How best to stop excluding trans kids from sports?

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

A small and timid young girl is not going to want to mix it up with aggressive boys. She is not going to play soccer if her only option is to play against boys.

There is a reason young boys and girls tend to separate into sex based play groups.

When I was in school there was a bit like that. Essentially at some grade folks could choose among different sports (volleyball, basketball, gymnastics etc.). So for those not wanting to get into contact sports they could essentially opt out. I.e. they were not sorted in or or excluded from the sport that way (and as far as I am of there were no regulations in that regard, just some level of common sense, I guess). Self-sorting vs regulated sorting, if you will.

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Aww..  My least favorite thread just reproduced.  They're so cute and harmless looking when they're young.   Pretty soon we'll have a mating pair and the transgender threads will overrun Australia.  Maybe, with luck, they eat cane toads or rodents.

Seriously, I think the thread title is a self-answering question. Let trans/NB kids play on whichever team is the best fit with their size, strength, and level of aggressive.  And there are always some kids who won't fit anywhere in a given sport.  I was never going to be a football (American def.) player, and I got over that easily.  Children's psyches are not Fabergé egg shells, unless adults tell them they are all the time.

Agreed. I think kids are more resilient than they get credit for and I do think that certain GenX/Millenial parents are too obsessed in providing their kids with the perfect of optimal childhood, which seems (at best) to make them more anxious than they should be (and social media does the rest).

[Jane6]

I have seen once a boy dressed like a girl, acting like girl that wanted to go on ladies toilet, the security man ask him to use the men toilet.
He is always dressing and acting like a girl, so i don't know what can be done in this situation..

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Jane6 said:

so i don't know what can be done in this situation..

In which case, avoiding comment altogether is likely for the best. 

[Outrider]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Why not pressure your government , federal or state level, that it has no business legislating kid's recreational activities ?
Doesn't your Government have better things to do ? Like legislating abortion rights, and gun laws ?
In Canada girls can play hockey with boys, if they can make the cut. And many do.
Girls are even allowed to join the boy scouts.

Why must the US always do things the hard way ?

Long time lurker here and as some of you know I pop up from time to time. So sorry inow. I know this isn't the topic but this misconception needs to be addressed. Girls are allowed to play American football in any and all leagues. Straight up to and including NFL. 

https://www.wunc.org/sports/2021-10-21/chapel-hill-brooklyn-harker-more-girls-playing-tackle-football-tigers-marsh

Quote

In 2018, 2,404 girls played high school tackle football, compared to just about 500 girls playing in 2008, according a study by the National Football League. That’s a fivefold increase in the number of girls playing football in the last decade. From 2008 to 2018, 47 of 50 states saw an increase in the percentage of girls who play full-contact high school football, according to the NFL’s study.

My son started at age 5. There were 10 girls on the sixty person squad. The last female dropped out in junior high. She may have felt some societal pressure but she was not excluded by any regulation. 

ASFASIK ladies are allowed to play in mens leagues period. And, for me, as it should be. But the reverse is not true. Again I think thats fair.

 

Back to topic. Here is my simple solution. Up to the age of 21 you play as the sex you were born with under the current system. Girls can play in male leagues but not visa versa. After that anything goes. 

Be a mess for Olympic committee I guess but they will sort it out. 21 and under games and over 21 games maybe.

We can quibble over the age I guess. Any cut off will of course be arbitrary. It's a messy world. We just do the best we can.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Why wouldn’t different classes / divisions already account for this?

Sex isn’t the determining factor, IMO. Skill and aggressiveness are. Sex is just a lazy approximation for an outcome we can achieve in other ways. Do you disagree? 

What the different classes / divisions don't account for is the social aspect of sex. Remember, we are also talking about recreation leagues here. If all we are talking about is competition then I agree that anyone can try out for team regardless of gender. But in rec leagues (as we are also discussing) you often have girls who don't want boys being the ignorant turds that boys can often be to girls, ruining all the fun. You also don't want a team of girls where comparatively large and aggressive boys are tackling your littlest girls. IOW, if girls are not allowed a league of their own, many girls simply won't play, which is unfair to them.

Not all people play sport for the competition. I played soccer into my 40's and one of my main goals was to not get hurt so that I could make it to the bar afterwards and to work in the morning.

I agree that competitive boy's (or "open") leagues should allow girls to try out under all circumstances. (I think it is all...)

I think there should be competitive and rec girls leagues that do not allow boys but do allow transgender girls under the aforementioned rules and guidelines I suggested.

5 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Girls are allowed to play American football in any and all leagues. Straight up to and including NFL. 

I'll assume you meant that "generally", because it is certainly not true in "any and all leagues".

[Outrider]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody's going to replace their child's normal feet with robotic ones, just to win at football. 

Again sorry inow but this also needs addressed. How unusual for you Peterkin. Giving humanity to much credit. Every spring 12 and 13 year old boys are dressed up in garbage bags and made, by their fathers, to run and/or sit in vehicles on hot days with heater on full blast. This is to cheat the weight limit rule. To give their boy another year in less competitive football league. 

Trust me theres a few fathers out there willing to mutilate their kids in order to bring them athletic success. Prob a mom or two as well.

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'll assume you meant that "generally", because it is certainly not true in "any and all leagues".

I'll bite. Which league are they excluded by regulation from?

Maybe you can find me an example we will see. But my main thrust was to clear up Clint Eastwood's misconception about American football. 

A collegiate basketball coach may not give a lady the "look" she deserves but that's her/his/their prejudice not regulation. 

Back to topic. 

What do you think of my proposal?

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

In grammar school, trans girls should compete with cis girls, and trans boys should compete with cis boys. While I suppose there will be exceptions, this should be the general rule.

In secondary school this general rule will continue except at the varsity level. Varsity level is where winning or losing could potentially have a significant impact on a person's life, such as being drafted in some sports, winning scholarships, etc. 

At the varsity level there should be additional rules such as handicapping, rules regarding level of transition attained, particular sports it applies to, etc. I am purposely not adding detail here because it is not my area of expertise and therefore would not be meaningful.

The two general guidelines I am following are:

1. Transgendered students must have reasonable opportunities just as cisgendered students do.

2. Not everyone gets to do everything. Just like Title IX doesn't guarantee women will have the exact same sporting opportunities the men have, it does ensure a reasonable amount/type of opportunities.

I am no expert and this is likely not my final thoughts on the matter. It does however seem like a reasonable possibility and a reasonable place to start.

Since I asked you to weigh my proposal I thought it only fair I took a closer look at yours.

I find I'm in total agreement with what you had to say. Bravo!

I can only add what I have already stated. If you are that one in ever how many girls that can compete with boys and you have that desire well then have at it. I think the current system in the USA accommodates this.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I speak from experience coaching 12 year old boys and having them play against 12 year old girls. Nothing dirty. That's just how boys play.

That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive.  If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

My point was that we need segregation by sex as an option.

Sure, if there are enough kids to make up more teams. And if they at least give a tryout to every player who wants to be on a team they were not slated for at birth.

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

A small and timid young girl is not going to want to mix it up with aggressive boys.

Neither will a timid, slight boy! And he's way more likely to be bullied by the other boys.

And yet again: if you sort by size and ability, rather than age and sex, you're much more likely to give every child a fair chance. 

43 minutes ago, Outrider said:

rust me theres a few fathers out there willing to mutilate their kids in order to bring them athletic success. Prob a mom or two as well.

You don't think a culture like that needs a reset? Anyway, I'm willing to put up with the unfair advantage of children whose parents are rich and ruthless enough to find a surgical facility corrupt enough to perform that procedure; I imagine those kids will go to private school where they're no threat to normal people, and the parents will die accidentally by own firearms.  

Edited May 31, 2022 by Peterkin

[Outrider]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

So, what might be the best approach assuming inclusion of trans kids in sports is the desired outcome?

IMO you really need to come up with a more specific example.

In regards to what I posted earlier "at 21 years and older anything goes" I'd like to retract that. I was wrong. Reading some of Lia Thompson's story made me realize that.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-swimmer-lia-thomas-olympics-trans-women-not-threat-womens-sports

Quote

Thomas, 23, addressed concerns that despite going through a year of hormone therapy, she still had a physical advantage over other female swimmers.

So what? He took pills for a year and that made him a female? I think not. If Lia would like to be addressed as she then that should be respected. But I think the key word here is "transitioning". Until the transformation is complete Lia should compete in the male class.

My opinion of course. 

Also, of course, this is under the current system. I'm still chewing on the whole "let's dissolve gender classifications" thing. All of my emotions cry no, no, no. Which is why I should think on it some more.

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You don't think a culture like that needs a reset?

What made you think that? Yes we need to change many things. 

24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Anyway, I'm willing to put up with the unfair advantage of children whose parents are rich and ruthless enough to find a surgical facility corrupt enough to perform that procedure; I imagine those kids will go to private school where they're no threat to normal people, and the parents will die accidentally by own firearms.  

Now thats the Peterkin I know and love.

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I'll bite. Which league are they excluded by regulation from?

 

Many Christian schools. This is from an older article but is still an example.

Quote

As do many private schools, Prince Avenue has a policy that prevents girls from joining boys teams or boys from joining girls teams. Garth's final appeal to the school's board of directors was denied late last week.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/high-school-sports/girl-not-allowed-play-football-prompts-debate-private-schools/MWyiP8RkJVRROxSXeEOPLP/

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Up to the age of 21 you play as the sex you were born with under the current system. Girls can play in male leagues but not visa versa. After that anything goes. 

What I don't like about this is that someone who identifies as female must play as males, and someone who identifies as male must play as females. Kind of like making someone use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex listed on your birth certificate. 

[iNow]

Lots of 21 and 23 year olds in secondary school, are there?

[Outrider]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lots of 21 and 23 year olds in secondary school, are there?

I retracted that see above^^

Lets make the cutoff between amateur and pro.

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive.  If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever.

No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too. 

 

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive.

You are using outdated stereotypes to make your point.

1 minute ago, Outrider said:

I retracted that see above^^

Lets make the cutoff between amateur and pro.

Still doesn't address iNow's point of this thread being about Secondary school.

[Outrider]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Many Christian schools. This is from an older article but is still an example.

These are private schools. Nothing I can do about that. If you want me to say it, fine. Generally females are allowed to compete in male leagues. If a female in a private school wishes to compete against males she does have the option of enrolling in a public school.

My point stands.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Outrider said:

If you want me to say it, fine. Generally females are allowed to compete in male leagues.

I didn't want you to say it. You asked for an example and I gave you one. Do with it as you please.

[Outrider]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too. 

 

You are using outdated stereotypes to make your point.

Still doesn't address iNow's point of this thread being about Secondary school.

Sorry Zapatos, iNow, board. I totally missed that this topic is restricted to secondary schools. High schools is a more popular term round these parts. I'll try to do better. 

This makes things a lot more simple. Lets just keep the current system. If a girl desires to compete in the male league that is fine. Not so the other way around. If the quarterback prefers to go to the prom in a dress that is their prerogative. Swimming on the female team is not.

Gender divisions were created for a reason and that reason has not changed. Taking some pills does not change your gender it just puts you on that path.

And if you have an 18 year old who has successfully transitioned into a female. IMO you have over sexualized that child somewhere along the way. But sure let her swim with the gals.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive.  If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever.

But surely there is some middle ground somewhere. I have two children. I raised the boy to be a man. He is. Yesterday I saw his newborn sleeping on his chest and him being as nurturing as any person could be. I cried like a girl I guess you could say. I felt no shame in it. I guess different fathers have different concepts of what being a man is. I raised the girl to be a lady and so she is. She lives alone and changes her flat tires, fixes her leaky toilet, etc. And then she goes to school and gently teaches 3 and 4 year olds.

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too.

And I think the jury is still very much out on which holds more sway.

I also think we agree that girls need different things from their dads then what boys need.

 

[CharonY]

Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here.

Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well.  For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are using outdated stereotypes to make your point.

There are quite a lot of outdated people in North America. And far too many who put winning ahead of any other consideration.

[Outrider]

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Kind of like making someone use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex listed on your birth certificate. 

Ahh this whole other thread but with apologies to the op it needs answered. I wouldn't have wanted a 15 year old boy in the bathroom with my daughter when she was that age. I think the final answer to this is to make all restrooms gender neutral. 

[Peterkin]

misplaced post

30 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I also think we agree that girls need different things from their dads then what boys need.

There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific. All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected. There are statistical differences in how boys and girls behave at a given age - but nobody's raising statistics; we're raising individuals - every child a singularity. Our daughter was headstrong, impulsive and temperamental. Our son was clever, subtle and manipulative. They needed quite different handling - because of their character, not their sex.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Peterkin

[Outrider]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well.  For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).

I'm glad that was your experience. It wasn't mine at all. My boy started football at 5 years old. 60 kids on that team. Not what you want as a coach. 20 to 25 is ideal at that age. Ranging in age from 4 to 6. The first game maybe half of them played including my son was usually the biggest kid around. After the game I asked the coaches were they gonna play the other kids in the next game. I got blank stares and was asked did I not want to win. 25 years later there are still those who dislike me. The number of parents who did not care to win at any cost out numbered the ones that did and we were able to get all the kids significant playing time. So for 13 years I sat with parents who hated me and cheered on our team.

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I wouldn't have wanted a 15 year old boy in the bathroom with my daughter when she was that age.

If a pair of 15-year-olds want to be together, I'm sure could a better place to play show-and-tell than a public toilet. Besides, they have cubicles, with doors.

[Outrider]

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here

Maybe big schools could have a less competitive league or something. My son's graduating was less than 80. In high school you really need 30 to 40 kids to be competitive in football. We struggled to keep 30 or more on the team. Not really seeing any options in that sport for small schools. I relate everything to football because my son dropped all other sports in junior high. Both the girl and the boy played many different sports in we elementary. She stayed in softball awhile but finally dropped everything but cheerleading when she entered high school. 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If a pair of 15-year-olds want to be together, I'm sure could a better place to play show-and-tell than a public toilet. Besides, they have cubicles, with doors.

One 15 year old creeping on another is not the same thing.

[MigL]

Sorry INow, but so far this new thread seems to be heading down the same twisting, winding road as the other one.

My opinion ...
Recreational sports should allow playing by males, females, trans, and whatever other gender classifications you wish to come up with.
It has nothing to do with size or strength because until they reach puberty they are arguably equally strong ( and girls might actually be larger, on average ), but mostly with the fact that it is recreational.
( and I don't understand why your government would have legislation preventing this )
Competitive or professional sports, on the other hand, have very strict rules and guidelines. A way to include trans competitors needs to be found, but not at the expense of women participating in those sports.

[Outrider]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

My opinion ...
Recreational sports should allow playing by males, females, trans, and whatever other gender classifications you wish to come up with.
It has nothing to do with size or strength because until they reach puberty they are arguably equally strong ( and girls might actually be larger, on average ), but mostly with the fact that it is recreational.
( and I don't understand why your government would have legislation preventing this )

Girls can play in the more competitive male leagues. Boys cannot play in the less competitive female leagues. That is the system in the USA. I don't see any need to change it. In 2018 we had 2,404 girls playing high scool football. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific.

Missed this earlier. This is the only thing in your post I disagree with. I won't go into it. To far off topic.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected.

Agreed.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

misplaced post

There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific. All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected. There are statistical differences in how boys and girls behave at a given age - but nobody's raising statistics; we're raising individuals - every child a singularity. Our daughter was headstrong, impulsive and temperamental. Our son was clever, subtle and manipulative. They needed quite different handling - because of their character, not their sex.

Of course. But generally with boys the emphasis is in teaching them not to be a predator. In girls not to be prey. But if you get something else then you have to do something else.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Outrider

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

One 15 year old creeping on another is not the same thing.

They don't creep because they are the opposite sex at birth. The creep because they are creeps. Just as easy to have girls creep on girls as boys creep on girls.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

A way to include trans competitors needs to be found, but not at the expense of women participating in those sports.

Another way to look at it is to include cis competitors, but not at the expense of transgender women participating in those sports.

Still another way to look at it as finding some reasonable way for all to participate.

Not everyone thinks that cis women should have their rights supersede the rights of transgender women. Some of us think the rights of the minorities are just as important as the rights of the majority.