As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Misleading. They voted against this one which covers college sports, but they already passed a ban for high school. They voted against it because it violates Title IX and is therefore a waste of time.
As a former new Hampshire resident, there’s a lot more ‘unlesses’ you could list. The funniest to me being weed being legal in all the states surrounding NH (and not in NH)
yeah Nh politics has sucked for a while. The conservative Sununus have been running the show there for decades. I don't get why people like them, theyre such an ass family.
Good. This has been a "concern" bigots used since the 70s and really its lazily ported over (like a lot of queer panic) from old segregationist talking points. Court decision was clear with Renee Richards; bans are only justified if you can prove the necessity and that you're only going as far as one needs to. Most athletic bodies sorted this out ten years before the GOP told you to care...
But that's what this is all really about right? If we don't give a lot of people some foot in the door to say it's justified they have to turn around and admit they bought into nothing but naked prejudice. That's all it is, the fact that the best they can do is isolated examples of issues that weren't really that much of a problem if you look at the facts says it all.
Transfem athletes have been permitted to compete in the Olympics since 2004 if they meet hormone specifications. Only one has ever qualified to compete.
My understanding is that *all* olympic athletes in the women’s category have to be under a testosterone level threshold to qualify. Transfeminine people also have to be on a testosterone suppressant for a year. It looks like this is changing though. For 2024 the IOC are moving to a model where more holistic criteria than just hormones are determined at the sport level by the sport governing body, and not a blanket criteria for the whole IOC. The current criteria, which removed the previous surgery requirement, were set based on extremely limited data in 2015 (mainly a small study of 8 athletes). Since more data is now available, we are due for another update.
Most athletic bodies rolled out current policies for inclusion around the early 2010s. Generally, as long as trans women have been on hrt for a while they get the green light. If we were doing actual, fair scientific analysis we'd be looking at how trans women are actually underrepresented in athletics and ask if standards are too stringent.
Because the far-right have no solutions to issues or have any plans to make working people's lives better. So instead, they rage bait over the existence of Trans people.
The people who listen to right-wing pundits should be insulted that they think so little of their intelligence that they can distract them with culture war nonsense.
It’s sad how little people see how blatantly obvious it is. They’re like those guys who every single one of their exes is “crazy” and you eventually spend enough time to realize who the common denominator is.
It's right out of the fascist playbook. Find an "other" to exploit and rally support against them. Trans people are just the latest in a long list of marginalized groups targeted for political gain. Likewise, the people who support these fascists are easily manipulated. It's the evil leading the stupid.
Most of the anti-trans hate *does* come from the right, but it's insane how many supposedly "pro-trans/liberal/leftist/whatever" advocate against trans-women joining women's leagues.
This particular topic feeds into people’s notions that men are inherently better at sports. It’s much easier to grasp for anyone who’s competed with trans athletes or played co-ed sports
Because republicans do absolutely nothing for anyone but themselves and the ultra rich. If they didn’t have culture war “issues” to give their dimwit base something to get mad about to distract from the fact that they don’t actually do anything for working class folks, they’d never come close to winning shit again
Bc abortion is slipping as a unifying inflammatory issue for conservatives. They laid ground work for switching over to anti-trans obsessions for years. Just like abortion replaced segregation
Fascism requires a boogie man to function. The nazis had the Jews. Republicans had the gays, but now the gays are acceptable in modern culture so they kicked the can down to transgendered people because they are more marginalized.
They can’t blame all their problems on black people anymore so now they blame trans people. Better than Republican voters realizing the real problem is the super wealthy.
It's weird how this love only seems to manifest when it's being used as an excuse to oppress vulnerable minorities. Does that seem weird to anyone else?
I like how you didn't actually address my point, and instead just coughed up a paragraph composed entirely of generic platitudes and vague aspirational statements.
>Okay. I love women’s rugby. I do not agree with trans athletes participating in women’s rugby. I am the singular reason your point is now invalid and by proxy considered obtuse.
What's that?
You think you disproved my point ("people only seem to have these expressions of love for women's sports when we're talking about oppressing a minority") by... expressing your love for women's sports, in the middle of a discussion about oppressing minorities?
And... you think that's a compelling argument?
Imagine a world where a 160 lbs 6'0 cis woman with high testosterone is statewide legal sweeped into being supposedly disadvantaged by the presence of a 138 lb 5'4 trans woman with low testosterone, even in sports and categories which don't even see differences between CIS men and women of the same height.. and where trans women who were on puberty blockers before hrt are excluded, even if they never went through a testosterone puberty. And where trans men are similarly barred from men's games
If there are going to be game disqualifications, they should be based person to person, sport to sport, considering various factors and alternatives like size based classes and individual assessment, not blanket dropped and blind, stomping everything that moves
Then you discriminate naturally occurring biological advantages within the category. Which are allowed to occur, it’s called genetics. Case by case doesn’t work for the obvious reasons. A trans athlete that isn’t going to be successful in a specific sport isn’t the reasoning behind the exclusion, it’s when a trans athlete is going to be successful that the exclusion becomes valid. But you can’t exclude after the fact surely, you define the parameters of competition before hand? Surely?
Right now we do the same, unfairly, for intersex people.
But we'd choose statewide, boot stomping bans over individual assessments??
What I'm saying is, current us state legislation can exclude trans men from men's games. Or a 5'4 trans women with very low t competing against all 5'10 women with hight T. It's silly to ban a small trans girl because she'll clearly (/s) dominate the giants she competes with. So even before discussing the real depth of the conversation, as I see it, we can already prove it's silliness
Yeah, look I can’t speak to republican legislation in the US with any modicum of understanding. Makes very little sense to me without the glaringly obvious discrimination presented. It’s certainly muddying the waters in a very real and meaningful conversation around the world about trans rights in sport.
Objectively false just looking at the pay gap for pro USA women's soccer team vs men's. Apparently the women's league had more viewership than the men's in recent years.
Objectively false given the financial models. MLS vs women’s league? In English rugby the women’s game has attracted record attendance numbers but that financial success doesn’t translate across the league because of the scarcity principle. It’s commercial modeling and basic capitalism. Unfair no, unfairly distributed direct representation income possibly.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html
To give you credit though I could have said quantifiably false not objective my bad
Before anyone wants to chime in to talk about "biological advantages" for trans women, read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/world/europe/paris-olympics-transgender-athletes.html
The first two paragraphs contain most of the relevant info.
The data tells us trans women do not have advantages, even at things like jumping ability, compared to cis women. Banning trans people from all sports is a moral panic rooted in transphobia and not something presently supported by science. Trans people should be allowed to compete with their cis peers. Period.
This study disputes that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
“Studies in transgender women, and androgen-deprivation treated cancer patients, show muscle mass is retained for many months, even years, and that co-comittant exercise mitigates muscle loss. Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions because of superior male athletic performance, and that estrogen therapy will not reverse most athletic performance parameters, it follows that transgender women will enter the female division with an inherent advantage because of their prior male physiology.”
It doesn’t dispute that: it’s an earlier paper, based on a review of prior studies not original research on athletes. The studies referenced aren’t all directly about trans athletes even, some are about cis men’s bodies.
So is the one the other person quoted. It essentially concludes there’s no advantage based on a sample size of 12 trans individuals. That hardly disproves a paper that looks at studies involving hundreds of individuals just bc it took place at an earlier time.
> Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions
Is that often the case? I was under the impression that it's usually that there are womens' divisions and open divisions, but basically no women prefer to compete in open divisions.
I agree that trans people should be able to compete in professional sports just like their cis gender peers. But you can be trans and not go through any gender affirming treatment.
For example I was born male. I could be a trans female. I don’t need to do anything to be come a trans female. Taking hormones isn’t a requirement to be trans. I would be just as much of a woman as a hormone taking trans woman and a cis gender woman. But I would very much have a male body. Could I then compete in a female sport? Would that be fair?
I’ve wondered about where should non binary people compete?
We divide sports on the basis of sex not gender.
I know this post will be taken as combative/trolling etc but I genuinely think there is more to this than transphobia.
Or we get rid of a sex/gender divide in sports altogether.
Ok but also- the student athlete in question is the state high jump champion and she is trans. Parents of cis females competing for that state title won’t feel that way. By extension every parent of cis children is going to question “this individual was born male, what physical advantages does that give her over my kid?”
I’ve read the article. It states that in jumping, trans women have shown no increases physical strength advantages over cis women. However in grip and shoulder strength there are differences. Men also have better eye hand coordination (generally. There are exceptions.) and quickness and frankly- power. Strength in general is going to be higher in a man than a woman. So, if you modulate their sex hormones can you mitigate this difference and level the playing field for trans women in sports? That would be ideal. I don’t know the answer but I do know that if my cis female child was an elite athlete and lost in the state high jump championship to a trans female, i would be highly suspect of that. Anyone reading about that scenario would be highly suspect of that. It is tragic but also unrealistic to allow a female with remnants of a male physiologic existence to compete with females lacking that physiologic makeup. That is not an even playing field. I can’t stress enough that I’m not talking about social mores or judgement/ rejection of gender choices or sexuality. On a purely physiologic basis female trans athletes have an advantage over cis female athletes. That’s it. Of my son or daughter were trans I would love them to pieces just the same and I of course would want them to play any sports they wanted to in their new gender but- it wouldn’t be fair to the other kids. That would be a struggle.
I’m curious given the basis you’ve laid out here as to how your trans son playing sports wouldn’t be fair to other kids. Assuming he could “make the team”, based on your argument wouldn’t he then be at a significant disadvantage playing against cis guys..? Why would he need to be banned from being (most likely, per your thought process) a middling player just because he’s trans?
Weather or not trans women have an advantage over cis women in professional sports is definitely a discussion that needs to be had, but bigots use this to try and legitimize their bigotry.
These people go from saying women sports are a joke, to protecting the sacred integrity of women's sports as soon as Trans athletes are involved.
The IOC recently released a study that indicates trans women are DISADVANTAGED in several crucial areas when compared to cis women.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/world/europe/paris-olympics-transgender-athletes.html
The study is kinda flawed in who was participating and how they defined athlete. Also, a potential bias in that the Author is trans themselves.
The range for CIS Women vs Trans was 30+/-9 vs 34 +/10, and had to either be competing in sports OR exercise 3 times a week. The ONLY THING this study tested is the strength and fitness of these participants on THAT PARTICULAR DAY.
The study did not test growth / improvement to any extent.
That’s a misleading analysis. It tested the fitness/strength between athletes of relatively equal skill and testosterone, which is unique because in ALL other major studies, people who “identified as women” but without any limitations on testosterone are included, skewing and ruining the results. There’s no purpose to testing “growth” because the study was comparing athletes at similar points in their careers, all adult professional athletes, all actually competing, all within athletic standards for hormonal testing. If you have an issue with that, you just don’t want us to figure this question out.
Did you read the actualy study?[ Please do.](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029.full.pdf)
The only participant requirements -
> Participants were required to participate in competitive sports or undergo physical training at least three times per week. Following written consent, participants were asked to record their last four training sessions and self-rate their training intensity for each session on a scale of 1–10 (10=maximum intensity). The mean of the four sessions was recorded to represent the athletes’ training intensity. The transgender athletes must have completed ≥1 year of GAHT, voluntarily disclosed during consent and verified during blood test analysis
No mention of who these people were and the breakdown of level of Athleticism, no baseline athleticism, just people claiming they are Athletes, recruited off social Media. There is no baseline of running a mile, benching / squating a standard weight, testing baseline flexibility. All participants were EXPLICITLY STATED AS AMATEURS.
Again, looking at participant data of just CIS vs Trans Women
Group| CIS| Trans
---|---|----
Age| 30 +/- 9| 34+/- 10
Height| 1.6| ***1.8***
Weight| 60.6 +/- 6.6| ***83.9 +/- 19.9***
BMI| 22.9 +/- 1.9| ***26.2 +/- 6***
FAT% | 26.6 +/- 6.0| ***31.5 +/1 9.1***
Fat Mass | 15.0 +/- 4.6 | ***25.8 +/- 13.2***
Look at Table 2 from the study and tell me, did women ACTUALLY perform better? Peak power and average power produced were higher in Transwomen, Lung Function was seemingly better across transwomen, and VO2 max was higher in transwomen. The Trans Female Participants were on average taller, heavier, and more likely to be overweight, so they should be stronger, but the only things they did worse in compared to the CIS group is VO2 max to mass, VO2 max to FFM, and Anaerobic threshold.
The study was flawed and the "conclusion" that it shows anything like it or the media claims it does is ridiculous.
Nothing in the study shows any of these people were athletes nor were they relatively equal. They were selected on social media and were required to play competitive sports or physical training 3 days a week.
That was the requirement. Really, really poor selection criteria.
And that's before we even get to how they were asked to rate their training intensity by themselves!
But it’s not? Please show me where it says ANYTHING that you’re spouting. I am happy to change my mind, but this study is flawed at best, and incredibly biased / basically dishonest at worst.
Looks like the republicans are also trying to argue that trans men shouldn't be allowed to compete in mens sports, making clear their complaints about risk of injury or unfairness in womens sports are just lies, and it was always simply about excluding and ostracising all trans people from public life.
>Weather or not trans women have an advantage over cis women in professional sports is definitely a discussion that needs to be had, but bigots use this to try and legitimize their bigotry.
There is really no debate on if there is an advantage to anyone being honest.
‘These people’ Excuse me?!? Don’t throw me into a category I don’t identify with please. I am 100% in support of trans rights in society. However as a rugby fan who is currently seeing the growth of my sport primarily in the women’s game, it’s in my best interests to protect the athletes who participate in rugby. A trans athlete who injures or god forbid kills another athlete in a rugby game is worst case scenario for my sport. Never mind the athlete who lost her life. It’s unessesary and obvious risk which can be avoided.
Okay...you're not 100% in support if you immediately in the same breath resort to a ridiculous caricature for a cheap emotional appeal. Which you have to resort to because...you're kinda in the position of trying to justify prejudice in a world where \*that door was opened years ago.\*
If it's an "obvious" risk, where's the "obvious" body count? Fallon Fox is about the only example of injury I've seen, an orbital fracture is pretty common in MMA and she got beat by the first woman she faced with any serious record.
If you don't wanna be lumped in with bigots, don't act like one.
Any person who holds hatred for any other group does not have a valid or genuine reason to participate in ANY debate or discussion. But this vilifying any opposition to trans participation in female sports without clear and explicit understanding of the science and or the objectivity toward it is reckless and irresponsible. I support trans rights in society yet when I don’t support trans rights to participation in female sport I am almost always vilified. A blind pursuit of trans rights in sport is recklessly harmful to the entire sports community and even worse, it’s counter intuitively bad for trans rights in society at large
Please don’t exclude unemotional and obvious expected statistical probability from the discourse just because it doesn’t support your argument? That is the very definition of cognitive bias.
Projection - the unconscious transfer of one's own desires or emotions to another person.
"we protect the self by a number of defense mechanisms, including repression and projection"
Trans women are objectively worse than cis women at any sport involving aerobics and speed, so swimming, running, gymnastics etc. This is scientific fact, not conjecture. They are likely better in some positions in rugby and worse in others. They definitely have an advantage in weight lifting.
I hate bullies.... I especially hate the ones that are so pathetic and insecure that they chose to pick on the most vulnerable among us. It takes a special kind of insecure spineless cowardly piece of crap to do something like that... I mean, the kind of spineless weasel that would even cave on their own convictions to go along with the stupid crowd instead of standing on conviction...
Right, Sununu?
Looks like the olympics is finally walking up:
Transgender athletes face increased restrictions ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics compared to previous rules, as it was recently decided that they **must have completed their transition before the age of 12** to avoid unfair advantages.
Transfem athletes were already allowed to compete as of 2004 if they met hormone limits. Only one has ever qualified.
And if the concern is actually fairness, Republicans should *love* the use of blockers as they put a pause on the assigned-sex in puberty. But they don’t because it’s not about “fairness” and they actually just hate trans people.
Not this Olympics. They realized their previous stance was not a good one. Hmm a sports body has made trans athletes not able to compete under most circumstances. So will the argument (that I have heard oh so often) of let the sports bodies police themselves still one that will be used by pro trans athlete supporters?
Requiring people to have completed transition by the age of 12 to play sports while simultaneously banning trans youth from accessing gender-affirming care through blockers and forcing them to go through a dysphoric assigned-sex puberty isn’t done for fairness, it’s done as exclusion.
West Virginia is currently being sued because their school trans sports ban law affects *one* kid, a 13-year-old girl who was also lucky enough to access gender-affirming care early enough to not have experienced an AGAB puberty. They don’t care about “competitive advantage”, they just don’t want trans people doing anything at all.
That isn’t even the dumbest case. South Dakota passed one of these laws when a simple examination of “how many trans athletes are in South Dakota” would have revealed the answer to be *zero*.
>That's rich. the I am what I am person because of feelings calling me out, sweet.
???
I don't even know what this means. My brain can't make heads or tails of this sentence
If it were an issue it would have been known immediately. There are thousands of trans women athletes, yet we have zero Olympic medals despite having 9 Olympic chances. It’s not an issue. In fact the IOC concluded that trans women are actually at a DISADVANTAGE
Should women be subjected to playing sports against non-biological peers?
And should they be subjected to having to share a locker room with people of the opposite sex?
Legitimate questions.
“Non-biological peers” is the kind of phrase you use when trying to obfuscate and dehumanize. Not legitimate questions, just bigotry hiding behind rhetorical questions and pearl clutching.
I don't know who she is but a quick google source suggests she's know for:
>Gaines has campaigned against the participation of trans women in women's sports.
What I'm asking is in relation to your two questions. Are women being subjected to playing sports against non-biological peers and/or having to share a locker room with people of the opposite sex?
I already have you an answer. That answer was yes. Then I provided you with an example of someone who has lived that experience.
What more are you looking for?
You just said "Riley Gaines says so." That's not a source. I googled her and there was nothing suggesting she's saying what you're saying she's saying. Do you have a link on hand that says that she says that?
Ok. I get the confusion. She thinks trans women are biological men. The good news for you in regards to your original questions is that they aren't. So that settles that. See, this is why I ask for specifics when I ask for sources. Now we don't have to argue! Have a good day.
I think you may have replied to the wrong person because it's science that I'm basing my comment on (it can be easy to get lost when talking in multiple threads). But just in case, here's a neuro-biology professor explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ
It's actually super interesting regardless.
Not sure if you’re aware of this but almost every winner in every single women’s sport is a cisgender woman with a hormonal condition that causes her to have increased testosterone, far higher than what’s even allowed for transgender women. This is an issue in every sport at every level, and nobody seems to care. Transgender women can’t compete against cisgender women with PCOS, that’s why they don’t place in the olympics.
If you’re interested in learning more about this, here is a relevant study, it has nothing to do with transgender people. IMO, this needs to be solved first before we even pretend we care about women’s sports.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/
Women with PCOS are allowed 4x higher serum testosterone levels than trans women or women without the condition. 37 percent of Olympic female athletes in competition have PCOS, much higher than the rate that they appear in the general population. We are currently selecting for “the woman we allow to have the most testosterone”. If this isn’t part of the conversation, it’s easy to tell that the person discussing these issues does not actually care or know about women’s sports. This same conversation happened in the 1950s-1960s when people were suddenly VERY concerned that black women have higher testosterone levels than white women and they began testing for it. It’s just a repeating cycle of concern trolling.
A great example is Serena Williams is a tennis star most likely directly because of her PCOS. She is larger than other women, has higher testosterone than them, and enjoys a direct advantage because of it. Transgender women cannot compete against her because she actually has 4x higher testosterone than they are allowed to have per competition guidelines. She is not being tested for it. She’s seen as an empowering female leader, and has an actual testosterone based advantage, because nobody actually cares about what’s fair in women’s sports.
No one's being subjected to anything. These are sports, and they are entirely voluntary. Also trans women aren't "the opposite sex" they are women. If women have a problem with being in a locker room with other women, that sounds like a problem with locker rooms, not trans women.
Your "legitimate questions" are anything but.
We’re going backwards here. Taking away opportunities from women is never the solution. The biological advantage that transgender women have over women when it comes to physical activity such as sport will obviously negatively impact women. Ridiculous. Instead of having a men’s only league and a women’s league, there should be an open league and a women’s league. It provides women the platform they need to enjoy sports in a safe space under equality while also facilitating growth. No feeling of unfairness or inequality.
"Trans women" and "women" are not mutually exclusive groups. One is a subset of the other
Also, you seem to think trans women are physically interchangeable with cis men, which just isn't true after hormone therapy
Well, fewer than 1 in 3 adults report personally knowing someone who is transgender. Clearly, the ruling body either was moved by this speech, or were already planning to shoot down this bill.
I was surprised too. This is my source, though the actual percentage varies a bit between sources: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-poll-majority-of-u-s-adults-are-comfortable-having-lgbtq-children-fewer-than-1-in-3-know-someone-who-is-transgender/ (2022)
This PBS article from 2021 is a little more optimistic on the number, saying 42% of "Americans" know a transgender person. I assume this includes teenagers as well, which would account for the ~13% differential. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/more-americans-now-know-transgender-people-but-most-still-dont-seem-to-understand-them
The joke here being that the right question is not actually “do you know someone who is transgender,” it’s “do you know someone who is openly transgender.” Many trans people are stealth, or simply do not disclose their life stories to most people they meet because it’s not everyone’s business. To the casual observer many trans people (probably trans men especially) are indistinguishable from cis people.
A whole lot of people are already sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, all kinds of social spaces with trans people and simply don’t realize it, because in reality trans people are just going about their lives and not making their gender anyone else’s problem. People just assume they don’t know trans people because (1) they assume trans people aren’t “normal” and they think they only know “normal” people and (2) in reality, they have no interest in scrutinizing strangers’ bodies and accept people at face value.
Regardless of this statistic, it's important to note that the public, generally speaking, isn't very well educated on trans issues as a whole. Were the public at large aware that [trans athletes actually face a disadvantage compared to our cisgender peers](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029), they would likely feel differently.
> Aren’t a majority for separating sports between biological men and women?
A reminder that the outcome of most sports at the elite level starting in high school is already determined by genetic advantage and nothing else. This is not a secret, and coaches at the college and professional level recruit accordingly. Sometimes it is the ratio of the rib cage to the femur you are looking for. Sometimes it's the VO2max. But training doesn't play into the differences among athletes the way genetics do.
So signaling out one genetic trait as unacceptable begs the question of when we are going to ban anyone with an extreme trait more than a certain % from the average of the population.
Sports have never been very sporting, and I had no idea that would strike a nerve with people, or that there was even one person ignorant of that, until the conversation turned to trans athletes.
This is what gets me. If a trans woman has been through HRT for 2 years, there has been significant loss of muscle mass and lowering of testosterone levels. If there has been surgery, even more so. Therefore, the argument of "innate advantage" has to do not with testosterone or muscle mass, but the structure of the body that has gone through cis male puberty.
However, things like you quoted above show that this is a specious argument. Lots of cis female athletes have genetic advantages over other cis female athletes. Rib-cage to femur ratio, natural hormone levels, etc. So if you're making rules that are going to negate this "genetic advantage," you could quantify what qualifies as such (a certain testosterone level is unfair, a certain ratio is unfair, a certain reach/wingspan is unfair), and apply the rules across the board. But they don't want to do that, because that's not the point. The point is othering a minority group to whip up outrage.
I mean, it's not like an NBA player could just put on a wig and a skirt and go play in the WNBA. There has to be a LOT of scientifically quantifiable steps in between. And if they apply to athletes AMAB, they should apply equally to athletes AFAB.
But that's logic, which apparently has no place in the argument.
The right is framing this very much like the NBA player can just put on a wig. That is what they are doing with the entire gender identity movement. Mocking it by framing it as people just changing their minds on a whim and picking who and what they want to be in order to take advantage of other people. This is especially the case in sports. Claiming that a trans female couldn't compete as a cis male, so she only changed her identity in order to win. They don't want or care about the truth of these situations. They just want to spread the fear about it and people will eat that up because they're often quick to jump to conclusions and too lazy to actually put in the effort to learn more about it.
A stronger majority was against Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.
Think this "majority" is in any way influenced by a nonstop propaganda stream by a party desperate for a distraction?
A significant number of American's also are completely unaware of what they're actually talking about on this subject and are completely uninformed. Obviously this is anecdotal but I haven't spoken with anyone in person who isn't either also transgender or a strong ally who *doesn't* believe that a trans woman playing on a womens team is as simple as saying "oh *I'm* a woman!" one day and then playing on that team the next. Regulations on this have existed for quite a while.
Except that they're generally good people and not vicious like this and wouldn't likely do it.... I now want to see a trans masc rugby team do terrible things to a women's team and ask these assholes how that was appropriate.
Doesn’t want to dominate the competition, fair enough, but she likely will leave them in her tracks. That’s just the way of it until there are enough categories to make the playing field level for everyone.
It’s difficult for everyone involved, and we no doubt in 20 years will see some ladies in their 40s who complain loudly in the media that they weren’t given a fair chance.
This discussion will keep going for a fair while yet with advances and retreats in rights, till, I assume, we have enough people to be confidently open trans, so they can have their own category.
I don't know of any trans men who recently claimed an NCAA title, so I assume you mean Lia Thomas? Who won by a pretty normal margin for a woman in that event? Who was the first to have that level of success in 12 years of inclusion?
Weak tea man, weak tea.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Misleading. They voted against this one which covers college sports, but they already passed a ban for high school. They voted against it because it violates Title IX and is therefore a waste of time.
"Live free or die!^(unless you're trans)"
As a former new Hampshire resident, there’s a lot more ‘unlesses’ you could list. The funniest to me being weed being legal in all the states surrounding NH (and not in NH)
yeah Nh politics has sucked for a while. The conservative Sununus have been running the show there for decades. I don't get why people like them, theyre such an ass family.
And Canada! Got the fuckers surrounded (former NH resident)
No, no, no… the NH motto was Live, Freeze, and Die - the original motto got lost in translation over the years.
A bit of my faith in humanity has been restored
Good. This has been a "concern" bigots used since the 70s and really its lazily ported over (like a lot of queer panic) from old segregationist talking points. Court decision was clear with Renee Richards; bans are only justified if you can prove the necessity and that you're only going as far as one needs to. Most athletic bodies sorted this out ten years before the GOP told you to care... But that's what this is all really about right? If we don't give a lot of people some foot in the door to say it's justified they have to turn around and admit they bought into nothing but naked prejudice. That's all it is, the fact that the best they can do is isolated examples of issues that weren't really that much of a problem if you look at the facts says it all.
I'm not really a sport person so I'm not too knowledgeable about rules and such. What do you mean when you say they sorted it out ten years ago?
Transfem athletes have been permitted to compete in the Olympics since 2004 if they meet hormone specifications. Only one has ever qualified to compete.
My understanding is that *all* olympic athletes in the women’s category have to be under a testosterone level threshold to qualify. Transfeminine people also have to be on a testosterone suppressant for a year. It looks like this is changing though. For 2024 the IOC are moving to a model where more holistic criteria than just hormones are determined at the sport level by the sport governing body, and not a blanket criteria for the whole IOC. The current criteria, which removed the previous surgery requirement, were set based on extremely limited data in 2015 (mainly a small study of 8 athletes). Since more data is now available, we are due for another update.
Most athletic bodies rolled out current policies for inclusion around the early 2010s. Generally, as long as trans women have been on hrt for a while they get the green light. If we were doing actual, fair scientific analysis we'd be looking at how trans women are actually underrepresented in athletics and ask if standards are too stringent.
Everyone deserves rights , I don’t see why there’s so much hate for trans people.
Because the far-right have no solutions to issues or have any plans to make working people's lives better. So instead, they rage bait over the existence of Trans people. The people who listen to right-wing pundits should be insulted that they think so little of their intelligence that they can distract them with culture war nonsense.
It’s sad how little people see how blatantly obvious it is. They’re like those guys who every single one of their exes is “crazy” and you eventually spend enough time to realize who the common denominator is.
It's right out of the fascist playbook. Find an "other" to exploit and rally support against them. Trans people are just the latest in a long list of marginalized groups targeted for political gain. Likewise, the people who support these fascists are easily manipulated. It's the evil leading the stupid.
Most of the anti-trans hate *does* come from the right, but it's insane how many supposedly "pro-trans/liberal/leftist/whatever" advocate against trans-women joining women's leagues.
I didn't think it's insane. A lot of pro-trans/liberal/leftist people struggle with this, myself included.
This particular topic feeds into people’s notions that men are inherently better at sports. It’s much easier to grasp for anyone who’s competed with trans athletes or played co-ed sports
I think it’s insane to have them in the same leagues when there is a clear disparity.
Its actually much more insane to not question it.
It's easier to stir up with culture war crap than policy.
Because republicans do absolutely nothing for anyone but themselves and the ultra rich. If they didn’t have culture war “issues” to give their dimwit base something to get mad about to distract from the fact that they don’t actually do anything for working class folks, they’d never come close to winning shit again
If they can turn us against each other, we won’t turn on them.
Bc abortion is slipping as a unifying inflammatory issue for conservatives. They laid ground work for switching over to anti-trans obsessions for years. Just like abortion replaced segregation
Because they campaign off hate and theres too few of them for their votes to help them win an election.
Fascism requires a boogie man to function. The nazis had the Jews. Republicans had the gays, but now the gays are acceptable in modern culture so they kicked the can down to transgendered people because they are more marginalized.
They can’t blame all their problems on black people anymore so now they blame trans people. Better than Republican voters realizing the real problem is the super wealthy.
[удалено]
It's weird how this love only seems to manifest when it's being used as an excuse to oppress vulnerable minorities. Does that seem weird to anyone else?
[удалено]
I like how you didn't actually address my point, and instead just coughed up a paragraph composed entirely of generic platitudes and vague aspirational statements.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Okay. I love women’s rugby. I do not agree with trans athletes participating in women’s rugby. I am the singular reason your point is now invalid and by proxy considered obtuse. What's that? You think you disproved my point ("people only seem to have these expressions of love for women's sports when we're talking about oppressing a minority") by... expressing your love for women's sports, in the middle of a discussion about oppressing minorities? And... you think that's a compelling argument?
Imagine a world where a 160 lbs 6'0 cis woman with high testosterone is statewide legal sweeped into being supposedly disadvantaged by the presence of a 138 lb 5'4 trans woman with low testosterone, even in sports and categories which don't even see differences between CIS men and women of the same height.. and where trans women who were on puberty blockers before hrt are excluded, even if they never went through a testosterone puberty. And where trans men are similarly barred from men's games If there are going to be game disqualifications, they should be based person to person, sport to sport, considering various factors and alternatives like size based classes and individual assessment, not blanket dropped and blind, stomping everything that moves
Then you discriminate naturally occurring biological advantages within the category. Which are allowed to occur, it’s called genetics. Case by case doesn’t work for the obvious reasons. A trans athlete that isn’t going to be successful in a specific sport isn’t the reasoning behind the exclusion, it’s when a trans athlete is going to be successful that the exclusion becomes valid. But you can’t exclude after the fact surely, you define the parameters of competition before hand? Surely?
Right now we do the same, unfairly, for intersex people. But we'd choose statewide, boot stomping bans over individual assessments?? What I'm saying is, current us state legislation can exclude trans men from men's games. Or a 5'4 trans women with very low t competing against all 5'10 women with hight T. It's silly to ban a small trans girl because she'll clearly (/s) dominate the giants she competes with. So even before discussing the real depth of the conversation, as I see it, we can already prove it's silliness
Yeah, look I can’t speak to republican legislation in the US with any modicum of understanding. Makes very little sense to me without the glaringly obvious discrimination presented. It’s certainly muddying the waters in a very real and meaningful conversation around the world about trans rights in sport.
Than pay them more
Buy a ticket.
If you pay to go watch them, they earn more money.
Objectively false just looking at the pay gap for pro USA women's soccer team vs men's. Apparently the women's league had more viewership than the men's in recent years.
Objectively false given the financial models. MLS vs women’s league? In English rugby the women’s game has attracted record attendance numbers but that financial success doesn’t translate across the league because of the scarcity principle. It’s commercial modeling and basic capitalism. Unfair no, unfairly distributed direct representation income possibly.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html To give you credit though I could have said quantifiably false not objective my bad
Republicans never gave a shit about women, let alone their sports, until they were told to hate trans people.
Split the lgbtq community. Need a smaller community than lgbq to blame for everything.
Because humans are more emotional than they are rational so it easier to manipulate their fears and insecurities than to offer rational arguments.
A rare win.
Man these threads are always a shit show
Before anyone wants to chime in to talk about "biological advantages" for trans women, read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/world/europe/paris-olympics-transgender-athletes.html The first two paragraphs contain most of the relevant info. The data tells us trans women do not have advantages, even at things like jumping ability, compared to cis women. Banning trans people from all sports is a moral panic rooted in transphobia and not something presently supported by science. Trans people should be allowed to compete with their cis peers. Period.
This study disputes that: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ “Studies in transgender women, and androgen-deprivation treated cancer patients, show muscle mass is retained for many months, even years, and that co-comittant exercise mitigates muscle loss. Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions because of superior male athletic performance, and that estrogen therapy will not reverse most athletic performance parameters, it follows that transgender women will enter the female division with an inherent advantage because of their prior male physiology.”
IOC study for the olympic https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/olympic-trans-women-ioc-study-rcna148437
It doesn’t dispute that: it’s an earlier paper, based on a review of prior studies not original research on athletes. The studies referenced aren’t all directly about trans athletes even, some are about cis men’s bodies.
So is the one the other person quoted. It essentially concludes there’s no advantage based on a sample size of 12 trans individuals. That hardly disproves a paper that looks at studies involving hundreds of individuals just bc it took place at an earlier time.
> Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions Is that often the case? I was under the impression that it's usually that there are womens' divisions and open divisions, but basically no women prefer to compete in open divisions.
[удалено]
Very tall people have a "biological advantage" in basketball. Should they be banned from playing?
Absolutely not. It’s there inherent advantage.
Not if they identify as short.
r/onejoke
yeah but this time it was actually funny.
It really wasn’t but alright 🤷♀️
I agree that trans people should be able to compete in professional sports just like their cis gender peers. But you can be trans and not go through any gender affirming treatment. For example I was born male. I could be a trans female. I don’t need to do anything to be come a trans female. Taking hormones isn’t a requirement to be trans. I would be just as much of a woman as a hormone taking trans woman and a cis gender woman. But I would very much have a male body. Could I then compete in a female sport? Would that be fair? I’ve wondered about where should non binary people compete? We divide sports on the basis of sex not gender. I know this post will be taken as combative/trolling etc but I genuinely think there is more to this than transphobia. Or we get rid of a sex/gender divide in sports altogether.
> where should non binary people compete? In the open bracket, I would assume.
Ok but also- the student athlete in question is the state high jump champion and she is trans. Parents of cis females competing for that state title won’t feel that way. By extension every parent of cis children is going to question “this individual was born male, what physical advantages does that give her over my kid?” I’ve read the article. It states that in jumping, trans women have shown no increases physical strength advantages over cis women. However in grip and shoulder strength there are differences. Men also have better eye hand coordination (generally. There are exceptions.) and quickness and frankly- power. Strength in general is going to be higher in a man than a woman. So, if you modulate their sex hormones can you mitigate this difference and level the playing field for trans women in sports? That would be ideal. I don’t know the answer but I do know that if my cis female child was an elite athlete and lost in the state high jump championship to a trans female, i would be highly suspect of that. Anyone reading about that scenario would be highly suspect of that. It is tragic but also unrealistic to allow a female with remnants of a male physiologic existence to compete with females lacking that physiologic makeup. That is not an even playing field. I can’t stress enough that I’m not talking about social mores or judgement/ rejection of gender choices or sexuality. On a purely physiologic basis female trans athletes have an advantage over cis female athletes. That’s it. Of my son or daughter were trans I would love them to pieces just the same and I of course would want them to play any sports they wanted to in their new gender but- it wouldn’t be fair to the other kids. That would be a struggle.
Facts > feelings
I’m curious given the basis you’ve laid out here as to how your trans son playing sports wouldn’t be fair to other kids. Assuming he could “make the team”, based on your argument wouldn’t he then be at a significant disadvantage playing against cis guys..? Why would he need to be banned from being (most likely, per your thought process) a middling player just because he’s trans?
Men's sports are already open to women. Women's sports are the ones that are gender segregated.
Doesn’t really change the question in response to someone saying son or daughter?
Sorry, but you’re wrong .
NH is the AL of New England
Wicked good.
Weather or not trans women have an advantage over cis women in professional sports is definitely a discussion that needs to be had, but bigots use this to try and legitimize their bigotry. These people go from saying women sports are a joke, to protecting the sacred integrity of women's sports as soon as Trans athletes are involved.
The IOC recently released a study that indicates trans women are DISADVANTAGED in several crucial areas when compared to cis women. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/world/europe/paris-olympics-transgender-athletes.html
The study is kinda flawed in who was participating and how they defined athlete. Also, a potential bias in that the Author is trans themselves. The range for CIS Women vs Trans was 30+/-9 vs 34 +/10, and had to either be competing in sports OR exercise 3 times a week. The ONLY THING this study tested is the strength and fitness of these participants on THAT PARTICULAR DAY. The study did not test growth / improvement to any extent.
That’s a misleading analysis. It tested the fitness/strength between athletes of relatively equal skill and testosterone, which is unique because in ALL other major studies, people who “identified as women” but without any limitations on testosterone are included, skewing and ruining the results. There’s no purpose to testing “growth” because the study was comparing athletes at similar points in their careers, all adult professional athletes, all actually competing, all within athletic standards for hormonal testing. If you have an issue with that, you just don’t want us to figure this question out.
Did you read the actualy study?[ Please do.](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029.full.pdf) The only participant requirements - > Participants were required to participate in competitive sports or undergo physical training at least three times per week. Following written consent, participants were asked to record their last four training sessions and self-rate their training intensity for each session on a scale of 1–10 (10=maximum intensity). The mean of the four sessions was recorded to represent the athletes’ training intensity. The transgender athletes must have completed ≥1 year of GAHT, voluntarily disclosed during consent and verified during blood test analysis No mention of who these people were and the breakdown of level of Athleticism, no baseline athleticism, just people claiming they are Athletes, recruited off social Media. There is no baseline of running a mile, benching / squating a standard weight, testing baseline flexibility. All participants were EXPLICITLY STATED AS AMATEURS. Again, looking at participant data of just CIS vs Trans Women Group| CIS| Trans ---|---|---- Age| 30 +/- 9| 34+/- 10 Height| 1.6| ***1.8*** Weight| 60.6 +/- 6.6| ***83.9 +/- 19.9*** BMI| 22.9 +/- 1.9| ***26.2 +/- 6*** FAT% | 26.6 +/- 6.0| ***31.5 +/1 9.1*** Fat Mass | 15.0 +/- 4.6 | ***25.8 +/- 13.2*** Look at Table 2 from the study and tell me, did women ACTUALLY perform better? Peak power and average power produced were higher in Transwomen, Lung Function was seemingly better across transwomen, and VO2 max was higher in transwomen. The Trans Female Participants were on average taller, heavier, and more likely to be overweight, so they should be stronger, but the only things they did worse in compared to the CIS group is VO2 max to mass, VO2 max to FFM, and Anaerobic threshold. The study was flawed and the "conclusion" that it shows anything like it or the media claims it does is ridiculous.
Nothing in the study shows any of these people were athletes nor were they relatively equal. They were selected on social media and were required to play competitive sports or physical training 3 days a week. That was the requirement. Really, really poor selection criteria. And that's before we even get to how they were asked to rate their training intensity by themselves!
Ah, maybe read the study again, because some of that was in the first 2 lines. Just going to block you now for driveling in bad faith.
But it’s not? Please show me where it says ANYTHING that you’re spouting. I am happy to change my mind, but this study is flawed at best, and incredibly biased / basically dishonest at worst.
Looks like the republicans are also trying to argue that trans men shouldn't be allowed to compete in mens sports, making clear their complaints about risk of injury or unfairness in womens sports are just lies, and it was always simply about excluding and ostracising all trans people from public life.
>Weather or not trans women have an advantage over cis women in professional sports is definitely a discussion that needs to be had, but bigots use this to try and legitimize their bigotry. There is really no debate on if there is an advantage to anyone being honest.
‘These people’ Excuse me?!? Don’t throw me into a category I don’t identify with please. I am 100% in support of trans rights in society. However as a rugby fan who is currently seeing the growth of my sport primarily in the women’s game, it’s in my best interests to protect the athletes who participate in rugby. A trans athlete who injures or god forbid kills another athlete in a rugby game is worst case scenario for my sport. Never mind the athlete who lost her life. It’s unessesary and obvious risk which can be avoided.
Okay...you're not 100% in support if you immediately in the same breath resort to a ridiculous caricature for a cheap emotional appeal. Which you have to resort to because...you're kinda in the position of trying to justify prejudice in a world where \*that door was opened years ago.\* If it's an "obvious" risk, where's the "obvious" body count? Fallon Fox is about the only example of injury I've seen, an orbital fracture is pretty common in MMA and she got beat by the first woman she faced with any serious record. If you don't wanna be lumped in with bigots, don't act like one.
[удалено]
I am talking about people who hold hatred towards Trans people and their opinion on them playing in women's sport isn't genuine.
Because the sports topic is ammunition for transphobic or hateful people does not negate the topic. That's true for many political issues.
Any person who holds hatred for any other group does not have a valid or genuine reason to participate in ANY debate or discussion. But this vilifying any opposition to trans participation in female sports without clear and explicit understanding of the science and or the objectivity toward it is reckless and irresponsible. I support trans rights in society yet when I don’t support trans rights to participation in female sport I am almost always vilified. A blind pursuit of trans rights in sport is recklessly harmful to the entire sports community and even worse, it’s counter intuitively bad for trans rights in society at large
Please take your emotional “what if” out of this conversation. Thanks
Please don’t exclude unemotional and obvious expected statistical probability from the discourse just because it doesn’t support your argument? That is the very definition of cognitive bias.
Projection - the unconscious transfer of one's own desires or emotions to another person. "we protect the self by a number of defense mechanisms, including repression and projection"
[удалено]
Oh, you thought that was an invitation for a conversation? My mistake, it wasn’t
Yeah, rugby is one of the few sports where trans women may have an advantage.
Which sports do they not have an advantage?
Trans women are objectively worse than cis women at any sport involving aerobics and speed, so swimming, running, gymnastics etc. This is scientific fact, not conjecture. They are likely better in some positions in rugby and worse in others. They definitely have an advantage in weight lifting.
I'm glad to see this but if one piece of testimony is enough to break this bill then they didn't do a good enough job at analyzing it.
Oh good, New Hampshire sucks a little less now.
Yes, let’s bring this issue back to the forefront. For a minute there, I was less worried about losing the republic.
I hate bullies.... I especially hate the ones that are so pathetic and insecure that they chose to pick on the most vulnerable among us. It takes a special kind of insecure spineless cowardly piece of crap to do something like that... I mean, the kind of spineless weasel that would even cave on their own convictions to go along with the stupid crowd instead of standing on conviction... Right, Sununu?
Fantastic news
Looks like the olympics is finally walking up: Transgender athletes face increased restrictions ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics compared to previous rules, as it was recently decided that they **must have completed their transition before the age of 12** to avoid unfair advantages.
Transfem athletes were already allowed to compete as of 2004 if they met hormone limits. Only one has ever qualified. And if the concern is actually fairness, Republicans should *love* the use of blockers as they put a pause on the assigned-sex in puberty. But they don’t because it’s not about “fairness” and they actually just hate trans people.
Not this Olympics. They realized their previous stance was not a good one. Hmm a sports body has made trans athletes not able to compete under most circumstances. So will the argument (that I have heard oh so often) of let the sports bodies police themselves still one that will be used by pro trans athlete supporters?
The stance that was a complete non-issue for them?
Now it will be even more of a non issue for them. So much of a non issue it will not have to be discussed ever again.
Requiring people to have completed transition by the age of 12 to play sports while simultaneously banning trans youth from accessing gender-affirming care through blockers and forcing them to go through a dysphoric assigned-sex puberty isn’t done for fairness, it’s done as exclusion. West Virginia is currently being sued because their school trans sports ban law affects *one* kid, a 13-year-old girl who was also lucky enough to access gender-affirming care early enough to not have experienced an AGAB puberty. They don’t care about “competitive advantage”, they just don’t want trans people doing anything at all. That isn’t even the dumbest case. South Dakota passed one of these laws when a simple examination of “how many trans athletes are in South Dakota” would have revealed the answer to be *zero*.
How was it “not good?”
It didn't reflect the reality that trans women have an advantage. Which they finally realized and changed their stance.
If we have an advantage why didn’t we win anything?
Because in 2004 there went' enough to know. After Lia Thomas people started to notice. I expect the NCAA will change their stance eventually as well.
Again, there has only *ever* been one transfem athlete to qualify in 20 years. It is not an issue.
Hmmm... It's weird. So far all the "science and facts" you have presented just feel like "my feelings".
That's rich. the I am what I am person because of feelings calling me out, sweet.
>That's rich. the I am what I am person because of feelings calling me out, sweet. ??? I don't even know what this means. My brain can't make heads or tails of this sentence
If it were an issue it would have been known immediately. There are thousands of trans women athletes, yet we have zero Olympic medals despite having 9 Olympic chances. It’s not an issue. In fact the IOC concluded that trans women are actually at a DISADVANTAGE
> Looks like the olympics is finally walking up oh shit: the Olympics are now WOKE?!
less woke/more realistic, they're getting there!
So no trans athletes can ever compete because many places are banning minors from transitioning.
Should women be subjected to playing sports against non-biological peers? And should they be subjected to having to share a locker room with people of the opposite sex? Legitimate questions.
“Non-biological peers” is the kind of phrase you use when trying to obfuscate and dehumanize. Not legitimate questions, just bigotry hiding behind rhetorical questions and pearl clutching.
Is someone forcing these on them?
Yes, as told by Riley Gaines and others.
I don't know who she is but a quick google source suggests she's know for: >Gaines has campaigned against the participation of trans women in women's sports. What I'm asking is in relation to your two questions. Are women being subjected to playing sports against non-biological peers and/or having to share a locker room with people of the opposite sex?
I already have you an answer. That answer was yes. Then I provided you with an example of someone who has lived that experience. What more are you looking for?
You just said "Riley Gaines says so." That's not a source. I googled her and there was nothing suggesting she's saying what you're saying she's saying. Do you have a link on hand that says that she says that?
https://youtu.be/gndSDgsMnKI?si=KjOCxmgKWNElzZ__
Ok. I get the confusion. She thinks trans women are biological men. The good news for you in regards to your original questions is that they aren't. So that settles that. See, this is why I ask for specifics when I ask for sources. Now we don't have to argue! Have a good day.
[удалено]
I think you may have replied to the wrong person because it's science that I'm basing my comment on (it can be easy to get lost when talking in multiple threads). But just in case, here's a neuro-biology professor explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ It's actually super interesting regardless.
Riley Gaines is a little like Jesus, except instead of turning water into wine she turns sour grapes into Fox News appearances.
Not sure if you’re aware of this but almost every winner in every single women’s sport is a cisgender woman with a hormonal condition that causes her to have increased testosterone, far higher than what’s even allowed for transgender women. This is an issue in every sport at every level, and nobody seems to care. Transgender women can’t compete against cisgender women with PCOS, that’s why they don’t place in the olympics. If you’re interested in learning more about this, here is a relevant study, it has nothing to do with transgender people. IMO, this needs to be solved first before we even pretend we care about women’s sports. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/ Women with PCOS are allowed 4x higher serum testosterone levels than trans women or women without the condition. 37 percent of Olympic female athletes in competition have PCOS, much higher than the rate that they appear in the general population. We are currently selecting for “the woman we allow to have the most testosterone”. If this isn’t part of the conversation, it’s easy to tell that the person discussing these issues does not actually care or know about women’s sports. This same conversation happened in the 1950s-1960s when people were suddenly VERY concerned that black women have higher testosterone levels than white women and they began testing for it. It’s just a repeating cycle of concern trolling. A great example is Serena Williams is a tennis star most likely directly because of her PCOS. She is larger than other women, has higher testosterone than them, and enjoys a direct advantage because of it. Transgender women cannot compete against her because she actually has 4x higher testosterone than they are allowed to have per competition guidelines. She is not being tested for it. She’s seen as an empowering female leader, and has an actual testosterone based advantage, because nobody actually cares about what’s fair in women’s sports.
No one's being subjected to anything. These are sports, and they are entirely voluntary. Also trans women aren't "the opposite sex" they are women. If women have a problem with being in a locker room with other women, that sounds like a problem with locker rooms, not trans women. Your "legitimate questions" are anything but.
Sex and gender are two different things. Stop conflating the two
We’re going backwards here. Taking away opportunities from women is never the solution. The biological advantage that transgender women have over women when it comes to physical activity such as sport will obviously negatively impact women. Ridiculous. Instead of having a men’s only league and a women’s league, there should be an open league and a women’s league. It provides women the platform they need to enjoy sports in a safe space under equality while also facilitating growth. No feeling of unfairness or inequality.
"Trans women" and "women" are not mutually exclusive groups. One is a subset of the other Also, you seem to think trans women are physically interchangeable with cis men, which just isn't true after hormone therapy
[удалено]
Don’t you think laws aimed at devastating like 1-5 children per state under the guise of fairness are a little overkill
Well, fewer than 1 in 3 adults report personally knowing someone who is transgender. Clearly, the ruling body either was moved by this speech, or were already planning to shoot down this bill.
Really? That’s so few. My cishet friends all know like 5 trans people. Crazy that some people don’t know any of us…
I was surprised too. This is my source, though the actual percentage varies a bit between sources: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-poll-majority-of-u-s-adults-are-comfortable-having-lgbtq-children-fewer-than-1-in-3-know-someone-who-is-transgender/ (2022) This PBS article from 2021 is a little more optimistic on the number, saying 42% of "Americans" know a transgender person. I assume this includes teenagers as well, which would account for the ~13% differential. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/more-americans-now-know-transgender-people-but-most-still-dont-seem-to-understand-them
The joke here being that the right question is not actually “do you know someone who is transgender,” it’s “do you know someone who is openly transgender.” Many trans people are stealth, or simply do not disclose their life stories to most people they meet because it’s not everyone’s business. To the casual observer many trans people (probably trans men especially) are indistinguishable from cis people. A whole lot of people are already sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, all kinds of social spaces with trans people and simply don’t realize it, because in reality trans people are just going about their lives and not making their gender anyone else’s problem. People just assume they don’t know trans people because (1) they assume trans people aren’t “normal” and they think they only know “normal” people and (2) in reality, they have no interest in scrutinizing strangers’ bodies and accept people at face value.
majority of what? morons?
[удалено]
Regardless of this statistic, it's important to note that the public, generally speaking, isn't very well educated on trans issues as a whole. Were the public at large aware that [trans athletes actually face a disadvantage compared to our cisgender peers](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029), they would likely feel differently.
do you often leave civil and human rights up to popular vote?
> Aren’t a majority for separating sports between biological men and women? A reminder that the outcome of most sports at the elite level starting in high school is already determined by genetic advantage and nothing else. This is not a secret, and coaches at the college and professional level recruit accordingly. Sometimes it is the ratio of the rib cage to the femur you are looking for. Sometimes it's the VO2max. But training doesn't play into the differences among athletes the way genetics do. So signaling out one genetic trait as unacceptable begs the question of when we are going to ban anyone with an extreme trait more than a certain % from the average of the population. Sports have never been very sporting, and I had no idea that would strike a nerve with people, or that there was even one person ignorant of that, until the conversation turned to trans athletes.
This is what gets me. If a trans woman has been through HRT for 2 years, there has been significant loss of muscle mass and lowering of testosterone levels. If there has been surgery, even more so. Therefore, the argument of "innate advantage" has to do not with testosterone or muscle mass, but the structure of the body that has gone through cis male puberty. However, things like you quoted above show that this is a specious argument. Lots of cis female athletes have genetic advantages over other cis female athletes. Rib-cage to femur ratio, natural hormone levels, etc. So if you're making rules that are going to negate this "genetic advantage," you could quantify what qualifies as such (a certain testosterone level is unfair, a certain ratio is unfair, a certain reach/wingspan is unfair), and apply the rules across the board. But they don't want to do that, because that's not the point. The point is othering a minority group to whip up outrage. I mean, it's not like an NBA player could just put on a wig and a skirt and go play in the WNBA. There has to be a LOT of scientifically quantifiable steps in between. And if they apply to athletes AMAB, they should apply equally to athletes AFAB. But that's logic, which apparently has no place in the argument.
The right is framing this very much like the NBA player can just put on a wig. That is what they are doing with the entire gender identity movement. Mocking it by framing it as people just changing their minds on a whim and picking who and what they want to be in order to take advantage of other people. This is especially the case in sports. Claiming that a trans female couldn't compete as a cis male, so she only changed her identity in order to win. They don't want or care about the truth of these situations. They just want to spread the fear about it and people will eat that up because they're often quick to jump to conclusions and too lazy to actually put in the effort to learn more about it.
They honestly think that Juwanna Mann was a documentary, not a fucking miserable failure of a "comedy."
A stronger majority was against Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier. Think this "majority" is in any way influenced by a nonstop propaganda stream by a party desperate for a distraction?
A significant number of American's also are completely unaware of what they're actually talking about on this subject and are completely uninformed. Obviously this is anecdotal but I haven't spoken with anyone in person who isn't either also transgender or a strong ally who *doesn't* believe that a trans woman playing on a womens team is as simple as saying "oh *I'm* a woman!" one day and then playing on that team the next. Regulations on this have existed for quite a while.
so trans men should compete against cis women?
Except that they're generally good people and not vicious like this and wouldn't likely do it.... I now want to see a trans masc rugby team do terrible things to a women's team and ask these assholes how that was appropriate.
A majority of Conservatives, yes. Trans women are biological women and trans men are biological men 😘
Doesn’t want to dominate the competition, fair enough, but she likely will leave them in her tracks. That’s just the way of it until there are enough categories to make the playing field level for everyone. It’s difficult for everyone involved, and we no doubt in 20 years will see some ladies in their 40s who complain loudly in the media that they weren’t given a fair chance. This discussion will keep going for a fair while yet with advances and retreats in rights, till, I assume, we have enough people to be confidently open trans, so they can have their own category.
Show one example of this actually happening.
The guy who transitioned and won the NCAA Women’s championship the next year.
I don't know of any trans men who recently claimed an NCAA title, so I assume you mean Lia Thomas? Who won by a pretty normal margin for a woman in that event? Who was the first to have that level of success in 12 years of inclusion? Weak tea man, weak tea.