Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
I was asking bobofett that question. I don't think any of those 3 are true.
Why do you think at the college and processional level it is fair for people who were born male but take part in a "transition" to start playing against women? Or do you agree that it isn't fair to woman to do this but you are ok with it because you exclusively care about transwomen?
I actually think that at the high school level, there are plenty of reasons to ban transgender athletes from traditional girl sports. They are fair competition, health and safety issues and because I think the inclusion would discourage female participation in sport. I pick this level as the most important because this is the age I think sports become truly competitive or at least the goal of fair competition is at its highest. I also think at this age inclusion can cause the greatest harm to the other participants, ie. cis females. But because of the breadth of sport, I don't think that exclusion is the sole solution to the issue even at this level, as do the anti trans groups.
While some may not agree, I think professional sports are more perverted by money than any transgender participation issues. So, if pro sports wants to have an all transgender WNBA team, I would expect the fans and customers to either accept the change or vote with their wallets and stop supporting. After the Fallon Fox issue in MMA, I would expect any female fighter to have a clause added in their contract that they only have to fight or defend title against a natural female competitor. I only know of one transgender UFC fighter other than Fox in the last 10 years. But if some professional fighter wants to fight a transgender competitor, why would I care? I would either pay money to watch it or not.
College sports is in a weird transition phase itself. Is it professional or amateur? Are the Olympics amateur after the dream teams? The best college this year may go back to OSU because he will make more money with NIL than a rookie NFL contract? How does that change the equation.
So back in the day when college sport was truly amateur or in a sport likely to not involve NIL money, I could see taking the position that the act of transition does not even the playing field between an athlete that went through puberty as a male vs. one that went through puberty as a female.
I can't name a single sport that females but up better results than males. I don't know of any that it is even close. But turn the situation around, if a transgender athlete wants to wrestle and went through a female puberty, I could see accommodating them by putting them in weight classes two levels lower than their actual weight.
So you asked:
When we are talking about the college or professional level are you saying 1) there are no differences between men and women in sports, 2) there is a difference between men and women in sports but bottom surgery and hormones make men and women perfectly even on the playing field or 3) men and women are different in sports but who cares women sports are boring anyways and this is the perfect excuse to get rid of them?
I think the proper answer is none of these above. I am interested enough in sports, including female sports, and the benefits they bring to try to grow them, rather than limit them and their potential participants simply because one pillar of historical division, by sex is being tested by the transgender athlete.
Last edited by jjjou812; 01-10-2024 at 05:07 PM.