Is this fair?

[Pakuni]

So if your daughter was denied a state championship by a boy who hadn't undergone any treatment (hormone or otherwise) to transition to his/her gender of identification your response to your daughter would be "no big deal, it's just high school sports?"

I think there are conflicting life lessons here. On one hand, acceptance of people who are different. I'm all for acceptance and celebrating our differences. But another life lesson is that on the playing field everyone is equal - you earn what you get. When the field is tipped and allows someone whose sex is male to compete against one whose sex is female that's the antithesis of the lessons of sports/fair play.

Since when has everyone been equal on the playing field?
Some men (and women) are born naturally producing more testosterone than others. Are they equal?
Elite swimmers like Michael Phelps have abnormally long wingspans and he's double-jointed, giving him a huge advantage over most people. Is he equal?
East African long-distance runners are born with several genetic advantages over their competitors. Equal?

Your argument isn't that everyone should be equal, because they're not and never have been. You just think it's unfair for someone born one sex to compete against those born another. That's fine if that's where you want to draw your line in the sand, but let's not pretend you're standing bravely on the side of equality and fairness. You're just picking and choosing which advantages are acceptable and which are not.

[GGGG]

I think that's a good and healthy response - but it's a bit different from "no big deal, it's just high school sports".

Where did you get the idea that I would say to my daughter "no big deal, it's just high school sports?"  That would be condescending and uncaring.

As an adult I have the benefit of wisdom to know that in the grand scheme of life, this would merely be a blip.  But I would empathize with her feelings.

[Pakuni]

To the rules regulating high school sports in Connecticut, nobody.

To the basic rules of fair play, the athlete whose sex is 100% male and chose to compete against people who's sex is 100% female.

What makes someone 100 percent male vs 100 percent female?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think that's a good and healthy response - but it's a bit different from "no big deal, it's just high school sports".

But again, we are not this person's parent. We are strangers on the internet. From our perspective, its just high school sports. It's not a big deal. People have a finite amount of energy to give to the world's outrages. I think this particular outrage of a high school track meet being unfair doesn't come close to registering for most people. I don't think being blase' about it makes anyone a bad person.

Where did you get the idea that I would say to my daughter "no big deal, it's just high school sports?"  That would be condescending and uncaring.

As an adult I have the benefit of wisdom to know that in the grand scheme of life, this would merely be a blip.  But I would empathize with her feelings.

I don't think he got it from you. I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong Lenny, he got it from me saying "I don't care if some girl gets 2nd instead of 1st in a high school track meet. She will be fine." Which is true. I don't. And its also true that she will be fine. But I would care about her feelings if I was her parent and that's why I wouldn't blame the parents of the young women at this meet in Connecticut if they cared.

[MU82]

Title IX has been updated regularly by use of "Dear Colleague Letters." These letters don't change the actual verbage of the law but they do change the interpretation and for all intents and purposes are enforceable as law. When Title IX was written almost 50 years ago, we didn't have an understanding of the difference between sex and gender. In 2010, a DCL  came out that helped define some of the differences between gender and sex and establish that Title IX protects from discrimination based on both. They were further defined in by another DCL in 2016. Though some of the 2016 letter has been walked back by a DCL that came out in 2017 from the Trump administration. First time in history that a DCL was used to cancel out provisions from a previous DCL (at least for Title IX....maybe its been done elsewhere).

Thank you for helping define all of this. It's nice to have an ACTUAL expert on something here on this site instead of the rest of us "expert wannabes."

(Although I will say I am an expert on shaving one's head, and I will fight anybody who says I'm not.)

[muwarrior69]

Title IX has been updated regularly by use of "Dear Colleague Letters." These letters don't change the actual verbage of the law but they do change the interpretation and for all intents and purposes are enforceable as law. When Title IX was written almost 50 years ago, we didn't have an understanding of the difference between sex and gender. In 2010, a DCL  came out that helped define some of the differences between gender and sex and establish that Title IX protects from discrimination based on both. They were further defined in by another DCL in 2016. Though some of the 2016 letter has been walked back by a DCL that came out in 2017 from the Trump administration. First time in history that a DCL was used to cancel out provisions from a previous DCL (at least for Title IX....maybe its been done elsewhere).

...and herein lies the problem. A bill should be introduced in Congress to amend the statute to include gender and gender identity, not some decree or Dear Colleague Letter by one administration only to be reversed by another. Just because a policy has good intentions does not mean you get to change or expand the meaning of the word sex by the wave of a pen.

[GGGG]

...and herein lies the problem. A bill should be introduced in Congress to amend the statute to include gender and gender identity, not some decree or Dear Colleague Letter by one administration only to be reversed by another. Just because a policy has good intentions does not mean you get to change or expand the meaning of the word sex by the wave of a pen.

Laws are always interpreted by those who are responsible for enforcing them. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

...and herein lies the problem. A bill should be introduced in Congress to amend the statute to include gender and gender identity, not some decree or Dear Colleague Letter by one administration only to be reversed by another. Just because a policy has good intentions does not mean you get to change or expand the meaning of the word sex by the wave of a pen.

....Well actually it does. That's how our legal system is set up. Unless every time a judge renders an interpretation of a law you would like that to have to go through Congress. Our society would literally stop functioning because Congress would have a backlog of thousands interpretations to draft into law and then approve.

As Sultan said, those responsible for enforcement are always the ones that interpret the law, not congress.

[jsglow]

TAMU, I'm actually interested in what the DCLs say in layman's terms.  Cliff notes please.

[muwarrior69]

....Well actually it does. That's how our legal system is set up. Unless every time a judge renders an interpretation of a law you would like that to have to go through Congress. Our society would literally stop functioning because Congress would have a backlog of thousands interpretations to draft into law and then approve.

As Sultan said, those responsible for enforcement are always the ones that interpret the law, not congress.

I thought the Courts interpret the law and the Executive executes the law. I am with Glow give us the cliff notes on Obama vs. Trump DCL. And to your point if that is the way it is then this issue will be swinging back and forth depending on who is in power. I thought we were governed by laws not what one administration says the law is today and another says it is tomorrow.

[GGGG]

I thought the Courts interpret the law and the Executive executes the law. I am with Glow give us the cliff notes on Obama vs. Trump DCL. And to your point if that is the way it is then this issue will be swinging back and forth depending on who is in power. I thought we were governed by laws not what one administration says the law is today and another says it is tomorrow.

Are you new to the United States or something?

[muwarrior69]

Are you new to the United States or something?

https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

[Jay Bee]

I never said anything of the sort. I'm asking you to give an example or cite a source since its a fact.

You never said anything if the sort? I'm asking you "yes" or "no".  If "yes" then we're good. If "no" then you're crazy.

The Q: do some transgender ppl simply choose to be transgender?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, I'm actually interested in what the DCLs say in layman's terms.  Cliff notes please.

There were three major DCLs pertaining to Title IX during the Obama administration:

The first was in 2010 and interpreted what responsibilities a school has to responding to bullying and harassment. This was mostly targeted at primary and secondary education but also applies to higher education. It separated gender based and sexual harassment but clarified that they were both covered by Title IX. Gender based discrimination is essentially a form of sex discrimination because someone is being discriminated against because their gender does not match their sex. It also set up some requirements for primary and secondary education to do training on bullying prevention.It also had some implications for Title VI (Race discrimination).

The second was in 2011 and is the most famous. This is the one that set up clearer and much higher expectations for responding to sex discrimination, specifically sexual assault/harassment, dating/domestic violence, and stalking. This is where the requirements for due process, accommodations, standard of proof, all came from.

The final was in 2016 which clarified that transgender status was considered part of gender identity, therefore was covered by Title IX. It went further to establish some guidelines, most notably designating that students must be allowed to use facilities that pertain to their gender identity, not their sex (i.e. restrooms, locker rooms, dorms, single sex clubs like fraternities and sororities, etc). This was especially fun at the time given what was going on in North Carolina. Schools there were between a rock and a hard place.

The 2017 DCL, was mostly to walk back the 2016 DCL. However it stopped short of saying that transgender status wasn't covered by Title IX. So basically, it kept the letter but got rid of the guidelines, giving schools more time and flexibility to figure out how to accommodate their transgender students. I wasn't necessarily against this move because the 2016 letter put a lot of new requirements in and I wasn't confident that all schools would be able to make the adjustments in a feasible way. So I liked the guidelines from 2016 but appreciated that 2017 gave us more time and flexibility to figure it out. I would not be surprised if (and hope that) another letter comes out in the future the brings back the guidelines of 2016 now that schools have had a little more time to prepare.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You never said anything if the sort? I'm asking you "yes" or "no".  If "yes" then we're good. If "no" then you're crazy.

The Q: do some transgender ppl simply choose to be transgender?

No, that's the question you tried to deflect to.

The statement you made was that "It is a fact that some some transgender ppl simply choose to be transgender."

The real Q: Can you prove it?

I'm not saying its not true. I'm asking you to provide an example or cite a source to back up your claim that its a fact.

[Jay Bee]

I'm not saying its not true.

You know it's true. Of course there are people who simply choose to be transgender. People make lots of "different" decisions.

[Jockey]

I wonder if you'll be so blasé when your daughter gets cheated out of something she's given her all to because of an unfair playing field.

People who "cheated out of something she's given her all to because of an unfair playing field" in the '60s faced brutality, fire hoses, and dogs.

Just a snarky general comment - not meant as a dig towards you, Lenny. But this issue is about life not about just sports.

These are not hustlers trying to win a trophy, but people who have struggled and suffered their whole lives with their identity and their place in society. Yet, there are some on this board who would love to see them punished over and over again.

[warriorchick]

So if your daughter was denied a state championship by a boy who hadn't undergone any treatment (hormone or otherwise) to transition to his/her gender of identification your response to your daughter would be "no big deal, it's just high school sports?"

I think there are conflicting life lessons here. On one hand, acceptance of people who are different. I'm all for acceptance and celebrating our differences. But another life lesson is that on the playing field everyone is equal - you earn what you get. When the field is tipped and allows someone whose sex is male to compete against one whose sex is female that's the antithesis of the lessons of sports/fair play.

What do you think has it worse?  An athletically gifted kid that comes in second in the state because of a transgender competitor, or a kid who has felt their entire life like they don't belong in their own body who is continually bullied and rejected when they try to be the person they believe they really are?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I thought the Courts interpret the law and the Executive executes the law. I am with Glow give us the cliff notes on Obama vs. Trump DCL. And to your point if that is the way it is then this issue will be swinging back and forth depending on who is in power. I thought we were governed by laws not what one administration says the law is today and another says it is tomorrow.

Well in the near 50 year history of Title IX, it has only "swung back" once. And even then it kept the theme of the previous DCL, it just removed the guidelines.

This is also true of any law. Why do you think Congress fights over supreme court spots so much? Whoever appoints the judge has a chance to influence how laws are interpreted in the future. And yeah, administrations change what is law and what isn't on a near daily basis.

The courts also do interpret Title IX and the DCLs. Anytime there has been a challenge the courts have upheld the DOE's authority to interpret Title IX.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You know it's true. Of course there are people who simply choose to be transgender. People make lots of "different" decisions.

Can you prove it? Or are you just assuming this to be true? I don't think its an unfair assumption, but to be a fact you need it be able to prove it.

I'm sure there are people who claim to be transgendered who aren't. Just like there are people who claim to be gay (or straight) that aren't, or people who claim to be rich (or poor) and aren't or claim to be atheist (or religious) and aren't. They are the vast minority of an already vast minority. I also have no idea what they have to do with this conversation.

[Jockey]

To the rules regulating high school sports in Connecticut, nobody.

To the basic rules of fair play, the athlete whose sex is 100% male and chose to compete against people who's sex is 100% female.

Genetic men with Klinefelter syndrome possess an extra X chromosome (XXY) or more rarely, two or three extra Xs (XXXY, XXXXY); they typically produce low levels of testosterone, leading to less-developed masculine sexual characteristics and more-developed feminine characteristics than other men. In contrast, some men receive an extra Y chromosome (XYY) in the genetic lottery, and while they have been referred to as “supermales” that is more sensationalism than science.

Genetic women with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome; they often display less-developed female sexual characteristics than other women. And people with a genetic mosaic possess XX chromosomes in some cells and XY in others. So how do we determine if they’re male or female? Hint: Don’t say that it depends on the chromosomal makeup of the majority of their cells, since women with more than 90 per cent XY genetic material have given birth.

Even if you get the “right” combination of sex chromosomes, it’s no guarantee that you’ll fit into the carefully circumscribed human definitions of male and female.

For example, genetic women (XX) with congenital adrenal hyperplasia produced unusually high levels of virilizing hormones in utero and develop stereotypically masculine sexual characteristics, including masculinized genitals.

Similarly, genetic men (XY) with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome don’t respond to male hormones and fail to develop masculine sexual characteristics. Most live their lives as women. Some historians suggest that Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I and Wallis Simpson all suffered from this syndrome.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gender-comes-down-to-x-and-y-chromosomes-think-again/article24811543/

These are not cases where someone wants to be a girl for a day to win a trophy. for many it is the genetic option they were given at birth.

[Lennys Tap]

  It's just high school sports. 

This is where you said "It's just high school sports" - seemed like "no big deal" was implied. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[jsglow]

There were three major DCLs pertaining to Title IX during the Obama administration:

The first was in 2010 and interpreted what responsibilities a school has to responding to bullying and harassment. This was mostly targeted at primary and secondary education but also applies to higher education. It separated gender based and sexual harassment but clarified that they were both covered by Title IX. Gender based discrimination is essentially a form of sex discrimination because someone is being discriminated against because their gender does not match their sex. It also set up some requirements for primary and secondary education to do training on bullying prevention.It also had some implications for Title VI (Race discrimination).

The second was in 2011 and is the most famous. This is the one that set up clearer and much higher expectations for responding to sex discrimination, specifically sexual assault/harassment, dating/domestic violence, and stalking. This is where the requirements for due process, accommodations, standard of proof, all came from.

The final was in 2016 which clarified that transgender status was considered part of gender identity, therefore was covered by Title IX. It went further to establish some guidelines, most notably designating that students must be allowed to use facilities that pertain to their gender identity, not their sex (i.e. restrooms, locker rooms, dorms, single sex clubs like fraternities and sororities, etc). This was especially fun at the time given what was going on in North Carolina. Schools there were between a rock and a hard place.

The 2017 DCL, was mostly to walk back the 2016 DCL. However it stopped short of saying that transgender status wasn't covered by Title IX. So basically, it kept the letter but got rid of the guidelines, giving schools more time and flexibility to figure out how to accommodate their transgender students. I wasn't necessarily against this move because the 2016 letter put a lot of new requirements in and I wasn't confident that all schools would be able to make the adjustments in a feasible way. So I liked the guidelines from 2016 but appreciated that 2017 gave us more time and flexibility to figure it out. I would not be surprised if (and hope that) another letter comes out in the future the brings back the guidelines of 2016 now that schools have had a little more time to prepare.

Okay, thanks for educating me.  I agree that a reasonable solution is possible.  Pretty sure I don't like the enforced rigidity of the 2016 letter in an area so controversial. 

I do find it interesting that they early rulings seemed to deal with stuff that 95+% of people would absolutely agree with like 'Bullying is Baaad!' (done in my best George HW Bush voice) while later stuff took this off in quite controversial directions that I think require a great deal of though to arrive at a reasonable place where everyone's rights are protected.

Again, thanks again.

[jsglow]

Genetic men with Klinefelter syndrome possess an extra X chromosome (XXY) or more rarely, two or three extra Xs (XXXY, XXXXY); they typically produce low levels of testosterone, leading to less-developed masculine sexual characteristics and more-developed feminine characteristics than other men. In contrast, some men receive an extra Y chromosome (XYY) in the genetic lottery, and while they have been referred to as “supermales” that is more sensationalism than science.

Genetic women with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome; they often display less-developed female sexual characteristics than other women. And people with a genetic mosaic possess XX chromosomes in some cells and XY in others. So how do we determine if they’re male or female? Hint: Don’t say that it depends on the chromosomal makeup of the majority of their cells, since women with more than 90 per cent XY genetic material have given birth.

Even if you get the “right” combination of sex chromosomes, it’s no guarantee that you’ll fit into the carefully circumscribed human definitions of male and female.

For example, genetic women (XX) with congenital adrenal hyperplasia produced unusually high levels of virilizing hormones in utero and develop stereotypically masculine sexual characteristics, including masculinized genitals.

Similarly, genetic men (XY) with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome don’t respond to male hormones and fail to develop masculine sexual characteristics. Most live their lives as women. Some historians suggest that Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I and Wallis Simpson all suffered from this syndrome.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gender-comes-down-to-x-and-y-chromosomes-think-again/article24811543/

These are not cases where someone wants to be a girl for a day to win a trophy. for many it is the genetic option they were given at birth.

Star Trek IS science!

[#UnleashSean]

]But if they got rid of the WNBA and let women play in the NBA, maybe a dozen women would get added to a rosters. Whether because of actual difference in athletic ability[/b] or made up difference from discrimination. Integration may actually do more damage to women's sports as a whole.

No woman in the WNBA would even make a division 1 College mens team.