This discussion is about whether or not Jenner switching her position on trans-athletes is pandering to pick up Republican votes.
Your response doesn't mention Republicans per se but mentions 'privileged male sexists' not liking her.
My response is basically tongue-in-cheek saying that the Republicans [which I unfortunately refer to as 'privileged male sexists when I actually meant sexist Republicans] won't care as long as Jenner is putting in work in the cultural war for them-- which may or may not even be true, idk.
Your response is that I'm incorrect and you cite Kimmel as an example-- and maybe Kimmel is a closet Republican but if so I don't think he's playing one on TV. He can obviously still be a misogynist.

I was referring the language that was being used which was the type of thing you would hear from a privileged white sexist/racist like Kimmel to tear this beautiful woman down. It seems you are taking the sexist position as well.

Wtf?
You have some serious reading comprehension issues that I cannot solve.

You are so easily trolled idk if it's funny or sad

If that's what's happening then I just didn't know. I've never interacted with this poster before.
I do just try to assume that people are serious.
I guess I'm supposed to read through people's posting histories and check if they are UFC fans before replying.

That's what's happening

Yeah I feel dumb. I missed all the obvious signs.
Going to try to treat people with less good faith going forward here.

You were the one making trolling comments. I made one observation that it's obvious the sexists are trying to tear this woman down and then you doubled down by taking the sexists' side.

I bought some Jenner on predictit with my last free $4 on there so hopefully they fail.

This is going to go down a line I'm not equipped for, not being medically qualified, but it's not clear that a trans woman who say went on puberty blockers and then went on hormone therapy will have an advantage over a cis woman. And remember the opposite, that some trans man could've developed their body in their youth taking testosterone, experiencing something like a male puberty, and then turns around and says "Well, I'm off the hormones so let me come and compete with the is women". Long and short of it is that it's complicated and not all trans people are alike in terms of what treatments they've had or continue to have.
It could be the case that a blanket rule doesn't make sense. Perhaps more sensible is to consider what effects treatments have and have some regulations as to what you need to have done in order to qualify for a women's section.

I did say before I was sympathetic to the idea that the baseline is to preclude people on performance affecting drugs, but these are questions that should be answered by research not our gut intuitions that all trans women will have some insurmountable innate advantage. There's huge variability between someone who transitioned as a teen and is on hormone therapy and someone who came out of the closet last week.

When you say sport doesn't owe them anything, that may be true in some sense, but sport is also something we create as a society, and what we have is a group of people who have been largely excluded and mistreated by society. To just say no, we aren't going to find a way to try and include you in this huge social arena doesn't feel sit right with me and definitely won't for those left out. So it's not that I don't share your scepticism so much as your solution doesn't solve the problem so much as sidestep it and hope it isn't raised again.

I think the point you're missing about introducing policies about sex is that it's not always going to be intuitively obvious who is and isn't trans. More than that, the point is that you and I have gone through our entire lives not having to have a sex test to join a club, to be recognised as who we are. It seems like a very basic thing to me that I get to use the men's room, join a men's team, or similar activities, and nobody's ever stopped me and said "Sorry, we need to make sure", but that's the kind of policy we'd suddenly be saying to both trans and cis women they're now subjected to. Again, someone raises a question about Serena William's being a bit too butch then she's now subject to that humiliation. I don't imagine that kind of scrutiny being put on women across sport being too popular. Seems ripe for abuse in amateur sport and with young athletes too. Sorry to any young gymnasts, it's been decided you need genital inspection. Is that really the kind of policy we want in sport? Maybe they're used to batteries of tests at the highest level, but sport covers everything from kids to adults from rank amateur, semi-pro, to pro, to superstar. How far are willing to go just to make sure no trans people sneak in?

I've competed in a few sports and I'm not keen on the idea that someone could challenge my sex at any time. My main sport, I turned up, weighed in, and fought. No, I don't like some hypothetical where I could've entered the women's section on a whim, but I also don't like the idea that at an amateur open some random guy would need to study my balls to clear me. But, again, making rules to exclude trans people (if you actually intend to enforce them) lead to that kind of absurdity. That's why I don't think there's easy answers here.

Not everyone on steroids is necessarily at an advantage over everyone not on steroids. Thus we should not have a rule banning steroids and look at it case by case?

NO. There can be a Board or way to look at exceptions (Ex TUE) but the rule should exist.

And again sport does not owe anyone anything. But we must decide what the premise of sport is. If it is to provide a 'Level Playing Field' where people can push, test, train themselves and compete, then allowing Transwomen defies that. And i think competitive sport (scholarships, Professional) is just that.

If Sport is about comradery, fun, participation, then I think Transwomen should play wherever they want.

You can disagree, if you want but you won't convince me the premise of the 'Level Playing Field' while not perfect, is not the ideal that should be pursued for competitive sports.

I believe results become meaningless when you have people compete and the playing field is not level. The competition is meaningless.

Just as if you let one person run half the marathon before letting the second guy start, I won't care if the guy who got the lead (unlevel playing field) then wins.

And I wholly reject your 'sorry I need to check argument'. If that is a reason to allow someone to participate then allow steroids and all drugs. I too have lived all my life without having to prove 'I am not on drugs'. What is guilty until I prove I am innocent, by testing, crap.

Oh, that is just the price of playing a sport that wants to ensure a level playing field. One I am not forced to undertake but if I OPT to I must submit to a check so they can see I am clean of drugs. Right. Something we saw as fair for over 50 years now but suddenly with Trans would not be.

Sorry but if you want to play competitive sports there are rules that are there for a reason. Fairness. The level playing field. We should not throw out that principle because it makes someone uncomfortable to comply.

I didn't say anything about an unlevel playing field though. I said that are a lot of cases where it isn't clear that it's not a level playing field.

And, again, I think you're evading the issue when it comes to enforcing a blanket trans ban which is that actually doing it would be highly invasive and the lower down the sporting pyramid the worse and more open to abuse it would be. Imagine some kids' team travels on an event and on arrival, what happens, they need a quick sex test? I don't ask that just to be bombastic but because we actually have cases here and now of trans kids competing in sports and people insisting on what sections they should or shouldn't be with, and we've had recent cases of uncovering abuse in gymnastics for example, so I think it's a very genuine question as to just how far we want to go to make sure trans people are where the rules say they must be.

As I said, I've fought on a number of tournaments and nobody's ever questioned my sex or gender. That's a privilege I've enjoyed. It's a privilege cis women have enjoyed. Again, how much of that basic decency are we willing to do away with for the level playing field of keeping trans people out?

It is not a tough issue to deal with at all. You just let the person establish that before competing in the first place via a quick note from a qualified doctor. It can done either to in confidence to a sporting commission or team coach or any one designated to receive it.

Thus you end the need to establish at 'field level' or 'on the spot'. If you are there that means you are cleared already.


So do you agree that a 'level playing field' ideal is what sport should aspire towards as that is how you ensure 'fairness' between contestants competing to get a win?

Well, you are being invasive and a lot of your arguments in favour of said invasion is based on presuming ill motivations in the contestants. Which even though it might happen, is probably going to be a small sample overall. A bit like stopping and searching all cars in a neighbourhood, because someone think they saw someone from there commit a burglary elsewhere in town.

Your logic is simple, but that doesn't mean the question is simple or that your answer will actually be simple to carry out.

There is a a case that resembles what you want, it doesn't involve a trans athlete, but an intersex athlete, Caster Semenya. Whatever one's view on her competing is, one thing is for sure: The amount of tests, rule-changes, ridicule, harassment, press coverage and demeaning medical attention (complete with media leaks) she had to go through was pretty insane. There are genocidal war criminals who have been treated far more gently.

I am assuming the below is a reply to me but can't tell for sure?? But will respond as if it is.

Competitive sports require invasiveness. Age, Drug use, Outside cheat factors.

I don't believe you can even have competitive sport without it.

What would be the option? The honor system??


Again as I am not sure if this is directed at me, I will mute my reply.

I do not 'presume' ill motivation at all. My position is not based on an idea of 'cheating' at all.

I want a system where it is defined in a way that no one would be cheating.


We are both speculating but based on the history of this planet, I see no reason that certain countries would not take full legal advantage of this in Olympic level sports.

I also think there is no reason to try and make estimates today about how much of an issue this would be in the West in all levels of sport (high school, etc) as we see even with a tiny number of crossovers the percent that achieve the highest levels of that sport are enormous.

Generally speaking you need millions of participants to filter to get to one who can compete on a world stage. With Transwomen, we often get one cross over and instantly that person can be in the top tier of that activity.

Anytime you have such a disproportionately high achievement level it suggests the playing field is being distorted in some way.

We can agree to disagree but I would challenge you to explain what is not simple to carry out?

If Sports org simply said 'In a continuation of our efforts to promote fairness and a level playing field, all sport participation will be based on biological sex'.

There, that is the rule.

Now might some people say 'that is not fair, we think separation by biological sex is an unfair playing field, or other...'? Sure. But can they make a logical case to overturn that criteria as 'fair' by offering something else they can show is more fair? No.


Agreed.

There always need to be an 'exceptions' committee and they need to be empowered to act decisively.

There is no way around challenges such as Semenya imposed on the system IMO and that has nothing to do with today's trans debate. Certain situations will always be challenging.

The Trans debate just does not need to be one of them, if they just define sport correctly based on competition by biological sex.

Well, a simpler solution is just to do away with professional sports. It isn't really needed, the athletic ideal doesn't hinge on it either.

I'm being somewhat facetious, in the sense that I know it won't happen and it is not really intended as an actual solution. But I'm being serious in the sense that it is an extremely simple solution, even simpler than yours.

And i agree and have said that.

Just instead make all women's sport recreational and problem solved. No scholarships. No paid sport.

You would not do that to the Open sport which is where the men compete. It is open to all now, and is not impacted by any of this.

It just means doing away with competitive womens sport in a realization that no one will agree to what could create a fair playing field for women.

I do think that is a likely result regardless if this is not solved.

That's just you agreeing with yourself since I have said no such thing. My sarcastic suggestion is to do away with professional sports, absolutely no salary for any athletic endeavour. The simplest of solutions, and thus obviously the best.

The point is merely that you are insisting that this is a simple problem because you can outline what you think is a solution in a few sentences. A line of thinking that has at times in history even crippled the mightiest of Empires.

As is obvious from the Caster Semenya case (which though it does not revolve around a trans athlete, does revolve around similar solutions what you propose), your solution will be infected by discriminatory practices and archaic political ideology. When we extend such regulation as a general rule we will will cause great distress to a lot of people who never meant any harm or had any ill motivations.

All this you hand-wave away with what is basically "nobody has any right to do sports" argument. Which in my book is such an anti-thesis to athletic ideals, that I think it destroys what it tries to salvage.

lol

Laws banning transgender student athletes splinter GOP: States are considering an unprecedented number of bills targeting transgender women and girls who play sports, but Republican support for the measures is not universal.
Politico with a piece out on the GOP and this issue.

Yet what once promised to be a galvanizing force for the Republican Party ahead of the midterm elections and 2024 has instead devolved into a source of division within the GOP, hobbling one potential presidential contender — Kristi Noem — and pitting other Republican governors against lawmakers of their own party.

First Utah’s Republican governor, Spencer Cox, bucked the GOP’s conservative base, declaring in February that he wouldn’t sign a bill banning transgender women and girls from playing female sports. Then Noem, the South Dakota governor, waffled on transgender legislation in her state, infuriating conservatives. In late April, the Republican governor of neighboring North Dakota, Doug Burgum, vetoed a similar bill.

Most recently, Caitlyn Jenner, a California Republican who announced her bid for governor last month, voiced support for the bans. The former Olympic gold medalist, who came out as transgender in 2015, told TMZ that banning transgender women and girls from competitive sports was "a question of fairness."

Far from a unifying new fixture in the GOP’s culture wars, the question of how to treat transgender student athletes is instead inflaming rifts within the party — and quickly becoming a litmus test for Republicans who aspire to higher office.

Litmus test seems doubtful? If it's "causing rifts" then obviously the party isn't united on it-- so how does a litmus test come about as a result? Seems odd.

Although poll numbers don't show much of a rift so perhaps a litmus test could be something.

No. That is just me applying solid logic. What you are doing is a rejection of logic and that is fine but recognize what it is.

Logic says if you have a problem with A you cannot solve you try to solve it or PERHAPS you shut A down.

Non logic (your position) says we have a problem with A we cannot solve and therefore we do away with B.

You could make no argument how it makes the Open (typically men's) division any easier as there was no complication there.

Again you are saying Complication with A = Cancel B to make things simpler.

And I don't hand wave away anything so take that crap elsewhere.

I ABSOLUTELY have and do recognize sport needs a body to look at exceptions and that exists currently. Thus people can get a TUE and compete even when on drugs and those bodies consider other issues.

Semenya clearly falls under that with or without the trans debate AS I SAID, and you trying to use that to pretend you are positioning something that I am not addressing, when I am is just garbage.

Yes sport will always have a small number of exceptional cases to handle on a case by case basis. YOU AND I both understand that. The rest of what you said here is just nonsense.

My point about abolishing professional sports was a joke on the usage of the term "simple", if that wasn't clear.

There is nothing simple about this question, it's actually very hard. Fairness and inclusion are seemingly at odds with each-other, and most would agree that these are important ideals in sports.

And there is a tendency to let trans people be "left behind" when issues like these crop up. Ban that, ban this, go there. To me this is uncomfortable, because we know there is still a lot of hatred towards trans people out there. That means I don't actually trust sports associations to do the right thing based on neither principle of fairness and inclusion. Behind words like "fair" we might give bigots a lot of room to manoeuvre, even if we ourselves never intended it that way.

So my issue is mostly about the usage of the term "simple". This isn't simple and I think it is bad to treat it as if it is.

Ok fair enough.

I do understand that and even if no one believes me here, I have immense good will for Trans people and support their transition 100%. You only live one life and i think everyone should be free to live that life as they see fit as long as they are not harming others.


That said, it is my belief that we make this issue (sport) far more complicated and problematic than it needs to be and it actually ends up harming Trans people as a result.

Decisions have to be made one way or another and none of them are perfect. They will all have some fall out.

But I fully believe had the 'decision' been made to just state and stick to the original premise of Sport, being a fair playing field for all' (thus sport by biological sex) and not getting drawn into the more political considerations (sport by ever evolving gender choice) things would have been 'easier'.

I posted up thread how some of the main high school bodies have now moved there position that 'goodwill stated identification' and not 'drugs or surgery' are all that should be required to compete.


That means that a 'gender fluid' person who is biological male, can literarily compete in the Men's division on Monday and the Women's on Tuesday without ever having taken a single drug or done any surgery.

We cannot, in any way, say or suggest that provides a level playing field for the bio-women.

If you set the divisions by biological sex, that person, regardless of identity can ALWAYS compete and can do so on a fair playing against others who share that same biology.

If high schools start allowing 'goodwill' declarations of being "trans' as a reason for a biological males to compete against biological females what rational reason could you deny a biological male who did not identify as trans as competing?

Would it not be discrimination to say 'you must say those words in goodwill or you cannot also compete' if that became the only difference between the two and their inclusion??

And again I totally support Trans by declaration, meaning no one need take drugs or do surgery to be Trans. But not in competitive sport.

Sometimes choices one makes can rightly exclude them from some activities and sport is one of them.

Another challenging area is Womens Abuse Shelters, which have been another hotbed for this debate.

When I lived in Edmonton Canada, which has a pretty sizeable trans community in the downtown the debate raged about Women's SHelters and the local YWCA.

There was one transfemale who insisted on being in the family women's change room which was for moms with their kids. It was actually women in the lesbian community who were engaged in trying to block her. i had good friends who were gay who lived in the condo across from me and they explained this transperson was likely mentally ill. She was did not have surgery or hormones, and was said to be in the changeroom visibly sporting an erection. In her defiance (again as I was told) her position was she was a transfemale who was a lesbian and attracted to other females so of course she could be aroused and she said bio lesbian women would also be aroused but it would just not be visible.

We have another poster from Edmonton on this forum and I would not be shocked if they were aware of this 'issue' as it was one in a community that really prides itself on being inclusive and yet they had no easy answer.

What makes it tough is that we have real world situations where none of the proposed solutions are agreeable to all parties. And I get that a simple solution to that is just to eliminate one of those parties from the equation but that doesn't make trans people go away.

There's a reason I brought up gymnastics. It's because it's a sport where relatively young participants compete at very high levels, and it's also a sport where we've recently had stories unfold about the mental and physical abuse that goes on in it. There's an awful lot of pressure, an awful lot of power and trust put in coaches, and an awful lot of opportunity for exploitation. I really don't know how much someone wants to send their teen daughter off on a competition with the team knowing that some coach somewhere might call for a genital inspection day. Your simple solution opens the door wide for potential abuse. Is that worth it just to make sure a trans kid somewhere doesn't get to compete?

A level playing field is certainly an ideal in sport, one of the most important ones, but it's not the only one. There are many others. Another is open participation. Part of the credibility of sporting achievements comes from the fact that there are low bars to entry. Anyone, anywhere, could be the next world champ in some field. Part of the beauty of the Olympic games, for instance, is that it opens the door for anyone to participate on the world stage.

Let me put it this way, the only reason we have men and women sections, or weight divisions, or age categories, is because we want sport to be open to as many people as possible. We could have an even simpler solution than yours and do away with all of that. It would eliminate the bulk of boxers, nearly all women, but how could anyone argue against that, right? It's simple and it's a level playing field. But, no, we have those divisions because we want sport to be broad. We want to see people of different types and backgrounds. We want people to participate. Openness is also an ideal of sport.

To answer the question directly, yes, that's one ideal, but it's part of a set of competing ideals just like everything else in life.

And it should be noted that we have actual cases where trans people not being allowed in the category they choose is not creating a level playing field. There's that story of the trans wrestler, and he isn't being allowed to compete with the other boys, and so he's absolutely mauling girls. The very thing you're saying you don't want to happen is happening because they're enforcing your policy.

We can't make trans people go away. We can't make them not want to be a part of all the things that everyone else gets to be in. But it does seem like for every other group, when it comes to sport at least, we've at least made the effort to be as inclusive as possible. I share some of your concerns, and maybe we won't ever get to a happy solution for all, but it's not an issue I'm wanting to shrug away.