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
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.
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.