APS Transgender Policy

[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.

Well, when you have posters above talking about Alex(a), sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "XX = girls LALALALALA!" and arguing that their pre-teen daughters see other players that are "corpulent" and "man"-ish so they must be trans, it's not really helping your cause.

[Anonymous]

My daughter's best friend in Kindergarten was Larlo, who was a few months younger than her. By second grade, Larlo was Larla and had 20 pounds and 2 inches on my (above average) tall second grader. Larla absolutely had a physical advantage over all the xx girls in their grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think science is still figuring it out. I wouldn’t want APS to do anything less inclusive than Virginia or the NCAA in the meantime though. My suspicions are though that some XX girls are gonna lose out before there’s sufficient scientific consensus on the issue. But I hope I’m wrong and XY girls can compete without enjoying significant physical advantages over their XX peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's best friend in Kindergarten was Larlo, who was a few months younger than her. By second grade, Larlo was Larla and had 20 pounds and 2 inches on my (above average) tall second grader. Larla absolutely had a physical advantage over all the xx girls in their grade.

Cool. Anecdotes aren't data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's best friend in Kindergarten was Larlo, who was a few months younger than her. By second grade, Larlo was Larla and had 20 pounds and 2 inches on my (above average) tall second grader. Larla absolutely had a physical advantage over all the xx girls in their grade.

Cool. Anecdotes aren't data.

All you have to do is look at the standard growth charts for boys and girls to see that on average, boys are taller and heavier than girls at the same age. Why are you trying to deny reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's best friend in Kindergarten was Larlo, who was a few months younger than her. By second grade, Larlo was Larla and had 20 pounds and 2 inches on my (above average) tall second grader. Larla absolutely had a physical advantage over all the xx girls in their grade.

Cool. Anecdotes aren't data.

All you have to do is look at the standard growth charts for boys and girls to see that on average, boys are taller and heavier than girls at the same age. Why are you trying to deny reality?

And on average, the girls who make their teams are stronger and taller than the other girls. I'm not trying to deny reality. I'm trying to say we should create science-based policies that are as fair as possible to BOTH cis and trans kids. And I'm acknowledging that that policy will likely impose burdens on both groups. But we need to act like the needs of trans kids, and the fairness we show to trans kids, is as important as the support we give cis kids. Trans kids have already been through a lot. We should keep that in mind.

[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.

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.

Well, when you have posters above talking about Alex(a), sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "XX = girls LALALALALA!" and arguing that their pre-teen daughters see other players that are "corpulent" and "man"-ish so they must be trans, it's not really helping your cause.

Sure. But when you have the public shaming bigot screaming crowd refusing to acknowledge any physical differences between XX and XY girls (despite standard growth charts for boys and girls) and commenting that any discussion of the issue will make transgender people commit suicide, it ain’t painting your cause in the best light either.

[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.

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.

Well, when you have posters above talking about Alex(a), sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "XX = girls LALALALALA!" and arguing that their pre-teen daughters see other players that are "corpulent" and "man"-ish so they must be trans, it's not really helping your cause.

Sure. But when you have the public shaming bigot screaming crowd refusing to acknowledge any physical differences between XX and XY girls (despite standard growth charts for boys and girls) and commenting that any discussion of the issue will make transgender people commit suicide, it ain’t painting your cause in the best light either.

That's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter's best friend in Kindergarten was Larlo, who was a few months younger than her. By second grade, Larlo was Larla and had 20 pounds and 2 inches on my (above average) tall second grader. Larla absolutely had a physical advantage over all the xx girls in their grade.

It's so obvious only ideological zealots deny it.

[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.

EXACTLY.

Now, it doesn't matter if they are "set in motion at conception" or later. What matters is that the growth trajectories look very different for boys and for girls, and some hormone treatments DO NOT change that biological reality.

Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi with tetosterone supression therapy do not Maria Sharapova become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

EXACTLY.

Now, it doesn't matter if they are "set in motion at conception" or later. What matters is that the growth trajectories look very different for boys and for girls, and some hormone treatments DO NOT change that biological reality.

Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi with tetosterone supression therapy do not Maria Sharapova become.

(Especially before reaching adulthood)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

EXACTLY.

Now, it doesn't matter if they are "set in motion at conception" or later. What matters is that the growth trajectories look very different for boys and for girls, and some hormone treatments DO NOT change that biological reality.

Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi with tetosterone supression therapy do not Maria Sharapova become.

And some do. Are these differences meaningful? At what ages? How meaningful? If you want to have a discussion, that can't just be "I've discussed my position END OF DISCUSSION"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

EXACTLY.

Now, it doesn't matter if they are "set in motion at conception" or later. What matters is that the growth trajectories look very different for boys and for girls, and some hormone treatments DO NOT change that biological reality.

Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi with tetosterone supression therapy do not Maria Sharapova become.

And some do. Are these differences meaningful? At what ages? How meaningful? If you want to have a discussion, that can't just be "I've discussed my position END OF DISCUSSION"

We aren’t discussing fairy tales.

[Anonymous]

If you want to get an idea of the differences and how early they come into play...

Have a good 7th grade boys basketball team play a great freshman girl’s team.
you would think it would be a close game, and you will be shocked to see that it won’t be.
The girls will get creamed.
Writing from experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to get an idea of the differences and how early they come into play...

Have a good 7th grade boys basketball team play a great freshman girl’s team.
you would think it would be a close game, and you will be shocked to see that it won’t be.
The girls will get creamed.
Writing from experience.

HS boys, probably.

7th grade, no way.