Here's one: I believe that there are inherent physical differences between men and women. I fully support trans people to be whomever they desire and have equal protection under the law but I also don't "believe" trans women are actual women and I don't believe trans women who have gone through male puberty should complete in elite women's sports. Call me whatever the heck you want-- I don't care.
That has bothered me too. But I'm old enough to not be whatever "woke" is I guess. I still think there are two basic sexes. I'm thinking maybe elite sports will have to move to tiers like wrestling and boxing. No mens and womens, just tiers of strength and ability. It just seems like there's always something pushing to diminish the female half of humanity. (I also do not believe in letting children make life decisions when neither they bodies nor their minds are fully developed. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that thought but either way I should be entitled to hold it.)
Good for you, Adrienne, for being willing to take the heat and engage on this.
I think trans women are women; the ones I know are fully female in every respect that I can tell. I think the number of trans women in elite sports is so low as to be a non-starter as an issue. Of course, you make a good case for using puberty blockers early for teens who think they may be trans.
I won't call you bigoted or anti-trans; but I would suggest you may want to do a little research into just how female trans women can be. Also just how male trans men can be.
Well, I have been fighting for women's sports since I was a kid in the 70s. I even got a job writing an article (through Gloria Steinem) about my junior high school to discuss my investigation into the fact that our candy sale money (sold mostly by girls) was spent on boys sports (over $10 k) while $250 was given to the only girls sport available---intramural bowling. This was before Title IX. I recite this tale since I've long been invested in fighting for equity and opportunity for girls and women in sports. That said, I believe that trans athletes are few and far between and are being attacked, used as political pawns....Frankly it's a joke when state legislatures pass laws to "protect girls and women in sports" given those same bodies have never done a darn thing to expand or secure actual opportunities for girls (or women) to compete on a level playing field. Face it, the anti-trans in sports mantra is simply about vilifying an already marginalized person to score political points. I think the Republican governor of Utah said it best when he vetoed this bogus legislation: "“I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion...Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day...Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.” I agree with the Governor Spencer Cox.
YES! what you said. The trans women in sports is a non-issue since there are so few. And yes, legislatures didn't care about girls' sports until now. Why are there laws being passed about this? or about bathrooms? trans people have been using appropriate bathrooms ever since there were gender-specific bathrooms, and it's no big deal.
There's no group of trans women pushing cis women out of women's sports - in most places, in order to be eligible to compete as a woman, a trans woman has to be regularly tested for testosterone levels and have them come in below what many women, who they're competing against, produce naturally. HRT just destroys upper body strength, I've heard on the humorous side complaints from people who can't open pickle jars anymore and on the heartbreaking side from someone in construction 'transitioning was great, for the first time in my entire life I can look in the mirror without wanting to kill myself, I feel so much better and saner and whole and happy for the first time... but I'm just not strong enough to do my job anymore, and I don't know what to do'.
Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
But could one frickin' person every time this comes up mention the HRT body strength thing? Because they act like all you need in order to transition for the purposes of athletics is to wave a wand and go 'squadaddle squadoodle I no longer possess a noodle'.
Do they not know about the body strength/testosterone thing? Because every person on HRT I know of sure knows about it, there are jokes on trans twitter about no longer being able to open pickle jars, have they never heard of it somehow? Have they heard of it, but don't believe it exists/believe we're exaggerating/making it up for our own purposes? And even if we assume that they've never heard about it/just don't believe us when we do... why would you assume that you're the first person who has ever thought of this? Gender disguises have been a trope since Shakespeare, didn't you ever see Some Like It Hot on AMC? When I was a kid there was an awful, awful movie about a man disguising himself as a woman to compete in the WNBA after getting banned from the NBA - in the twenty years since that movie came out (I do not care enough to look up the exact date Juwanna Mann was released) - if really all you needed to do to compete in a women's league is to declare that you're a woman, wouldn't someone have tried this by now?
Ninety percent of Olympic-level athletes, when asked if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within ten years, said 'yes, I would.' Do you seriously think that no one would be willing to undergo SRS for that medal if it was that easy? I remember all the jokes about the East German weightlifting program, thank you!
Here's the thing. For years now, activists have been screaming "Where's the evidence this is a problem?" Predictably, now that we have the evidence, they haven't stopped screaming. You can reduce testosterone levels; it won't change the advantages in size and lung capacity that have accrued in undergoing puberty. And I would dispute that the required T levels for transwomen are lower than normal levels for women.
What evidence is there? Trans women have been allowed to compete for years. There's no massive trans conspiracy forcing cis women out of women's sports. These bills are bills in search of a problem.
Maybe all the people parroting right wing media trans hate (masquerading as concern about female athletes) are unfamiliar with Renee Richards, a famous trans athlete from the 70's.
What is so suspicious about this sudden "concern" about trans athletes is that it's totally political. Trans athletes are governed by rules and regulations from sports authorities.
We don't need Tucker Carlson's "expertise" or that of Republican state legislators, who've already crapped the bed when it came to crazy abortion laws.
1) Trans women athletes are not a new thing, therefore don't require any outrage; 2) an example of a trans woman (who transitioned in adulthood) who didn't beat her opponent.
Lia Thomas is irrelevant now, so use Renee Richards as an example if you absolutely must discuss this subject as if it were a political issue (which you don't, nor does anyone else outside the duly constituted sports authorities; and it isn't).
I think it's because it's not viewed as an issue of fairness in that case. Which is why constantly being called bigots and transphobes by folks on the fringes, when we're really motivated by fairness, not hate, gets pretty old.
There is no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be one.
I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer, and this isn't a cause for concern? Her teammates have to voice their concerns off the record to rightwing outlets because mainstream outlets won't listen, and because they're afraid of retaliation?
And for the vast majority of Americans, it just seems obvious that none of this is fair, no matter how much bad science activists cite to bolster their claims. This is not a hill for anyone to die on, putting women's rights behind those of a small percentage of biological men. Women have been getting shafted by men since Adam and Eve, and this is not as progressive an attitude as progressives seem to think it is.
In the 2018–2019 season Lia was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
And when Lia went on HRT while she was still competing in the male divisions, she underwent a huge *fall* in the rankings, as I explicitly said in the third paragraph of my original post.
> Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
Right there.
Anyways, your evidence that trans women are pushing cis women out of sports is... one swimmer.
On the exact same amount of evidence, I could say that being named 'Diana Taurasi' is obviously an unfair advantage to being the WNBA scoring leader. And that's nothing compared to how many people whose names start with 'T' are at the top of this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1237068/wnba-scoring-leaders/ Why won't the NCAA crack down on this T-initial crisis?
My recollection was the NCAA punted regarding the guidelines, the guidelines were tightened up by the receiver of the punt, then the NCAA ignored the new guidelines.
I think propagandists would skip the "my recollection" part and just assert it as fact. Regardless, yes, the NCAA punted to USA Swimming, saying they would adopt their policy, but they didn't have a policy, so they had to come up with one, and the policy they came up with included 36 months of testosterone suppression. That timeframe disqualified Lia. So, the NCAA ignored their policy and let Lia swim anyway.
He is not asserting that Lia needs to be first every time. In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I think it’s really about creating division in American politics, using a very small, vulnerable group which lacks a constituency to defend them. Cruelty is a side “benefit”. And in terms of that goal of division, it has been wildly successful in bringing out the worst.
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW. These findings add new knowledge on the magnitude of changes in muscle function, size, and composition with cross-hormone therapy, which could be relevant when evaluating the transgender eligibility rules for athletic competitions."
That's scientific evidence that after testosterone trans men remain at a disadvantage in men's sports and after estrogen trans women maintain a biological advantage in women's sports. Granted, it's only one data point, but since all you've offered is anecdotes and vitriol it's a pretty big blow to your credibility.
Now is a good time to stop insulting people and start looking for peer reviewed studies that support your position. Maybe the one I read is an outlier. Maybe not. I don't know enough to take a position and insult anyone who questions it, but I like to understand things so I'll keep looking.
Most of what you said is a pretty mainstream view that most liberals ascribe to or are ok with. Only super far left people, mostly very politically active trans people themselves, would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
the "I don't believe trans women are actual women" hints toward actual bigotry, but I wouldn't call it that based on what you said so far.
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
How many women's sports games have you paid to go see? I coached girls' track for almost 20 years and we never saw all these people who suddenly care about girls' sports in the stands
The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment.
There's a rational and just argument that only actual females should be allowed to compete in a field designated as a women's competition -- and it has nothing to do with bigotry toward trans people, any more than it's bigotry against all the men who may not compete in that contest.
There's also a moral case for trying to find a way that trans people can compete in sports they love. I doubt that many people would really wish to deny them that opportunity altogether. But it should be permissible to acknowledge that hormone treatments and surgery don't turn a man into an actual woman.
You're telling a specific kind of woman that she cannot compete in a sport she loves due to how she was born. That's bigotry
Also, many of these people who now care so much about girls' and womens' sports were raging about Title IX hurting mens' and boys' sports and saying most women don't like sports, so why have womens' sports.
A man with a hormonally and surgically altered body is not a woman.
It is not bigotry to say that "woman" and "man" have precise meanings, and so do their equivalents in every known language, and those meanings arise from the biological facts of almost every animal species.
That fact that some people are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex and would rather be the other one (or think they would, as many later change their minds) does not erase the facts of biology that underlie the meanings of words.
There is nothing bigoted about pointing to the facts of biology.
It is, however, hateful to accuse other people of having ugly motives when they do.
The facts of biology are more complicated than that. About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology.
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)
I have a friend who transitioned in her 60s, after obviously living as a male (and serving in the military) for decades with testosterone. Once on male hormone suppression along with pharmaceutical estrogen, her strength definitely deteriorated which caused some adjustments in her daily activities, which are ongoing.
I can say, it’s been a valuable and rare education to have a close friend who can describe from first hand experience, what it feels like - especially regarding societal interactions - to experience life from both genders.
The question is whether strength deteriorated so much as to make her competitive with other women, or whether in spite of the diminished strength she is still much stronger than her female peers. Lia's record might be considered anecdotal but still in the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I’d bet that my friend who transitioned is still stronger than me, for all the biological reasons people are discussing. It’s a really “sticky wicket” without an obvious solution. I wish it had never come up, but it was inevitable. I’m still examining my own feelings/opinions. At this point, I wish people didn’t demand to have it all, the whole pie. Everyone is faced with limitations, physical, intellectual, or even emotional, on their participation in societal activities. I’d never enter a beauty pageant for example! My son is too short to play basketball. But we are nonetheless content in the absence of those activities.
What a sexist answer! I watched an equal number of soccer and field hockey games. But please continue lecturing me on my parenthood and history since you seen to “know “ so much about it. I usually ignore people like you but your arrogance is breathtaking.
From second hand information, the change from male to female causes a strength differential somewhere in the middle, as one might expect. I’m guessing there’s a large range of experience in that regard, probably depending on age at transition and also before/after general fitness status.
If you think insinuating that I’m a bigot will bring a life-long Democrat (now centrist, thanks to people like you) further left, you are incorrect. I support equal rights for ALL but I also recognize that their are biological differences between men and women, something that wasn’t considered “bigoted” ten minutes ago.
Don't go down the rabbit hole on this. My 17 year old son explained it to me best: basically it comes down to whether you believe gender is a social or biological construct. Those who use terms like "nonbinary" and "they" believe that no one is a completely a man or a woman, gay or straight and so therefore why should society try and pigeonhole them?
My son also reminded me that in ancient Greece and Rome there were "lady-men" who were men who dressed like women. Of course most of them were just gay dudes, but I digress.
Ultimately, when it comes to sports, gender IS biological. It is simply unfair to put what are men into women's sports and expect the women to be able to compete. And for some on the left to choose this as the hill they wish to die on explains everything you need to know about why Dems lose elections.
Again, my mother, a sage women without a college degree, smartest person I know, said it best, "when Democrats try to excuse bad behavior or a general lack of common sense, they get in trouble."
"but because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion"
Which ones?
Here's one: I believe that there are inherent physical differences between men and women. I fully support trans people to be whomever they desire and have equal protection under the law but I also don't "believe" trans women are actual women and I don't believe trans women who have gone through male puberty should complete in elite women's sports. Call me whatever the heck you want-- I don't care.
That has bothered me too. But I'm old enough to not be whatever "woke" is I guess. I still think there are two basic sexes. I'm thinking maybe elite sports will have to move to tiers like wrestling and boxing. No mens and womens, just tiers of strength and ability. It just seems like there's always something pushing to diminish the female half of humanity. (I also do not believe in letting children make life decisions when neither they bodies nor their minds are fully developed. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that thought but either way I should be entitled to hold it.)
Good for you, Adrienne, for being willing to take the heat and engage on this.
I think trans women are women; the ones I know are fully female in every respect that I can tell. I think the number of trans women in elite sports is so low as to be a non-starter as an issue. Of course, you make a good case for using puberty blockers early for teens who think they may be trans.
I won't call you bigoted or anti-trans; but I would suggest you may want to do a little research into just how female trans women can be. Also just how male trans men can be.
Well, I have been fighting for women's sports since I was a kid in the 70s. I even got a job writing an article (through Gloria Steinem) about my junior high school to discuss my investigation into the fact that our candy sale money (sold mostly by girls) was spent on boys sports (over $10 k) while $250 was given to the only girls sport available---intramural bowling. This was before Title IX. I recite this tale since I've long been invested in fighting for equity and opportunity for girls and women in sports. That said, I believe that trans athletes are few and far between and are being attacked, used as political pawns....Frankly it's a joke when state legislatures pass laws to "protect girls and women in sports" given those same bodies have never done a darn thing to expand or secure actual opportunities for girls (or women) to compete on a level playing field. Face it, the anti-trans in sports mantra is simply about vilifying an already marginalized person to score political points. I think the Republican governor of Utah said it best when he vetoed this bogus legislation: "“I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion...Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day...Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.” I agree with the Governor Spencer Cox.
YES! what you said. The trans women in sports is a non-issue since there are so few. And yes, legislatures didn't care about girls' sports until now. Why are there laws being passed about this? or about bathrooms? trans people have been using appropriate bathrooms ever since there were gender-specific bathrooms, and it's no big deal.
I've been to a lot of seedy bars in my day that had only one bathroom. You could use it or go in the ally.
that too!
Oh, for God's sake.
There's no group of trans women pushing cis women out of women's sports - in most places, in order to be eligible to compete as a woman, a trans woman has to be regularly tested for testosterone levels and have them come in below what many women, who they're competing against, produce naturally. HRT just destroys upper body strength, I've heard on the humorous side complaints from people who can't open pickle jars anymore and on the heartbreaking side from someone in construction 'transitioning was great, for the first time in my entire life I can look in the mirror without wanting to kill myself, I feel so much better and saner and whole and happy for the first time... but I'm just not strong enough to do my job anymore, and I don't know what to do'.
Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
But could one frickin' person every time this comes up mention the HRT body strength thing? Because they act like all you need in order to transition for the purposes of athletics is to wave a wand and go 'squadaddle squadoodle I no longer possess a noodle'.
Do they not know about the body strength/testosterone thing? Because every person on HRT I know of sure knows about it, there are jokes on trans twitter about no longer being able to open pickle jars, have they never heard of it somehow? Have they heard of it, but don't believe it exists/believe we're exaggerating/making it up for our own purposes? And even if we assume that they've never heard about it/just don't believe us when we do... why would you assume that you're the first person who has ever thought of this? Gender disguises have been a trope since Shakespeare, didn't you ever see Some Like It Hot on AMC? When I was a kid there was an awful, awful movie about a man disguising himself as a woman to compete in the WNBA after getting banned from the NBA - in the twenty years since that movie came out (I do not care enough to look up the exact date Juwanna Mann was released) - if really all you needed to do to compete in a women's league is to declare that you're a woman, wouldn't someone have tried this by now?
Ninety percent of Olympic-level athletes, when asked if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within ten years, said 'yes, I would.' Do you seriously think that no one would be willing to undergo SRS for that medal if it was that easy? I remember all the jokes about the East German weightlifting program, thank you!
Here's the thing. For years now, activists have been screaming "Where's the evidence this is a problem?" Predictably, now that we have the evidence, they haven't stopped screaming. You can reduce testosterone levels; it won't change the advantages in size and lung capacity that have accrued in undergoing puberty. And I would dispute that the required T levels for transwomen are lower than normal levels for women.
What evidence is there? Trans women have been allowed to compete for years. There's no massive trans conspiracy forcing cis women out of women's sports. These bills are bills in search of a problem.
Maybe all the people parroting right wing media trans hate (masquerading as concern about female athletes) are unfamiliar with Renee Richards, a famous trans athlete from the 70's.
What is so suspicious about this sudden "concern" about trans athletes is that it's totally political. Trans athletes are governed by rules and regulations from sports authorities.
We don't need Tucker Carlson's "expertise" or that of Republican state legislators, who've already crapped the bed when it came to crazy abortion laws.
What about Renee Richards? I'm familiar with her.
1) Trans women athletes are not a new thing, therefore don't require any outrage; 2) an example of a trans woman (who transitioned in adulthood) who didn't beat her opponent.
Lia Thomas is irrelevant now, so use Renee Richards as an example if you absolutely must discuss this subject as if it were a political issue (which you don't, nor does anyone else outside the duly constituted sports authorities; and it isn't).
Richards transitioned in her forties. That's well past the prime of any female tennis player in the 1970s. And she still beat a lot of women players.
I wonder why nobody talks about trans men competing with men.
I think it's because it's not viewed as an issue of fairness in that case. Which is why constantly being called bigots and transphobes by folks on the fringes, when we're really motivated by fairness, not hate, gets pretty old.
There is no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be one.
I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer, and this isn't a cause for concern? Her teammates have to voice their concerns off the record to rightwing outlets because mainstream outlets won't listen, and because they're afraid of retaliation?
And for the vast majority of Americans, it just seems obvious that none of this is fair, no matter how much bad science activists cite to bolster their claims. This is not a hill for anyone to die on, putting women's rights behind those of a small percentage of biological men. Women have been getting shafted by men since Adam and Eve, and this is not as progressive an attitude as progressives seem to think it is.
"I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer"
36th. She's ranked 36th. She won the 400m. Was middling in a lot of other ones.
Thank you for the correction.
That's still a huge leap in rankings.
In the 2018–2019 season Lia was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
And when Lia went on HRT while she was still competing in the male divisions, she underwent a huge *fall* in the rankings, as I explicitly said in the third paragraph of my original post.
> Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
Right there.
Anyways, your evidence that trans women are pushing cis women out of sports is... one swimmer.
On the exact same amount of evidence, I could say that being named 'Diana Taurasi' is obviously an unfair advantage to being the WNBA scoring leader. And that's nothing compared to how many people whose names start with 'T' are at the top of this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1237068/wnba-scoring-leaders/ Why won't the NCAA crack down on this T-initial crisis?
After Lia Thomas, the guidelines for participation for trans athletes were tightened up, so Lia Thomas is no longer germane to this discussion.
Please pass it on to others who are similarly not up to date.
My recollection was the NCAA punted regarding the guidelines, the guidelines were tightened up by the receiver of the punt, then the NCAA ignored the new guidelines.
"My recollection" is often used by propagandists to spread disinformation. It would be best to look it up before writing. This looks like an NCAA punt. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/ncaas-new-trans-athlete-guidelines-sow-confusion-lia-thomas-debate-rcna13073
I think propagandists would skip the "my recollection" part and just assert it as fact. Regardless, yes, the NCAA punted to USA Swimming, saying they would adopt their policy, but they didn't have a policy, so they had to come up with one, and the policy they came up with included 36 months of testosterone suppression. That timeframe disqualified Lia. So, the NCAA ignored their policy and let Lia swim anyway.
Lia was in the pool, right?
He is not asserting that Lia needs to be first every time. In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I think it’s really about creating division in American politics, using a very small, vulnerable group which lacks a constituency to defend them. Cruelty is a side “benefit”. And in terms of that goal of division, it has been wildly successful in bringing out the worst.
From this study:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/105/3/e805/5651219?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW. These findings add new knowledge on the magnitude of changes in muscle function, size, and composition with cross-hormone therapy, which could be relevant when evaluating the transgender eligibility rules for athletic competitions."
That's scientific evidence that after testosterone trans men remain at a disadvantage in men's sports and after estrogen trans women maintain a biological advantage in women's sports. Granted, it's only one data point, but since all you've offered is anecdotes and vitriol it's a pretty big blow to your credibility.
Now is a good time to stop insulting people and start looking for peer reviewed studies that support your position. Maybe the one I read is an outlier. Maybe not. I don't know enough to take a position and insult anyone who questions it, but I like to understand things so I'll keep looking.
Most of what you said is a pretty mainstream view that most liberals ascribe to or are ok with. Only super far left people, mostly very politically active trans people themselves, would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
the "I don't believe trans women are actual women" hints toward actual bigotry, but I wouldn't call it that based on what you said so far.
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
And "biological fact" used to say Black people were inferior to white people
Yes, 1000% yes.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
Okay boomer.
I understand your irritation, but thought-terminating cliches are unhelpful.
How many women's sports games have you paid to go see? I coached girls' track for almost 20 years and we never saw all these people who suddenly care about girls' sports in the stands
The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment.
There's a rational and just argument that only actual females should be allowed to compete in a field designated as a women's competition -- and it has nothing to do with bigotry toward trans people, any more than it's bigotry against all the men who may not compete in that contest.
There's also a moral case for trying to find a way that trans people can compete in sports they love. I doubt that many people would really wish to deny them that opportunity altogether. But it should be permissible to acknowledge that hormone treatments and surgery don't turn a man into an actual woman.
You're telling a specific kind of woman that she cannot compete in a sport she loves due to how she was born. That's bigotry
Also, many of these people who now care so much about girls' and womens' sports were raging about Title IX hurting mens' and boys' sports and saying most women don't like sports, so why have womens' sports.
A man with a hormonally and surgically altered body is not a woman.
It is not bigotry to say that "woman" and "man" have precise meanings, and so do their equivalents in every known language, and those meanings arise from the biological facts of almost every animal species.
That fact that some people are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex and would rather be the other one (or think they would, as many later change their minds) does not erase the facts of biology that underlie the meanings of words.
There is nothing bigoted about pointing to the facts of biology.
It is, however, hateful to accuse other people of having ugly motives when they do.
The facts of biology are more complicated than that. About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology.
People argued that biology proved Black people were inherently inferior. Was that not bigotry?
It is an ugly motive to deny all women the same access
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
Anecdotal evidence:
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)
I have a friend who transitioned in her 60s, after obviously living as a male (and serving in the military) for decades with testosterone. Once on male hormone suppression along with pharmaceutical estrogen, her strength definitely deteriorated which caused some adjustments in her daily activities, which are ongoing.
I can say, it’s been a valuable and rare education to have a close friend who can describe from first hand experience, what it feels like - especially regarding societal interactions - to experience life from both genders.
The question is whether strength deteriorated so much as to make her competitive with other women, or whether in spite of the diminished strength she is still much stronger than her female peers. Lia's record might be considered anecdotal but still in the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I’d bet that my friend who transitioned is still stronger than me, for all the biological reasons people are discussing. It’s a really “sticky wicket” without an obvious solution. I wish it had never come up, but it was inevitable. I’m still examining my own feelings/opinions. At this point, I wish people didn’t demand to have it all, the whole pie. Everyone is faced with limitations, physical, intellectual, or even emotional, on their participation in societal activities. I’d never enter a beauty pageant for example! My son is too short to play basketball. But we are nonetheless content in the absence of those activities.
Both my son and daughter played college sports (D1) so I’ve seen quite a lot— thanks for asking.
Yet you'd still deny some women a chance to participate
What a sexist answer! I watched an equal number of soccer and field hockey games. But please continue lecturing me on my parenthood and history since you seen to “know “ so much about it. I usually ignore people like you but your arrogance is breathtaking.
From second hand information, the change from male to female causes a strength differential somewhere in the middle, as one might expect. I’m guessing there’s a large range of experience in that regard, probably depending on age at transition and also before/after general fitness status.
If you think insinuating that I’m a bigot will bring a life-long Democrat (now centrist, thanks to people like you) further left, you are incorrect. I support equal rights for ALL but I also recognize that their are biological differences between men and women, something that wasn’t considered “bigoted” ten minutes ago.
Don't go down the rabbit hole on this. My 17 year old son explained it to me best: basically it comes down to whether you believe gender is a social or biological construct. Those who use terms like "nonbinary" and "they" believe that no one is a completely a man or a woman, gay or straight and so therefore why should society try and pigeonhole them?
My son also reminded me that in ancient Greece and Rome there were "lady-men" who were men who dressed like women. Of course most of them were just gay dudes, but I digress.
Ultimately, when it comes to sports, gender IS biological. It is simply unfair to put what are men into women's sports and expect the women to be able to compete. And for some on the left to choose this as the hill they wish to die on explains everything you need to know about why Dems lose elections.
Again, my mother, a sage women without a college degree, smartest person I know, said it best, "when Democrats try to excuse bad behavior or a general lack of common sense, they get in trouble."
Notice that for some reason nobody talks about trans men in men's sports.
You protest too much. It hit a nerve.
It actually was bigoted 10 minutes ago.
It's "bigoted" to say there are "biological differences between men and women"?
Wow.
It's bigoted to say some women aren't women.