So I brought up the story and called for people's attention because I thought it was irrelevant, while you kept complete silence on the matter until I mentioned because you are the defender of women's sports? What a wonderful logic!
Is that the reason you are completely invisible when people on this board attack Title IX for "ruining men's college sports"? Is thay why you are totally uninterested when people on this board ridicule WTA, WNBA, NWSL or any other women's sports? Or are you showing your disdain because those leagues have "male supremacists" like Candace Parker and Megan Rapinoe?
Your debate skills are not particularly strong. The article you brought up actually proves the case against allowing transgender girls to play girls Sports. It Shows that with just a few boys playing against the girls it completely changes the fairness of the sport and the team with the boys dominates. And nearly everyone is unhappy about it. This is exactly the concern about letting trans girls play girls Sports. So thanks for proving what can happen if we allow it to happen.
As far as your point that less people are up in arms about it then the trans girls playing girls Sports issue, I'll give you that that is a slightly valid point, however....
A] the whole issues stems from a gender equality issue in sports which was born from making sure women had the same opportunity in sports as men and now they have to do the same for men who don't have a chance to play field hockey. So in a perverse outcome the Title Nine protection for women created the issue. Be careful what you wish for?
B] people who are aware of it clearly are up in arms and are trying to change it. Don't act like no one cares
C] this appears to be a mostly one sport issue in just a couple States. if trans girls were deemed legally allowed to play any girls Sports they want it would be a 50-state issue across all sports. I.e, a lot bigger. And of course an international sports issue also [ show me where boys are playing against the girls on the international level]
D. Show me where the parents and players and coaches who are against the boys playing field hockey against the girls are being called "hateful, ignorant, biased A-holes!" ?? [ like the folks who are against trans women playing women's sports are bring called] hmmm...nowhere.
So yes you pointed out something that people are less aware of but as they become aware they will be equally annoyed and upset by it. I think it is a travesty that they are letting these mixed gender teams destroy the all girls teams. Of course it should be changed.
Or of course as many have said the simplest thing would be to eliminate the protected category of women's sports and just let everyone compete together. What do you think, wouldn't that be easier and "fairer"? Hmmm.... somehow I don't think you will go along with that one.
You are mistaken in thinking that I am one of "them." Do you think anyone who does not agree with you 100% is one of "them"? As for your points,
A) It has nothing to do with Title IX. Boys don't have field hockey teams because there aren't enough boys who are interested enough to join the teams.
B) Since I posted the story, you are the only person who commented on it, other than the poster who used it to vilify me as a "male supremacist." This story has been in the national media for decades, and it can never get enough attention.
C) When two sprinters won some races in ONE state (CT), it caused a nation-wide moral panic. Ever since, no trans athlete has won anything significant in HS sports, although most states allow trans athlete to compete one way or another. And yet, many states are trying to ban a very small number of trans athletes.
D.) Because those players and their parents are not engaging in character assassinations of boys playing on the girls' teams. We have many people who intentionally misgender trans people, use their dead names, and treat them as predators (including on this board).
I will give you one state as an example. Currently, Ohio's HS Athletic Association requires that a trans athlete (a) take at least one year of hormone replacement therapy or (b) demonstrate to the Commissioner’s Office by way of sound medical evidence that the transgender female student athlete does not possess physical (bone structure, muscle mass, testosterone, hormonal, etc.) or physiological advantages over genetic females of the same age group.
As a result, there are about half a dozen trans girls competing on girls' teams at Hs and Middle Schools combined. Here is one of them.
Ember Zelch loves to play softball. She is a member of her high school varsity softball team, plays in a summer rec league with players from other communities, and even
So the state legislature is working very hard to deny this HS student and several others the opportunity to play sports, where they are absolutely unremarkable in the name of "protecting girls." It is ironic (not really) that every state that is trying to ban trans girls totally already has pretty strict standard set by the HS Association, and only a handful of trans girls are playing in each state without winning anything significant.
On the other hand, states like Connecticut, where trans girls do not have to go through any medical treatment, are not changing their policies.
But here are some facts some people don't seem to know, or don't want to accept.
Most trans girls playing HS sports started medical transition at early ages (and probably have no notable physical advantage of male puberty).
Most of them never played on the boys' teams.
Most of them are totally unremarkable as athletes.
There are a few who do not fit into this, but there are ways to regulate them without banning all trans athletes at all levels. I guess that sort of compromise is unacceptable to most people on this board.
OP, unfortunately your more nuanced take (which I share) is largely lost in the conversation. The loudest voices on each "side" of this issue tend not to be reasonable (understanding of physiology) or respectful (understanding of sociology/human rights). This is unfortunate because it means that those who feel that sports classifications should be based on sex (not gender) are vilified or dismissed as bigots/TERFs, even if they are supportive of trans rights more broadly.
In almost all situations in society, classifying according to gender (or having no classification) is the most sensible option as most classification exists for reasons relating to social/cultural norms, ie. somewhat arbitrary/about presentation. There are a small number of situations where physiology is the primary reason for separation, and in these situations it can be justifiable to separate based on sex. I'd even argue that in sports this only really applies to higher level adult sports. If I showed up to a women's beer league community soccer league, I wouldn't care if some of my fellow participants were trans. The purpose of the women's classification there is to encourage women's participation since some women feel uncomfortable socially in mixed leagues. This includes transwomen, so their participation in the community/rec women's league makes sense.
But, if one paints the picture that all those who oppose sex-based classification in competitive sport are inherently bigots (and amplify/strawman the actual bigots who share this viewpoint but for the wrong reasons), it is easier to dismiss this view without discussing the valid points about the permanent physiological advantage given by male puberty, and the importance of maintaining meaningful competition categories. People who are spewing hateful or derogatory stuff (misgendering, deadnaming, classifying being trans as a mental illness etc.) must be disavowed.
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to always happen, or the bigots champion someone who is presenting purely scientific arguments, which along with the vilification, tends to result in more reasonable and respectful voices being drowned out. Plus, since the forums are anonymous people feel they can get away with things that they'd never say irl or in an identifiable context.
Irl, most of the people I talk to quietly have a position similar to mine, or feel that although there may be an advantage that inclusion (gender classification) is more important. Though I may not agree with the latter entirely (agree inclusion is important, disagree with solution), this is at least a reasonable and respectful point of view with which one can debate. Online is a dumpster fire.
Thanks for a very thoughtful post.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I have one question. You wrote, "I'd even argue that in sports this only really applies to higher level adult sports." What do you include in "higher level adult sports"?
I guess most people think college varsity sports are included in "higher level adults sports", especially NCAA D1 and D2 with athletic scholarships. But what about high school varsity sports? That's where the current battle is taking place.
Only a small fraction of students play varsity sports at college. But HS spots is something the majority of students participate in. You wrote you wouldn't mind if some of the other players on the community soccer leagues were trans women. But would you have minded if that had been HS varsity soccer game instead? How about a HS JV game or a middle school game?
I agree 1000000%. Like you say, calling out Hiltz when she has never said transwomen should be able to compete with ciswomen, much less done it herself, makes no sense. It's that line of thinking that makes me think there's something more than just people caring about biology.
What are you talking about? She’s a VERY vocal advocate of allowing men to compete in women’s sports
The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.
It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".
This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.
Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.
So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.
For me, it is all biological. I cringe at the comments criticizing Hiltz. Hiltz is a biological female competing as a female. Totally fair. A biological male competing against females in a sport where speed and power determine the outcome is not fair. No wishful thinking will make it fair. I think the whole thing would be solved by categories in sports being biological sex only. Instead of the women's 1500 it would be the female 1500.
What is hard to accept for me as a woman is a male breaking a woman's record so spectacularly that no biological female has any shot of ever challenging it. The whole reason that females were granted their own separate category is because we are not physically equipped to compete against males in sports. I think this is best demonstrated by the fact that there have been no transgender men stealing opportunities in sports from biological men. Not one men's record broken by a transgender man. It isn't talked about because there is no friction because females are never going to be able to compete with males for the win.
Agreed. I adamantly believe that trans women should not be competing against biological women. I think athletes should be categorized by sex rather than gender (i.e. according to biological rather than psychosocial categories).
That said, it is logically inconsistent to be BOTH 1) mad about trans women competing against biological women, AND 2) mad that Hiltz is competing as a female. Hiltz is doing exactly what most of us claim that we want trans athletes to do: competing according to biological sex. I don't really see how anyone can frame this as being unfair.
I think the people calling out Hiltz are actually trying to call out (perceived) inconsistencies from trans athletes themselves. As in: trans men-to-women switch categories to compete against women, and at the same time trans men (or non-binary individuals for Hiltz) are also choosing to stay in the women’s category.
It can appear that the trans athletes are just choosing the easier level of competition, no matter the direction of transition. I think that’s what’s being called out, though it doesn’t make as much sense for Hiltz, all she (they?) has done is clarified preferred gender, it’s not like there are transition drugs involved.
I'm not proposing any legal or administrative solutions here, but I think that in cases where an athlete gets no competitive advantage, like in Nikki Hiltz's case, the peanut gallery should shut its yap.
In the case of DSD athletes, people should be nicer about it, because even biologically, sex binaries aren't as cut and dried as you might think. I'm not proposing a specific answer in the rules, I'm just saying quit making accusations of athletes being "dudes" and quit making cheating accusations.
I'm not proposing specific answers, I'm just saying that people who accuse Mboma or Semenya of "cheating" should also can it. They may or may not be eligible to compete, but they're running as who they are biologically. They're either allowed or not.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
What is hard to accept for me as a woman is a male breaking a woman's record so spectacularly that no biological female has any shot of ever challenging it. The whole reason that females were granted their own separate category is because we are not physically equipped to compete against males in sports. I think this is best demonstrated by the fact that there have been no transgender men stealing opportunities in sports from biological men. Not one men's record broken by a transgender man. It isn't talked about because there is no friction because females are never going to be able to compete with males for the win.
Unless a trans man is DFL in every single race, he is replacing at least one cis man in the standings. And in a team sport, any trans man on a men's team is stealing precious playing time from a deserving cis man.
At least that's the standard that most people on this board use in advocating the total ban of trans women in women's sports.
I could give a d@man about their situation, but men shouldnt be competing vs women. It's pretty simple.
Situation now:
The women that identify as men, compete vs women.
The men that identify as women, compete vs women.
You compete based on your birth sex and no TUEs allowed. If your situation requires you to take test. etc.. then you no longer need to compete. The sport is no longer for you.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
I could give a d@man about their situation, but men shouldnt be competing vs women. It's pretty simple.
Situation now:
The women that identify as men, compete vs women.
The men that identify as women, compete vs women.
You compete based on your birth sex and no TUEs allowed. If your situation requires you to take test. etc.. then you no longer need to compete. The sport is no longer for you.
Sounds like the sport, as regulated by WA, is no longer for you. Bye bye.
No one is being banned. There is currently full inclusion in sports. It's simple. Compete in the category of your birth sex. Sex is binary. Get over it.
The overwhelming consensus on this board is that transwomen should not be able to compete against ciswomen. I agree with this opinion (for NCAA and pros at least). In my mind, it's unfair for transwomen to compete against ciswomen because of the biological advantages that come from going through puberty as a male. I've seen that same sentiment echoed many times here, but after seeing that Nikki Hiltz thread that was up for a couple days, I'm starting to think most people here don't actually believe that, and they only say it because it falls in line with their real position: They just don't like trans people.
It is blindingly obvious to me that if transwomen shouldn't compete against ciswomen due to biological advantages, that someone who's nonbinary (and born female) should be allowed to compete with ciswomen. Hiltz gained absolutely no advantage in the race by being non-binary. Alas, in that thread, there were a lot of people giving the absolutely braindead argument that "oH sHeS nOnBiNaRy sO wHy iS sHe CoMpEtiNg aGaiNsT fEmaLeS".
This line of argumentation shows me two things. First, you're literally calling Hiltz "she", so in your mind, Hiltz is a woman. The second is that you don't actually care about any biological advantages when it comes to trans people competing in sports. You're just looking for any excuse to trash trans-people.
Some people said Hiltz should have competed in the non-binary division. That's a way better argument, but currently there isn't a non-binary division for pros. There's a discussion to be had about making one, but without getting too much into it, I don't think it's worth it.
So I'm curious if most people here, like me, support trans-people in general but think it's unfair when it comes to sports, or if most people here don't support trans-people at all, but wheel out the biological advantages argument because it suits them at the time, even though they don't care if trans-people do have biological advantages.
I think trans people are mentally ill or brainwashed (groomed) from a young age. I don’t hate them, but I do see them for what they are. I don’t want them completing against my girls because it is unfair. My girls will never compete against men and I am not afraid to tell anybody this.
People should compete in sports in the sex they were assigned by birth or biological sex.
I don't care how someone chooses to live their life. Some people are either dumb or motivated by ignorance when they don't know that gender and sex are different concepts and keep pretending they are the terms sex and gender are interchangeable.
I have a trans male watch my dogs when I go out of town. Cool dude. He is a big comic book guy and is happy living his life like he does and is super excited about going to comic-con this weekend. He is much happier than I think a lot of people on this board.
I think trans people are mentally ill or brainwashed (groomed) from a young age. I don’t hate them, but I do see them for what they are. I don’t want them completing against my girls because it is unfair. My girls will never compete against men and I am not afraid to tell anybody this.
Gender incongruence has been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter. This reflects current knowledge that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill-health, and that classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
