Transgender athletes

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, naitche said:

I disagree

Thanks for sharing. Does that mean you do or that you do not support allowing transgendered males to compete in male athletic divisions and transgendered females to compete in female athletic divisions?

[naitche]

I agree an equal platform in sports should be available to Trans Men and Women as to those held by men and women. 

If the stake holders  agree those divisions are sufficient, there is no place for me to be concerned otherwise. 

Some sports though have been segregated specifically to ensure Women do have an equal platform.

If stake holders are saying those division are not sufficient to maintain equal platforms, its not my place to dismiss their concerns either.

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by naitche

[iNow]

3 hours ago, naitche said:

Some sports though have been segregated specifically to ensure Women do have an equal platform.

Which ones? I'm fairly sure this same claim was made earlier in the thread and already flatly rebutted. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, naitche said:

Some sports though have been segregated specifically to ensure Women do have an equal platform.

Sports have been segregated in this fashion for a long time. In many instances it started out as "men only, no women at all"

That's hardly an equal platform. 

Ensuring women have an equal opportunity to participate is a much more recent event, and was not an example of the segregation being created. 

[iNow]

A few helpful points 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/26/states-are-still-trying-ban-trans-youths-sports-heres-what-you-need-know/

Quote

So far in 2021, state legislators have proposed 170 bills targeting trans children <…> Some would restrict gender-affirming health care. Over 75 focus on sports, many suggesting invasive medical examinations to enforce the exclusion of gender-nonconforming children from girls’ teams. Others suggest imposing criminal penalties if trans children participate in sports consistent with their gender identities.

And while there were many other relevant points, this one really stood out to me:

Quote

Proponents claim that women’s sports require “protection” from transgender athletes, even as they are unable to cite examples of trans athletes competing in their states. Research identifies many significant threats to women and girls in sport — including lack of funding and sponsorship, pay inequities, a decreasingproportion of female coaches and administrators, unequal access to participation, underrepresentation in the media, vulnerability to sexual harassmentand abuse, hostile climates, and insufficient implementation of Title IX. Yet the Republican lawmakers now rallying to “save” women’s sports do not appear to be tackling these problems.

As did this:

Quote

Over 80 women’s rights and gender justice organizations support includingtrans girls and women in women’s sports.

So do high-profile female athletes. Soccer star Megan Rapinoe, former world No. 1 tennis player Billie Jean King and professional basketball player Candace Parker joined nearly 200 other professional, Olympic and collegiate female athletes on an amicus briefcontesting the Idaho law.

Close to 1,000 collegiate athletes supported trans athletes in two letters, calling on the NCAA to move championships out of states that passed bans. WNBA players Sue Bird and Natasha Cloud, WNBA coach Cheryl Reeve, U.S. paralympian Alana Nichols and scores of other athletes signed on to a similar letter to the NCAA last year.

On a brighter note, at least more than 85% of transgendered youths feel unsafe in school and face regular threats of violence. 🙄

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Which ones? I'm fairly sure this same claim was made earlier in the thread and already flatly rebutted. 

Then it should be no problem for you to point to those rebuttals; please do so ( if you can ).
As for competitive sports that are segregated along male/female genders, to ensure women are not unfairly having to compete against men, I offer the agenda of the currently on-going Olympic games.
If you wish, I could go into specifics for things like times of world class sprinters, or weightlifters, or shot-putters, or swimmers, or ...

Edited July 26, 2021 by MigL

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Then it should be no problem for you to point to those rebuttals

I’m not the one making claims like “we segregated women to be sure they had fairness in competition” so the onus really isn’t on me to go hunting for evidence. I challenge that claim and believe it’s already been challenged by others earlier. Swansont just reinforced it again above. The separation was about excluding women, not ensuring they had fair competitive opportunity. 

And even if it was, it’s irrelevant. “It’s always been this way” isn’t an argument I find terribly compelling for continuing to exclude transgendered men and women. Even female sports organizations say they should be included (see final quote from my link in the post immediately preceding yours). 

Edited July 26, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m not the one making claims like “we segregated women to be sure they had fairness in competition” so the onus really isn’t on me to go hunting for evidence. I challenge that claim and believe it’s already been challenged by others earlier. Swansont just reinforced it again above. The separation was about excluding women, not ensuring they had fair competitive opportunity. 

And even if it was, it’s irrelevant. “It’s always been this way” isn’t an argument I find terribly compelling for continuing to exclude transgendered men and women. Even female sports organizations say they should be included (see final quote from my link in the post immediately preceding yours). 

By and large it was exactly the opposite. It may have taken years to include the marathon, pole vaulting etc etc. but the separation allowed more women to compete at the highest competitive levels. Far, far more women.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And even if it was, it’s irrelevant.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 

The success of protected female sports is irrelevant? Far from it.

Or do you mean irrelevant to this topic? Also far from it.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

“It’s always been this way” isn’t an argument I find terribly compelling for continuing to exclude transgendered men and women. Even female sports organizations say they should be included

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

They should be included. The question is "How should they be included?"

Without a clear and acceptable answer to that you are setting them up for failure. Profound failure.

Failure you will point your finger at.

You point out the small numbers of transgenders excelling in female sports. Is your wish that that continue? Rely on continuance of stigma to keep their numbers low? Force them out unless they are willing to alter their bodies, through surgery or drugs?

Or is your wish that they gain acceptance, and encourage them to compete in healthy sports?

 

[iNow]

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

This is a position with which even the majority of women’s athletic organizations and athletes already competing in those organizations themselves seem to agree. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

This is a position with which even the majority of women’s athletic organizations and athletes already competing in those organizations themselves seem to agree. 

Just accept them? No strings attach? 

Which organizations are these?

[iNow]

Did I stutter? Source already supplied.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Did I stutter? Source already supplied.

Where?

I'm willing to bet I won't find it, in the context of "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program."

 

[TheVat]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

This is a position with which even the majority of women’s athletic organizations and athletes already competing in those organizations themselves seem to agree. 

Like many people (I suspect) my interest here is both in fair competition and in seeing all varieties of personhood given respect and dignity.   I find any position that is simple to have a tempting allure,  because it might mean we can all go home and concern ourselves no further.  Yet a part of me feels this pleasant outcome only happens on Earth Two,  while here on Earth One we continue to fight and bicker and litigate over dozens of tangential issues while occasionally wrestling someone to the floor and chewing off a foot or hand.   

Short form of above:  the dust will only settle after many court cases and mind-numbing quantities of interpretation.  

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where?

Here. This thread. About 4 hours ago. Just above. This same page. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Here. This thread. About 4 hours ago. Just above. This same page. 

Give me a hint...is it in the first link, behind the paywall?

Quote something from one of them that suggests they  wish to "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program."

That's your claim...

1 hour ago, iNow said:

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

This is a position with which even the majority of women’s athletic organizations and athletes already competing in those organizations themselves seem to agree. 

an extraordinary one given all you should have taken in during the life of this thread.

Now back it up if you can.

[iNow]

Read those last 3 words in the quote from me again, out loud if needed. 

Tell ya what. I’ll make it easy. I retract my claim and will simply reinforce my own personal stance:

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Read those last 3 words in the quote from me again, out loud if needed. 

It's not in this:

"Over 80 women’s rights and gender justice organizations support includingtrans girls and women in women’s sports.

So do high-profile female athletes. Soccer star Megan Rapinoe, former world No. 1 tennis player Billie Jean King and professional basketball player Candace Parker joined nearly 200 other professional, Olympic and collegiate female athletes on an amicus briefcontesting the Idaho law.

Close to 1,000 collegiate athletes supported trans athletes in two letters, calling on the NCAA to move championships out of states that passed bans. WNBA players Sue Bird and Natasha Cloud, WNBA coach Cheryl Reeve, U.S. paralympian Alana Nichols and scores of other athletes signed on to a similar letter to the NCAA last year."

 

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Read those last 3 words in the quote from me again, out loud if needed. 

Tell ya what. I’ll make it easy. I retract my claim and will simply reinforce my own personal stance:

My position is simple and requires no interpretation.

Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program.

Thank you. Now can you suggest a reason women's sports organizations can't accept that carte blanche level of inclusion?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now can you suggest a reason women's sports organizations can't accept that carte blanche level of inclusion?

I could suggest many and from multiple perspectives, but unsure how this is relevant or advances the discussion. 

Anyway, here are a few just off the top of my head:

Political considerations and an unwillingness to stand up strongly in defense of accepting transgendered humans as the gender they identify with, similar to how gay marriage was treated about a decade ago.

Concerns over loss of funding from huge donors who happen to be a bit bigoted and find transgendered girls icky… and loss of tuition and fees from uptight closed minded parents who’d pull their children from those schools and programs adding to the negative financial hit.

Desire to avoid becoming a punching bags on Fox News, NewsMax, and related right wing media and social media platforms and echo chambers who’d mercilessly turn this into the next culture war (though, let’s face it… the only reason we’re even talking about it here is bc they already have).

Basically all of the same reasons people fought to keep Jackie Robinson out of baseball… or gays out of the military… or women from voting and owning property… except this time couched in some vague bogeymen notions of huge testosterone addled bicep bulging hulking men pretending to be women and running around the pitch like mindless Mr Hyde beasts simply ripping the arms off of their XX chromosome competitors with drool hanging from their fangs and bulging bloodshot eyes… just separating those arms in one quick pull from the shoulder orbits with a quick crunching sound… and then running around beating those poor puny tiny helpless defenseless girls on the field to death with their own limbs.

Mostly that last one is my suggested reason, but there are others, too.

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by iNow

[Intoscience]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not the one making claims like “we segregated women to be sure they had fairness in competition” so the onus really isn’t on me to go hunting for evidence. I challenge that claim and believe it’s already been challenged by others earlier. Swansont just reinforced it again above. The separation was about excluding women, not ensuring they had fair competitive opportunity. 

And even if it was, it’s irrelevant. “It’s always been this way” isn’t an argument I find terribly compelling for continuing to exclude transgendered men and women. Even female sports organizations say they should be included (see final quote from my link in the post immediately preceding yours). 

It's very relevant, historically how the segregation came about is irrelevant, but the fact that the segregation works well and gives woman an equal and fair opportunity to compete and gain equal status to men is very relevant. No one is arguing that transgender competitors should be discluded, the argument is whether if they are categorised into the current system does this have an adverse effect on this system in a way that it makes it unfair to other competitors.  

I'm no expert, but it seems alarmingly clear to me that in certain sports, especially contact combat sports, there may be a concern not only for fairness but maybe safety?

I have a friend who's son is a transgender woman. Yesterday, I plucked up the courage to ask a few questions on the subject without sounding offensive. I asked about combat, she told me that she would never strike another woman in fear of doing some serious damage but had no problem striking a man if it was ever required. She told me that she still retains her physical strength regardless of her surgery and hormone treatment.

Her stance was that transgender women should not be allowed to compete certain sports against cis-gender, however she was very clear on discrimination and identity. So she acknowledged that fairness could be a problem and felt torn between the arguments. (in fairness she openly admitted that she was not very "sporty" so could be talking out of her ass)

Interesting hearing this from the horses mouth so to speak. It seems, at least in her case that the world needs to accept sexual identity and equality for all, but also appreciates the difficulty in certain scenarios where segregation can lead to discrimination.       

[naitche]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

It's very relevant, historically how the segregation came about is irrelevant, but the fact that the segregation works well and gives woman an equal and fair opportunity to compete and gain equal status to men is very relevant. No one is arguing that transgender competitors should be discluded, the argument is whether if they are categorised into the current system does this have an adverse effect on this system in a way that it makes it unfair to other competitors.  

I'm no expert, but it seems alarmingly clear to me that in certain sports, especially contact combat sports, there may be a concern not only for fairness but maybe safety?

I have a friend who's son is a transgender woman. Yesterday, I plucked up the courage to ask a few questions on the subject without sounding offensive. I asked about combat, she told me that she would never strike another woman in fear of doing some serious damage but had no problem striking a man if it was ever required. She told me that she still retains her physical strength regardless of her surgery and hormone treatment.

Her stance was that transgender women should not be allowed to compete certain sports against cis-gender, however she was very clear on discrimination and identity. So she acknowledged that fairness could be a problem and felt torn between the arguments. (in fairness she openly admitted that she was not very "sporty" so could be talking out of her ass)

Interesting hearing this from the horses mouth so to speak. It seems, at least in her case that the world needs to accept sexual identity and equality for all, but also appreciates the difficulty in certain scenarios where segregation can lead to discrimination.       

Very open conversations with my niece and an old friend who who have expressed similar sentiments, happy to say they are Trans Women, not simply Women. They embrace a difference. Its just being who they feel comfortable being.

A small sample. No doubt there will be others equally qualified who say the opposite.

I won't claim to be better qualified than either. 

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's not in this:

"Over 80 women’s rights and gender justice organizations support includingtrans girls and women in women’s sports.

How is that not "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports."? I'm not seeing a distinction here.

(Technically it's not "end program" because what they support is legislation that would "explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" so it goes beyond sports, but that's moot owing to the topic of the thread)

 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's very relevant, historically how the segregation came about is irrelevant, but the fact that the segregation works well and gives woman an equal and fair opportunity to compete and gain equal status to men is very relevant. No one is arguing that transgender competitors should be discluded, the argument is whether if they are categorised into the current system does this have an adverse effect on this system in a way that it makes it unfair to other competitors.  

The segregation does not equate to opportunity. That's falsified by a simple glance at history, as I pointed out earlier: women were not permitted to compete in most sports, period. The segregation was part of inequality of opportunity.

e.g. IIRC the 1920 Olympics had 22 sports where men competed, and 6 where women competed. 

Explain to me how this segregation makes 6 = 22