UPenn swimmer comes out as trans / switches to women's team after competing on men's team for 3 years and is dominating NCAA

RossiCheated wrote:

This idea has been offered before, but I will reiterate.

Perhaps by the time this reaches the NCAA finals, the athletes need to organize and create an ugly moment for some publicity.

Stand on the starting blocks, let the starting horn blast and let Lia dive in and swim away. Stand there for thirty seconds, hands on hips, and then have someone (a conspirator in the front row of seats) yell "on your mark" and then blast an air horn and have the remainder of the field (the XX competitors) dive in and have their own race.

They could still compete while making it clear what a joke they know all of this has become.

Or better yet, just swim in the race as normal and not be jerks.

RossiCheated wrote:

This idea has been offered before, but I will reiterate.

Perhaps by the time this reaches the NCAA finals, the athletes need to organize and create an ugly moment for some publicity.

Stand on the starting blocks, let the starting horn blast and let Lia dive in and swim away. Stand there for thirty seconds, hands on hips, and then have someone (a conspirator in the front row of seats) yell "on your mark" and then blast an air horn and have the remainder of the field (the XX competitors) dive in and have their own race.

They could still compete while making it clear what a joke they know all of this has become.

That's a ridiculous idea. They didn't train all those hours to make a political stand. I'm no fan of Lia Thomas, but if I'm coaching one of the swimmers that pulls such a stunt, she'll be off of the team and lose her scholarship.

There are no protests because the Princeton swimmer has not been negatively affected. I'm not taking time out of my day to protest because a girl got 1st in one race, but then got 2nd in another. Sometimes you get 2nd. Also, she lost to another female.

Grow up.

rojo wrote:

[quote]Dewey Welll wrote:

Personally, I think it's simple. If you have or ever have had testest - internal or external - you compete in the men's open category. If you don't, then you can compete in the women's category.

If we want to use different names. So be it.

Yes. Open division--formerly the men's division--and women's division. Women's division restricted to cis women. Open division open to men, transwomen, and intersex. No T-suppression required for the two latter categories. Just make the open division the Wild West--and good luck to the cis men.

Funny thing is, if you created that sort of open division, you'd not only have a much fairer competition, but you'd create some real interest in the proceedings, you'd force cis men to adapt to the brave new world, and you'd return the women's division to something like sanity.

Something like that.

This.....just act like this is perfectly normal, no big deal as this man beats me......is beyond stupid. What I don't get is what kind of man gets off on beating women, that right there tells us this guy is a bonafide freak.

So in today world if I am in my female mood today I'm female, if in my man mood a man. Hahahahaaha how damn stupid is this, try.....totally. If you stand to pee, you are not a female it doesn't matter what you wanna be. If you have a sister you will be her brother not her sister, you will be your dad's son not his daughter and if tossed in jail you'll find out real quick you are a man not a woman.

David Melly getting some grief on Twitter for his take.

The Millennial Generation's legacy will be the normalization of transgenderism.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]Tatar... wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]Tatar... wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]Tatar... wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

Race is a biological fact. Jesse Owens, Eliud Kipchoge and Duke Ellington are black. I am white. The belief that some races are inferior/superior is not biological; it is a prejudice. But it is a prejudice that is based on biology - but erroneously. You therefore conflate "race" and "racism" erroneously. You are also completely wrong about white shared racial identity; the Republican Party embraces it.

Race is not a biological fact. There is no "black" race. There are plenty of "black" people in America, the product of two black parents, who have blond hair and blue eyes. In genetic terms, they're more European/UK ancestry and West African ancestry. There are "white" people in American who have 3-5% West African ancestry but who have no idea that's the case and think of themselves as white.

Meanwhile, you're well aware that East Africans and West Africans (and those largely descended from West Africans: US and Caribbean), considered in the main and as runners, have notably different genetic inheritances: the former being endurance athletes, the latter being sprinters. 800 meters is the dividing line. Not a whole lotta great Kenyan and Ethiopian sprinters; not a whole lotta great Nigerian marathoners.

The same person who is considered "black" in America will be considered something other than that in Brazil. Each nation races its people differently. American racial categories have ceaselessly reshuffled over the years.

Race is an invented, historically contingent, wholly unstable category. You're free to call yourself white, if you'd like, but please understand that you're insisting on the reality of something that doesn't exist at what you think it is. You're engaging in racecraft--a word invented by the Fields sisters to convey a parallel with witchcraft.

Better yet let's just eliminate the all-women's ncaa sports. Give women equal access based on ability to compete in men's sports.

There are firepeople and policepeople and Marines, based on ability right? So if they can be a marine surely they can earn a scholarship in all sexed football or basketball. That would be easy compared to carrying someone out of a burning building.

We can have trans/male/female club teams in college for the boys and girls who can't make the team in the ncaa scholarship sports. It would be for fun, everyone

Again the scholarship ncaa sports are open sexed so men-trans-bi-gay-women can all try out for the team and make it on ability, Lets be fair and open.

Men's pro sports should also be open to women so they can earn the same amount of money. End the charade that is the wnba and just move all the girls that can compete to the NBA so they can make some real bank.

You gotta be kidding.

The USA's Olympic women's 4x1 team would get smoked at the Cali State Champs if they could even make the finals vs boys.

There is a reason women play soft ball and not baseball, hell a woman vs Mike Tyson, how damn stupid would that be.

Women are women not men they have no business competing vs men in sporting events no more than mom could whip dad,

Hell, just stick a female linebacker out there, hahaha!!!!

https://wallpapercave.com/wp/wp8731110.jpg

KudzuRunner wrote:

rojo wrote:

[quote]Dewey Welll wrote:

Personally, I think it's simple. If you have or ever have had testest - internal or external - you compete in the men's open category. If you don't, then you can compete in the women's category.

If we want to use different names. So be it.

Yes. Open division--formerly the men's division--and women's division. Women's division restricted to cis women. Open division open to men, transwomen, and intersex. No T-suppression required for the two latter categories. Just make the open division the Wild West--and good luck to the cis men.

Funny thing is, if you created that sort of open division, you'd not only have a much fairer competition, but you'd create some real interest in the proceedings, you'd force cis men to adapt to the brave new world, and you'd return the women's division to something like sanity.

You'd have to add trans men to your proposed 'open' category.

Do you really think it's feasible to have cis women in one division and then cis men, trans men, trans women and intersex men and women in another? And for it all to be fair? This is the expectation when discussing advantages in the women's division that just isn't extended to any 'open' division.

Personally it just seems to me as a 'one drop' type rule that anyone expressing any sort of gender non-conformity is banished permanently from competing against women.

astro wrote:

Yep. This is pure misogyny. It would mean the elimination of female sports. While this person cavalierly dismisses non-pro female sports as not mattering, think in running about the extraordinary amount of work and dedication these young women put into high school running. Now imagine saying none of that matters and should be overridden because some egotical, self-centered, narcissistic jerk who was born biologically male insists on competing against you and does not care about anyone else or even basic principles of fairness and fair play. And this is supposed to be some high-minded stance? It is absurd. The year Tuohy broke the NXN record for example she would have been 151st in the boys race. That's the reality of biology.

I am a female, and I agree with everything you have said in this thread, and I think you have written it well.

I would add, what if, at a college indoor meet soon, some college trans female beats Touhy's U20 3000m record (that she just set) by 30+ seconds? How will that sit? Just because it hasn't happened (yet) doesn't mean that this isn't where this policy is heading. One day when we look at all of the women's records and realize that a high percentage of them are held by people who were born males and are out of reach for actual females, what then?

I can see where we are heading.....

It's 3am in the morning the wife....pssssttt hear that? Husband....yes I do, go check it out.

:One day when we look at all of the women's records and realize that a high percentage of them are held by people who were born males and are out of reach for actual females, what then?"

Transgender females are about .3% of the population and out of the 223,000 females competing in collegiate sports, the is one transgender female athlete. I doubt there will ever be a high percentage of records being held by transgender females.

Tatar... wrote:

You'd have to add trans men to your proposed 'open' category.

Do you really think it's feasible to have cis women in one division and then cis men, trans men, trans women and intersex men and women in another? And for it all to be fair? This is the expectation when discussing advantages in the women's division that just isn't extended to any 'open' division.

Personally it just seems to me as a 'one drop' type rule that anyone expressing any sort of gender non-conformity is banished permanently from competing against women.

To make it a truly "open" category, you would have to also accept cis women, if they choose to compete. Athletes under 20 or over 40 are still eligible to compete in the open division along with 20-39 yr olds.

For this to happen, we have to openly admit that the "open" category and the "cis women" category are NOT coequal categories. Instead, we have to admit that the "cis women" category is a protected category like U-20 and Masters, while the "open" category is unprotected.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

:One day when we look at all of the women's records and realize that a high percentage of them are held by people who were born males and are out of reach for actual females, what then?"

Transgender females are about .3% of the population and out of the 223,000 females competing in collegiate sports, the is one transgender female athlete. I doubt there will ever be a high percentage of records being held by transgender females.

Of course, there are more than one trans athletes competing in NCAA right now. We only hear about Thomas because other athletes are mediocre.

The same is true at the high school level. you will never hear anything about most trans athletes because they don't have any exceptional performances. Most of them just want to play sports with their friends, and don't win anything important.