Women's Sports and Lia Thomas thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

DP. You seem to be unaware of why there are women's sports at all instead of only open sports. I'll tell you: it's so that women can win sometimes instead of never. When women compete against men, in most sports, they cannot compete. They just lose. When women have their own leagues, then a woman will win.

Maybe this doesn't seem fair to you. If that's the case, then talk to some people about sportsmanship and what that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

No, the point is that title ix prohibited sex-based discrimination. On the basis of sex. Not gender identity. There are no title ix protections against discrimination based on "natural variation of cis-gender athletes".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I disagree. I have different needs than a transwoman. My needs are sometimes in conflicts with hers. There needs to be a different organization supporting her needs.

You both have more in common than not. Organizations can and do support support ALL women - education, athletics, sexual harassment, pay, healthcare, childcare.

Scroll down and see this organization in action - supporting cis-women, women of color, transgender women, etc.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Pitting women against women is harmful. Women are stronger together.

I’m the PP who was talking about primarily white feminist organizations (like NWLC) and their history with marginalized populations and this is a very good example of the language I was thinking about. For many years, practically more than a century’s worth, language exactly like this was used to overtly remove issues of POC women from the platforms of feminist organizations. Black women in particular were often told that they should essentially be quiet because otherwise Black women were “pitting women against women” and that “women are stronger together.” That language is eerily similar to the language used to tell WOC to stop raising their issues because it weakened the arguments of mainstream feminist organizations.

It makes me extremely uncomfortable to see this exact language used specifically in the context of athletics given the history of athletics being used as a vehicle of educational mobility for disadvantaged women. There is a very ugly history behind these sort of surface-level pleasantries.

I’m not even saying that the sentiment is entirely wrong, but that this glossy type of “win together” language has a brutal and ugly history in mainstream white women’s organizations, and I wish people would be aware of the history of privileges they are invoking when they use it.

I am not familiar with the leadership of NWLC and how representative it is, but as an organization they certainly do allocate a lot of their resources to advocate for racial equality.

Yes, they allocate support for issues of racial equity now, though that is a relatively recent development.

But that doesn’t erase the history of organizations like the NWLC and how language like the language quoted above has been used to minimize the concerns of women of color and poor women. And when you are talking about a zero sum issue like athletics where winning can make the difference in access to education for a historically marginalized population, this vague and hand-wavy “we all win together” language that so strongly mimics the language used to tell Black feminists not to raise their issues for over a century is troubling.

I don’t know the right answer here. It is a hard and nuanced question. But I think it is dishonest to pretend that the question of elite athletics and transwomen isn’t complex and is just something easily resolved by facile “we win together” pleasantries.

It's complex, but better solved together than pitting cis-gender vs. trans-gender.

https://nwlc.org/dear-ncaa-its-not-too-late-to-let-trans-intersex-students-play/
"A full 50 years after Title IX mandated equal treatment in school athletics, there is a persistent gap in resources allotted to girls, especially girls of color. Professional women athletes still file lawsuits and threaten to strike over vastly unequal pay. Student athletes still experience high rates of sexual harassment, including assault. Yet, the insulting myth that trans athletes are “taking away” trophies from cis athletes continues to find a place in the narrative about trans athletes. As gender justice advocates, we demand time and energy go toward these urgent issues affecting women and nonbinary student athletes."

Well, I’m strongly opposed to those discriminatory laws, so you don’t have to persuade me there, but that doesn’t mean I need to pretend that in a zero sum situation like athletics, a transwoman winning a trophy (to use the quoted language) doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t actually lose the same trophy. This is not a myth; it is literally how elite competitive athletics works. And I’m very uncomfortable with the platitudes that these are problems better solved together when “solved together” is asking us to collectively pretend that in the case of elite athletes, the outcome isn’t zero sum. That harkens back to a lot of ugly feminist history, and I am not comfortable with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

No one cares. So irrelevant. Some women look like Simone Biles and some women look like Brittney Greiner. This isn’t a conversation about if the playing field should be leveled so that Simone can play in the NBA. Stop trying to derail this conversation. If you want to create a thread to advocate fairness in sports to account for natural physical variations then do so.

This thread is talking about the fairness of competition considering differences based on biological sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

So what? At least the starting point is a level playing field - everyone is either female or male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

DP. You seem to be unaware of why there are women's sports at all instead of only open sports. I'll tell you: it's so that women can win sometimes instead of never. When women compete against men, in most sports, they cannot compete. They just lose. When women have their own leagues, then a woman will win.

Maybe this doesn't seem fair to you. If that's the case, then talk to some people about sportsmanship and what that means.

There are many “unfair” factors when it comes to sports. Variations in physical attributes, natural abilities, training resources, etc.

To pick out just this one possible factor (possible because every transgender woman isn’t inherently better than every cis-gender woman) is bigoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

DP. You seem to be unaware of why there are women's sports at all instead of only open sports. I'll tell you: it's so that women can win sometimes instead of never. When women compete against men, in most sports, they cannot compete. They just lose. When women have their own leagues, then a woman will win.

Maybe this doesn't seem fair to you. If that's the case, then talk to some people about sportsmanship and what that means.

There are many “unfair” factors when it comes to sports. Variations in physical attributes, natural abilities, training resources, etc.

To pick out just this one possible factor (possible because every transgender woman isn’t inherently better than every cis-gender woman) is bigoted.

You really really don’t understand physiology of you think this way. So hard to have a meaningful conversation when one party is either completely ill informed or being deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

No one cares. So irrelevant. Some women look like Simone Biles and some women look like Brittney Greiner. This isn’t a conversation about if the playing field should be leveled so that Simone can play in the NBA. Stop trying to derail this conversation. If you want to create a thread to advocate fairness in sports to account for natural physical variations then do so.

This thread is talking about the fairness of competition considering differences based on biological sex.

This thread is talking about how this topic can't be sincerely discussed on DCUM because there are too many anti-trans posters.

Sports are inherently "unfair". People are born with natural variations in physical attributes, abilities, training resources, etc.

Rich, white people fighting over an Ivy League title? How much more privileged/entitled could you get?

If PPs were truly concerned about "fairness" in sports they would be pushing to have better swimming resources for all kids. How many low-SES kids even learn how to swim? Have a lap pool available? Have a high-quality swim coach?

To hyperfocus on this one potential "unfair" factor in sports is bigoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

No one cares. So irrelevant. Some women look like Simone Biles and some women look like Brittney Greiner. This isn’t a conversation about if the playing field should be leveled so that Simone can play in the NBA. Stop trying to derail this conversation. If you want to create a thread to advocate fairness in sports to account for natural physical variations then do so.

This thread is talking about the fairness of competition considering differences based on biological sex.

This thread is talking about how this topic can't be sincerely discussed on DCUM because there are too many anti-trans posters.

Sports are inherently "unfair". People are born with natural variations in physical attributes, abilities, training resources, etc.

Rich, white people fighting over an Ivy League title? How much more privileged/entitled could you get?

If PPs were truly concerned about "fairness" in sports they would be pushing to have better swimming resources for all kids. How many low-SES kids even learn how to swim? Have a lap pool available? Have a high-quality swim coach?

To hyperfocus on this one potential "unfair" factor in sports is bigoted.

NP. Do you think a 15-year-old should be able to play on a team for 8-year-olds? Why or why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

No one cares. So irrelevant. Some women look like Simone Biles and some women look like Brittney Greiner. This isn’t a conversation about if the playing field should be leveled so that Simone can play in the NBA. Stop trying to derail this conversation. If you want to create a thread to advocate fairness in sports to account for natural physical variations then do so.

This thread is talking about the fairness of competition considering differences based on biological sex.

This thread is talking about how this topic can't be sincerely discussed on DCUM because there are too many anti-trans posters.

Sports are inherently "unfair". People are born with natural variations in physical attributes, abilities, training resources, etc.

Rich, white people fighting over an Ivy League title? How much more privileged/entitled could you get?

If PPs were truly concerned about "fairness" in sports they would be pushing to have better swimming resources for all kids. How many low-SES kids even learn how to swim? Have a lap pool available? Have a high-quality swim coach?

To hyperfocus on this one potential "unfair" factor in sports is bigoted.

NP. Do you think a 15-year-old should be able to play on a team for 8-year-olds? Why or why not?

Sure. One of my kids is participating in a sport with kids 4 years younger - it's based on skill-level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a string of GOP/anti-trans talking points.

We should be having discussions about education/athletics and the gap for women/minorities. But those aren't "transgender" issues.

The current GOP talking point, as demonstrated just today by Senator Rick Scott with his new NRSC platform, is:

"Humans are born male and female, there are two genders, and to deny that is to deny science."

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-1cf5-d281-a7ff-3ffd5f4a0000

The suggestion that transgender women may be taking podium spots from biological women is far too nuanced for today's GOP. Whether you regard such a concern as legitimate or illegitimate, I think simply labeling it as "transphobic" is counter productive.

It has been an GOP campaign tactic for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Does the GOP actually GAF about transgender people one way or another? Dunno. But they are fully willing to throw them under the bus to push this as wedge issue. I'd consider that anti-trans.

Does pro-woman=anti-trans then? Are trans rights more important than women’s rights? Just trying to understand.

The people are are genuinely pro-woman and do fight against gender and racial inequality don't see it as either/or.
https://nwlc.org/issue/education-title-ix/

Which is a problem.

Why? They can support women, women of color, and transgender women.

I think that it is possible to support transgender women and at the same time disagree that a transgender women who experienced puberty as a male and retains male anatomy should compete against women in sports. It seems like many people disagree with that and feel that expressing the sentiment that a trans woman who retains male anatomy and/or hormones have advantages against women is transphobia. I’m not if there much discussion to be had if neither side can’t adjust on these positions.

Do you mean at any level in any sport?

How does that position compare with NCAA/IOC/USA Swimming guidelines for transgender athletes?

In this case we are talking about elite sports where her times are surpassing those of Olympians by significant amounts. If they started sending people to the Olympics today following the position that Lia can participate in all sports as a woman, she'd be going to the Olympics. This isn't about what changing room little Janey wants to go into or what elementary school swim meet, but the highest level of sport. If you accept that men and women need to have different sports competitions due to fundamental physical differences - which says nothing at all about how they perceive themselves -- then some scientific and biologically-based rules need to apply. Iszac Henig's case follows biology, and I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't swim on the female team. He is living his authentic life as a man and making decisions about his medical treatment in order to compete in higher-level sports.

It's not clear if PP meant all levels of competition or just elite.

If you are going to divide up sports into "fundamental physical differences" wouldn't you need to account for the natural variation for cis-gender athletes?

DP. That picture features athletes from very different sports. If you put together a picture of elite women swimmers born female, they would look physically very similar. Lia Thomas (who is following the existing rules, it is important to note) would stand out as an aberration in a picture like this of elite women swimmers.

The point is there is significant "fundamental physical differences" for cis-gender athletes. If PP is "concerned" about physical differences, then that should extend for cis-gender athletes as well. Either adding new physical restrictions for all or open up new sub-categories.

Natural variances among biological women and the clear physical advantages of a trans woman WHO HAS THE PHYSIOLOGY OF A MAN is not even remotely similar and for you to suggest it is is absolutely astounding. You know there is a difference, my God.

The photo above shows that natural variation- even across sex/gender - is huge.

No one cares. So irrelevant. Some women look like Simone Biles and some women look like Brittney Greiner. This isn’t a conversation about if the playing field should be leveled so that Simone can play in the NBA. Stop trying to derail this conversation. If you want to create a thread to advocate fairness in sports to account for natural physical variations then do so.

This thread is talking about the fairness of competition considering differences based on biological sex.

This thread is talking about how this topic can't be sincerely discussed on DCUM because there are too many anti-trans posters.

Sports are inherently "unfair". People are born with natural variations in physical attributes, abilities, training resources, etc.

Rich, white people fighting over an Ivy League title? How much more privileged/entitled could you get?

If PPs were truly concerned about "fairness" in sports they would be pushing to have better swimming resources for all kids. How many low-SES kids even learn how to swim? Have a lap pool available? Have a high-quality swim coach?

To hyperfocus on this one potential "unfair" factor in sports is bigoted.

NP. Do you think a 15-year-old should be able to play on a team for 8-year-olds? Why or why not?

Sure. One of my kids is participating in a sport with kids 4 years younger - it's based on skill-level.

May I ask which sport?

[Anonymous]

To the PP who has the much older child competing against younger kids at the same skill level: what are the ages, and the sport?

I think you’re being disingenuous when you say it’s no problem to have a much older person competing on a team for young children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who has the much older child competing against younger kids at the same skill level: what are the ages, and the sport?

I think you’re being disingenuous when you say it’s no problem to have a much older person competing on a team for young children.

It’s developmental golf and my kid gets crushed by the experienced 10 year olds. If anything it’s tough on her.

In the past, my kids have also done TKD and diving which have mixed age competitions.