http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-yearwood-transgender-0531-20170530-column.html
This is not politics. This is real life. Trying to help one person places another at a distinct disadvantage.
I wish it was a simple answer. I think it is fair in the sense that no athlete is created equal. Was it fair to Dwight Howards high school opponents that he was a 7 foot man child by age 16?
However, I don't think that's much of leap to then question why men's and women's sports should be separated at all. In a perfect world I don't think they should be. But the reality is that opportunities for women to play at a high level would all but disappear. I don't think theres anything about the sport of basketball (for example) that says that women can't compete with men. 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 or made up difference from discrimination. Integration may actually do more damage to women's sports as a whole.
We had an opposite case in Texas. An individual who was born female but identified as male was taking hormone injections to prepare for sex reassignment surgery. He was a wrestling athlete iirc and wanted to participate in the men's league. The state refused so instead he dominated the women's league because he basically had legal PEDs in his system. I wonder what people would have said if he was allowed to participate in the men's league.
I did appreciate the article. Thought they took a thoughtful approach without taking a side in a hot button issue
Is it fair that LeBron James grew to be a 6'8", 250, with otherworldy athletic traits, and I grew to be 5'10", 160, and unable to touch the rim?
Fair is relative.
I wish it was a simple answer. I think it is fair in the sense that no athlete is created equal. Was it fair to Dwight Howards high school opponents that he was a 7 foot man child by age 16?(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww190/sparksoo/gfd/McNabb-Blank-Stare_GIF_zpsd4237453.gif)
However, I don't think that's much of leap to then question why men's and women's sports should be separated at all. In a perfect world I don't think they should be. But the reality is that opportunities for women to play at a high level would all but disappear. I don't think theres anything about the sport of basketball (for example) that says that women can't compete with men. 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 or made up difference from discrimination. Integration may actually do more damage to women's sports as a whole.
We had an opposite case in Texas. An individual who was born female but identified as male was taking hormone injections to prepare for sex reassignment surgery. He was a wrestling athlete iirc and wanted to participate in the men's league. The state refused so instead he dominated the women's league because he basically had legal PEDs in his system. I wonder what people would have said if he was allowed to participate in the men's league.
I did appreciate the article. Thought they took a thoughtful approach without taking a side in a hot button issue
Rocket, I don't see being born male as any more unfair of an advantage in track as a basketball player who is 7 feet tall at age 16. Both are natural athletic advantages they have over other competitors. Are you telling Dwight Howards dad that he should think about the feelings of all the 6 foot nothing basketball players that Howard destroyed in high school?
Bro, as dominant as Brittany Griner was, she wouldn't even sniff the 14th spot on the worst D-League roster.
Rocket, I don't see being born male as any more unfair of an advantage in track as a basketball player who is 7 feet tall at age 16. Both are natural athletic advantages they have over other competitors. Are you telling Dwight Howards dad that he should think about the feelings of all the 6 foot nothing basketball players that Howard destroyed in high school?
Bro, as dominant as Brittany Griner was, she wouldn't even sniff the 14th spot on the worst D-League roster.
Which brings me to a larger point. Why do we separate men and women in sport? Isn't it because it is understood that men in general are naturally larger and stronger than women, and thus have an unfair advantage in many sports where size and strength are important elements? But might not this gender identification issue the first step toward the end game of eliminating separate sports teams based on gender? Probably a long ways down the line, but maybe inevitable? Taking our PC culture to its natural endgame, aren't accounting for differences like naturally superior size and strength discrimination? Once someone can say that despite having those natural advantages they identify as a woman and we say that is OK, aren't we moving in that direction?
http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-yearwood-transgender-0531-20170530-column.html
This is not politics. This is real life. Trying to help one person places another at a distinct disadvantage.
I think you may be missing the larger point.
They are not identifying as women because they want to gain an advantage in a sports event. They are doing it because that is who they are.
I am not missing the point, I understand that. I offered no opinion, just a thought exercise. Once you start ignoring biology when determining gender, then it seems to me the downstream effect for sports may be to eliminate gender as a differentiating factor. I am not advocating such a change, just wondering if that is where we're headed and what other people think.
We're not headed in that direction. 0.3% of people in the US are transgender. Sports will not be eliminating gender as a differentiating factor as a result of 0.3% of the population.
i don't believe it's about "feelings" as much as it is "fairness". this is a dude competing against girls. ok, let's flip it-maybe the dude is lucky he wasn't beaten by a bunch of girls. which brings up another question that wasn't asked-how would the dad or the dude have reacted if his child got his arse kicked? and, you are using a measurable physical attribute(height) as opposed to what's between the legs. if one feels they aren't being put into a "fair" situation, i guess it can then become an emotional issue as well
ok, to address your thoughts on advantage/disadvantage in track-well, that's all fine and good, but where is the line drawn? also, i haven't seen any studies regarding the parity of male/female performances within specific sports. i.e. track vs. all the rest or age levels at which a disparity may become significant.
i should have clarified-"where is the line drawn" i mean, which sports? track is ok but not basketball or any of the others for that matter?
| Event | Boys Qualifying Minimum | Girls Qualifying Minimum | 2017 Girls Winning Result |
| Long Jump | 22'1" | 17'6" | 19'10.5" |
| Pole Vault | 13'7" | 10'3" | 12'3" |
| High Jump | 6'3" | 5"3" | 6'0" |
| Shot Put | 52'7" | 38'0" | 46'3" |
| Triple Jump | 44'4" | 35'11" | 42'8.5" |
| Discus | 157'9" | 116'11" | 140'11" |
By the rules she is not a "dude."
And what would she had done if she had lost? Hopefully showed gracious sportsmanship in defeat.
You make it sound like this was all set up so she could win a few races.
"make it sound" so you're a mind reader now? i actually don't care who won, by how much or whatever. what i'm saying is-when is a dude a girl and vice versa?? i suggest that they are actually taking the hormone replacement therapy drugs at least. otherwise all ya got here is someone(a dude) saying i'm a girl, where's the starting line, let's race! i'm mean where's the proof? shouldn't there be some kind of documentation? little leaguers need proof of age, tsa wants proof of knee, hip replacements going thru metal detectors, etc
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww190/sparksoo/gfd/McNabb-Blank-Stare_GIF_zpsd4237453.gif)
Bro, as dominant as Brittany Griner was, she wouldn't even sniff the 14th spot on the worst D-League roster.
I am not missing the point, I understand that. I offered no opinion, just a thought exercise. Once you start ignoring biology when determining gender, then it seems to me the downstream effect for sports may be to eliminate gender as a differentiating factor. I am not advocating such a change, just wondering if that is where we're headed and what other people think.
Do you know any cisgendered men who would lie and claim to be trans-gendered so they could win at a women's sporting event? The next one I meet will be the first.
Agree 100%. Think about if someone like Ryan Amoroso was allowed to play in the WNBA. He would dominate Brittany Griener. Stronger, quicker, more athletic, better in every area of the game. No NBA team was clamoring for him.
Which brings me to a larger point. Why do we separate men and women in sport? Isn't it because it is understood that men in general are naturally larger and stronger than women, and thus have an unfair advantage in many sports where size and strength are important elements? But might not this gender identification issue the first step toward the end game of eliminating separate sports teams based on gender? Probably a long ways down the line, but maybe inevitable? Taking our PC culture to its natural endgame, aren't accounting for differences like naturally superior size and strength discrimination? Once someone can say that despite having those natural advantages they identify as a woman and we say that is OK, aren't we moving in that direction?
In our culture, we are expected to see all people as naturally equal. At the tennis majors, for example, the women insist on equal pay since they do equal work. But is it equal work? Forget for a moment that they play the best 2 out of 3 sets vs. 3 out of 5 for the men, that is a different discussion. True equality would mean that there is one tournament open to everybody and the best 128 play in it, regardless of sex. Probably 127 men and Serena Williams. Same for college sports and Title IX. If we want true equality, that means there is one basketball team open to all, one volleyball team, etc.
In many sports that would kill women's participation (although I suspect it would spur an exponential improvement in the best women athletes, as better competition spurs improvement), so we intuitively understand it is a bad thing, but in slow increments, I think we are moving in that general direction.
I imagine it's roughly the same number as those who do it just so they could go pee in the women's restroom.
I wasn't trying to argue with you. I certainly am not ignoring biology. In fact, that was the point of my post. It is almost completely biological.
Studies have been done on transgender people and their brain anatomy. These aren't just random decisions these people are making to identify as the opposite sex. It is inspired by the biological makeup of their brains.
No. Some simply choose to be transgender.
Who?
As the article states, most states do have requirements for proof of gender. Also, to my knowledge, there has never been a case where "a dude" said "I'm a girl" and then after the race said "just kidding, I'm a boy again." Do you know any cisgendered men who would lie and claim to be trans-gendered so they could win at a women's sporting event? The next one I meet will be the first.
To be honest, I don't watch much of the NBA and none of the WNBA. I have no idea how many if any WNBA players are good enough to make a roster in the NBA. Definitely not Griner. I was think more end of the bench 3 point sharpshooter type role players.
Some people do. It's a fact and you should know better. People do odd things.
You honestly believe 100% of transgender people were compelled by their genetic make-up?
The idea that any WNBA player could make an NBA team may be the most ludicrous ever submitted on Scoop. Those ladies are special athletes but nohow, no way. Have you ever seen an NBA game? You're kidding, right?
http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-yearwood-transgender-0531-20170530-column.html
This is not politics. This is real life. Trying to help one person places another at a distinct disadvantage.
if one is going to identify as a guy or a girl, they should at least be one of "them" pharmaceutically if not both pharmaceutically and physically.
if one is going to identify as a guy or a girl, they should at least be one of "them" pharmaceutically if not both pharmaceutically and physically. i know this is going to be controversial, but do we need to have a transgender take some kind of documentation to have their identity verified and officially changed on their i.d.? think about it-get pulled over for speeding and ya pull out your drivers license and, well you know the rest
The idea that any WNBA player could make an NBA team may be the most ludicrous ever submitted on Scoop. Those ladies are special athletes but nohow, no way. Have you ever seen an NBA game? You're kidding, right?
No, not fair. This is about competition. Those young ladies that trained hard, sacrificed, entered a GIRLS competition - no sympathy for them apparently. It's a competition, which should be about XX and XY chromosomes. This isn't about how someone identifies, it is 100% physiology.
If we're going to use how someone chooses to identify, than why can't a 15 year old boy identify as a 12 year old boy and play at that level? If birth certificates don't matter any longer for gender, how can they legally mean anything for age either? It's all about how one identifies?
Do not understand the Lebon comparison. Lebron is a male, you are a male. He got a better roll of the dice for body type for now (he may die at age 39 and you may live to age 99). That's completely different than this example.
Feel badly for those young ladies who did it right.
Most ludicrous thing posted on scoop? Are you new here? Steve Novak was in the NBA for 11 years as player who's only ability to was to make three point shots. I have no idea how many, but I'm sure there are some who could be the last player on the bench as a sharpshooting specialist for an NBA team. And if there aren't currently any, it is theoretically possible.
The fact that people think its so impossible for a woman to compete in the NBA actually goes to prove the point I was making. Integrating the sports would result in less opportunities for women in sports.
a broad is a broad, a guy is a guy, rightl? Reasonable differential to me. Wide range... you got femmies like ZFB that have the strength of a demented broke broad.. but he still kind of a guy...as unbelievably dickishly condescending as you are about all things recruiting, at least you back that up by being knowledgeable and being able to cite facts.
Guy = guy,
broad = broad
simple
For sports, I understand the argument. For everything else, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone what their gender identity is. If someone identifies as transgender but hasn't gotten the surgery or hormone treatments that's their business.
They do change their ID (provided the state allows it). If someone is born male but identifies as female their driver's license will say female. Unless you are saying their driver's license should say transgender. In that case I would ask, why would anyone who sees a drivers license need to know that information?
wait a second, now i'm struggling-if someone is born a male, but i.d.'s as a female, the license says female? but they aren't a female. you aren't what you think you are or want to be. just ask rachel dolezal how that's working out for her. what if they think they are a dog? does that mean they are a dog?
review: XX chromsomes=female
XY=male
i don't care how hard you want to try, but i haven't heard of any surgery that will change this
You started with 12, moved to "some", then say it is at least theoretically possible. Of course, anything is theoretically possible - a 5 year old could win the 100 meter dash at the Olympics. But 12 or "some" is crazy - among the craziest things I've ever read on a sport's board. Integrating professional sports (by gender) wouldn't "result in less opportunities for women" - it would eliminate women from professional sports period.
Before you accuse me of being a knuckle dragger, a couple of things: I have two daughters and two sons and coached them all in youth sports. My wife and I are both extremely happy that our daughters had opportunities never afforded my wife and the young women of her generation. Sport's participation is important and good for ALL. But until you find a way to mess with Mother Nature, post puberty elite female athletes can't compete with post puberty male athletes.
Oh, and by the way, Steve Novak was 6'10" - and while he wasn't much of an athlete by NBA or men's college basketball standards in the WNBA he'd be LeBron squared.
wait a second, now i'm struggling-if someone is born a male, but i.d.'s as a female, the license says female? but they aren't a female. you aren't what you think you are or want to be. just ask rachel dolezal how that's working out for her. what if they think they are a dog? does that mean they are a dog?In all honesty i'm 99% sure i'd have the exact perspective as you if i didn't know a transgender person. i've told this story here before but my 8yr old is in the same class as a transgender girl. having known her and her family for the last 5 years means watching them realize, identify, struggle with, accept, and educate the rest of us on what being transgender is and what it isn't. It isn't biological or physical - that's your physical sex not your gender.
review: XX chromsomes=female
XY=male
i don't care how hard you want to try, but i haven't heard of any surgery that will change this
No, not fair. This is about competition. Those young ladies that trained hard, sacrificed, entered a GIRLS competition - no sympathy for them apparently. It's a competition, which should be about XX and XY chromosomes. This isn't about how someone identifies, it is 100% physiology.
If we're going to use how someone chooses to identify, than why can't a 15 year old boy identify as a 12 year old boy and play at that level? If birth certificates don't matter any longer for gender, how can they legally mean anything for age either? It's all about how one identifies?
Do not understand the Lebon comparison. Lebron is a male, you are a male. He got a better roll of the dice for body type for now (he may die at age 39 and you may live to age 99). That's completely different than this example.
Feel badly for those young ladies who did it right.
as unbelievably dickishly condescending as you are about all things recruiting, at least you back that up by being knowledgeable and being able to cite facts.
on this subject you only add 'woefully ignorant' to being dickishly condescending. either cite facts or explicit personal experience - anything else is simply showing that you are afraid of something you don't understand.
Age identity is not a thing. Gender identity is. Gender and sex are two different things. The question in this case is whether someone's gender or someone's sex be used when deciding where they compete. Some states (like CT) use gender. Some states us sex. Some states (like TX) use sex assigned at birth (even if you've gone under the knife you aren't allowed to compete with the gender you identify with). I honestly don't know which is right. I see both sides of the argument.
What if someone is born a Chicos but self-identifies as a Hoopaloop or 4or5years? Should that person be allowed to post on Scoop?No, they should be locked up in a mental asylum.
Depending on the state they will change the driver's license if they go through sex reassignment surgery. I'm not sure if any change it based on gender identity without the surgery.
I don't know what someone who thinks they are dog has to do with anything. That person is mentally ill. Everyone has both a gender and a sex. Most people its the same. For some people, its different.
oh, and no woman will ever ever ever play in the NBA. When I lived in Miami I scrimmaged against the WNBA team in AA Arena with a bunch of guys I had never met or played with before. The guys absolutely crushed them, not even competitive. And we were hardly NBA level athletes.
This is not to say that some of the women weren't very skilled and better at some things than us dudes because they absolutely were. But, our collective size, speed and especially strength were way too much for them to deal with.
The way I see it you can't have it both ways as you yourself have said everyone has a gender and a sex, yet Obama expanded the definition of sex to include gender when it came to Title IX, rather than have the language of Title IX changed to include gender. When we conflate the two as inter changeable or as you say they are different we run into all kinds of trouble. I can see a lawyer getting their trangendered client off because the only evidence is the DNA of someone of the opposite sex even though the DNA is a 100% match.
Easy Lenny, I don't know why you would think I would call you a knuckle dragger. We are on the same side of the argument so If I think you're a knuckle dragger, than I must think of myself as one too.
I said "maybe a dozen" as an off the top of my head guess without even thinking about it. "Maybe" meaning 12 as the absolute max with the more likely possibility of 0-11. I have no idea what the number would be. To be honest, it doesn't matter because it wasn't the point I was making.
We agree on the larger point, integration would hurt women's sports. I don't know that I agree that it would completely eliminate them. I think there is a possibility that there are women who could compete in several sports with men. But they would be the massive minority, effectively eliminating women from the ranks of professional sports.
I would think to be fair, one would use the biological definition. If XX, then female. If XY, then male. There is a physical advantage of being XY and it is unfair to XX participants if XY are allowed to participate.
Gender identity wasn't a thing that long ago either. I have met transgender people, mit changes one's viewpoints to know people that may not nearly fit into assigned categories. I don't think it is a scam, but it is also unfair in athletics for those that are competing with other biological consistent people. Somehow those girls are lost in this conversation.
Regarding the issue at hand, I tend to agree that the kid in the article played by the rules. Those are the rules, so that's that. But I think it's a stupid rule. I think females (sex) are simply unable to compete with males (sex) in most sports and it's completely unfair to require them to do so. I'd hope that people supporting the rules in this case would be just as open minded about supporting the rules in states where biological sex is the determining factor.
wait a second, now i'm struggling-if someone is born a male, but i.d.'s as a female, the license says female? but they aren't a female. you aren't what you think you are or want to be. just ask rachel dolezal how that's working out for her. what if they think they are a dog? does that mean they are a dog?
I would think to be fair, one would use the biological definition. If XX, then female. If XY, then male. There is a physical advantage of being XY and it is unfair to XX participants if XY are allowed to participate.
Gender identity wasn't a thing that long ago either. I have met transgender people, mit changes one's viewpoints to know people that may not nearly fit into assigned categories. I don't think it is a scam, but it is also unfair in athletics for those that are competing with other biological consistent people. Somehow those girls are lost in this conversation.
No, not fair. This is about competition. Those young ladies that trained hard, sacrificed, entered a GIRLS competition - no sympathy for them apparently. It's a competition, which should be about XX and XY chromosomes. This isn't about how someone identifies, it is 100% physiology.
If we're going to use how someone chooses to identify, than why can't a 15 year old boy identify as a 12 year old boy and play at that level? If birth certificates don't matter any longer for gender, how can they legally mean anything for age either? It's all about how one identifies?
Do not understand the Lebon comparison. Lebron is a male, you are a male. He got a better roll of the dice for body type for now (he may die at age 39 and you may live to age 99). That's completely different than this example.
Feel badly for those young ladies who did it right.
I honestly don't care if some girl in Connecticut got 2nd place instead of first place in a high school track meet. She will be fine.
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.
Can you please show me where Obama expanded the definition of sex to include gender under Title IX? I am very familiar with all the DCLs that have come out about Title IX and none of them have rolled gender and sex together. In fact, in the 2010 letter on harassment and bullying they very clearly define that there is a difference between gender based and sex based harassment and both are prevented by Title IX. In the 2016 letter they actually start the letter by giving a definition of gender identity and a definition of sex.
I'm admittedly ignorant on some of this, but I don't think someone's DNA changes when they go through sex reassignment surgery. So I'm not sure how a lawyer could get a transgendered client off that way.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
Title IX states that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The definition of sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions: adults of both sexes.
It says absolutely nothing about gender or gender identity.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
Title IX states that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The definition of sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions: adults of both sexes.
It says absolutely nothing about gender or gender identity.
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.
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.
Believe me, I had two kids that participated fully in high school sports. I was excited for them, rooted for them, but never wanted to hear excuses. It's just high school sports.
Life's going to give them a bunch of situations that may not seem fair. Learning how to deal with them is a greater life lesson than winning a track meet is.
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?"
Who cheated?
If that participant played within the rules, I would be disappointed but yeah, my response would be basically "You did great. Second place is awesome."
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.
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".
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.
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.
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).
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.
...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.
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?
I never said anything of the sort. I'm asking you to give an example or cite a source since its a fact.
TAMU, I'm actually interested in what the DCLs say in layman's terms. Cliff notes please.
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?
I'm not saying its not true.
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.
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.
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.
You know it's true. Of course there are people who simply choose to be transgender. People make lots of "different" decisions.
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.
It's just high school sports.
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.
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.
]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.
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.
There were three major DCLs pertaining to Title IX during the Obama administration:
This is where the requirements for due process, accommodations, standard of proof, all came from.
How does this work when a University is assigning dorm rooms? Do both students mutually agree or is it, surprise, I am your transgendered room mate.
https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
This is where you said "It's just high school sports" - seemed like "no big deal" was implied. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I think 69 raises a really great point. I don't consider myself to be a Neanderthal but with TODAY being the day that room assignments go out at MU I'd struggle as a dad on this one.
No woman in the WNBA would even make a division 1 College mens team.
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?
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?
I think 69 raises a really great point. I don't consider myself to be a Neanderthal but with TODAY being the day that room assignments go out at MU I'd struggle as a dad on this one.
How does this work when a University is assigning dorm rooms? Do both students mutually agree or is it, surprise, I am your transgendered room mate.
I think 69 raises a really great point. I don't consider myself to be a Neanderthal but with TODAY being the day that room assignments go out at MU I'd struggle as a dad on this one.
Don't you mean -> No due process, Expel student based on word on word, Standard of proof is zero. Cause let me tell you, that 2011 change has quite a bit of harm to multiple students as much as it has helped others.
I think 69 raises a really great point. I don't consider myself to be a Neanderthal but with TODAY being the day that room assignments go out at MU I'd struggle as a dad on this one.
I could see that as an issue but if you daughter was rooming with a guy transitioning to girl then the next step would be to wonder their sexual orientation. If the individual like men then what's the issue? If the individual likes girls then I could see how you might be concerned however then what is the difference between that and a daughter living with a lesbian roommate?
I could see that as an issue but if you daughter was rooming with a guy transitioning to girl then the next step would be to wonder their sexual orientation. If the individual like men then what's the issue? If the individual likes girls then I could see how you might be concerned however then what is the difference between that and a daughter living with a lesbian roommate?
There isn't, which is why selection based on orientation isn't an option and neither should sex or gender. As a society I think we should strive to go genderless is shared spaces (like restrooms, dorms, etc) However this point is really about cultural norms whereas sports is about competitive environment.
So dorm assignments is cultural whereas sports is competitive/opportunity
I understand why people are uncomfortable with the idea of their son or daughter living with someone who was born the opposite sex. In the society we grew up in, its a normal concern. People with penises and vaginas don't live together unless they are romantically involved. That's what we were raised with. My question to your discomfort would be why? What are you concerned will happen if your son lives with a transgender man or if your daughter lives with a transgender woman?
I could see that as an issue but if you daughter was rooming with a guy transitioning to girl then the next step would be to wonder their sexual orientation. If the individual like men then what's the issue? If the individual likes girls then I could see how you might be concerned however then what is the difference between that and a daughter living with a lesbian roommate?
Okay, just asking (and teasing) here bro as the newlywed on the board. Trust the newly minted Mrs. TAMU ended up with the proper Chevy small block with the correct serial numbers when you lifted the hood! :o
I love scoop!
Wow, 5 pages strong and this is still relatively civil.
Well done, Scoopers. Well done.
When I was at Marquette I worked in the housing assignment office as an administrative assistant. I not once, but twice, had a parent call to tell me that their child had a non-white roommate and needed to be moved. My response to your question is the same as my response was to them.
I understand why people are uncomfortable with the idea of their son or daughter living with someone who was born the opposite sex. In the society we grew up in, its a normal concern. Just like I'm sure the two parents who called me about their child's non-white roommate grew up in a society where that was a normal concern. People with penises and vaginas don't live together unless they are romantically involved. That's what we were raised with. My question to your discomfort would be why? What are you concerned will happen if your son lives with a transgender man or if your daughter lives with a transgender woman?
Because at a Catholic University I would expect people with penises and vaginas would not live together. I am sure many parents would ask that their child's room be reassigned at MU if their room mate was of the opposite sex. It seem that the discomfort of the transgendered student is being accommodated by force of law but the discomfort of the non transgendered student is being ignored and even questioned as being unreasonable. Would MU be in violation of Title IX if they accommodated the non-trangendered student with different living quarters if they so wished? I cannot imagine there would be many cases of this as compared to your example of race which I don't find even comparable.
So it's all about the genitals? So if you had a son assigned to a transgendered male roommate, as long as they had the assignment surgery you would be fine, but at any point prior to that you would be opposed?
Would your son feel the same way?
There isn't, which is why selection based on orientation isn't an option and neither should sex or gender. As a society I think we should strive to go genderless is shared spaces (like restrooms, dorms, etc) However this point is really about cultural norms whereas sports is about competitive environment.
So dorm assignments is cultural whereas sports is competitive/opportunity
Its what I would expect at University claiming to be Catholic.
Where did you get the idea that I would say that to my daughter at that point in time?
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked. Forget the Catholic thing. What if you son was at a public university?
Because at a Catholic University I would expect people with penises and vaginas would not live together. I am sure many parents would ask that their child's room be reassigned at MU if their room mate was of the opposite sex. It seem that the discomfort of the transgendered student is being accommodated by force of law but the discomfort of the non transgendered student is being ignored and even questioned as being unreasonable. Would MU be in violation of Title IX if they accommodated the non-trangendered student with different living quarters if they so wished? I cannot imagine there would be many cases of this as compared to your example of race which I don't find even comparable.
Because it's what you believe?
Because it's what you believe?
My son valued his privacy. I am sure he would be a bit uncomfortable with a transgendered room mate. Had he lived he would be 35 today so not so relevant as today. I think it is much more difficult for our daughters who would be in that situation. As Still just posted even his daughter would be uncomfortable. I hope we can get to a point where we can accommodate everyone and not have the policy be so one sided and rigid. I am really curious how many would appreciate it if the University your child was accepted to would e-mail you saying they have a transgendered student and ask if they would like to room together. I am sure there would be some who would agree and it would be a win/win for all around.
So TAMU, in your view does the 'minority' student (let's use gay for example) have some societal obligation to help make the majority comfortable?
Let me give you an example. Say a mixed group is watching a MU game in a big dorm room and that one guy is discretely kissing his girlfriend off to the side. And let's further assume he has all the official university permission paperwork in triplicate in his left pocket! Now most of society (as defined by folks in the room) would probably be okay with that. But they might have a completely different reaction if that were a homosexual couple.
See, that's where I am. I sincerely believe that my gay friends simply want to be treated like friends. I'm happy to attend functions with them as two 'couples', etc. No problem whatsoever. No judgement. It's all perfectly fine. But I'd be very uncomfortable if they were at the end of the couch in the situation I described above. My belief is that they have some obligation to respect that.
69, let me start by apologizing. I included the racial story in my original post, thought better of it and edited it out. I was surprised you even saw it given you posted over an hour after I edited it out. I had good intents with the comparison to talk about the role of cultural norms in this discussion, but after re-reading it thought it bordered to closely of accusing people who are uncomfortable with trans individuals with being racist. For that, I am sorry.
My personal expectation of a university that claims to be Catholic would be that it creates an environment that is open, safe, and welcoming to all students, regardless of their gender, sex, orientation, age, race, etc. I believe that means allowing trans students to live with people who match their gender identity. This is not a matter of comfort. This is a matter of safety, dignity, and social justice.
What I don't think a university should be mandated to do is cater to people's comfort. As someone else in this thread stated, college is about pushing students outside their comfort zone. Part of that could be living with someone with an identity that makes you uncomfortable.
That being said, and as I stated previously, I would want those with religious beliefs about men and women not living together before marriage to have their beliefs respected. I would hope there would be some way for them to opt out. Honestly for the sake of the trans individual as much as their own sake. However, I will say I have met very few millennials who truly believe that men and women should not live together until marriage. I can't think of one person that I knew from Marquette who is now married that didn't live with their spouse, another significant other, or a friend of the opposite sex at some point before tying the knot. If they are willing to move in with a girl or boyfriend, than I don't think they would qualify for a religious exemption....though how could you honestly tell so it would be moot point.
See, that's where I am. I sincerely believe that my gay friends simply want to be treated like friends. I'm happy to attend functions with them as two 'couples', etc. No problem whatsoever. No judgement. It's all perfectly fine. But I'd be very uncomfortable if they were at the end of the couch in the situation I described above. My belief is that they have some obligation to respect that.
Would it be? Or would it be more difficult for the parents of daughters? In my experience, female college students tend to be a lot more open and accepting of trans individuals than their male counterparts.
Still's daughter would be uncomfortable as he stated a few posts above (or below as I have most recent post first). As for me the Marquette I knew is long gone. Most of my class mates were pretty much open minded but to the center of most issued; but the center back in my day is way to the right of center today. Most of us hardly knew any gay much less a trans person. I am sure there were some but back then it was well hidden. I can't imagine what my grand daughter will face when she is in college, fall of 2029.
I have said many times that my kids (and, I believe, the vast majority of kids their age) simply do not "see" issues relating sexual preference or gender. Not only do they not see it, they have a hard time understanding why people my age did/do have issues with it. I would consider my oldest daughter very typical in that regard. That said, she would be very uncomfortable if her roommate was a biological male. And frankly, I strongly suspect that many very progressive and open minded college age females would feel exactly the same. I would support allowing a female student live with a biologically male student in a dorm room if she was comfortable doing so. I would absolutely oppose surprising her with it and/or forcing her to do so.
Those triplicate forms better be signed!
I guess I'm confused. You say homosexual couples just want to be treated like other couples. Which I agree with. I think that's the ultimate goal. But then you say they shouldn't act like other couples because it might make others uncomfortable. How are they ever supposed to get to the point where they are just another couple if they aren't allowed to act like a normal couple? Are they doomed to abnormal couplehood?
I understand the thought process. Its natural to want everyone to be comfortable. We can't necessarily control the people around us being uncomfortable with LGBT but we can "control" whether or not the gay couple does PDA. I would say while well-intentioned, it unintentionally supports a culture where gays need to hide or at least be discreet about their sexuality, rather than just being another normal couple.
I want everyone to have the right to make out on the end of the coach with their significant other without fear of violence. I don't think you get there without some people being uncomfortable along the way. Hopefully, they go from uncomfortable, to neutral, to openly accepting.
Hell screw the couches and significant others. Make outs for everyone everywhere!
Are you suggesting you would be very uncomfortable with PDA by any couple on that couch, or just the homosexual couple?
If your position is that either couple should have the decorum to respect others' level of comfort with PDA, I agree.
But if you're saying homosexuals have some sort of added obligation to make those around them comfortable with their prejudices, that's, well ... prejudice.
Carried to its logical conclusion, how is that line of thinking different than those who argued that blacks have some obligation to respect those whites who are uncomfortable sharing the same lunch counter or drinking fountain?
I agree with you whole heartedly on all counts. It's all so one sided and that ought to change. It seems that our campuses should be places where people of reason should settle ones differences reasonably, but our campuses are not reasonable places any more.
Those triplicate forms better be signed!
I guess I'm confused. You say homosexual couples just want to be treated like other couples. Which I agree with. I think that's the ultimate goal. But then you say they shouldn't act like other couples because it might make others uncomfortable. How are they ever supposed to get to the point where they are just another couple if they aren't allowed to act like a normal couple? Are they doomed to abnormal couplehood?
I understand the thought process. Its natural to want everyone to be comfortable. We can't necessarily control the people around us being uncomfortable with LGBT but we can "control" whether or not the gay couple does PDA. I would say while well-intentioned, it unintentionally supports a culture where gays need to hide or at least be discreet about their sexuality, rather than just being another normal couple.
I want everyone to have the right to make out on the end of the coach with their significant other without fear of violence. I don't think you get there without some people being uncomfortable along the way. Hopefully, they go from uncomfortable, to neutral, to openly accepting.
Hell screw the couches and significant others. Make outs for everyone everywhere!
That's just silly. Most college campuses are completely reasonable and don't use things like intellectual "safe spaces."
Diversify where you get your information. It's not as one sided as you suggest.
You tell me this isn't out of control? Never get me to agree Sultan.
http://evergreen.edu/
Do you understand what "most" means?
I do think there is a difference. As none of us would exist without a father and a mother. So I don't accept your premise. That's not in any way suggesting that any form of discrimination other than societal decency should be at issue.
You tell me this isn't out of control? Never get me to agree Sultan.
http://evergreen.edu/
Sultan, no need to be nasty. But it is fair to say that a notable and ever increasing number of universities are out on the fringe. Places like Berkeley for example are not institutions where I'd write a tuition check on behalf of my son or daughter. There are many other examples. I chose the most extreme simply to make a point.
I must admit, however, that in my opinion this principle is becoming remarkably one-sided on college campuses. Some people are being "encouraged" to move outside their comfort zones, while others are fighting to ensure that the entire college campus becomes one massive comfort zone (aka "safe space").
Still's daughter would be uncomfortable as he stated a few posts above (or below as I have most recent post first). As for me the Marquette I knew is long gone. Most of my class mates were pretty much open minded but to the center of most issued; but the center back in my day is way to the right of center today. Most of us hardly knew any gay much less a trans person. I am sure there were some but back then it was well hidden. I can't imagine what my grand daughter will face when she is in college, fall of 2029.
Let me try this another way TAMU. Let's make the couple at the end of the couch an adult and a 10 year old. How about a human and an animal? There is a natural order and there is a line. We in society have a right to demand and expect that. Somewhere. Now in those cases we're talking about crimes. So everything isn't okay.
So I can see where this is all potentially headed. My thanks to you for a truly stimulating and interesting conversation. I think I really learned some things, always good. I hope I treated all of you with courtesy and respect. ;D
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-due-process-lawsuits-increased-dramatically-after-education-dept-overreach/article/2600819
Repeal the DCL
First off. Who says being gay is against the natural order? There have been gay men and women since the beginning of time. They didn't choose to be gay, they were born that way and they were born naturally.
See, working in academia, I haven't found this to be true. The term "safe space" has been corrupted so much that people don't actually know what it means any more. All a safe space means is that language and actions that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, theist, etc. will be challenged. Not shut down but challenged. As they should be.
I'm curious...when you refer to gender less in shared spaces and reference dorms, are you referring to individual dorm rooms? I think that would be pushing the limits of the definition of shared spaces.
I suppose that we can say that all should aspire to get over personal hang-ups about sex and gender - I'm not sure that I agree, but it's a legitimate debate - but where does individual comfort come into play? I'm sending a daughter off to college in the fall. I'll admit I would have issues if she was asked to room with a biological male. Perhaps that's narrow minded of me, but it's true. What's more, I can assure you she would also feel uncomfortable with that. For those who think it should be a non-issue, where does her comfort level come into play? Or do we just conclude that she needs to me more open minded and accepting?
There are some who simply choose to be gay. It's purely a decision.
It's obvious and you know it. "So what" means you're wrong. Why did you tell a fib?
Apparently I'm an idiot because not only is it not obvious to me I can't fathom a possible reason to choose such a thing
Why not? Is it so awful in your mind that you believe no one would choose to be gay?
No, because I can't fathom anyone choosing any sexuality....you just have a sexuality, there is no choice to be made.
Again, show me a single person who has chosen to be gay
There are many who have chosen to be gay. You get embraced for it. In today's world, you can find much support.
Do you believe no one has simply chosen to be gay? Of course you don't. Admit it and realize I'm correct
But at no point have you offered any substantive proof. If we were in a discussion currently about MU hoops you'd be the guy that you always condescendingly talk down to about stats and figures.
what is bisexuality? well let's see...who do i want to be with tonight? who looks good at closing time?
There are many who have chosen to be gay. You get embraced for it. In today's world, you can find much support.
Do you believe no one has simply chosen to be gay? Of course you don't. Admit it and realize I'm correct
ann heche was with a woman for quite a while before she married a man
http://www.celebitchy.com/10740/anne_heche_says_she_changed_her_mind_about_being_gay_compared_it_to_opening_doors/
I'm not sure what dope you're smoking tonight but I 100% believe no one chooses to be gay just like I haven't chosen to be straight....i am what I am
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.
No one chooses to be gay.
Well said.
Definition of male = XY. Definition of female = XX.
For those saying it is just high school sports, what are you insinuating? High school sports is often the last bastion of competition athletes have. Even those that are lucky enough to play in college sports know the importance high school sports played in their lives. One of my kids played for a state championship and it was incredible the community, school, student and media support during that endeavor.
This topic is a tough one, but I would challenge anyone here to dispute that on a physiological level males are stronger, faster, have more bone and muscle density. This is a scientific fact. As such, a competition that pits females with females based on true physiological definition of XX = female should be the baseline requirement.
The winner of the race that started this thread. The winning times would have finished dead last for the boys events in the 100 and 200. We are supposed to also be supporting opportunities for women, and by having a male take up a spot as a female, that eliminates an opportunity.
For those saying it is just high school sports, what are you insinuating?
Most don't choose, but some do. Read the literature.
Well said.
Definition of male = XY. Definition of female = XX.
For those saying it is just high school sports, what are you insinuating? High school sports is often the last bastion of competition athletes have. Even those that are lucky enough to play in college sports know the importance high school sports played in their lives. One of my kids played for a state championship and it was incredible the community, school, student and media support during that endeavor.
This topic is a tough one, but I would challenge anyone here to dispute that on a physiological level males are stronger, faster, have more bone and muscle density. This is a scientific fact. As such, a competition that pits females with females based on true physiological definition of XX = female should be the baseline requirement.
The winner of the race that started this thread. The winning times would have finished dead last for the boys events in the 100 and 200. We are supposed to also be supporting opportunities for women, and by having a male take up a spot as a female, that eliminates an opportunity.
No one chooses to be gay. Or straight. Or bi. Some people may claim to be gay (or straight) when they are not. But that doesn't make them gay (or straight).
No one chooses to be gay. Or straight. Or bi. Some people may claim to be gay (or straight) when they are not. But that doesn't make them gay (or straight).
Methinks some are confusing being homosexual or heterosexual with engaging in homosexual or heterosexual acts.
So it's possible that everyone who engages in heterosexual acts is gay and everyone who engages in homosexual acts is straight. The entire planet might be one big closet where everyone is hiding!
So people born xx with male anatomy and musculature should compete with the women, and people that are xy with female genitalia should compete with the men?
Yes. The sexual organ isn't the reason they perform better.
These are competitions of physicality. How high can you jump? How fast can you run? How far can you throw? How long can you jump? How much weight can you lift? How many goals can you score? That is the essence of sports, physical competition.
Males are stronger, faster, have more endurance on average. This is science, not opinion. Call it anatomy, kinisiology, biology, whatever you wish. It is science.
You are disadvantaging females by allowing XY to compete. Depriving females of opportunities.
I can't speak for others but for me someone getting 2nd vs. 1st in a high school track meets pales in comparison to other forms of unfairness such as world hunger, racial profiling, people legally being fired for being gay, and being stabbed on a light rail for defending a woman from an islamaphobe. I have a finite amount of energy to dedicate to the world's many outrages. This one isn't close to being a priority for me.
We are in agreement, but that isn't the comparison anyone here is making I am sure you would agree. If you wish to go to that degree we can say the same thing about the Super Bowl, or volunteering at your local food shelter, or everything else in the world.
I do not believe anyone here is saying high school sports, college sports, even Olympic Sports is the end all, be all, but it isn't worthless, either. Young men and women put tremendous effort, sacrifice as individuals and teams to accomplish athletic goals. Tilting the playing field and making it unfair based on physiology is fundamentally depriving people opportunity in the same way some of you will argue it is depriving transgender people opportunities. Would you agree? If only 8 spots are open for the 100 meter finals for the NCAA Track and Field and one is taken by a XY male transgender, than a female XX has lost an opportunity to compete at the highest level in her collegiate career.
East Africans are genetically equipped to be better long-distance runners than Western Europeans. It is science.
Your are disadvantaging Western Europeans by allowing East Africans to compete. Depriving them of opportunities.
(For the record, no one is being denied an opportunity to compete).
I think you are right that a lot of people's concern is actually about sexual orientation. In reality, I think its a non-issue unless one of the roommates is going to take advantage of the other...which I wouldn't assume that of anyone and if it does happen they should be held accountable and removed.
But I think a lot of it also come from cultural norms. We just didn't grow up with people of different sexes interacting like that. I've been to a couple of conferences for work where they had gender neutral bathrooms as an option. I consider myself pretty #woke, but even I had some feelings of discomfort and even panic when I walked in and there were women in the bathroom. My first thought was "holy sh*t its a trap I need to get out." But if you stop and think about it, there really is no good reason to separate bathrooms. Hell, I get more privacy in gender neutral bathrooms because there are stalls and no urinals (at least in the ones I've seen). By the end of the conference, I was used to it. It didn't feel weird.
I do also want to acknowledge that there are those with religious beliefs who would say its just not appropriate for a woman and man to live together before marriage. If someone has that religious belief, I do think it is important that it is respected. So if our society does move towards genderless spaces, I think we need to have options for those who can't or won't buy in.
Being intentionally (I hope) this obtuse isn't a good look for you, Lenny.
Yes. The sexual organ isn't the reason they perform better.
These are competitions of physicality. How high can you jump? How fast can you run? How far can you throw? How long can you jump? How much weight can you lift? How many goals can you score? That is the essence of sports, physical competition.
Males are stronger, faster, have more endurance on average. This is science, not opinion. Call it anatomy, kinisiology, biology, whatever you wish. It is science.
You are disadvantaging females by allowing XY to compete. Depriving females of opportunities.
Well said.
Definition of male = XY. Definition of female = XX.
I can't speak for others but for me someone getting 2nd vs. 1st in a high school track meets pales in comparison to other forms of unfairness such as world hunger, racial profiling, people legally being fired for being gay, and being stabbed on a light rail for defending a woman from an islamaphobe. I have a finite amount of energy to dedicate to the world's many outrages. This one isn't close to being a priority for me.
I have, extensively. I wrote my thesis on male identity development, a large section of which included intersections with sexual orientation. I have not come across anything that suggests one can simply choose their sexual orientation.* If you provide me with some sources, I would be happy to check them out and educate myself.
*Disclaimer: Someone who claims to be gay (whether by honest confusion, peer pressure, seeking attention, etc) but isn't actually attracted to the same sex is not actually gay, even if they engage in same sex sexual activity.
people who are straight their whole lives, then go into prison...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-prison-gay-choice
Oh lord....
So what happens when the transgender male to female athlete applies to college? Does the college give a scholarship to allow her to play on the women's team? Let's say ND (a school that sucks by the way) is tired of losing to UConn year after year in women's hoops. Can they give scholarships out to transgenders to get a team that can finally beat UConn? And if so, why wouldn't they, assuming there were talented male basketball players who identified as females.
I know that the topic's been raised before, though I didn't see it in this thread, but the possibility exists for someone to game the system in order to get admitted, or get free admission to a university, when they wouldn't have been able to by remaining their born sex.
And I don't think all, most or even the a large number of transgenders are identifying as the opposite sex to solely gain an advantage. But why wouldn't some? With the number of people in the world who try to scam themselves through life, I think it's a logical conclusion. But is the answer, it's too difficult to figure out who truly identifies as the opposite sex and who is doing it for free tuition, competitive advantage, etc., so we just let it go?
You do realize that transgendered individuals make up a very small percentage of the population right? And that they aren't exactly undertaking these changes so they can compete in high school sports?
No one is being denied anything substantive.
What does XXY equal? What about XXXY, XYY, or a combo of XX in some cells and XY in others?
Should people with these combinations be banned from all competitive sports because they weren't born "normal" like you?
Yes, but you also realize that some of these sporting opportunities come perhaps once in a lifetime. I played in a state Final Four my junior year of high school. Senior year did not even make the playoffs. One of my children played in a state championship final. The other three years, didn't come close.(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2d/e0/8a/2de08a93b188a0a74437a4104330b769.jpg)
It is about opportunities lost, too.
If you are to ask the participants who lost those opportunities, will they all say it isn't substantive? Is that not unique to the situation and the person?
High school athletics doesn't have to define you sir. That doesn't mean it cannot be special especially for certain communities and situations. There is plenty of life to live after, but amazing memories made.
Would the kids that won the Indiana high school championship be merely Al Bundy types in your world? Texas football title? Miracle hockey championship in Connecticut?
No need to act like you are on this. Life moves forward, but it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile either, and in some cases an amazing accomplishment by young men and women.
You talk like this is some kind of epidemic plaguing high school sports, throwing up strawmen like, but what if this happened, what if that happened... I mean as we speak this happened a handful of times across our country amongst HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS of high school sporting events.
I have a daughter, too young to play competitive sports, but if the time arises where she loses to transgender athlete it will be an unbelievable learning opportunity for her about accepting and celebrating for those around her.
Yes, but you also realize that some of these sporting opportunities come perhaps once in a lifetime. I played in a state Final Four my junior year of high school. Senior year did not even make the playoffs. One of my children played in a state championship final. The other three years, didn't come close.
It is about opportunities lost, too.
If you are to ask the participants who lost those opportunities, will they all say it isn't substantive? Is that not unique to the situation and the person?
Or, if we wish to be PC about it. Give two first place championship awards out. The legitimate female finished in second place to a non female. She won the true female championship in my opinion.
Yes. The sexual organ isn't the reason they perform better.
These are competitions of physicality. How high can you jump? How fast can you run? How far can you throw? How long can you jump? How much weight can you lift? How many goals can you score? That is the essence of sports, physical competition.
Males are stronger, faster, have more endurance on average. This is science, not opinion. Call it anatomy, kinisiology, biology, whatever you wish. It is science.
You are disadvantaging females by allowing XY to compete. Depriving females of opportunities.
I'd teach her to deal with the hand you're given and work hard. Diff strokes for diff strikes, ainil
Yeah, I agree. The idea that my daughter should celebrate the wonderful opportunity to lose her dream of a state championship to a person who is 100% male physiologically seems a little over the top to me.
The lessons I would want her to learn? Rules are rules, even when obviously unfair. There's more value to competition than simply results. Finally, before feeling too sorry for herself, I'd remind her that the person who had the unfair advantage that day had lived a life with unimaginable disadvantages. My guess is that her disappointment would be tempered by a good dose of perspective.
I'm late to the conversation, but given that I am a woman who competed in high school sports in the state of CT back in the day (indoor but not outdoor track), I would like to add my two cents. This would not have ended well if it had happened when I was in high school (early 2000s).
First of all, I would like to point out that if this was reversed and involved a woman who transitioned to a man who now competed in men's sports, and who somehow gained a huge competitive advantage over normal XY men in a sport by being born XX, this would not be tolerated. Imagine if people's sons got displaced from a hockey team by a girl who transitioned to a boy....there would be enormous outrage over something like this.
No one would ever say to a boy: "do your best, life goes on if you lose to a girl in a boys sport" so why say that to a girl??
My larger point, is we are all arguing about things that happen not only rarely, but astronomically rarely, but project like it's this huge deal. My kid is more likely to get hit by lightning multiple times than lose a state championship because a transgender person beats them. But hey, where is 10 page thread on the dangers of lightening strikes to kids.
I'm late to the conversation, but given that I am a woman who competed in high school sports in the state of CT back in the day (indoor but not outdoor track), I would like to add my two cents. This would not have ended well if it had happened when I was in high school (early 2000s).
First of all, I would like to point out that if this was reversed and involved a woman who transitioned to a man who now competed in men's sports, and who somehow gained a huge competitive advantage over normal XY men in a sport by being born XX, this would not be tolerated. Imagine if people's sons got displaced from a hockey team by a girl who transitioned to a boy....there would be enormous outrage over something like this. But since it is girl's sports, no one cares, because as much as people don't want to admit it, sexism is an ever-present issue. I experience it as a female scientist on a daily basis, around men who are aware that it's an issue in science and genuinely don't think they are saying/doing sexist things (but they are). And what the heck does "compete nice" mean? No one would ever say to a boy: "do your best, life goes on if you lose to a girl in a boys sport" so why say that to a girl??
Lets just make 3 categories for sports. Mens, women and trans. The trans people (men transitioning to women and women transitioning to men) can compete against each other. (Actually that would be really interesting!!!!).
Exactly.
I have learned more about the posters here on Scoop in this thread than I did about the subject.
Some want to be inclusive. Some strive to separate and fight anyone different.
The vast tapestry is what makes life worth living.
Brandi - I love you, man, but this is not about "inclusion" or "fighting anybody who is different". I'm all for inclusion. Inclusion is good. I don't want anyone from any group bullied, put down or excluded. And I'm fierce about that. I'm also fierce about what constitutes fairness in competitive sports. And it is unquestionably not fair for a young woman to have to compete against someone who identifies female but is physiologically male and has done nothing to change that. Reinko (and maybe you?) think it's okay because it doesn't happen very frequently. Since when is an injustice or unfairness not one because it happens rarely. That's not what I was taught at MU.
My personal opinion is 98%+ (maybe higher) have no choice. Whether that is straight, gay, bisexual. A thought provoking article from a gay man on the topic. Feel free to disagree.
https://www.thenation.com/article/whats-wrong-choosing-be-gay/
people who are straight their whole lives, then go into prison...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-prison-gay-choice
tamu, i don't know how you define gay, but in my book, if one engages in "other" acitivity, that in my book is gay or homosexual or lesbianism or what have you. there are no biological markers denoting gay that i'm aware of. i have not seen a study showing different chromosomes(xx/xy) denoting gay. there may be different reactions within the dna of the chromosomes denoting gayness or straightness, but i haven't seen nor looked that deep
Brandi - I love you, man, but this is not about "inclusion" or "fighting anybody who is different". I'm all for inclusion. Inclusion is good. I don't want anyone from any group bullied, put down or excluded. And I'm fierce about that. I'm also fierce about what constitutes fairness in competitive sports. And it is unquestionably not fair for a young woman to have to compete against someone who identifies female but is physiologically male and has done nothing to change that. Reinko (and maybe you?) think it's okay because it doesn't happen very frequently. Since when is an injustice or unfairness not one because it happens rarely. That's not what I was taught at MU.
Rocket, love you man. But that is nowhere near a scholarly article. It also has a lot more to do with the trauma of coping with a rape than it does with sexual orientation. And rape in prison has a lot more to do with dominating another person and removing their power and control than it does with sexual attraction.
You define sexual orientation by the action of engaging in same sex intercourse. Sexual orientation is actually defined by who a person is sexually attracted to. It is possible for someone to have sex with someone they are not attracted to. So a straight man could choose to have sex with another man. Just as a gay man could choose to have sex with a woman. The person in the first example is still straight, they just engaged in gay sex. We can choose who we engage in sexual activity with but not who we are sexually attracted to. Unless you really think that if you tried really hard you could make yourself get all hot and bothered for Channing Tatum.
I find it the greater mission of high school sports to be how it can build people up to be a member of a team, work hard to achieve goals, etc.
It was an interesting read, thank you for sharing. Though the author, EJ Graff, is a woman and I have no idea if she is gay or straight.
There was a S. African women who won easily in the last Olympics because her body produced higher than normal levels of testosterone. She was a women, but she had a distinct advantage. Do we not let her compete?
Wow. "I know the rules of the competition say you are a female, but I don't think you are one. She's the true champion."
You are exactly what is wrong with high school sports these days. You don't understand one bit what it's about.
Yeah, I agree. The idea that my daughter should celebrate the wonderful opportunity to lose her dream of a state championship to a person who is 100% male physiologically seems a little over the top to me.
The lessons I would want her to learn? Rules are rules, even when obviously unfair. There's more value to competition than simply results. Finally, before feeling too sorry for herself, I'd remind her that the person who had the unfair advantage that day had lived a life with unimaginable disadvantages. My guess is that her disappointment would be tempered by a good dose of perspective.
My larger point, is we are all arguing about things that happen not only rarely, but astronomically rarely, but project like it's this huge deal. My kid is more likely to get hit by lightning multiple times than lose a state championship because a transgender person beats them. But hey, where is 10 page thread on the dangers of lightening strikes to kids.
Exactly.
I have learned more about the posters here on Scoop in this thread than I did about the subject.
Some want to be inclusive. Some strive to separate and fight anyone different.
The vast tapestry is what makes life worth living.
You are sounding like Jimmy the Greek. :D
It is also not a scientific fact as you claim. https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200737040-00039
When one plays sports at a highly organized level with the purpose of determine whom is the best based on uniform rules of participation, what is the goal?
I'm all for inclusion. Can I not also be for competition, fairness, and a level playing field? When inclusion violates fairness, it leads to discussions like this. Your personal attacks are noted and say a lot.
Kidding aside, that's nothing like what Jimmy said.
I'm not excluding environmental factors as well - and I suspect the Kenyans' success is a result of interaction between natural and environmental factors - but numerous studies have shown physical differences between Kenyan runners and their non-Kenyan competitors.
Like this one, showing they have more elastic leg tendons, allowing them a stride with more height and power, but also with less contact time on the ground.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-012-2559-6/fulltext.html
Or this one, which found:
"For the Kenyan runners, it appears that their ectomorphic somatotype characterized by long, slender legs might provide advantages in biomechanical and metabolic economy/efficiency, resulting in enhanced performance in middle- and
long-distance events."
And
"Both the Kenyans and the Ethiopians have lived for millennia at moderate altitude (2000–2500 m) in the highlands of the Great Rift Valley. It is not illogical to assume that this chronic hypoxic exposure has conferred certain as-yet unidentified genetic and
phenotypical benefits that allow them to consistently train at altitude at running velocities (vLT and VO2max) that their on-altitude-based opponents do not seem to be able to achieve without overtraining. This ability to conduct moderate-volume, high-intensity training at altitude on a consistent basis ultimately translates into exceptional running performance for the Kenyans and Ethiopians on descent to lower elevations."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Pitsiladis/publication/225064362_Kenyan_and_Ethiopian_Distance_Runners_What_Makes_Them_So_Good/links/54abb5f90cf2bce6aa1d9b69.pdf
For the record, both these studies are more recent than the one you cite.
And that's all I have to say about Kenyan runners.
I haven't attached anyone and didn't make it personal. Shame you weren't able to
As I said, some look to unite, and some just think how does it affect me. Put the different people in another group where I don't have to deal with them.
Are the trans people not thinking only about how they are affected???
I think "the trans people" are simply playing by the rules in front of them for the most part. In this Connecticut case, the girl was participating within the rules.
I think every high school athlete in every state is just playing by the rules in front of them. That's not the point. The point (as I see it anyway) is that unfair state rules (either banning those in transition until said transition is complete or allowing participation before it's begun) should be amended to make things more fair for ALL involved. Honestly, I don't see how that's even a controversy.
I don't disagree with you. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.
However there are some in this thread who would completely disallow anyone who is a former male compete as a female even if they completely transitioned.
I'm in total agreement with you that those who would ban males who are transitioned are being unfair - at least as unfair as allowing those who haven't started the process.
You (like other) say you "don't think it's that big of a deal". Are you equally sanguine about banning the fully transitioned as you are about allowing participation for those who haven't begun the process? I see this as an uncommon or rare deal, but the underlying principle (IMO) is a very big deal.
I don't disagree with you. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.
However there are some in this thread who would completely disallow anyone who is a former male compete as a female even if they completely transitioned.
So, in your eyes, it would be fair and totally acceptable if Tiger Woods transitioned to a female and began playing in the LPGA tour?
I think every high school athlete in every state is just playing by the rules in front of them. That's not the point. The point (as I see it anyway) is that unfair state rules (either banning those in transition until said transition is complete or allowing participation before it's begun) should be amended to make things more fair for ALL involved. Honestly, I don't see how that's even a controversy.I think that's reasonable.
So, in your eyes, it would be fair and totally acceptable if Tiger Woods transitioned to a female and began playing in the LPGA tour?
I think the need for a consistent, well reasoned standard is appropriate. Where that sits in the transitioning process, I don't know.
My entire shrugging this off as "no big deal," is when people asked me "what if this were your son?" I just wouldn't be all that upset about it.
I agree with largely everything you say on this issue. But I still think the big question is:
How do we define gender for the purpose of athletic competitions? Currently, the rules are essentially focused on reproductive anatomy, but that is both difficult to enforce in some cases and genuinely ambiguous. It also affords, what people here are calling an "unfair advantage" based on the individuals actual genetic makeup.
I gotta do what I gotta do.
Kidding aside, that's nothing like what Jimmy said.
I'm not excluding environmental factors as well - and I suspect the Kenyans' success is a result of interaction between natural and environmental factors - but numerous studies have shown physical differences between Kenyan runners and their non-Kenyan competitors.
Like this one, showing they have more elastic leg tendons, allowing them a stride with more height and power, but also with less contact time on the ground.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-012-2559-6/fulltext.html
Or this one, which found:
"For the Kenyan runners, it appears that their ectomorphic somatotype characterized by long, slender legs might provide advantages in biomechanical and metabolic economy/efficiency, resulting in enhanced performance in middle- and
long-distance events."
And
"Both the Kenyans and the Ethiopians have lived for millennia at moderate altitude (2000–2500 m) in the highlands of the Great Rift Valley. It is not illogical to assume that this chronic hypoxic exposure has conferred certain as-yet unidentified genetic and
phenotypical benefits that allow them to consistently train at altitude at running velocities (vLT and VO2max) that their on-altitude-based opponents do not seem to be able to achieve without overtraining. This ability to conduct moderate-volume, high-intensity training at altitude on a consistent basis ultimately translates into exceptional running performance for the Kenyans and Ethiopians on descent to lower elevations."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Pitsiladis/publication/225064362_Kenyan_and_Ethiopian_Distance_Runners_What_Makes_Them_So_Good/links/54abb5f90cf2bce6aa1d9b69.pdf
For the record, both these studies are more recent than the one you cite.
And that's all I have to say about Kenyan runners.
I think "the trans people" are simply playing by the rules in front of them for the most part. In this Connecticut case, the girl was participating within the rules.
Jimmy was basically talking about genetics, in a round about way without saying the word genetics.
Be careful of decency bias, even in scienceFreudian slip?
And for that I agree with you. The bigger question for me is whether the rules are fair and should be changed. If they are changed, some will be outraged. Others will say it is to ensure fairness.
It's that kind of mentality that causes problems here.
It's that kind of mentality that causes problems here.
It does, but it's just one of several advantages - both God-given and man-given - some athletes have over others.
^^ I'll go with the birth certificate method, thanks
Or else don't call it men's & women's
Why don't we just call it mens and women competitions, and whatever one identifies with in terms of gender is which division they compete in....its not anymore unfair than any other methodology of defining gender and hurts the least amount of people.
Because on the scale of fairness it's one of the extremes.
Why don't we just call it mens and women competitions, and whatever one identifies with in terms of gender is which division they compete in....its not anymore unfair than any other methodology of defining gender and hurts the least amount of people.
I think "the trans people" are simply playing by the rules in front of them for the most part. In this Connecticut case, the girl was participating within the rules.
I think that is true. However, I can't help but wonder if this is a fairly recent change to the rules.
We had an opposite case in Texas. An individual who was born female but identified as male was taking hormone injections to prepare for sex reassignment surgery. He was a wrestling athlete iirc and wanted to participate in the men's league. The state refused so instead he dominated the women's league because he basically had legal PEDs in his system. I wonder what people would have said if he was allowed to participate in the men's league.
If were really going to allow this crap. I'm going to identify as a female for the sole purpose of absolutely raking in any sport I play. Hello WNBA and WORLD CUP WOMENS
This quote epitomizes the idiotic cockiness that most men have. "I'm a guy who at best played varsity high school sports but because I'm a guy I could dominate the WNBA and World Cup Women's" you'd get destroyed in both and I'd pay to see it happen. Maybe some top college players could take out a WNBA team or women's FIFA team but not your sorry assNo. A collection of reasonably skilled dudes who played in high school could beat a WNBA team. Top college players would beat them by a couple hundred points
If were really going to allow this crap. I'm going to identify as a female for the sole purpose of absolutely raking in any sport I play. Hello WNBA and WORLD CUP WOMENS
If were really going to allow this crap. I'm going to identify as a female for the sole purpose of absolutely raking in any sport I play. Hello WNBA and WORLD CUP WOMENS
No. A collection of reasonably skilled dudes who played in high school could beat a WNBA team. Top college players would beat them by a couple hundred points
If were really going to allow this crap. I'm going to identify as a female for the sole purpose of absolutely raking in any sport I play. Hello WNBA and WORLD CUP WOMENS
No. A collection of reasonably skilled dudes who played in high school could beat a WNBA team. Top college players would beat them by a couple hundred points
You sound like bobby Riggs did against Billie jean king. A group of reasonably skilled high school kids absolutely could not beat them. You're talking about a group that plays together for one season maybe 30 games and a few months of practices vs people who actually live to train and practice their sport, it's an idiotic argument you're making.I played on a team of has-beens and never-were's against the WNBA team when I lived in Miami. Full court scrimmage in AA Arena.
I think there's a huge undervaluing of what it means to be a professional athlete. I've sparred a few and they all blew me out of the water. Granted that's man vs man but you're talking about people who don't go to work and then come home tired and half ass work out to stay in shape their work is training is practicing any beer gut fool who thinks they'd dominate them is an idiot
These guys, some of whom played in college and now practice against WNBA teams, say you're wrong.Maybe I am...wouldn't be the first time.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/xyjeek/you-will-get-beat-down-the-men-who-practice-with-the-wnba
I played on a team of has-beens and never-were's against the WNBA team when I lived in Miami. Full court scrimmage in AA Arena.
We clobbered them by 40 points. There were a couple of guys who were on college teams...the rest of us were high school level. Most of us had never played with each other before (nh -- as JB would say).
This was longer ago than I care to admit, so maybe things have changed, but I doubt it.
This isn't to say the women weren't very skilled...they were...way more skilled than most of the guys. we were bigger, faster and stronger...end of story.
These guys, some of whom played in college and now practice against WNBA teams, say you're wrong.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/xyjeek/you-will-get-beat-down-the-men-who-practice-with-the-wnba
This quote epitomizes the idiotic cockiness that most men have. "I'm a guy who at best played varsity high school sports but because I'm a guy I could dominate the WNBA and World Cup Women's" you'd get destroyed in both and I'd pay to see it happen. Maybe some top college players could take out a WNBA team or women's FIFA team but not your sorry ass
I don't presume to know how old you are but I'd say that things are different now.
Just for fun im gonna leave this here as well. Maybe girls aren't the danty little weaklings we make them out to be, maybe only practicing against girls has caused the cream to rise lower than it could.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/sports/soccer/girls-soccer-team-won-boys-league-spain.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
First of all, that article is awesome!
Second, comparing youth soccer players to professional basketball players is far from a logical comparison. For a sport like basketball, size and strength matter SO much more than it does in soccer.
See everyone says this. Yet there hasn't been a single case of someone pretending to be transgender just to win at women's sports. Its a red herring at best and unbridled bigotry at its worst.