Jump to content

NCAA Statement on Transgender Participation


Don Johnson

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

 

Beyond ridiculous this is allowed to happen. Common sense completely out the window. Feel so bad for the girls who have trained for this and who now have this as their memory of a moment they've worked so hard to get to.

 

Make no mistake I'm not upset at all at the trans girl either. Just another issue to politicize at the expense of others. Idiotic. 

 

Any trans girl athlete still has a man's body. Am I taking fucking crazy pills? 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m cool if someone is transgender. Honesty it’s more that I don’t really care what other people want to do.

But I don’t see the fairness in letting a trans woman compete with biologically born women in sports. And it’s not about just requiring her to be on hormones for a certain amount of time. She has an inherent advantage that can’t be overcome.

Yeah, if you grew up with testosterone in your body during puberty, you're going to have better bone and muscle density and joint strength. Completely unfair for the biological female athlete, no amount of training will ever span that physical difference.

I do think this problem is unique to M2F transitions, which is doubly unfortunate since that group tends to be the most stigmatized 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

That would be a slippery upslope. But it hasn’t been a problem in a hundred years of modern sports. Some people win the genetic lottery and as a society we value (way too much) an individual’s ability to hit, throw and run for entertainment. Basketball is a good example. 99.999 percent of men under 6’0” aren’t making it into the NBA mo matter how good they are at dribbling or passing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology 

Not a slippery slope at all. This is as black and white, cut and dry as it can be. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.
It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

That already happens. At least in track, women that have too high of natural testosterone are banned. The highest profile example is Caster Semenya who is technically intersex and was assigned female at birth. It did take years for that ban to occur after she’d won multiple Olympic and World Championships medals.

The disparity between male and female performance is vast. World class female performances are at the level of average high school boys. Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team. Odds are very high that any transitioned male>female is going to own their selected sport.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

That would be a slippery upslope. But it hasn’t been a problem in a hundred years of modern sports. Some people win the genetic lottery and as a society we value (way too much) an individual’s ability to hit, throw and run for entertainment. Basketball is a good example. 99.999 percent of men under 6’0” aren’t making it into the NBA mo matter how good they are at dribbling or passing. 

The we should eliminate separation between men's and women's athletics and 99.99% of women will just have to deal with the fact they didn't win the "genetic lottery."

Edited by Don Johnson
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't go from being an average male athlete to one of the top female athletes without a massive physical advantage.   Let her compete but its insane that she should take a place away from a female athlete.   Award two firsts if you have to.   

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team.

Yep.  To be fair, it was a nationally ranked FC Dallas boys academy team, playing against the wimenz team minus a number of their key starters for a "friendly" scrimmage as they prepared for match play.  Either way, they beat the brakes off them 5-2.  My daughter plays on a nationally ranked ECNL '08 team in the metroplex.  They scrimmage boys here age that are in classic league (a much lower tier) and they get smoked.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

100% that top athletes are almost always born with some advantage that few of us have. Hard work can definitely overcome some deficiencies but a 6' hard-working, average high school bball player isn't going to make the NBA. And even the handful of 6' NBA players probably have other advantages like speed.

Sports has pushed back when someone uses an unnatural advantage. I'm not saying that the trans woman is unnatural. I agree that her gender was always female but her sex/body was by all definitions male. We actually divide men and women's sport by sex not gender.  We may say gender with sports because historically most people used gender and sex synonymously but today we don't.

I don't have any idea what how these scenarios should be handled. I don't think a 3rd or 4th category of divisions is good.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe the solution is -- where it's possible -- to have an "open" division.  Male, female, trans, anyone who wants can swim the 100m freestyle in the "open" division.

In this case, who exactly would be doing that?  Thomas.  That's probably it.  I don't know what motivation a female or male swimmer would have to compete in anything other than their division.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

In this case, who exactly would be doing that?  Thomas.  That's probably it.  I don't know what motivation a female or male swimmer would have to compete in anything other than their division.

Yeah, like I said.....where possible.

That said....maybe some really competitive male swimmers would sign up for the "open" 100m free as well.  Fastest human wins.  If it happens to be a biological male whose gender remains male, cool.  If it happens to be a biological male whose gender is now female, cool.

I just see two incompatible social goods at odds here:

1) athletic competition is about fairness.  That's why steroids are banned, etc.  Using only a) what God gave you and b) your hard work and training, you be the best you can be.

2) trans people should be allowed to participate in society as a member of their gender.  Purposefully excluding them from participating as a member from their gender should not happen.

I think that as we watch these things in action, item 2) will get the modifier of "whenever possible."  It's not possible to have fair athletic competition when you allow a person born and developed as a biological male compete as a woman.  The entire purpose of athletics -- fair competition, may the best athlete within the bounds of fairness win -- is defeated when you allow the born male to compete as a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Pretty sure the mens division could be considered the "open" division in most sports

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what some states did last year?  Which lead to widespread criticism and threats from the NCAA?

They just didn’t change the name “Mens” to “Open.”

Edited by Don Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yeah, if you grew up with testosterone in your body during puberty, you're going to have better bone and muscle density and joint strength. Completely unfair for the biological female athlete, no amount of training will ever span that physical difference.

I do think this problem is unique to M2F transitions, which is doubly unfortunate since that group tends to be the most stigmatized 

 

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

 

1 hour ago, UTGrad98 said:

Not a slippery slope at all. This is as black and white, cut and dry as it can be. 

 

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:


That already happens. At least in track, women that have too high of natural testosterone are banned. The highest profile example is Caster Semenya who is technically intersex and was assigned female at birth. It did take years for that ban to occur after she’d won multiple Olympic and World Championships medals.

The disparity between male and female performance is vast. World class female performances are at the level of average high school boys. Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team. Odds are very high that any transitioned male>female is going to own their selected sport.

 

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

The we should eliminate separation between men's and women's athletics and 99.99% of women will just have to deal with the fact they didn't win the "genetic lottery."

 

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

why are there actual competitions anyway.  cant a person simply identify as an olympic gold medalist?

 

1 hour ago, midtown said:

You don't go from being an average male athlete to one of the top female athletes without a massive physical advantage.   Let her compete but its insane that she should take a place away from a female athlete.   Award two firsts if you have to.   

what if I told you this same person was competing for the MENS SWIMMING TEAM AT PENN last year? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what some states did last year?  Which lead to widespread criticism and threats from the NCAA?

They just didn’t change the name “Mens” to “Open.”

Not sure -- honestly haven't followed the issue that closely.

My bet -- or perhaps my hope -- is that the NCAA (and some other athletic bodies that have acted similarly) have tried to "do the right thing" in responding to the expanding notion of treating trans people equally and fairly.  It was a well-intentioned approach.  But, after putting it into practice, we now see some rather glaring flaws, and we have sacrificed the fairness and equity that women have fought for for decades.  That's not the right outcome.  So, we'll need to re-evaluate and adjust the approach.  I hope that can happen.  It's not wrong to try try something with good intentions and a goal of fairness.  What's wrong is to stick with something when the data shows you that it hasn't worked out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

Somehow, I don't think the transgender community will sign off on that. Just a guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

How about.....women?  The standards to enter women's athletic competitions should be decided by female athletes, coaches, etc. -- the people with a working stake in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

what if I told you this same person was competing for the MENS SWIMMING TEAM AT PENN last year? 

I think thats pretty well known by everyone.   Where are the womens rights groups on this one?  

Edited by midtown
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

that's pretty fucking easy. only takes on question.

were you born with a penis or vagina?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the larger issue underlying all of this is the presumption that anyone has a right to compete in sports to begin with.  I can't, no matter how far I stretch the intent of federal law, wrap my head around an inalienable right to play competitive sports.  That's where we went off the rails. We place an insane amount of value on athletics to the point we treat organized competition as if it actually has a bearing on fundamental freedom and existence.  This trans argument is just an extension of a false premise.

I understand the other underlying issues such as funding and its interplay with Title IX, but I see those as extensions of the same false premise.  It's all born of an overblown notion of the importance of competitive sports.  The benefits of competitive sports are very real, but if we actually gave a shit about citizens partaking in these benefits, we would have intramural teams at each school that everyone participates in.  The amount of tax dollars spent on stadiums, arenas, etc. is mind numbingly stupid, but also traces back to that same false premise.  We don't think everyone should exercise and engage in cooperative/competitive character building activities.  We believe that everyone has a right to become a superstar athlete.  It's some kind of collective mental illness.

Sports and athletic competition are great.  I love(d) participating in them and I loved watching those much better than me compete professionally.  Do I think competitive athletic endeavors and my right to participate in them is fundamental to my existence, citizenship, or happiness?  Fuck no.  And anyone who does is fucked in the head.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Somehow, I don't think the transgender community will sign off on that. Just a guess. 

They may not.  Many of them certainly will not.

We can't make everyone happy.  There are competing ideals here: 1) sports should be fair/level playing field, and 2) we should allow trans people to live life as their identified gender.  We are seeing that those ideals cannot co-exist in the same space.  One of them has to give.  My suggestion is that while we should endeavor to live out ideal 2) wherever possible, it is not possible without contradicting ideal 1), destroying a foundational element of athletic competition, and thus we do not follow ideal 2) in the context of athletics.

We can't make everyone happy.  We should be kind, accommodating, etc.  But we can't always reach an ultimate decision that makes everyone happy.  My proposal is not a knock against the trans community, or an action intended to deny them their place in society.  Rather, it is a decision based on ideal 1).  Note that the parallel ideal of "fundamental fairness/level playing field" also dictates that in matters where biological sex does NOT make a difference, discrimination is prohibited.  That same ideal and value means that a generic employer (tech company, etc.) cannot discriminate based on gender - whether that be biological sex-based, preference, etc.  And by the way, I also think that should be applied to gender and sexual preference -- I think that it should be illegal to discriminate in employment decisions based on someone's status as gay, trans, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, troph said:

I think it's even more of an issue in the individual sports that are purely physical and less mental/strategic.  singles tennis has so much more than strength (I've been smoked by a team with two ladies over 65 years old more than I care to count (doubles)), but the core Olympic sports like running, jumping, throwing, swimming, cycling, not so much.

LOL!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I think the larger issue underlying all of this is the presumption that anyone has a right to compete in sports to begin with.  I can't, no matter how far I stretch the intent of federal law, wrap my head around an inalienable right to play competitive sports.  That's where we went off the rails. We place an insane amount of value on athletics to the point we treat organized competition as if it actually has a bearing on fundamental freedom and existence.  This trans argument is just an extension of a false premise.

I understand the other underlying issues such as funding and its interplay with Title IX, but I see those as extensions of the same false premise.  It's all born of an overblown notion of the importance of competitive sports.  The benefits of competitive sports are very real, but if we actually gave a shit about citizens partaking in these benefits, we would have intramural teams at each school that everyone participates in.  The amount of tax dollars spent on stadiums, arenas, etc. is mind numbingly stupid, but also traces back to that same false premise.  We don't think everyone should exercise and engage in cooperative/competitive character building activities.  We believe that everyone has a right to become a superstar athlete.  It's some kind of collective mental illness.

Sports and athletic competition are great.  I love(d) participating in them and I loved watching those much better than me compete professionally.  Do I think competitive athletic endeavors and my right to participate in them is fundamental to my existence, citizenship, or happiness?  Fuck no.  And anyone who does is fucked in the head.

I'm sorry, but don't you get it? this isn't about baseball, this is about life. don't you fucking get it? /Augism.

more seriously, sports is everything to a lot of people. I'm an aging 46 year old with a bum shoulder, tendonitis in my elbow, I have lower back pain and am resigned to the fact that tennis will probably lead me to knee replacements and worn out elbows when I'm older. and you know what?  my pursuit of happiness demands I keep playing. Everyone has a right to play.  EVERYONE.  There is a solution here, an easy one and for most trans athletes the answer is LET THEM FUCKING TRANSITION AS KIDS EARLY AND COMPETE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They may not.  Many of them certainly will not.

We can't make everyone happy.  There are competing ideals here: 1) sports should be fair/level playing field, and 2) we should allow trans people to live life as their identified gender.  We are seeing that those ideals cannot co-exist in the same space.  One of them has to give.  My suggestion is that while we should endeavor to live out ideal 2) wherever possible, it is not possible without contradicting ideal 1), destroying a foundational element of athletic competition, and thus we do not follow ideal 2) in the context of athletics.

We can't make everyone happy.  We should be kind, accommodating, etc.  But we can't always reach an ultimate decision that makes everyone happy.  My proposal is not a knock against the trans community, or an action intended to deny them their place in society.  Rather, it is a decision based on ideal 1).  Note that the parallel ideal of "fundamental fairness/level playing field" also dictates that in matters where biological sex does NOT make a difference, discrimination is prohibited.  That same ideal and value means that a generic employer (tech company, etc.) cannot discriminate based on gender - whether that be biological sex-based, preference, etc.  And by the way, I also think that should be applied to gender and sexual preference -- I think that it should be illegal to discriminate in employment decisions based on someone's status as gay, trans, etc.

you aren't saying this. but the start of the solution is with the politics of transition. Fix that and most of these issues will go away. Right now it's 50/50 on which is easier - transitioning earlier or later. for me it was 0/100 I had to be an established adult then destroy my life to do it.  that needs to be 90/10 in favor of early transition.  maybe when society isn't fucked up about transition we can say sorry, you transitioned too late.  But until we fix the root cause, this talk about athletics comes across as nothing but more discrimination. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...