MCSL gender policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our summer team has one nonbinary child and that child selects which gender to race with at the start of the summer. I’ve always thought it odd and unnecessary that we break rec sports up by gender so much. I would be fine if we just swam all of summer league mixed gender, by age.

If your Larla is there to win and can’t beat the boys, then maybe she shouldn’t be there. For most of the kids, this is about community and fun, not setting lame-ass pool records. Most of these kids will move on to real accomplishments in life after MCSL.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

3+ decades in MCSL for me, and I’ve never noticed any swimmer at a divisional or invitational meet who switched their gender. Non-issue thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Event 1 is 12 and under 100 IM.

NVSL parent here. Whatever, change the event number. That make it any less ridiculous?

Who cares? Who is this hurting?

My brain, for one

[Anonymous]

How come nobody cares about how unfair it was for men to compete against Michael Phelps? That man does not have a normal body. Only people with normal bodies should be able to play sports

And not, Brittany Griner is not trans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How come nobody cares about how unfair it was for men to compete against Michael Phelps? That man does not have a normal body. Only people with normal bodies should be able to play sports

And not, Brittany Griner is not trans

I couldn't care less about Michael Phelps' wingspan or Lance Armstrongs superhuman lung capacity. As long as as they're competing in the correct sex category (notice I said sex, not gender, because even though you guys like to pretend otherwise sports are separated by SEX, not a feeling someone has), more power to them.

[Anonymous]

I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

Sure, but if you know as it seems, many do. Does the parent have good enough taste not to let their XY kid compete against girls. I get the oops they're trying out for the Olympics and were never tested, bummer, but the people here know in many cases. They just have poor taste and would rather let the world teach their kid that they don't fit than to explain it to the kid themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

Then why are people saying that they should go by whether someone has XX or XY and not saying go by the birth certificate?

[Anonymous]

But the real question is how Rockville is going to use this rule to be the first team ever to break 600 in a dual meet. Impossible under current scoring rules. This is their in!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

Then why are people saying that they should go by whether someone has XX or XY and not saying go by the birth certificate?

There is this thing called mensturation. XY just don't do it. There no genetic testing necessary to figure that one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

Then why are people saying that they should go by whether someone has XX or XY and not saying go by the birth certificate?

There is this thing called mensturation. XY just don't do it. There no genetic testing necessary to figure that one out.

Do you not realize that many elite female (at birth, XX) athletes do not get there periods due to intense training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our team has one non binary kid and they just choose a gender at beginning of season and race in those events. It’s a non issue.

Of course it is. It’s an issue to the girls who get cheated. Because of course this individual is a male, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

Then why are people saying that they should go by whether someone has XX or XY and not saying go by the birth certificate?

There is this thing called mensturation. XY just don't do it. There no genetic testing necessary to figure that one out.

The fact that you wrote this show your complete lack or medical knowledge and, thus, that you really have no right even being in this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very cautious about basing any children's sports on genetic information. Honestly, how do people think that works? Are we going to require all kids to get genetically tested to participate in 6 weeks of summer swim? Or just the ones that are particularly tall, or maybe the ones with short hair?

My first choice is to recognize that summer swim is a rec sport, the point is for kids to form community, and be healthy, and have fun and that allowing kids to choose where to swim aligns with that.

But even for more competitive sports, HS varsity, or high level club sports, I can understand the argument for going by the sex assigned at birth. I can't understand placing the burden of genetic testing on every family, and I absolutely don't think that picking and choosing who will be tested is fair or makes sense.

Adult sports, NCAA, professional, Olympics etc . . . are a completely different situation.

There's this thing. It's called a birth certificate. This would be accurate for 99.9% of people. No genetic testing necessary.

Then why are people saying that they should go by whether someone has XX or XY and not saying go by the birth certificate?

There is this thing called mensturation. XY just don't do it. There no genetic testing necessary to figure that one out.

Wow. I thought GOP lawmakers wanting to examine childrens' genitals was gross, but PP proposing to investigate whether a swimmer is fertile and therefore menstruating is maybe worse.