These three questions just seem like a reframing of precisely what we've been talking about, so I don't think answering these really affects anything, but because it is respectful to answer the questions posed by your fellow debater I'll answer them for you anyways.

1. Gender issues can be a extremely sensitive, so if such a situation comes up I would hope they would treat it with tact and reach out for dialogue as opposed to making a unilateral ruling.
2. By the construction of your example they have the same athletic ability
3. Other women are now less likely to win with the addition of the new competitor.

But again, whether we are talking about youth baseball at the local school or the Olympics or somewhere in between matters crucially for whether 2 and 3 are dominating factors or not.

I said about blades that there could be a way to include them, and maybe not. It will be settled by the data.

I said about trans athletes that we should similarly do our best to try and include them, but if it's not possible then I'll grudgingly accept that. This is also why I'm answering "no" to the question "Question 1 : Will you confirm you are good with that ruling at that point in time based on what the officials know?". I'm obviously not going to say "Yes" to that when the very thing we're discussing is what the rules OUGHT be.

I said about gloves that simply because some gloves give advantages/disadvantages that we don't outright ban all gloves. We regulate them.

You think there's some hypocrisy here. There isn't.

I have said countless time 'If it is competitive sport, then a Fair Playing field must be present or it is meaningless'.

It if is 'recreational sport' inclusivity can be the defining factor and fair.

So as long as your example fits to 'recreational sport' then yes.

You CANNOT give one person or team and inherent advantage in competitive sport and pretend the outcome then matters. That is not 'fair sport' it is 'rigging the result'.

False. I said 'the same except for one factor' in my example and you agreed.

Person 1 and Person 2 both CIS males and lifelong friends who compete at basically the same level in sports. They are alike in almost every way. Heck they could be biological twins for this example.

Both are very good and hoping to compete for a singular Track scholarship at the upcoming games.


Person 1 is slightly better than Person 2.


Person 2 however comes out as Gender Fluid just before the games. Person 2 takes no drugs and intends no surgery. It is self mental recognition thing for them.


Person 1 and Person 2 both compete in the Male event and come 2 and 3rd and miss the scholarship.

Person 2 also competes in the female bracket and wins getting the scholarship beating out a CIS female who was considered best in the State for years who also does not now get the scholarship.



AGAIN the sole difference YOU have identified is how they identify ON THAT DAY.

Nothing else you say that also matters, that Person 1 shares would allow him to compete in the womans division. There is one thing that matters to get to compete and that is how the person identifies on that day.



To the CIS woman who just lost her scholarship she does not feel the playing field would have been unfair if Person 2 was identifying as a CIS male when competing but it is suddenly fair since today they identify as a transwoman.

Not a single thing that tilts the playing field to unfair if he is a CIS male that makes her unable to compete and win has changed with the declaration. The transwoman has all the same physical attributes and strength that is the factor that allows them to win.


You gloss over all of that and bury it in 'feelings' and 'suicide' which does not address the playing field disadvantage one iota.

You come back to 'they might feel bad' 'they might commit suicide' as the reason to turn a blind eye to the unfair playing field. But oddly you do not care if the blade runner (physically disabled) feel bad or commit suicide because if we find the playing field is not fair, put them in a newly created 'Mecha'' division and don't worry if they feel like they are being treated as less than human and more like machines.

So odd how you are willing to consider the 'unfair p[laying field' for all expect Trans. That it is only 'their' depression and suicide you care about.

Great. And thx for that.

So based on your answers to 2&3 do you recognize what you are saying is that you recognize the 'inherent biological advantage does not go away based on the declaration of gender'?

What you have said is that you think it may matter less depending on the sport and level, which I agree with to some extent as well, I just define those levels more clearly 'recreational sport' and 'Competitive sport'.


With the clearly advantage identified by YOU that person should compete in recreational sport only and never be questioned about gender IMO.

Nothing to prove, nothing to answer. Just compete and have fun in the recreational sport category.

There is.

If all the officials know is that a person competed as a CIS male in yesterdays events and they are now taking the field in a female category it is right to stop them.

That is a truism when no other information is given and that was the boundary of MY hypothetical you replied to.

In the next question they were given that extra info.


But you are trying to dance around answering question 1 properly as you do not like what that answer says.


You cannot have it both ways. If you say 'no' then that means anyone can compete in the woman's divisions CIS male or other as there is no check and no requirement.

This is black and white thinking. Sport isn't neatly divided into "recreational" and "competitive". It is a spectrum. For instance, with a lot of youth sports, most of the value is in having kids be active and engaged in sport, but it nonetheless is presented competitively. So the school might have a track event and there is still a 1st place ribbon, for instance. For the Olympics, clearly this is on the extreme end of the competitive spectrum.

So let's be explicit then we can work up. 14 year old girls school baseball team, who play other local school teams. To me it is overwhelmingly obvious that despite the existence of some level of competition, the value of inclusivity utterly dominates. Do you agree here?




I have no idea why you typed any of this, as it is identical to what you've typed every other time just made it slightly more important than last time by adding that the losing female was a state champion for years now denied a scholarship. As an aside, do you even know if this has occurred? Is it remotely common? I just checked and to play in the NCAA which obviously is a tonne of the university scholarships you need 12 months of continual hormone suppression. And the whole bit about insisting it is a gender-fluid person just changing their identify the very next day is.......weird. Can you try addressing the questions I raised earlier about this, which I think will do more to unstuck this conversation than me repeating the same response I've given to your thought experiment.



Not true. I agree that your scenario is constructed to create an unlevel playing field. You made it both important, i.e for a scholarship, while also ensuring no hormone therapy and this weird angle about an imagined gender-fluid person changing day to day. So yes, undoubtedly one person has an advantage. And as I've also repeatedly said, I too care about level playing fields and is an important value. So when I talk about things like the value of inclusion of trans people, that isn't "not addressing" the other value. I've been explicit that these different values are in tension with each other, and ultimately how I weight that tension depends on the specific context. So when you make things more and more important and competitive, then the level playing field part of that becomes more important which is why I agree that trans women without hormone therapy shouldn't be competing in the Olympics, for instance.



Are you actually ****ing suggesting I don't care about depression and suicide of non-trans people?

Obviously. I'm very excited to get to the punchline here.

I want to try something. You're leading me down a 20 questions rabbit hole, so I think I've earned the right to do the same. WHY do you think a trans person should be allowed to compete in recreation sport of their gender. As in, I know my reasons for that. Can you elaborate on yours? When it is purely "recreational", what are the good reasons for including trans people?

NO.

There is nothing wrong with making it binary and that would be necessitated if you are to make the competition meaningful.

For those at the top of the sport, at any age, the 'All Star', 'First Team' type slots are what determine who advances up to the next level which is key to them getting better.

If CIS women are excluded due to the fact that transwomen dominate those top spots typically that is very unfair.

So no, divide by recreational and competitive and you have your 'fair' playing fields. What you propose does not.


I keep repeating it because you keep denying aspects of it despite the fact it clearly highlights the unfairness.

And if I can cite an example of a cis female losing a scholarship to a transwoman would that change your view and you would admit it was unfair or just hand wave it away and rationalize it as fair?

Because if you do not agree up front and are just going to hand wave it away I don't provide info like that.


Great.

You agree a gender fluid has an unfair advantage in my scenario. We agree.

So explain then what is in that advantage the gender fluid person has that a full transwoman, who is not doing hormones or surgery does not have?

Be specific. On the day of competition they both identify as transwomen, so why does not the full time transwoman not have the same advantage?

I am saying you are far more willing to hand wave away their concerns and agree to segregate them to a 'Mecha' division which intonates less than human if we agree they have an advantage. This despite the fact they are fighting in court for inclusiveness.


You are making my argument but to them. Which is that 'if we review and find you have an unfair advantage, you need to be excluded'.

But you have historically refuse to acknowledge same in my argument.

(but perhaps I am changing you as i do see some softening in your position towards mine, even if you don't want to admit it)

You asked me a question. I gave that question a one word answer of "No".

There is absolutely no way anyone could honestly describe that as "dance around answering properly".

We can disagree about what the answer should be. We can disagree about the entailments of my answer. What we can't do is pretend this is a real conversation if "No" is being evasive in your view. Nobody could answer your question any more directly. It's literally impossible. There's not even a shorter word I could have used.

I have said it over and over.

Competitive Sport has always been predicated on the principle of trying to create a fair playing field so 'like' competitive with no inherent competitive advantage over one another can compete against 'same'. Thus why they created :

- Biological sex based divisions
- Age based divisions
- Banned steroids

The entire idea is that 'training' and 'skill level achieved' via dedication and hard work would be the differentiators and allow us to the rate that achievement in terms of greatness that became tied to such rewards as Scholarships or Pro Contracts.

The person who got the rewards 'earned them' via outcompeting their peers on a level playing field.


Recreational Sport is about access and participation. There is no underlying need to have age distinction or sex distinction for them to be played and for the outcomes to have meaning. You can and do see mixed age, mixed sex teams. All gender considerations would be a non issue here.


If you allow for the Gender Fluid person that YOU ADMIT has an advantage, or the transperson who has the SAME advantage to compete in the Competitive Sport where the playing field is then not fair, the outcome becomes meaningless.


Just as if I enter a 100 meter dash race against 8 year old boys and win, that result, should I win, is meaningless. The fair playing field was destroyed and my winning rightly does not say ANYTHING about me as a competitor and worse it makes the 8 year olds look worse in comparison, if people take my win seriously.

Sorry but in debate I can read inconsistencies, rationalizations and hypocrisies in another person posts. I see that in yours.

So i do not have to accept you saying 'no' to them existing or anything else, especially when I can quote them.


It is not a requirement that you agree. We can both agree to disagree on that but that won't change me saying what I see and highlight.

I don't even know what this means. You said I danced around answering when I gave you the shortest most direct answer in the English language. I said "No".

If you want to discuss the entailments of that answer, fine, but we really can't pretend you're remotely in good faith here if you're going to call "No" dancing around.

The problem with your question is that it contained a normative component when you said "are you good". If my position is that I don't think anyone's got a satisfactory rule set then I HAVE to answer "No" to that.

I'll give you a real world scenario again. The English Premier League changed the handball rule last season. It used to state that only deliberate use of hand or arm resulted in a free kick, but now that no longer applies if a goal results from it. I don't like that rule. So if someone asks "Are you good with that goal being ruled out for handball?" (Example, Snodgrass for West Ham vs Sheffield United) my answer is "No". And it's missing the point entirely to then say "But that's the ruling the referee had to give at the time" if my entire issue is about what the rules OUGHT be not what the rules ARE.

My answer of "No" was because I haven't taken a position on whether that should be the rule. I equally haven't taken the position that it should not be. So none of what you claims follows from "No" actually follows. I might have a flawed position, it might be a weak position, it might seem like a weaselly position, but it can't possibly be hypocritical to remain agnostic on what the rules ought be. Which is precisely what I've done with blades, trans athletes, current and future technology.

Take a step back here and stop trying to set traps and gotcha. You're so bent on war here you can't even accept that "No" is a direct answer.

There needs to be a third athletic divison, TRANS.

Let everyone witness the "female to male" athletes get defeated by the "male to female" athletes. They will then be forced to split into two separate trans groups, which is the most fair.

I could see these two new transgender athletic divisions surprising everyone with high TV ratings.

. I'm surprised you don't see "reactional to competitive" as a spectrum. To me it obvious that the Olympics is a far more competitive than 14 year old girls baseball team playing against their local school. The later case I think still has some framing in terms of competitiveness, but most of the value in the sport here is about getting kids being active, learning teamwork, being included in a community, etc etc. The competitiveness isn't nonexistent, but it is just much smaller than the Olympics. And I'm someone that thinks there is just SO much value in youth sports and really encourage kids to engage with it, but most of that value isn't purely about sorting out who is the best. They're kids. It doesn't really matter all that much. Being involved, that is what matters. So this is why I think a spectrum approach is much more appropriate.

When you consider trans inclusion on a spectrum, then it also reveals how low down on that spectrum, when the benefits of sports are about being included in the team and working together and being active, there I'm willing to sacrifice the value of competitiveness a bit because it just isn't as important. But if its the olympics, which are the pinnacle of competitiveness, them I'm not willing to sacrifice that.

Your hard binary "recreational" vs "competitive" sports as opposed to a spectrum doesn't really work, and I think this super narrow definition is part of that. If the only sports that are recreational are ones with no age or sex distinction, you've basically eliminated the majority of all types of youth sports and given no place for trans people to be included in a way that respects their gender identity. I think its silly to call 14 year old local schools baseball as on the "competitive" side of that binary, for instance, but it sounds to me like you mean no trans kid is ever allowed on that either. And that is really sad.

It was an aside for a reason. That is, your concocting this increasingly unlikely hypothetical of a gender-fluid person changing gender identities one day to the next, AND beats out the multi-year state champion AND that person now doesn't get a scholarship AND they have no hormone suppressants despite things like NCAA requiring them which is presumably where those types of scholarships are going for. My analysis remains the same regardless of whether this is or isn't common, but, as an aside, this isn't common.....right?




Obviously they have the same advantage. This shouldn't be surprising and no it isn't a softening in the least.

Well this is where we just need to agree to disagree as our view on the import of that is so fundamental that we will not reach agreement elsewhere.

Again, the foundational bedrock of competitive sport is a 'level playing field'.

Competitive sport is competition between individuals on a level playing competing to defeat one another via a superior outcome.

It is actually the 'result' that matters thus the competition to arrive there first/best.

A 'result' becomes meaningless in that regard if the playing field is not level.
If an adult competes against kids. If someone with a mechanical assist competes against those who do not have that. If (historically) biological males competed against biological females.

it simply is NOT competitive sport anymore as one group is rendered 'uncompetitive' via the advantage the other brings into the sport.

You agree it can be uncompetitive but have just added in other considerations (ie 'the person might get depressed') as a way to offset it and say it should continue.

Hopefully IRL, when you take a few minutes away from calling people stupid in this thread, you don't have any involvement in a school system.

There are major challenges these days with youth mental health. That was the case pre-pandemic, and is even more so now. The same is true for the LGBTQ+ community. And where those intersect? Even worse, of course.

I want you to take off the black-and-white logic hat for a minute, if that's possible for you, and think about what this really looks like on the ground. What does this look like when we have some parents that, like you, see a completely fair playing field as the only concern here? Dominant girls constantly being subjected to questioning about what sex they "really" are - that sounds like a great time for kids that are are already having a tough time of things as it is. And some trans kids getting completely left behind, as that would be the inevitable result.

And the question is - to what end? What is the problem we're looking to solve here? Is there really a concern that there's going to be an epidemic of 14-year old boys willing to put up with the humiliation they will face by masquerading as trans, so they can dominate girls' team? If so, that sounds like a bogeyman related to the one people bring forward when gender-neutral washrooms are suggested - that we can't have those because there's going to be a whole bunch of guys looking to use them to sexually harass girls. Will there be issues with allowing trans kids to compete where they're comfortable? Of course there will. But we need to put our trust in educators, counsellors, psychologists to sort those out on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps, as the landscape shifts, the day will come when a different solution is needed. But to stick with black-and-white rules now to avoid the possibility of, god forbid, the occasional team of 14 year olds winning "unfairly", is very short-sighted IMO.

And I'll just add - I put unfairly in quotation marks, because I question how dramatically unfair that really would be. We're not all the same, physically, and that difference is dramatic in teenagers, where every kid is at a different place when it comes to growth and maturity. Sport has never been, and will never be, about people with equal physical attributes facing off to see who has the greater will or drive to win. Of course we try to divide things up to make things more fair and, ultimately, more fun for both participants and spectators, as is isn't very enjoyable to be on either side of a sporting event that is dramatically lopsided simply because one team had a huge advantage in terms of their athletic abilities. So we divide males and females, by age, by skill level, by weight classes in some sports - but these divisions will never work perfectly. And in big team sports in school, there is usually no division other than by sex - an imperfect division already, as gender isn't all that binary.

Competitive sports for kids is already messy; this is nothing but another layer. It may eventually require its own solution, but I don't see a need to rush into anything.

Now with all that said, I think there probably is some level/age where more black-and-white rules are needed. It's one thing when a team of 14 year old girls didn't win the championship because another team had 3 huge transgender kids that dominated the game, but it's entirely another when women dedicate 10 years of their lives to becoming the very best in the world at their sport, but come up short in the Olympics to someone who arguably shouldn't be in the competition with them.

Yeah, at the highest levels, this may be the solution one day, IDK.

Few things in reply.

I do genuinely understand that the intent is good here so I try to refrain from being too personal and insulting. Very different then when I think someone is purposely trolling in a race discussion when in intend to insult. But I just did a search of the word 'stupid' and my user name and it hit zero matches. I searched dumb and it got one, and i did not call the person dumb.

So not sure why that strawman is being stuffed here but anyway I will always concede my rhetoric can be toned down especially coming from the master of decorum I consider you to be.


----------

Next.

I absolute believe in the idiom 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' and what it is trying to teach us in that statement.

I believe it is wrong to remove the black and white logic cap and think in 'emotional' topics it is more important than ever to try to lead with logic. Thus why you never let a victim sit on the jury.

Are trans person issues real and a concern. 100% yes.

Do I believe you solve them by putting aside logic and literally destroying the core foundational element of sport no?

I hope you and I can agree that transwomen as a whole have a massive advantage of CIS women. The early data cannot be denied with such few participants instantly competing in top arrears of the sports they enter.

If you have a daughter the chances of her making all star, getting a scholarship or playing pro is likely one in a million based on population. Transwomen moving over from CIS male sport have to be near 1:1 to get onto that highest rung.


You don't ignore that TODAY and say 'the numbers are small' 'the amount of spots lost by CIS women does not matter since it is small' and then create a rule and foundation that when the numbers do grow, and we already have evidence it is growing that we then have to reverse the rule later, when these young people have grown up competing against CIS females and are suddenly told 'you no longer can... we make you your own division as it is not fair'.

You are actually setting the Transwomen up for even bigger failure then as you let them compete and win, telling them they have no advantage and it was all fair and then wipe out their achievements as soon as you implement a new category.

And once a cis male goes through puberty the advantage is measurable and undeniable, no matter how much you may want to deny it. After about age 8 you start to see real differences as boys outpace girls and the girls who may have played on a 'boys team' up until that point can no longer compete.


That does not mean every cis male can beat every cis female but as a group it does mean they are way better. WAY better. High school boys compete as warm up against Olympic girls gold medal soccer and volleyball teams and they beat them all the time. A number 300 tennis player can beat the GOAT womans tennis player.

there are boys who are 8 years old who can beat me in a sprint but I beat 99% of them. Do not let the exceptions define what is fair or not.

I think you guys way underestimate what it means to be near the top of competition in your division and to strive to be at the top if you prioritize sport in your life.

I think you guys way underestimate how many girls do prioritize sport in their early life and find motivation and direction in sport.

Once you create a playing field where they can never win and can never get close. They can never be a record holder because one transfemale set the record near CIS male levels, you can absolutely destroy their motivation to even try.

I played competitive sport and new so many gals who did as well who, every bit as much as I did wrapped their identify in being a winner. Pushing to be the best and get that recognition.

I think you are completely missing or ignoring the unintended consequences of what you are trying to set in motion here or would hand wave it away with a 'how likely is that', 'how many will get in'. Which is a way to 'WiSH' it won't become that problem while doing NOTHING to ensure it does not.

So sorry, but we do not agree. And that is fine. I understand the issue, and very sympathetic to it but believe people are justifying an emotional response to institute a very a very damaging policy.

Lest we forget as this was at the peak of the GOAT women's powers and against a guy described as a drunk who did not take much seriously.


--------

. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"

------

It's shocking that sports using biology is even controversial.

There's people who don't identify as their age. That doesn't mean 35 year olds can compete on the Senior PGA or in Junior Hockey.

What about if someone doesn't identify as their weight? Can a 220 lb UFC fighter compete with 130 lb fighters if that's the size he identifies himself as?


There's some good female athletics scholarships too.

I'm very pro LGBTQ overall, but this sports stuff is a joke.

Looking back, I was hasty on that one. There was just one instance, and that might be arguable (Bobo I call him a troll as I cannot believe he is this dumb), and other than that you were calling the posts/arguments dumb, not the people. So my humble apologies for that.

And that's very kind of you, but I definitely have my times of condescension and sharp words. Politics can bring out the worst of us at times.

I would agree that we should never remove logic from any decisions; that was more of a rhetorical device on my part. It seemed like you were arguing based on nothing but logic, so I was appealing to you to take a broader look.

I agree with the principle enough that we don't need to argue the point.

I don't think this is any more fair than it would be to suggest that you are completely missing or ignoring the potential mental health issues.

Honestly, I think most of the difference here is where we draw the line where this becomes a black-and-white issue, because there is clearly such a line for each of us. You've mentioned recreational vs. competitive as your line. I don't think that's an easy distinction to make, and if that line means that we're needing doctor's notes for 14 year olds, we've gone well past where that line should be. The harm of a 14 year old team losing because the other team had trans girls is far outweighed by the harm coming from exclusion IMO.

I think you greatly overestimate how much of an issue this is on its own, or ever will be, because competitive imbalance is already a big issue in school sports. Our daughter played competitive water polo from the age of 15-17, and they constantly had issues with one or two stacked teams that kicked everyone's asses. There were a number of reasons for this that I won't get into, and attempts were made to address it, but they never could solve the problem completely. And I can tell you from the perspective of my current role in the education system, competitive imbalance is a big problem, just like it was an issue when I was in school. We have a variety of rules in place to stop schools from "stacking" their teams unfairly, but even so, you still get schools that are among the best year after year, and others that never get there - and this is in a country where athletics doesn't have nearly the cult following and obsession that it does in the US, and with much less of a have/have-not division of schools.

Is there a line where we need black-and-white rules? Probably. Is it for a 14 year old school team? Almost certainly not.

Edit to add: And to be clear, no black-and-white biological rule doesn't necessarily mean no rule.

Ok. In truth, the sense I've had is you launched onto a black and white binary narrative very early, and while you repeated it over and over and over again, you never meaningfully engaged with the arguments being presented. The chance of progress indeed dwindled. I thought it better to ignore at the time, for the spirit of the discussion, but ganstaman nailed it:

I also definitely concur with Bobo Fett. Ultimately it is the young trans kids denied access to sports that are the ones who suffer. I just hope you stay away from them, even if certain GOP governors won't.

But mostly I agree with the iconic Elliot Page:

It is really that simple.

Do you agree with the Arkansas GOP that trans kids should be banned from joining extracurricular, elementary level sports teams of their gender? That doesn't seem like a joke to me.

Ya, I actually do 1005 believe the best solution for ALL would have been for the sports authorities to say "we made an initial error. Based on our premise of always seeking a fair playing field we initial divided sport by categories of Male/Female before we understood 'gender' would split from biological sex and those terms would be attached to gender. To rectify that we are re-aligning all sport by biological sex which DOES provide one fair and consistent standard to all participants and a level playing field for all'.

Done!

That would help them not get trapped in to an unwinnable situation where they try to figure out what is 'fair' in terms of 'age of transition', 'drugs, no drugs', 'surgery no surgery'. For example the IOC originally had a rule that to be recognized one had to transition with drugs and surgery before puberty.

They thought that was a good concession but instantly the pressure was on by Trans who were left out by that. And today the goal posts are being fought for Transition by 'sincere declaration' only. NO drugs, no surgery. You can be a CIS man yesterday enjoying all the physical advantages and a trans woman tomorrow competing against CIS women and then back to the CIS male the next day.

and I am not suggesting my way would make every trans person happy. That is not to be the goal as not everyone is happy about all rules. A 12 year old might wonder why they go from being the oldest junior to the youngest senior, in competition.

But consistent applied rules that are clear tend to be respected and overall cause the least grief.

This current battle is not going away and is only going to get much worse as time goes on if and when more transwomen enter sport. I would not be at all shocked if many cis women end up boycotting certain events in protest when it so clear they have no chance at the top 1, 2 or 3 spots due to transwomen dominating.

Some are willing to gamble or bet 'not enough trans will enter to make this an issue' but they have no answer or Plan B if they do. You are not closing that door later once you tell them it is 'fair competition' for years prior.

I probably disagree with such a person on just about everything.

If the sports are recreational, and more about participation, character development, etc. then I'm all for anybody competing.

But in primarily competitive sports, boys shouldn't be competing with girls, 19 year olds shouldn't be competing with 8 year olds, and 180 lb people shouldn't be wrestling with 75 lb people.

I don't think we disagree over most but I think the differences are tough to solve.

I think there is a big difference for 'like' competitors who get beat by a staked team.

In terms of competition and how we (athletes) find our motivation the hierarchy is typically like this:

- The bottom rung athletes who can make the team strive to be starters. They see those who start and compare themselves to them and force themselves to get better to try and catch up.

- The Starters on the team tend to look to those who become the 'All Stars', All Americans'. They set their sights on them and hope to get better to compete with them for those spots

- The All Stars look to those who set the 'Records' , who get 'scholarships' or 'go Pro'

- You have the same with type of evolution within the Pro ranks.



It genuinely is a situation where steel sharpens steel and everyone chasing the rung above makes everyone competing better.

That is why, for instance Dominican's make MLB at such high rates. They do not have a baseball gene. They have this type of competition at all levels that pushes them all to be great maximizing the numbers who do become great.


You may not agree but I honestly believe that if you allow the number 100 ranked male in Tennis to go in and crush the Williams sisters and utterly destroy the competitive field and set records that no CiS female will likely ever touch and persist for years and years, maybe a decade or more due to that advantage, it not only denies CIS women fairness but it will reduce, if not destroy the down stream competition channel that produces the best women.

Records and goals have to be perceived as beatable. The person you are competing against must be perceived as beatable. Even if an extreme long shot, they must not be so far ahead, in the way biological sex can advantage someone, that you feel you have no hope but are told to be motivated and try hard anyway.

This is why I see this attempt as "The road to hell paved with good intentions'.

That a Trans person 'WANTS' to compete against the weaker biological sex is fine but that does not mean it has to be accommodated simply because they will be sadder and already have problems. It is the wrong fix, imo.

And potential more disastrous for both CIS and Trans in the future, IMO.