Given that racists and slavers used the “natural physical strength” of black people to justify putting them on hard labor and some medics still think that blacks has higher resistance to pain, I wonder if when black athletes started to join mixed race sport teams, some racist would have used the same “biological advantage” argument that now transphobes use against trans athletes to claim it was “unfair” for black to compete against whites to justify segregation.
And you can tell by the way they don’t win competitions.
I mean, none of the trans people I’ve met are people I would describe as natural athletes. I’m sure they exist but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of overlap in the two categories which likely skews any sort of analysis of the subject.
It’s such a hilarious non-issue. There aer so many other things we should be worried about.
Exactly. It’s harmful to both women and the LGBT+ movement.
We should all just get on board with allowing discrimination based on sex at birth in women’s sport competitions.
And then we can really focus on discrimination where it matters. Drag competitions aren’t hurting anyone.
No, we need the exact opposite of this but for the same reason.
We should ignore it as an issue because it’s literally not an issue. The minuscule number of people it will affect don’t warrant national discussion nor legislation. But we should also not cede ground to transphobic bigots that want to use this as precedent “that assigned sex at birth” is relevant in some venues. Next stop is bathrooms and gyms.
More over, scientifically this isn’t even a metric that makes sense. What about intersex folk? Their assigned sex at birth inherently doesn’t fit in to a binary. It also ignores the numerous cis women who naturally have higher testosterone levels. I get why its an easy solution as transphobia is rampant and dangerous in other areas of life, but thats not a good reason to make inherently flawed laws.
It’s not a winning issue in sports. Anywhere else you’ll get more support.
from Gallup polls
You are missing the point, the polls don’t matter. I know it’s a wedge issue that republicans slam on, but just because a thing is popular doesn’t make it wise.
Scientifically (HRT equalizes everything after 2+ years)
Philosophically (trans women are women, trans men are men)
Politically (sets a precedent of gatekeeping certain areas)
Practically (intersex, cis athletes with unique biology)
From every angle you look at it, we can’t enshrine ASAB as the end all determination. It’s not a compromise that will make transphobic people chill, it will be a victory for them to push more.
Are you really going to tell me that a trans girl who was on puberty blockers as a child and HRT when she is old enough, who never went through “male puberty” at any point physically has some edge and should not be able to be on a girls soccer team? Because that flies in the face of all reason. Setting a law because of popularity instead looking at the facts will cause more problems down the road.
Are you going to tell her she can play a sport as long as she’s not exceptional at it?
I’d be fine with the girls who are mediocre at a sport. It’s not reasonable to tell anyone that they’re allowed to play a sport as long as they aren’t good at it. Trans women shouldn’t be taking scholarships and awards away from born women.
The same doesn’t apply to bathrooms or the gym. You can be as good as you want at pissing in whatever gender bathroom you want. I don’t care.
Trans women who do not fully transition are going to have an advantage. And anyone who performs well is going to be suspected of not fully transitioning. It’s not fair to them and not fair to born women.
We already have controls in sports on sex hormones. This isn’t much different.
I wish the trans community all the best in areas outside of this one. I’ll call you by whatever pronouns you prefer. You can use whatever bathrooms you want. But this issue is different.
I respect your argument. I’m just not convinced.
It’s NOT a wedge issue in sports, as evident by the fact that a majority of independents, and a sizeable portion of democrats are also against it.
And it’s also not settled scientifically. This isn’t about ONLY testosterone. It’s also about bone structure, muscle density, wing span l, height, ligaments and tendons, and much more. All things that don’t just disappear with the cessation of testosterone.
I don’t see how maintaining the status quo can be seen as a “victory that makes them push for more”? That argument is much easier to push the other way:
If someone can play a sport based on undergoing X treatment, isn’t that discriminatory against those that can’t afford treatment but still identify a certain way? What about XYZ women’s only spaces, should we allow anyone that proclaims self-identifying a certain way into those spaces?
That’s the same “victory to make them push for more” just flipped.
The issue is that exceptional people win. And you can’t allow people to compete, but then tell them it’s not okay if they win.
I’m cool with anyone competing in men’s competitions, but sports set aside for women at birth should keep that standard. The same logic applies to Oscar Pistorius, who shouldn’t have been allowed to compete in the Olympics. If you win a competition with artificial legs, it’s hard to argue that the artificial legs aren’t an advantage.
Women’s cycling races in Chicago area would tell a different story…along with women’s swimming (Lia Thomas)…and other cases.
Exactly.