APS Transgender Policy

[Anonymous]

... just give it some time to play out.
Let Katherine get checked a couple of times by Alex(a) on the field.
This will need to be hashed out by families ACTUALLY INVOLVED in competive sports.
Lots of mommies chiming in who have never played a sport, and don’t have a child that could cut it. It’s so easy for them to screech about inclusion. They don’t see how this could be EXCLUSIONARY to XX athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

And:

"Policy development governing the inclusion of transgender student-athletes is an emerging endeavor.
As new research on the participation of transgender athletes and the physiological effects of gender transition
on athletic performance becomes available, policies may need to be re-evaluated to ensure that they reflect
the most current research-based information."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

And:

"Policy development governing the inclusion of transgender student-athletes is an emerging endeavor.
As new research on the participation of transgender athletes and the physiological effects of gender transition
on athletic performance becomes available, policies may need to be re-evaluated to ensure that they reflect
the most current research-based information."

I wish we could have nuanced conversations about the sports issue. But I think based on AEM comments, raising it publicly will get you slammed as a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

Why? If the testosterone hasn't kicked in, what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

Why? If the testosterone hasn't kicked in, what's the problem?

There’s more to make development than just testosterone levels. That’s a simplistic and naive view. Human bodies are complex, and there are many factors that go into making boys inherently stronger than girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

Why? If the testosterone hasn't kicked in, what's the problem?

Do XY girls who have had testosterone suppression therapy still benefit from differences in hip size, shoulder size, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, muscle attachment sites, fast twitch muscle fibers, and overall height and weight? I’m not sure, but if these things are set in motion at conception, then it’s unfair.

[Anonymous]

^ “make” = “male”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

Why? If the testosterone hasn't kicked in, what's the problem?

Do XY girls who have had testosterone suppression therapy still benefit from differences in hip size, shoulder size, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, muscle attachment sites, fast twitch muscle fibers, and overall height and weight? I’m not sure, but if these things are set in motion at conception, then it’s unfair.

I should have said hip shape. I would think XY girls still have an advantage at least based on hip shape because forensic scientists and paleontologists can tell based on bones whether a prepubescent child is male or female.

Additionally male babies are bigger. Pediatricians growth charts are different for boys and girls. Boys are bigger even before puberty.

Hip shape and overall size have proven advantages in sports. Hormone suppression therapy can’t undo it.

[Anonymous]

I intend to write to the Board something along the following lines. For anyone else so inspired, please feel free to use any of it:

At a minimum, Arlington should adopt a policy that is based on whether a transgender athlete has begun hormone therapy to suppress testosterone (or boost it, as the case may be); if not, the athlete fairly may compete only on the team of their biological sex.

As I'm sure you know, one of the basic tenets of sports at every level is the concept of fair play. Allowing children who have male testosterone levels to compete with children who have female testosterone levels is fundamentally unfair. Testosterone is one of many differences between male and female athletes that gives males an advantage over females. Testosterone allows male athletes to build greater muscle mass, an obvious advantage in athletic competition. (Source: https://www.livescience.com/59289-why-men-run-faster-than-women.html.) Males also have larger hearts and thus higher cardiac output, larger and heavier body size on average, and denser bones. (Source: http://www.sdcenterforhealth.com/topics/159-male-versus-female-athlete-considerations.) This inherent biological competitive advantage has no place tipping the scales in a sporting event, which is why boys' and girls' sports are separated in the first place.

Consistent with a fairness principle, many sports governing bodies have determined that transgender females (MTF) may only compete on women's teams if the transgender athlete is receiving hormone therapy to suppress testosterone. The NCAA and IOC follow this policy. These organizations also follow the inverse policy: a trans female who is not taking hormone suppressors may not compete on a women's team. As the NCAA Handbook on Transgender Inclusion puts it, "Policies governing the participation of transgender students in sports should be fair in light of the tremendous variation among individuals in strength, size, musculature, and ability." (Source: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf.)

At least one transgender advocate has recently recognized the fairness in testosterone suppression; she tweeted on this very issue, noting that testosterone "is a key factor in performance," that because women lack it "they cannot hope to compete against men," and concluding that "removal of testosterone for a year is sufficient to remove competitive advantage" and thus it is a fair policy. (Source: https://twitter.com/brynntannehill/status/1102568984556249090?lang=en.)

This is not a hypothetical fairness question or a slippery slope argument. Connecticut allows trans females to compete in girls' athletics in high school regardless of hormone treatment status. Two trans female athletes finished 1st and 2nd at the state indoor track championships this year. These athletes also finished 1st and 2nd last year, and have set state records. (Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

And:

"Policy development governing the inclusion of transgender student-athletes is an emerging endeavor.
As new research on the participation of transgender athletes and the physiological effects of gender transition
on athletic performance becomes available, policies may need to be re-evaluated to ensure that they reflect
the most current research-based information."

I wish we could have nuanced conversations about the sports issue. But I think based on AEM comments, raising it publicly will get you slammed as a bigot.

While some might belittle you on AEM, there are people who are willing to talk. I’ve been posting over there and have had some good responses. People who don’t really want to talk about it just leave when they realize I’m not there to fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does the NCAA say?

In relevant, it allows female trans athletes to compete on women’s teams if they’ve been using testosterone suppressing therapy for at least one year.

Frankly, that's the wrong way to measure it. It doesn't matter how short or how long the input, what matters is the actual objective output -- have they passed biological tests proving they are as female as all other females?

Then take that up with the NCAA, but it’s not a basis to reject the proposed APS policy. If you’re going to do suppressant therapy, that year has to happen sometime, and for someone doing it in high school, it doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to deny them competing with their identified gender that they haven’t completed it yet by high school.

None of it is fair to xx girls. At all.

Why? If the testosterone hasn't kicked in, what's the problem?

Do XY girls who have had testosterone suppression therapy still benefit from differences in hip size, shoulder size, bone density, lung capacity, heart size, muscle attachment sites, fast twitch muscle fibers, and overall height and weight? I’m not sure, but if these things are set in motion at conception, then it’s unfair.

I'm not sure either, and I'm also not sure if those differences, absent the testosterone benefits, are all that much more than the range of body types inherent in cis girls. This seems like a knowable thing, though -- what does the science say?