First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
I mean, I my cross-country team in high school, at the very least, TRAINED as a co-ed group. And I just so happened to be paired whenever possible by my coach with the absolute best female runner in the entire state of Minnesota, who (in this particular case and sport) had the "advantage" of clearly being anorexic. Now, of course, I realize this is a serious disease, but her obsession with keeping her weight where it was (which was essentially nothing) had everything to do with her times on runs, or it at least started that way. And I could keep up with her for MAYBE two miles before she just went off an made us all look like fools. Of course, she eventually reached a point where she started collapsing on a regular basis, but not before some state titles and a full ride to the U of M.
Ok, so you're saying what? That you were traumatized by being beat by one of the best female athletes in your state? A state of 7 million citizens? What if you were a female who biologically is not going to beat the best 15-25% of males? What would you think if you had to compete against basically a male? Would you think you even had a chance? Would you think it's 'fair'?
First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
I mean, I my cross-country team in high school, at the very least, TRAINED as a co-ed group. And I just so happened to be paired whenever possible by my coach with the absolute best female runner in the entire state of Minnesota, who (in this particular case and sport) had the "advantage" of clearly being anorexic. Now, of course, I realize this is a serious disease, but her obsession with keeping her weight where it was (which was essentially nothing) had everything to do with her times on runs, or it at least started that way. And I could keep up with her for MAYBE two miles before she just went off an made us all look like fools. Of course, she eventually reached a point where she started collapsing on a regular basis, but not before some state titles and a full ride to the U of M.
Ok, so you're saying what? That you were traumatized by being beat by one of the best female athletes in your state? A state of 7 million citizens? What if you were a female who biologically is not going to beat the best 15-25% of males? What would you think if you had to compete against basically a male? Would you think you even had a chance? Would you think it's 'fair'?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I was just telling a story and trying to convey that the entire thing is relatively meaningless, and the fact that being a male does not, by default, make you better at a certain sport. The absolute top?? Sure, the top males athletes in MOST sports are going to be "better" than the females, but among the masses?? I've known plenty of girl basketball players who could run circles around plenty of YMCA pick-up heroes.
That's great, but how many cis females can beat a transgender male in physical sports? Considering the cost of a college degree and therefore the value of an athletic scholarship, I think it's fair to bring up this topic. Nothing you have mentioned has addressed this...
I'm actually glad that you @jjstraka34 chose to engage me in this because, believe it or not, I respect your viewpoint due to our past engagements. It's kind of my turn to get emotional because of my daughter but I'm not mad at you personally...
First if all it's the daily caller so it's going to be biased outrage bait from Ben Shapiro right? But you say there's other sources. Ok so disregarding the biased article, we have two transgender girls are winning races against girls, right?
I would hope they aren't transgender just to win stupid track races. That is a life altering way of life and the shit they must get for being transgender is real. People get killed.
Are they doing this for unimaginable glory as track stars in high school? Is that really such a thing really??
So would I be happy if I had a girl going to that school and racing against them? No I guess not.
What should be done? Screw it, integrated racing teams. Everyone is welcome. Make two or three divisions and call it a day. Assign people to their appropriate division based on their physical capabilities instead of the contents in their pants. A, AA, AAA, varsity whatever divisions.
Would boys win all the time? Yeah maybe I don't know some girls are fast aren't they? We got female Navy seals why can't we get female track champions.
Don't take the outrage bait here. It's a (small) problem that can be addressed.
What if the division idea is rejected? Then support your kids decisions.
I got so caught up with JJ, I didn't see your contribution @smeagolheart . Didn't leave you out on purpose . The major problem I have with gender-neutral competitions is that there is a considerable monetary value to an athletic scholarship. If I were a real feminist, I'd be pissed off at this. The fact that I'm hearing nothing from feminist groups speaks volumes to me...
Edit: Should have said 'seeing' nothing rather than 'hearing' nothing from feminist groups. I don't expect to 'hear' anything from them personally just because I comment on this thread. Although a Russian bot might be able to find me...
First of all I'll make a point about trans women in elite sport. Such women have been entitled to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but I don't think any have yet even competed - let alone won anything. This article gives a brief review of the issues, but I can think of two potential reasons for that lack of success:
1) there's a climate of hostility against such women making it more difficult for them to train and compete.
2) the restrictions they compete under (such as the required oestrogen supplement) may in fact have 'over-levelled' the playing field and put them at a physical disadvantage.
On the first point I believe that talking about the issues more is likely to improve the situation over time. When I was growing up, attitudes we would now define as homophobia were perfectly acceptable in the UK, but social attitudes to what sort of differences are acceptable can sometimes change fairly quickly.
On the second point there is a big scientific gap that should be filled by research. There is some research on the impacts of varying natural levels of testosterone and oestrogen - but not on the impacts of artificial supplements. I guess that's at least partly because funding bodies have been wary of political attitudes about this area of research, but it's past time that some real research was done.
In relation to the original post about lower-level competition I'd be interested to see wider ranging statistics to assess whether there really is a problem. It would be all too easy to sensationalize a story suggesting that trans women are dominating competitions, when in fact no such thing is happening. Is there any data on the numbers competing and their relative success?
While my views could change if we do get decent research done and data available, at the moment it does seem to be an anomaly if none of the restrictions at college level and elite competition are being applied at high school and it would seem reasonable to review whether such restrictions should be introduced.
First of all I'll make a point about trans women in elite sport. Such women have been entitled to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but I don't think any have yet even competed - let alone won anything. This article gives a brief review of the issues, but I can think of two potential reasons for that lack of success:
1) there's a climate of hostility against such women making it more difficult for them to train and compete.
2) the restrictions they compete under (such as the required oestrogen supplement) may in fact have 'over-levelled' the playing field and put them at a physical disadvantage.
On the first point I believe that talking about the issues more is likely to improve the situation over time. When I was growing up, attitudes we would now define as homophobia were perfectly acceptable in the UK, but social attitudes to what sort of differences are acceptable can sometimes change fairly quickly.
On the second point there is a big scientific gap that should be filled by research. There is some research on the impacts of varying natural levels of testosterone and oestrogen - but not on the impacts of artificial supplements. I guess that's at least partly because funding bodies have been wary of political attitudes about this area of research, but it's past time that some real research was done.
In relation to the original post about lower-level competition I'd be interested to see wider ranging statistics to assess whether there really is a problem. It would be all too easy to sensationalize a story suggesting that trans women are dominating competitions, when in fact no such thing is happening. Is there any data on the numbers competing and their relative success?
While my views could change if we do get decent research done and data available, at the moment it does seem to be an anomaly if none of the restrictions at college level and elite competition are being applied at high school and it would seem reasonable to review whether such restrictions should be introduced.
Yay, more engages! Glad to hear from you @Grond0. This is an important topic to me. If an entire state is allowing athletes with a testosterone advantage to compete against girls then why was was it such a crime for East Germany to 'cheat' in the same way in past Olympics?
In world politics, has the situation in Kashmir been receiving any coverage? This disputed territory has been poisoning relations between India and Pakistan since their creation and has resulted in several limited wars. With nuclear weapons now available, any future conflicts have the potential to become even more serious and there's currently real concern that the recent exchanges of air strikes and cross-border shelling could spiral into another war.
In world politics, has the situation in Kashmir been receiving any coverage? This disputed territory has been poisoning relations between India and Pakistan since their creation and has resulted in several limited wars. With nuclear weapons now available, any future conflicts have the potential to become even more serious and there's currently real concern that the recent exchanges of air strikes and cross-border shelling could spiral into another war.
In the US, I guess the North Korea talks are taking precedence. The Kashmir situation doesn't necessarily involve us directly. On the global scale, however, it's right up there with China/Taiwan on the powderkeg to war scenario...
In world politics, has the situation in Kashmir been receiving any coverage? This disputed territory has been poisoning relations between India and Pakistan since their creation and has resulted in several limited wars. With nuclear weapons now available, any future conflicts have the potential to become even more serious and there's currently real concern that the recent exchanges of air strikes and cross-border shelling could spiral into another war.
In the US, I guess the North Korea talks are taking precedence. The Kashmir situation doesn't necessarily involve us directly. On the global scale, however, it's right up there with China/Taiwan on the powderkeg to war scenario...
I seem to remember the last time North Korea "talks" took place Donald Trump, said, and I quote "There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea." Since then there has been absolutely no indication there has been a single step to them getting rid of their weapons, and, in the meantime, Trump has absurdly claimed Barack Obama personally told him we were on the verge of war with them when Trump took office, which every person familiar with the issue in the Obama Administration saying that was a flat-out lie. So I hope we can all be spared the ridiculous pomp and circumstance that followed these two around in Singapore. Now Trump's new tactic seems to be going on Twitter and saying how North Korea is on the verge of becoming a historic economic powerhouse, which is so at odds with actual reality that one at this point has to wonder if Trump is living in an alternate dimension.
First of all I'll make a point about trans women in elite sport. Such women have been entitled to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but I don't think any have yet even competed - let alone won anything. This article gives a brief review of the issues, but I can think of two potential reasons for that lack of success:
1) there's a climate of hostility against such women making it more difficult for them to train and compete.
2) the restrictions they compete under (such as the required oestrogen supplement) may in fact have 'over-levelled' the playing field and put them at a physical disadvantage.
On the first point I believe that talking about the issues more is likely to improve the situation over time. When I was growing up, attitudes we would now define as homophobia were perfectly acceptable in the UK, but social attitudes to what sort of differences are acceptable can sometimes change fairly quickly.
On the second point there is a big scientific gap that should be filled by research. There is some research on the impacts of varying natural levels of testosterone and oestrogen - but not on the impacts of artificial supplements. I guess that's at least partly because funding bodies have been wary of political attitudes about this area of research, but it's past time that some real research was done.
In relation to the original post about lower-level competition I'd be interested to see wider ranging statistics to assess whether there really is a problem. It would be all too easy to sensationalize a story suggesting that trans women are dominating competitions, when in fact no such thing is happening. Is there any data on the numbers competing and their relative success?
While my views could change if we do get decent research done and data available, at the moment it does seem to be an anomaly if none of the restrictions at college level and elite competition are being applied at high school and it would seem reasonable to review whether such restrictions should be introduced.
Yay, more engages! Glad to hear from you @Grond0. This is an important topic to me. If an entire state is allowing athletes with a testosterone advantage to compete against girls then why was was it such a crime for East Germany to 'cheat' in the same way in past Olympics?
Well, lots of reasons - like the active intervention of the state, the use of dangerous drugs (often without the knowledge of athletes) and the breaking of competitive rules . From my last post I hope you can see I'm not unsympathetic to your position @Balrog99, but in the prevailing climate coming from the top in the US there seems to me a real danger of changes becoming an opportunity to bash the idea of transgender students, rather than a real attempt to ensure a level sporting playing field for everyone (including transgender students).
The article you posted referred to the requirement on schools to verify records of transgender students - which means it should be possible to collect data about the numbers competing and how successful they had been. If anyone cared to do it, I don't imagine it would be that difficult to get a good idea of the extent of any problem at the moment ...
In world politics, has the situation in Kashmir been receiving any coverage? This disputed territory has been poisoning relations between India and Pakistan since their creation and has resulted in several limited wars. With nuclear weapons now available, any future conflicts have the potential to become even more serious and there's currently real concern that the recent exchanges of air strikes and cross-border shelling could spiral into another war.
In the US, I guess the North Korea talks are taking precedence. The Kashmir situation doesn't necessarily involve us directly. On the global scale, however, it's right up there with China/Taiwan on the powderkeg to war scenario...
I seem to remember the last time North Korea "talks" took place Donald Trump, said, and I quote "There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea." Since then there has been absolutely no indication there has been a single step to them getting rid of their weapons, and, in the meantime, Trump has absurdly claimed Barack Obama personally told him we were on the verge of war with them when Trump took office, which every person familiar with the issue in the Obama Administration saying that was a flat-out lie. So I hope we can all be spared the ridiculous pomp and circumstance that followed these two around in Singapore. Now Trump's new tactic seems to be going on Twitter and saying how North Korea is on the verge of becoming a historic economic powerhouse, which is so at odds with actual reality that one at this point has to wonder if Trump is living in an alternate dimension.
I don't often defend Trump, but I supported his original decision to talk with North Korea and I think he's right to follow that up (even if his motives may not be the same as mine). Even if North Korea are being entirely cynical in pursuing this process, there's still a significant opportunity to turn that cynicism round over time by improving international links. Even if the nuclear weapons are not destroyed (and I have no expectations they will be in the near future) they are less likely to be used if relations are good and there are processes in place that allow talking rather than military posturing.
As for the economic future of North Korea, Trump is obviously putting a rose-tinted view on that, but the same could have been said about South Korea in 1960 - and look what happened there.
There are other examples of rapid development in the area to draw on, such as Japan after WWII, or China in recent years. Thus, while very optimistic, it's not entirely fanciful to suggest that North Korea could be transformed in future years - indeed if there was a concerted effort internationally to help with that, matched by a real desire and push for development from within the country, I would say the chances for success are high. Of course, the prospects for both a concerted international effort and a domestic desire for improvement are dubious at the moment - but allow me to retain some small sliver of hope .
Regarding the sporting stuff, why is it based on "gender". Make it based on (biological) sex, and you've all but solved it.
EDIT: And before anyone tries to be a smartass with surgeries, a better test is if your body produces eggs, you're a female, if sperm, you're a male. Another test is genetics (chromosomes, maybe other tests as well).
Ok, as the father of a girl this really pisses me off. I want to hear what the liberals on this forum think of this. I personally think it's a fucking joke that dudes who 'feel' like they're girls are allowed to not only compete against females but are allowed to break 'records' that previously were only held by true females. If my daughter, who is pretty damned good at basketball, has to play against males you might as well shitcan girls sports.
I don't have too much to contribute that wasn't already said by others. I do sympathize that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution here, but it is worth considering that sports has (and never will be) perfect.
I'm a real big Baseball fan. There's an ongoing debate over who the greatest player of all time is. Most people agree it's Babe Ruth, but most people also agree that there is and should be an asterix there: Babe Ruth never pitched to, nor had to bat against a black man.
Between segregation, amphetamines, steroids and HGH - we will never have a truly fair or balanced competitive sport. It's unfortunate, but (I think) true.
@Balrog99 , to answer your question about transgender males wanting to compete against the boys, there's the case of Max Beggs in Texas who won two consecutive female wrestling championships.
I’m not wrestling on a girl’s team to wrestle girls, I’m doing it because I’m not allowed to wrestle boys. I’m not out here to cheat. I worked my tail off and it finally paid off. People hear testosterone and think it’s the same as what a body builder uses. I’m using very minimal (dosage) because it’s what has been medically prescribed. If a male has testicular cancer and needs testosterone, are they going to try to ban him too?
@Balrog99 , to answer your question about transgender males wanting to compete against the boys, there's the case of Max Beggs in Texas who won two consecutive female wrestling championships.
I’m not wrestling on a girl’s team to wrestle girls, I’m doing it because I’m not allowed to wrestle boys. I’m not out here to cheat. I worked my tail off and it finally paid off. People hear testosterone and think it’s the same as what a body builder uses. I’m using very minimal (dosage) because it’s what has been medically prescribed. If a male has testicular cancer and needs testosterone, are they going to try to ban him too?
That's interesting but not quite what I was referring to. I want to know how many females transgendering to male want to play against the 'boys'. Your example is the opposite and exactly what happened in Connecticut.
Ok, as the father of a girl this really pisses me off. I want to hear what the liberals on this forum think of this. I personally think it's a fucking joke that dudes who 'feel' like they're girls are allowed to not only compete against females but are allowed to break 'records' that previously were only held by true females. If my daughter, who is pretty damned good at basketball, has to play against males you might as well shitcan girls sports.
I don't have too much to contribute that wasn't already said by others. I do sympathize that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution here, but it is worth considering that sports has (and never will be) perfect.
I'm a real big Baseball fan. There's an ongoing debate over who the greatest player of all time is. Most people agree it's Babe Ruth, but most people also agree that there is and should be an asterix there: Babe Ruth never pitched to, nor had to bat against a black man.
Between segregation, amphetamines, steroids and HGH - we will never have a truly fair or balanced competitive sport. It's unfortunate, but (I think) true.
I agree that it is probably something that needs to be addressed at sufficiently high performance level (e.g. Olympics), but my understanding at that level there are requirements in place.
Looking in particular at your examples: I think athlete scholarships should be seen as the real problem here, not a few rare transgenders competing in high school/college sports. Why not tackle that instead?
Otherwise, sure, you might be able to find examples, but I don't there are many transgender athletes.
So apparently CNN Town Hall with Bernie Sanders appears to have been purposefully stacked with ringers (lobbyists and political types) who left out their true allegiances before trying to tank Bernie.
CNN did not disclose many of these questioners’ ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why.
@Balrog99 , to answer your question about transgender males wanting to compete against the boys, there's the case of Max Beggs in Texas who won two consecutive female wrestling championships.
I’m not wrestling on a girl’s team to wrestle girls, I’m doing it because I’m not allowed to wrestle boys. I’m not out here to cheat. I worked my tail off and it finally paid off. People hear testosterone and think it’s the same as what a body builder uses. I’m using very minimal (dosage) because it’s what has been medically prescribed. If a male has testicular cancer and needs testosterone, are they going to try to ban him too?
That's interesting but not quite what I was referring to. I want to know how many females transgendering to male want to play against the 'boys'. Your example is the opposite and exactly what happened in Connecticut.
I agree that the overall numbers would be helpful, but that example is what you're asking for - a female transgendering to male who wants to play against the boys. His desires are not changed because Texas refuses to allow that to happen ...
@Balrog99 , to answer your question about transgender males wanting to compete against the boys, there's the case of Max Beggs in Texas who won two consecutive female wrestling championships.
I’m not wrestling on a girl’s team to wrestle girls, I’m doing it because I’m not allowed to wrestle boys. I’m not out here to cheat. I worked my tail off and it finally paid off. People hear testosterone and think it’s the same as what a body builder uses. I’m using very minimal (dosage) because it’s what has been medically prescribed. If a male has testicular cancer and needs testosterone, are they going to try to ban him too?
That's interesting but not quite what I was referring to. I want to know how many females transgendering to male want to play against the 'boys'. Your example is the opposite and exactly what happened in Connecticut.
I agree that the overall numbers would be helpful, but that example is what you're asking for - a female transgendering to male who wants to play against the boys. His desires are not changed because Texas refuses to allow that to happen ...
You're right, I was guilty of not reading the entire article. The first paragraph made reference to 'he' playing against the girls so I misunderstood. Sorry about that.
@Balrog99 , to answer your question about transgender males wanting to compete against the boys, there's the case of Max Beggs in Texas who won two consecutive female wrestling championships.
I’m not wrestling on a girl’s team to wrestle girls, I’m doing it because I’m not allowed to wrestle boys. I’m not out here to cheat. I worked my tail off and it finally paid off. People hear testosterone and think it’s the same as what a body builder uses. I’m using very minimal (dosage) because it’s what has been medically prescribed. If a male has testicular cancer and needs testosterone, are they going to try to ban him too?
That's interesting but not quite what I was referring to. I want to know how many females transgendering to male want to play against the 'boys'. Your example is the opposite and exactly what happened in Connecticut.
No, Beggs is a transgender boy who is forced to compete against the girls because Texas only recognizes the gender written on his birth certificate.
@Balrog99: To answer your question: Transgender athletes should compete with members of their biological sex; not their chosen gender. The entire purpose of separating the sexes in athletic competition is to keep an even playing field given the physical differences between men and women. The separation is based on biology, so non-biological differences shouldn't offer exceptions. Taking hormones would not change the problem, since men and women also have different bone structures, and you can't change those with hormones.
Then we encounter a separate problem: a transgender male who transitioned from female. Under the above rule, that person would compete with other females, but might also be taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone should be disqualifying for competitions regardless of the reasons for the supplements, because the effects of the supplements are still the same: an artificial competitive advantage.
This doesn't have to be a judgment or criticism of transgender athletes or anything like that. In any non-competitive sphere, I don't think this would raise an issue. However, giving women a fair playing field requires us to keep physical sex differences from impacting the competition.
Ok, as the father of a girl this really pisses me off. I want to hear what the liberals on this forum think of this. I personally think it's a fucking joke that dudes who 'feel' like they're girls are allowed to not only compete against females but are allowed to break 'records' that previously were only held by true females. If my daughter, who is pretty damned good at basketball, has to play against males you might as well shitcan girls sports. Sorry but this is a joke!
Edit: And don't tell me that this is some unforeseen circumstance. This was a totally predictable outcome of Connecticut's assenine 'gender equality' law. Give me one example of a female transgender wanting to compete against the boys...
late to the party, but I can give you a slew of examples of cis girls wanting to compete or even play with the boys but being denied.
You also kept mentioning athletic scholarships. Perhaps maybe post secondary education availability shouldn't be placed on how fast you can run, or how well you can stuff a orange ball into a metal hoop. Perhaps other students (athletic scholarships are paid and budgeted by the school) shouldn't be footing the bill for these students to not only get an education, but perform a sport that they enjoy. Maybe not having to pay these scholarships will help reduce the cost of education for everyone.
Perhaps instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, a government can give a larger tax rebate to all students who achieve a certain grade point average, lowering the cost of education to those that are actually putting it to a good use.
BUT if athletic scholarships are what you are concerned about, especially with track, it is usually personal time & academic standings rather than where you placed in any races that will give you consideration.
You also kept mentioning athletic scholarships. Perhaps maybe post secondary education availability shouldn't be placed on how fast you can run, or how well you can stuff a orange ball into a metal hoop. Perhaps other students (athletic scholarships are paid and budgeted by the school) shouldn't be footing the bill for these students to not only get an education, but perform a sport that they enjoy. Maybe not having to pay these scholarships will help reduce the cost of education for everyone.
Usually I think it's quite the opposite: athletic achievement in a school = $$$$, and the non-athlete students tend to benefit form that, to a greater or lesser degree.
Kinda knew this would come up because I forgot colleges and universities have a revenue stream from ticket sales to things like Football and Basketball, however, I highly doubt the school gets much in revenue for things like track and field and swimming. I could be wrong.
@Balrog99: To answer your question: Transgender athletes should compete with members of their biological sex; not their chosen gender. The entire purpose of separating the sexes in athletic competition is to keep an even playing field given the physical differences between men and women. The separation is based on biology, so non-biological differences shouldn't offer exceptions. Taking hormones would not change the problem, since men and women also have different bone structures, and you can't change those with hormones.
Then we encounter a separate problem: a transgender male who transitioned from female. Under the above rule, that person would compete with other females, but might also be taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone should be disqualifying for competitions regardless of the reasons for the supplements, because the effects of the supplements are still the same: an artificial competitive advantage.
This doesn't have to be a judgment or criticism of transgender athletes or anything like that. In any non-competitive sphere, I don't think this would raise an issue. However, giving women a fair playing field requires us to keep physical sex differences from impacting the competition.
@semiticgod personally I don't think this is a good solution. If you're a transgender female, you're likely to be taking oestrogen supplements and have made use of testosterone blockers as part of the transition. Rather than using drugs to give you an advantage (which you acknowledge as a problem for those transitioning to male), you're therefore using drugs to give you a disadvantage.
Your solution would thus mean that transgender males would not be allowed to compete at all, while transgender females would compete under an enormous disadvantage. That seems both unfair in a competitive sense and also undermines the idea that transgender people should be able to be regarded as equal citizens in their new identity.
As I said in an earlier post, I think the current evidence suggests that (at least for elite sport) transgender women are already at a disadvantage. Suggesting ways to make that worse is unnecessary for sports and unhelpful if the aim is to increase the ability for transgender individuals to integrate into society.
Comments
Ok, so you're saying what? That you were traumatized by being beat by one of the best female athletes in your state? A state of 7 million citizens? What if you were a female who biologically is not going to beat the best 15-25% of males? What would you think if you had to compete against basically a male? Would you think you even had a chance? Would you think it's 'fair'?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I was just telling a story and trying to convey that the entire thing is relatively meaningless, and the fact that being a male does not, by default, make you better at a certain sport. The absolute top?? Sure, the top males athletes in MOST sports are going to be "better" than the females, but among the masses?? I've known plenty of girl basketball players who could run circles around plenty of YMCA pick-up heroes.
I got so caught up with JJ, I didn't see your contribution @smeagolheart . Didn't leave you out on purpose
Edit: Should have said 'seeing' nothing rather than 'hearing' nothing from feminist groups. I don't expect to 'hear' anything from them personally just because I comment on this thread. Although a Russian bot might be able to find me...
First of all I'll make a point about trans women in elite sport. Such women have been entitled to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but I don't think any have yet even competed - let alone won anything. This article gives a brief review of the issues, but I can think of two potential reasons for that lack of success:
1) there's a climate of hostility against such women making it more difficult for them to train and compete.
2) the restrictions they compete under (such as the required oestrogen supplement) may in fact have 'over-levelled' the playing field and put them at a physical disadvantage.
On the first point I believe that talking about the issues more is likely to improve the situation over time. When I was growing up, attitudes we would now define as homophobia were perfectly acceptable in the UK, but social attitudes to what sort of differences are acceptable can sometimes change fairly quickly.
On the second point there is a big scientific gap that should be filled by research. There is some research on the impacts of varying natural levels of testosterone and oestrogen - but not on the impacts of artificial supplements. I guess that's at least partly because funding bodies have been wary of political attitudes about this area of research, but it's past time that some real research was done.
In relation to the original post about lower-level competition I'd be interested to see wider ranging statistics to assess whether there really is a problem. It would be all too easy to sensationalize a story suggesting that trans women are dominating competitions, when in fact no such thing is happening. Is there any data on the numbers competing and their relative success?
While my views could change if we do get decent research done and data available, at the moment it does seem to be an anomaly if none of the restrictions at college level and elite competition are being applied at high school and it would seem reasonable to review whether such restrictions should be introduced.
Yay, more engages! Glad to hear from you @Grond0. This is an important topic to me. If an entire state is allowing athletes with a testosterone advantage to compete against girls then why was was it such a crime for East Germany to 'cheat' in the same way in past Olympics?
In the US, I guess the North Korea talks are taking precedence. The Kashmir situation doesn't necessarily involve us directly. On the global scale, however, it's right up there with China/Taiwan on the powderkeg to war scenario...
I seem to remember the last time North Korea "talks" took place Donald Trump, said, and I quote "There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea." Since then there has been absolutely no indication there has been a single step to them getting rid of their weapons, and, in the meantime, Trump has absurdly claimed Barack Obama personally told him we were on the verge of war with them when Trump took office, which every person familiar with the issue in the Obama Administration saying that was a flat-out lie. So I hope we can all be spared the ridiculous pomp and circumstance that followed these two around in Singapore. Now Trump's new tactic seems to be going on Twitter and saying how North Korea is on the verge of becoming a historic economic powerhouse, which is so at odds with actual reality that one at this point has to wonder if Trump is living in an alternate dimension.
Well, lots of reasons - like the active intervention of the state, the use of dangerous drugs (often without the knowledge of athletes) and the breaking of competitive rules
The article you posted referred to the requirement on schools to verify records of transgender students - which means it should be possible to collect data about the numbers competing and how successful they had been. If anyone cared to do it, I don't imagine it would be that difficult to get a good idea of the extent of any problem at the moment ...
I don't often defend Trump, but I supported his original decision to talk with North Korea and I think he's right to follow that up (even if his motives may not be the same as mine). Even if North Korea are being entirely cynical in pursuing this process, there's still a significant opportunity to turn that cynicism round over time by improving international links. Even if the nuclear weapons are not destroyed (and I have no expectations they will be in the near future) they are less likely to be used if relations are good and there are processes in place that allow talking rather than military posturing.
As for the economic future of North Korea, Trump is obviously putting a rose-tinted view on that, but the same could have been said about South Korea in 1960 - and look what happened there.
There are other examples of rapid development in the area to draw on, such as Japan after WWII, or China in recent years. Thus, while very optimistic, it's not entirely fanciful to suggest that North Korea could be transformed in future years - indeed if there was a concerted effort internationally to help with that, matched by a real desire and push for development from within the country, I would say the chances for success are high. Of course, the prospects for both a concerted international effort and a domestic desire for improvement are dubious at the moment - but allow me to retain some small sliver of hope
EDIT: And before anyone tries to be a smartass with surgeries, a better test is if your body produces eggs, you're a female, if sperm, you're a male. Another test is genetics (chromosomes, maybe other tests as well).
I don't have too much to contribute that wasn't already said by others. I do sympathize that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution here, but it is worth considering that sports has (and never will be) perfect.
I'm a real big Baseball fan. There's an ongoing debate over who the greatest player of all time is. Most people agree it's Babe Ruth, but most people also agree that there is and should be an asterix there: Babe Ruth never pitched to, nor had to bat against a black man.
Between segregation, amphetamines, steroids and HGH - we will never have a truly fair or balanced competitive sport. It's unfortunate, but (I think) true.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-teen-wrestling-title/
That's interesting but not quite what I was referring to. I want to know how many females transgendering to male want to play against the 'boys'. Your example is the opposite and exactly what happened in Connecticut.
So making it even more unfair is OK then?
Looking in particular at your examples: I think athlete scholarships should be seen as the real problem here, not a few rare transgenders competing in high school/college sports. Why not tackle that instead?
Otherwise, sure, you might be able to find examples, but I don't there are many transgender athletes.
CNN did not disclose many of these questioners’ ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why.
I agree that the overall numbers would be helpful, but that example is what you're asking for - a female transgendering to male who wants to play against the boys. His desires are not changed because Texas refuses to allow that to happen ...
You're right, I was guilty of not reading the entire article. The first paragraph made reference to 'he' playing against the girls so I misunderstood. Sorry about that.
No, Beggs is a transgender boy who is forced to compete against the girls because Texas only recognizes the gender written on his birth certificate.
Then we encounter a separate problem: a transgender male who transitioned from female. Under the above rule, that person would compete with other females, but might also be taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone should be disqualifying for competitions regardless of the reasons for the supplements, because the effects of the supplements are still the same: an artificial competitive advantage.
This doesn't have to be a judgment or criticism of transgender athletes or anything like that. In any non-competitive sphere, I don't think this would raise an issue. However, giving women a fair playing field requires us to keep physical sex differences from impacting the competition.
late to the party, but I can give you a slew of examples of cis girls wanting to compete or even play with the boys but being denied.
You also kept mentioning athletic scholarships. Perhaps maybe post secondary education availability shouldn't be placed on how fast you can run, or how well you can stuff a orange ball into a metal hoop. Perhaps other students (athletic scholarships are paid and budgeted by the school) shouldn't be footing the bill for these students to not only get an education, but perform a sport that they enjoy. Maybe not having to pay these scholarships will help reduce the cost of education for everyone.
Perhaps instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, a government can give a larger tax rebate to all students who achieve a certain grade point average, lowering the cost of education to those that are actually putting it to a good use.
BUT if athletic scholarships are what you are concerned about, especially with track, it is usually personal time & academic standings rather than where you placed in any races that will give you consideration.
Kinda knew this would come up because I forgot colleges and universities have a revenue stream from ticket sales to things like Football and Basketball, however, I highly doubt the school gets much in revenue for things like track and field and swimming. I could be wrong.
@semiticgod personally I don't think this is a good solution. If you're a transgender female, you're likely to be taking oestrogen supplements and have made use of testosterone blockers as part of the transition. Rather than using drugs to give you an advantage (which you acknowledge as a problem for those transitioning to male), you're therefore using drugs to give you a disadvantage.
Your solution would thus mean that transgender males would not be allowed to compete at all, while transgender females would compete under an enormous disadvantage. That seems both unfair in a competitive sense and also undermines the idea that transgender people should be able to be regarded as equal citizens in their new identity.
As I said in an earlier post, I think the current evidence suggests that (at least for elite sport) transgender women are already at a disadvantage. Suggesting ways to make that worse is unnecessary for sports and unhelpful if the aim is to increase the ability for transgender individuals to integrate into society.