I'm also torn on this issue. On the one hand, everyone - including transgender - should have the right to compete on sports teams. Saying "oh they can just go play on a community team" is the same justification that led to school only offering men's teams. Title IX was an attempt to address that for women, but now trans women are fighting the same battle.

On the other hand, it really is unfair and unsafe to biological women to have trans women playing on their team.

I doubt they'd be accepted on the men's team. That's not a solution either.

And there just aren't enough trans people to make a third league feasible.

So... Why not eliminate gender from the equation? The reasons for having separate men's and women's leagues are valid physical reasons without having to call it gender. Make a "lightweight" league: under a certain height and weight (depending on age), potentially other factors such as body fat (typically much lower in men) or strength (although that would be hard to measure accurately and fairly). This league would predominately be comprised of women, but possibly also open to the smaller men who previously had not had a chance on any sports teams. The "heavyweight" league would look more like the traditional men's league, but also potentially some of the bigger/stronger women (think Serena Williams). Trans women would go onto whichever team they physically match. To really capture everyone, you could even have an ultralightweight league for the smallest females, if there was enough demand for it.

^^So where again are posters saying gender = biological sex?

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs insisting that gender = biological sex:

Where are people saying that gender and biological sex are the same?

Sometimes, gender presentation "fits" biological sex. Sometimes, it doesn't.

If I have a masculine gender presentation, my biological sex remains female.
If I have a feminine gender presentation, my biological sex remains female.

Anonymous wrote:Wait.

First, the person OP mentions is not transgender - she is intersex. Completely different thing. So we've all gone a rabbit hole on this thread based on incorrect facts. Or, as it's sometimes called, Fake News. Sad!

Second, the Trump administration is poised to issue guidance in the next few days that says sex is biological sex only, based on genitalia at birth. If issued, this will disenfranchise the 1 mil+ Americans who identify as trans.

Methinks OP is stirring up trouble on this issue here in this forum in order to prime the pump for the Trump guidance.

Mealsothinks the Trump administration is just plain mean and is contemplating issuing this guidance now to rally the conservative base for the Midterms.

Citation please for your claim that she is intersex? All of the news articles, and her own "coming out story" https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coming-Out-in-Class/132403 have her as being transgender.

It will not disenfranchise anyone. Trans people will still be able to vote. They will still be accorded all rights and responsibilities of people. They simply won't be able to claim they are a sex that they are not.

Trans women are biologically male. Trans men are biologically female.

If trans women were not biologically male, they could not be trans women. If trans men were not biologically female, they could not be trans men.

First, the person OP mentions is not transgender - she is intersex. Completely different thing. So we've all gone a rabbit hole on this thread based on incorrect facts

There are two different athletes being discussed here. The person the OP mentions is a cyclist who is transitioning from man to woman. She is a philosophy professor who focuses on gender issues.

The other athlete mentioned prominently in this thread is Caster Semenya, a middle distance runner who is intersex. She has had blood testing for testosterone.

Two different people with different situations and issues raised.

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs insisting that gender = biological sex:

If I didn't have a trans child myself, I would probably agree with you. And I would hope that if you all had seen and experienced the same things I have, you might agree with me.

With my trans kid, the gender identification started at age 3 and has been strong and consistent into adulthood.

Not a phase. Not confusion. Not a trend. Something real and currently unexplainable -- but real nonetheless.

Where are people arguing that gender = biology?

To the PPs insisting that gender = biological sex:

If I didn't have a trans child myself, I would probably agree with you. And I would hope that if you all had seen and experienced the same things I have, you might agree with me.

With my trans kid, the gender identification started at age 3 and has been strong and consistent into adulthood.

Not a phase. Not confusion. Not a trend. Something real and currently unexplainable -- but real nonetheless.

Anonymous wrote:Wait.

First, the person OP mentions is not transgender - she is intersex. Completely different thing. So we've all gone a rabbit hole on this thread based on incorrect facts. Or, as it's sometimes called, Fake News. Sad!

Second, the Trump administration is poised to issue guidance in the next few days that says sex is biological sex only, based on genitalia at birth. If issued, this will disenfranchise the 1 mil+ Americans who identify as trans.

Methinks OP is stirring up trouble on this issue here in this forum in order to prime the pump for the Trump guidance.

Mealsothinks the Trump administration is just plain mean and is contemplating issuing this guidance now to rally the conservative base for the Midterms.

Gender. He is overturning the Obama administration’s definition of gender. You cannot change your biological sex regardless of hormones taken or surgeries had.

Wait.

First, the person OP mentions is not transgender - she is intersex. Completely different thing. So we've all gone a rabbit hole on this thread based on incorrect facts. Or, as it's sometimes called, Fake News. Sad!

Second, the Trump administration is poised to issue guidance in the next few days that says sex is biological sex only, based on genitalia at birth. If issued, this will disenfranchise the 1 mil+ Americans who identify as trans.

Methinks OP is stirring up trouble on this issue here in this forum in order to prime the pump for the Trump guidance.

Mealsothinks the Trump administration is just plain mean and is contemplating issuing this guidance now to rally the conservative base for the Midterms.

Anonymous wrote:I guess if it was you or your family member whose life was at stake, you'd actually care too. But you must only care about things that affect you directly. So of course if you or your kid hypothetically lose some kind of sports advantage, that's the issue you care about. Such a sad state.

Oh Please. The majority of transgendered people who are murdered are not innocent victims but transgender females who hook up with straight men without bothering to tell them they have a penis. Yes it’s a gross overreaction but obviously many men would become enraged after finding out that they were duped into fooling around with a man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are going to separate sports events for males and females, then biology has to determine participation.

One option would be to go the way of rowing, where for some events there are "lightweight" and "open" events. Following this analogy, there could be "female" and "open" sports. The standard for participation in the female events would be testosterone below a certain level.

The testoretone standard still does not take into account advantages males have in their skeletal structure, their muscles, and their lung capacity

Female category should be biological female.

Male category should be biological male.

Open could be available to transgendered (with or without transitioning).

Dear god. Has this transgender craze really gotten to the point where there is serious conversation about having a transgender category in sports?

Anonymous wrote:Why do men's and women's gymnastics have completely different events?

As far as I know, it is because men's and women's bodies are different, so different events highlight different skills that men and women excel in.

Anonymous wrote:Why do men's and women's gymnastics have completely different events?

Because their bodies are built differently and are able to execute different skills.

For example, female gymnasts lack the natural upper body strength to execute the rings, pommel horse and high bar.

Male gymnasts generally do not have the size, flexibility and control to execute the balance beam. Even the smallest of male gymnasts are too big to do the tumbling passes required on the beam.

Anonymous wrote:I am coming at this conversation as a former female track athlete.

Regarding transgender male to female, I think it’s ok if they have undergone horomone therapy.

What I think is the trickier question is the naturally high T women, being debated in track right now.

On the one hand, if they are going to make an upper limit on T for women competitors, maybe there should be an upper limit on male competitors as well.

On the other hand, don’t many Olympic athletes have unusual physical attitbutes such as Michael Phelps’ long arms? Maybe we should treat T the same as other physical attributes and part of that is what make the athlete special?

There are ranges that are typical for women and ranges that are typical for men.

One of the "benefits" of oddities like Caster or Phelps is that they are incredibly rare and cannot be manufactured. Transwomen can be created. You're unlikely to field an entire team of Phelps's (could it be done through surgical means?). But you can create an entire team of Casters, by taking men who aren't quite good enough to make the men's team, and telling them they're going to be women for the year or two leading up to whatever event. True, this will only work in countries like Iran (see the news articles on their women's soccer team), but it makes it more dangerous for biological women and it makes it more difficult for biological women to compete in athletics.

I think testosterone ranges are a blunt instrument, and even once testosterone is reduced the benefits of having gone through male puberty are undeniable. If transgender people won't voluntarily step out of women's competitive athletics, then we need to consider how to ensure these competitions are as fair as possible for biological women. That may be only allowing biological women to compete. That may be allowing transwomen with testosterone within a certain range to compete. That may be allowing transwomen who did not go through male puberty to compete. That may be allowing transwomen who have had their testicles removed to compete. Ignoring women's rights is a non-starter.

In the meantime, transgender people can participate in social leagues, open competitions, or the men's division (which is essentially the open division in most competitions). Or they can work towards adding a transgender category. Women's events didn't pop up fully formed for women, women had to fight for them. The Special Olympics didn't pop up fully formed for athletes with disabilities, they and their allies had to work for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess if it was you or your family member whose life was at stake, you'd actually care too. But you must only care about things that affect you directly. So of course if you or your kid hypothetically lose some kind of sports advantage, that's the issue you care about. Such a sad state.

Huh? What transgender person's life is at stake if they aren't allowed to compete with biologically born females?

I wholeheartedly support recognition, identity acceptance, therapies, and inclusion of transgender persons. But this is simply not fair to females in sports. A third competing category for transgender persons would be awesome.

Um, I think you need to go back and reread the prior comments to understand this one. They were saying that transgender persons' lives are at stake, yet all people seem to care about is that it is unfair for them to win sports competition. You are simply proving the point.

No one is denying that transgender persons face a lot of safety risks - violence from others, or self harm from themselves/suicide. Those things are important, and no one is saying otherwise. But that doesn't negate the harm that some transgender people can do when it comes to the field of women's sports. Things things have some intersection, but are not wholly overlapping issues.

You don't dissect the patriarchy by risking the success of females in sports.