than men to start with. Hormones will not alter bone structure. Yes, if I took testosterone for a year, I'd probably be a bit faster and stronger, but I'd still have an acute Q angle and my knees would suffer as a result.

Men are women wrote:

I predict that the lawsuits will come from males also. If you are top guy on your HS team at 4:25 and get no offers and you see the 4:35 guy start his drug therapy and ends up getting a college scholarship, you won't be happy. How can a court require you to take drugs? Maybe you identify as female but don't believe in taking any drugs.

The 4:35 guy would have to run that as a sophomore, shut it down his junior year and hope that he's still fast enough to receive a scholarship as a senior. That's not going to happen. If he just declares himself to be female and doesn't take any drug therapy, he will not be in compliance with NCAA rules and will not receive a scholarship.

The court can't make anyone take hormone therapy, but if that person doesn't want to, she will not be eligible to compete against women in college. It doesn't matter what the athlete believes.

Why would he have to shut it down? Are you saying he can't continue competing as a boy until he meets the requirements to compete as a girl? And I like how you think you know how a crazy judge would decide.

third party runner person wrote:

Thoughts? Seems like a valid complaint for the courts to decide upon as 17 titles won by transgender athletes in a couple years does give credence to the argument that there is a competitive advantage.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/girls-sue-block-participation-transgender-athletes-68941543

It takes guts to stand up against the fascist left aka Democrats who seek to destroy any who don’t kowtow to their radical agenda.

Armstronglivs wrote:

hgsddg wrote:

There is no basically no correlation between height and running performance until you are talking extreme heights. Being 5'2 isn't what held you back. Having short legs for your height might have.

Read her post again. It wasn't height or short legs that held her back - it was being female.

Read her post again. You know the part where she thinks being 5'7 would have made her faster

Men are women wrote:

Why would he have to shut it down? Are you saying he can't continue competing as a boy until he meets the requirements to compete as a girl? And I like how you think you know how a crazy judge would decide.

The NCAA requires 12 months of hormone treatment so any times during his junior year are meaningless and it only be would be his senior tines that would be considered in regard to a scholarship.

Do you really believe your 4:35 guy can go to court and get the NCAA rules changed? Right.

Make A Comeback wrote:

Read her post again. It wasn't height or short legs that held her back - it was being female.

But its SUCH a good example of a man explaining stuff that obviously I, with my primitive female brain, couldn't work out for myself!

I did not state that I have short legs for my height. In reality, at 5 feet 2, you have to have pretty long legs for your height, particularly the calves, in order to be anywhere near a reasonable runner when combined with other female anatomy.

Without wishing to bore people, the lack of height means other stuff for women in running - I lost track of the number of coaches who told me I was "too short" to be a runner. Not that short for a female, but it was commented on a lot by coaches. [/quote]

And at 5'7 if you want to be an elite runner, you better have long legs also. Why don't you bore us and explain why you think being tall is an advantage for a distance runner? After all male distance races have been dominated by tall guys for years right? The short guys like Kenny, Haile, Kipchoge must have really sucked. Men are different right? So 5'2 Joan Benoit had no chance against 5'8 Gete Waitz in 1984. Vivian Cheruiyot at 5'2 also isn't running fast. Mizuki Noguchi at 4'11 ran 2:19 back in 2005. And so on.

Height has very little to do with running performance except for extreme outliers (i.e. the 6'2+ crowd or 4"10 people) . If you look at elite runners, they pretty much match the population they come from with a slight bias to being shorter. In the US that means you get a lot of 5'2-5'7 woman as that is about 90% of the population.

Feel free to post any paper that suggests otherwise. I expect to be waiting a while

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Read her post again. It wasn't height or short legs that held her back - it was being female.

Read her post again. You know the part where she thinks being 5'7 would have made her faster

This is "her" again. I suggest you read the whole thread again. This is not an opportunity for you to show your dislike of women and your disgust for their efforts at racing, but a thread about male - female trans athletes in sport. Athletes who tend to be bigger and more powerful than the woman they are racing, due to male hormones that they have experienced through their entire lives. Hence relatively moderate athletes will benefit from racing in a class where the average is physically smaller.

"She" doesn't think being 5'7 would make "her" faster. "She" knows that the COMBINATION of being male AND 5'7 or taller would mean a moderate athlete would have unfair advantages over "her".

No, it wasn't 31 genders. There were 31 different terms that related to gender non conforming situations. Read the actual legislation. The Washington Times article is, as is its practice, woefully biased in its reporting.

Make A Comeback wrote:

This is "her" again. I suggest you read the whole thread again. This is not an opportunity for you to show your dislike of women and your disgust for their efforts at racing, but a thread about male - female trans athletes in sport. Athletes who tend to be bigger and more powerful than the woman they are racing, due to male hormones that they have experienced through their entire lives. Hence relatively moderate athletes will benefit from racing in a class where the average is physically smaller.

"She" doesn't think being 5'7 would make "her" faster. "She" knows that the COMBINATION of being male AND 5'7 or taller would mean a moderate athlete would have unfair advantages over "her".

What hatred? I am just pointing out that being 5'7 is zero advantage for a runner over being 5'2 and just asking you to explain why you think otherwise? But instead of explaining why you start insulting people. Why not just post the evidence that backs up your point of view.

The question is a person who has taken hormones for 12 months still noticeable stronger? Is the Q angle for a male outside the range of females (i.e. I don't think so but I also haven't seen the Q angle for the starting line of the 1500m olympic trials)? And so on. The evidence either way on that is still up in the air at best.

Again note the assumption is that the athletes have transitioned. We don't know the CT athletes state but I am suspect if they are actually suppressing testerone and pumping in the estrogen for at least the first couple years.

Your thinking is somewhat muddled and I suspect that it will be difficult to explain anything to you.

I am not going to gather "evidence" for you (for the standard either required in court or what stands for evidence on the internet - the battle of the URLs) as I have a job, and better things to do than run around after you.

However, what lawyers do to is to take the relevant statistical "pool" of those who do comply and compare it to the other relevant group. Therefore, the relevant comparator is the number of successful male athletes over 5'6 when compared to the pool of women as a whole. Height correlates with other male physical advantages which are not affected by taking either of the two major female hormones (ostregen and progestogen).

Equally, the male Q angle will be narrower over the population as a whole than the female Q angle (because as everyone knows, women have wider pelvic structure). So women are disproportionately affected by allowing trans men with a pelvis statistically likely to be narrower (and therefore better designed for fast running) as far less women will have a similarly beneficial pelvic structure.

Another issue - don't male-female trans individuals typically take HRT, which is a tiny dose of female hormones compared to what biological woman actually have? I believe this was known because various 800m athletes who are no longer racing were found with them in their bags.

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of knowledge of basic biological body composition and why the Q angle and other features of male versus female bone structure aren't discussed more. Maybe this legal action will bring these important points into the discussion.

I believe that Telfer is receiving a female scholarship but did not take the path that you described. Men can start the ridiculous process at almost any point in time and still find a way to steal a scholarship from a deserving female.

Honest Male wrote:

I believe that Telfer is receiving a female scholarship but did not take the path that you described. Men can start the ridiculous process at almost any point in time and still find a way to steal a scholarship from a deserving female.

The ridiculous process is still going to take a year. June Eastwood didn't compete during her 4th year of college. She was originally on a scholarship as a male so she might not even be taking a scholarship from a female. Montana's treatment of Eastwood is probably an outlier and future male athletes on scholarship would probably lose them if they transgender.

While the CT athletes have hinted at starting hormone suppressant therapy, they have stated " no comment" when asked about details. Miller is notably slower this year, Yearwood is absolutely jacked and has improved significantly since last year.

Their mutual zeal for state and New England championships lead to reasonable belief that any hormone suppression plan can be tweaked to guarantee winning performance...as long as they don't keep false starting in races....it is almost like they are chauvinistic boys desperately afraid to lose to girls....

unreasonable wrote:

While the CT athletes have hinted at starting hormone suppressant therapy, they have stated " no comment" when asked about details. Miller is notably slower this year, Yearwood is absolutely jacked and has improved significantly since last year.

Their mutual zeal for state and New England championships lead to reasonable belief that any hormone suppression plan can be tweaked to guarantee winning performance...as long as they don't keep false starting in races....it is almost like they are chauvinistic boys desperately afraid to lose to girls....

There is no reason for them tweak their treatments. Hormone treatment is not required for transgender athletes in Connecticut.

marial wrote:

I would say that dragging race into the equation here is a manipulative tactic. It doesn’t have to do with race.

If you can't win an argument on its merits, cry racism. No one is allowed to question that.

hgjvkvbbb wrote:

rojo wrote:

I enjoyed your post .

But If it’s just about being on the team, why can’t they have those memories on the boys team? Maybe rename it the xy team. No one is taking it away from them. They are fee to compete on the xy team.

Rojo would advocate separate but equal. Rojo in the 60s - blacks have their own bathroom what is the big deal.

Are you advocating for one class, and only one class, in sporting events? Any other arrangement would require a good faith effort at achieving separate but equal.