I missed it.

Now I'm beginning to get why the conservative movement is making a stand on this.

I am at a loss to understand how boys are being allowed to compete against girls in High School and below just by saying they are girls.

It reminds me of the women's tournament at Foxwoods where every year a guy would compete. Every time he got eliminated it would generate an announcement by the Floor and a standing ovation. They couldn't stop him from competing for some reason. Well except that now he is dead. A year or two ago I believe they make it a $1,000 tournament with a $700 discount for women. That put an end to men playing in it. There is definitely at least one trans woman who played.

I wonder what percentage of politically liberal females who are also top notch competitive athletes are in favor of the ban?

Please realize that my question is not really about either sports or transgender rights.

On a theoretical/practical level I don't think there is anything wrong with what you're saying.
But that's not going to happen, because on a political/ideological level it's not about sex, it's about gender and the debate is framed in terms of gender-- which I get is your whole point-- "don't frame it that way". But that can't be helped.. it's the way it is being framed.

We are all born neutral in the belly of our mother's. Sometime during that stage a single chromosome if I recall right decides if we become male or female.

This decides if we get more testosteron or estrogen, getting more testosteron changes your bone structure and muscle mass. You become bigger and stronger than if you were to become a female. You can change that at any time by "messing with nature" but once the growth cycle is complete there is nothing that can be done to change the body back. A male will always be stronger.

Given all that, I don't think it's fair to have someone that went through the whole process of becoming a male is allowed to compete with females at any later stage.
This might be be simplest solution imo.

If you went through adulthood and you were originally a male, you cannot compete with women. Period.

Imagine you are a woman. You trained your whole life in one discipline to become a successful athlete, only top 3 athletes are making real money. Then there comes a guy that decited to change his sex and competes in your sport. Fair? I don't think it is. I have nothing against transgenders, but it seems logical that biological sexes are allowed to compete one sport professionally. As a hobby I do not care, but once there is money and health at risk this should be standard imo.

I believe the trans position is that there is more to being a woman or man than just the chromosome. Which seems valid as each of the sexes has basically a bell curve of feminine and masculine traits that are present regardless of the chromosome.

I'm still old enough to remember when there were 'biological' reasons against interracial marriage, though.

True but that chromosome decides if you were to get more testosteron or estrogen intake.

That is old and racist beliefs. From eugenics to plato, it was even the law back then, so was apartheid, long updated. I don't think it fits here.
I understand the pro tennis ladies protesting when they get crushed by a biologocal male though, don't you?

I honestly think 99% of the populace does not want this to be an issue. Some extremists on both ends however do.


IF the IOC and other major sports governing bodies merely came out with a statement like...

"Times have changed and we gladly welcome the changes. The core premise of sport and regulation was to always attempt to create the most level playing fields possible where no biological advantages could be brought to bear against groups that do not also enjoy them.

Those of us who defined sport in the past did not have the foresight to see the divergence between Biological Sex and Gender and we wrongly mislabeled sports by gender. This has lead to some imbalances within competition.

We now have a way to address and fix that, that in fact creates an absolutely fair balance for all parties concerned. We took time especially to consider the impact on trans athletes and see nothing that would be considered disadvantageous to them.

Instead of defining things by gender we will now utilize Biological sex. using that basis puts everyone at the same advantage and disadvantage. It is a level playing field.


------------


Sure some of those I mention on the extremes will scream bloody murder but I do not think there voices will get amplified for very long. I think society will have little patience to hear someone argue that something ultimately fair as competing by biological sex is wrong because some trans people have a preference for it to be tied to gender where they have an advantage.


Right now most citizens do not see the way out of this challenge and to avoid being lumped in with the extreme anti-trans hate they just go along. But given a solution that is fair, I think most would have little patience for then applying an unfair standard.

Cuepee just saying the same thing over and over again and calling it the fairest way is amusing. Lol “absolute fair balance”..

Cuepee, you realize that in your way the same people that are upset about mtf transitions are going to be upset about ftm transitions right? Like you are changing basically nothing. Well I guess you’re changing half of nothing...

That's certainly true. You have cases such as the one involving Caster Semenya.

This is a complex issue. It might not be the most important issue for the world, but it is a tricky one. On one hand we have a concept of sports that were just recently in history updated to even include biological women, then we have some binary views on biological sex that are far from accurate, and then we have cultural views on gender that upon closer inspection seems to be mostly arbitrary. Mix a bit of scepticism, a bit of hatred for people who are different, impatience from equal rights groups into that discussion, and we're left with a hot mess.

The current state of sports competitions and who gets to compete as peers would have been unthinkable a century or so ago. Perhaps in a century from now they will look radically different from what we have now.

Maybe not, but I would submit that because of those old and updated beliefs the burden of proof should not be on the trans people to prove that they belong, it should be on the other side to prove that they don't.

Is this some kind of big problem? Last I checked it happened ONCE in the history of women's tennis and the trans person wasn't even that good.

I do remember when Martina Hingis lost to Muresmo and complained that she was 'practically a man', though. Hell people make comments about Serena Williams in that regard even now. That's why I think this is about conformity and nothing more. Women athletes are supposed to be women first and athletes second and when it's the reverse they're looked down upon and regarded as 'manly' or whatever. It's both unfair and disgusting.

What gets you in trouble is the bolded.

No a man will not always be stronger in today's world. A transwoman can be much stronger than a transman. And they will say there is no need for the word trans there thus a 'woman' can be stronger than a 'man'.

I am not trying to nitpick. It is an important distinction. Once society agreed that 'male' and 'female' were terms that were gender definitions and not biological ones we must be very careful not to conflate the two.

So there is that.

The IOC first started with a rule that for a 'trans' person to compete they had to being their transition before puberty (hormones) and have completed their surgery. That consideration was quickly dropped due to pressure.

I actually think that is a best standard where someone has transitioned from their biological sex, can get an exception to competing only based on 'biological sex'.

I see it that way and no one has offered any counter to it, so it stands until a reasonable counter is offered.

Simply saying 'well we would prefer to compete by gender' where it is clear an advantage is created where it did not prior exist is not making a case. 'Why would we allow an advantage to be created where there was not one prior?'

And explain what you think is the issue with ftm transitioning as i honestly do not see what you are saying and if you have something it may inform me to change my view.

I totally agree with this and thus why we need to be careful of any blanket approach.

This discussion is sports specific and i think it is fair to say no factor more than chromosomes impacts one ability to compete in sports historical designated as male or female.

Thus why other factors did not see women breaking through into men's sports and men accepted in women's, outside a few fringe sports where physicality is really not an issue.

So for this topic of sports, chromosomes need to be the driving consideration.

You can inject a woman with tons or steroids and testosteron. And then she is stronger. But isn't this excacly what's not allowed in sports? Growth hormones, aka testosteron aka steroids aka "juicing"?

Think of twins of opposite sexes. The male will almost always smoke the female twin in a cage fight. That's why I don't think its wrong to say that men are stronger physically.

Speaking of Serena Williams, I would also point out that she is 100% a woman and can probably bench more than anyone posting in this thread.

You are not understanding the divide.

Men and Women are no longer the terms that refer to biological sex. They are terms now reserved for gender when it comes to this debate.

Thus a transman (formerly a female) is a 'man' and a transwoman (formerly a man) is a woman.

So by your usage a Man (transman) is stronger than Woman (transwoman) and that is not always or even typically the case.

I think what we are missing in this discussion is that somebody who is trans does not necessarily want that info out in the world. There are many gay people who are not out of the closet.

By forcing people to declare their biological birth sex it removes their privacy. Or their opportunity to play sports.

I'm not saying that is more important than a level playing field. Its just that there is more than one playing field.

This whole thing makes me sad.

I would have a problem with boys saying they are girls so they can compete against girls.

I also would have a problem with a boy who was born a girl and is currently taking testosterone competing against girls.

I think I could live with a boy who transitioned to a girl physically, was taking estrogen for 1+ years, and wanted to play sports as a girl. I think I would have a problem if that person was world class. But not if it was accepted by the sporting community they were playing in.

I also think if my daughter read this she would say "Daaaaaaaaad!!!" and tell me to shut up and mind my own business.

The obvious issue is that in your idea of a "simple" biological sex based divide trans men would be competing in female competition. You might argue that there are more obvious "solutions" to this issue but it is something that would have to be addressed and your insistence that the idea "pretty much fixes things instantly" without having ever mentioned this is why Slighted said your idea is "changing basically nothing".

Edit: Also I don't think you've mentioned how you would deal with a situation like Caster Semenya. She (probably) has XY chromosomes but has lived her entire life as a woman.

I am not up to date in this whole gender debate. Not do I want to be up to date in this whole debate. Simply because I don't want to make enemies and because I am in the leave nature alone camp. I understand this is a really delicate topic. If someone wants to be a woman or vice versa it should be respected. Also I do know that people who transform are likely to commit suicide after the change. Look at the numbers if you do not believe me. The suicide rate is astonishing.

Serena Williams could definitely beat me up.

Serena Williams was also embarrassed on the court by a guy outside of the top 200 in Men's tennis, after he spent the morning golfing and downed some cocktails back at the clubhouse.

Was it a trans man?

The full study (albeit only one of many) is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/

So yeah, let's take sports away from them too. Should work out great.

I wonder what her testosterone level too high to compete in IAAF events.

https://www.worldathletics.org/news/...ale-classifica

Honestly curious. 5nmol/l

Okay. thx for that.

It is the first attempt to find an issue with using Biological Sex and yes it would raise privacy issues.

But sport is littered with privacy issues already. Many things are tested and made public whether you want that or not.

I do not think anyone who voluntarily enters sport can use a desire for privacy as a way to get around rules that otherwise make things fair.

Transmen wanting to compete in female sport would absolutely be allowed to as long as they were not in violation of the PED rules and that is fair. Those who 'declare only' would be fine. If you are using PED's then that is fine as a life choice but you should accept you surrender your right ot compete against those not using PED's.

Plus as I said prior, the Men's Divisions are basically Open divisions. No one should prevented via gender or biological sex from competing if they have the skill. So if transman's testosterone levels are that of the normal, non PED male, they should be fine to compete there too.

I am not aware enough of Caster to have an informed opinion where science is still divided as it seems. I am fine with one off exceptions being considered for the 1 in a Million birth case.