[needle]

It's here:

 The order offers some clarity. For example, it authorizes the Education Department to penalize schools that allow transgender athletes to compete, citing noncompliance with Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination in schools. Any school found in violation could potentially be ineligible for federal funding.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...men-sports

I'd bet someone will go to court to seek to block this order from taking effect, likely arguing that it's overreach and that this EO circumvents established rule-making procedures for this sort of thing.

In the meantime--and I'm much less sure about this--I'd expect trans athletes (in certain states) to seek out ways to change their birth certificates to fit their current gender: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/id..._documents. 

If the document can be amended--not possible in every state--I think this might be a workable loophole for trans HS athletes (who could then go on to compete collegiately, at least in theory). Workable, that is, until we get to the point where an examination of genitals is compulsory (might get there, might not), after which the surgeon gets the deciding vote.

From a story about a HS trans athlete who won significant damages under Missouri law from a school district because of policies restricting locker room access:

 Attorneys for the Blue Spring School District did not contest that R.M.A. was treated differently, according to Gabbert’s ruling, but said it was because of his “female genitalia.”

“School district employees suggested that R.M.A. had been excluded from the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms because of [the] school district’s belief that he had female genitalia,” Gabbert wrote. “[The] school district did not actually determine the nature of R.M.A.’s genitalia, however, and does not speculate, inspect or otherwise inquire as to the genitalia of other male students.”

The admission of different treatment based on assumed genitalia, Gabbert wrote, was itself discrimination on the basis of sex.

Part of the judicial proceedings included testimony from R.M.A.’s doctor, who said R.M.A. was a male for as long as she has been treating him (which began at age nine).

During his time as a student, R.M.A. received an updated birth certificate with his male gender identity.

School district employees and school board members told R.M.A.’s mother that locker-room access is determined by birth certificate. After she gave the corrected birth certificate to school district officials, R.M.A. was still denied access to boys’ restrooms and locker rooms.

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/...n%20Rights.

[needle]

It's here:

 The order offers some clarity. For example, it authorizes the Education Department to penalize schools that allow transgender athletes to compete, citing noncompliance with Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination in schools. Any school found in violation could potentially be ineligible for federal funding.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...men-sports

I'd bet someone will go to court to seek to block this order from taking effect, likely arguing that it's overreach and that this EO circumvents established rule-making procedures for this sort of thing.

In the meantime--and I'm much less sure about this--I'd expect trans athletes (in certain states) to seek out ways to change their birth certificates to fit their current gender: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/id..._documents. 

If the document can be amended--not possible in every state--I think this might be a workable loophole for trans HS athletes (who could then go on to compete collegiately, at least in theory). Workable, that is, until we get to the point where an examination of genitals is compulsory (might get there, might not), after which the surgeon gets the deciding vote.

From a story about a HS trans athlete who won significant damages under Missouri law from a school district because of policies restricting locker room access:

 Attorneys for the Blue Spring School District did not contest that R.M.A. was treated differently, according to Gabbert’s ruling, but said it was because of his “female genitalia.”

“School district employees suggested that R.M.A. had been excluded from the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms because of [the] school district’s belief that he had female genitalia,” Gabbert wrote. “[The] school district did not actually determine the nature of R.M.A.’s genitalia, however, and does not speculate, inspect or otherwise inquire as to the genitalia of other male students.”

The admission of different treatment based on assumed genitalia, Gabbert wrote, was itself discrimination on the basis of sex.

Part of the judicial proceedings included testimony from R.M.A.’s doctor, who said R.M.A. was a male for as long as she has been treating him (which began at age nine).

During his time as a student, R.M.A. received an updated birth certificate with his male gender identity.

School district employees and school board members told R.M.A.’s mother that locker-room access is determined by birth certificate. After she gave the corrected birth certificate to school district officials, R.M.A. was still denied access to boys’ restrooms and locker rooms.

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/...n%20Rights.

[BostonCard]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

[BostonCard]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

[ADPinWDC]

The thread bears directly on the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics, which USA will host.  
President Trump this week has also banned male-born (XY DNA) transgender participation in women's events.  
Based on the last Olympics, Stanford will field a substantial set of athletes and medalists in the games.  
Hence, this topic may be quite relevant to Stanford Sports -- but less so to Football and Basketball. 

There will likely be lawsuit challenges in court, but that makes the issue more relevant for discussion.

[ADPinWDC]

The thread bears directly on the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics, which USA will host.  
President Trump this week has also banned male-born (XY DNA) transgender participation in women's events.  
Based on the last Olympics, Stanford will field a substantial set of athletes and medalists in the games.  
Hence, this topic may be quite relevant to Stanford Sports -- but less so to Football and Basketball. 

There will likely be lawsuit challenges in court, but that makes the issue more relevant for discussion.

[M T]

I wonder if China has already started campaigning for the 2028 Olympics to be moved there

[M T]

I wonder if China has already started campaigning for the 2028 Olympics to be moved there

[martyup]

I wonder if China has already started campaigning for the 2028 Olympics to be moved there

Why?  China is not known for being welcoming to transgender athletes.

https://19thnews.org/2022/02/olympic-ath...crackdown/

A record number of out LGBTQ+ athletes are competing at the highest levels in the Beijing Winter Games this year, even as the host country’s government has accelerated its silencing of LGBTQ+ advocacy and speech in the country, experts and advocates tell The 19th.

[martyup]

I wonder if China has already started campaigning for the 2028 Olympics to be moved there

Why?  China is not known for being welcoming to transgender athletes.

https://19thnews.org/2022/02/olympic-ath...crackdown/

A record number of out LGBTQ+ athletes are competing at the highest levels in the Beijing Winter Games this year, even as the host country’s government has accelerated its silencing of LGBTQ+ advocacy and speech in the country, experts and advocates tell The 19th.

[cardbored]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

I recommend refinement of the "no politics" rule. Every human social activity is political to some extent. In sports, for example:

• Many of the competitors are political entities (public schools and universities).
  
• Many of the sanctioning authorities are political entities.
  
• Many of the facilities are completely or partially funded by political means.
  
• Federal law ("Title IX") affects every school or university that receives federal funding.
  
• Military engagement, e.g., flyovers and color guards, is commonplace in professional and amateur sports.
  
• Lawsuits involve federal and state courts in sports.
  
• The federal government subsidizes athletes in Olympic events.
  
• Some sports receive antitrust exemptions.
  
• (and so on)
  

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

[cardbored]

Just a warning that this thread is at high risk for crossing the no politics line.  I think the post above was factual, in that the executive order was signed without editorializing on this very personal subject, and thus fine (in my opinion).  But for any follow-up in this thread, my advice to posters is to please resist the temptation to communicate your strongly held beliefs in support or opposition to the EO, and focus solely on what is happening.  Since to my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have or compete against any transgender athletes, the relevance of this thread to Stanford athletics is more tangential and I (and I presume the other moderators) won't hesitate to lock the thread if there is even a whiff of polarization.

/warning

BC

I recommend refinement of the "no politics" rule. Every human social activity is political to some extent. In sports, for example:

• Many of the competitors are political entities (public schools and universities).
  
• Many of the sanctioning authorities are political entities.
  
• Many of the facilities are completely or partially funded by political means.
  
• Federal law ("Title IX") affects every school or university that receives federal funding.
  
• Military engagement, e.g., flyovers and color guards, is commonplace in professional and amateur sports.
  
• Lawsuits involve federal and state courts in sports.
  
• The federal government subsidizes athletes in Olympic events.
  
• Some sports receive antitrust exemptions.
  
• (and so on)
  

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

[BostonCard]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

[dabigv13]

The "no politics rule" exists due to lots of experience. IIRC it really came into being when a poster kept bringing up theories on the genetic basis for difference in intelligence between races. 

In theory, a place for educated and considered discourse would be nice. In practice, we have proven we can't have nice things.

[dabigv13]

The "no politics rule" exists due to lots of experience. IIRC it really came into being when a poster kept bringing up theories on the genetic basis for difference in intelligence between races. 

In theory, a place for educated and considered discourse would be nice. In practice, we have proven we can't have nice things.

[needle]

This issue is not “tangential” to Stanford as the university has an official policy on trans varsity athletes (one of five universities in Calif. to have such a policy): https://www.gennyb.com/research/trans-su...-policies/

Will the university officially rescind its policy? This week, I doubt it, but as long as it is in place this is a very real issue for Stanford.

Stanford policy on trans athletes: https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...sivity.pdf

EDIT: Here's the latest coming out of the Dept. of Ed. San Jose State among three entities officially under investigation.

Based on the language below, seems like Stanford's policy would fall under this new scrutiny, so maybe the university will feel compelled to rescind its existing trans varsity athlete policy sooner rather than later:

Additionally, OCR is actively reviewing athletic participation policies at a number of schools to evaluate their alignment with Title IX protections for female athletes.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-rele...-athletics

[needle]

This issue is not “tangential” to Stanford as the university has an official policy on trans varsity athletes (one of five universities in Calif. to have such a policy): https://www.gennyb.com/research/trans-su...-policies/

Will the university officially rescind its policy? This week, I doubt it, but as long as it is in place this is a very real issue for Stanford.

Stanford policy on trans athletes: https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...sivity.pdf

EDIT: Here's the latest coming out of the Dept. of Ed. San Jose State among three entities officially under investigation.

Based on the language below, seems like Stanford's policy would fall under this new scrutiny, so maybe the university will feel compelled to rescind its existing trans varsity athlete policy sooner rather than later:

Additionally, OCR is actively reviewing athletic participation policies at a number of schools to evaluate their alignment with Title IX protections for female athletes.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-rele...-athletics

[MV72018]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

[MV72018]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

[cardcrimson]

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

I actually thought otherwise and got a chuckle from it. . . .

[cardcrimson]

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

I actually thought otherwise and got a chuckle from it. . . .

[dabigv13]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

Whoever you're referring to is a mod/admin, since regular posters cannot lock threads. And if you think the moderation here is paternalistic, there are many other forums where you can go instead.

And FWIW I think that the issue of transgender athletics at Stanford is within the purview of this board and worthy of discussion.

[dabigv13]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

Whoever you're referring to is a mod/admin, since regular posters cannot lock threads. And if you think the moderation here is paternalistic, there are many other forums where you can go instead.

And FWIW I think that the issue of transgender athletics at Stanford is within the purview of this board and worthy of discussion.

[Mick]

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

I actually thought otherwise and got a chuckle from it. . . .

I thought it was a nicely humorous comment at a time when humor was needed...

[Mick]

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

I actually thought otherwise and got a chuckle from it. . . .

I thought it was a nicely humorous comment at a time when humor was needed...

[Hieronymus]

Women’s national team soccer could get very complicated now. Canada has one player who is trans - they play I believe for Seattle in the NWSL as well which Trump is apparently also trying to ban with the executive order. But I am not sure if this is ruled legal that the USSF could risk playing Canada in a sanctioned match on US soil and having a legal incident with potential FIFA follow on complications.

[Hieronymus]

Women’s national team soccer could get very complicated now. Canada has one player who is trans - they play I believe for Seattle in the NWSL as well which Trump is apparently also trying to ban with the executive order. But I am not sure if this is ruled legal that the USSF could risk playing Canada in a sanctioned match on US soil and having a legal incident with potential FIFA follow on complications.

[paloalto]

Politics at any level is polarizing.  IMO this is already being shown here even with very little directed toward the thread topic.

[paloalto]

Politics at any level is polarizing.  IMO this is already being shown here even with very little directed toward the thread topic.

[dabigv13]

This issue is not “tangential” to Stanford as the university has an official policy on trans varsity athletes (one of five universities in Calif. to have such a policy): https://www.gennyb.com/research/trans-su...-policies/

Will the university officially rescind its policy? This week, I doubt it, but as long as it is in place this is a very real issue for Stanford.

Stanford policy on trans athletes: https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...sivity.pdf

EDIT: Here's the latest coming out of the Dept. of Ed. San Jose State among three entities officially under investigation.

Based on the language below, seems like Stanford's policy would fall under this new scrutiny, so maybe the university will feel compelled to rescind its existing trans varsity athlete policy sooner rather than later:

Additionally, OCR is actively reviewing athletic participation policies at a number of schools to evaluate their alignment with Title IX protections for female athletes.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-rele...-athletics

My sense is that without any MTF athletes competing for Stanford, and I don't think there are any, the university won't really make a good target for the administration just based on the existence of this policy.

The NCAA president seemed to welcome the EO as providing definitive guidance, so unless there are legal proceedings that enjoin the EO, whatever Stanford's policy is will probably be moot.

[dabigv13]

This issue is not “tangential” to Stanford as the university has an official policy on trans varsity athletes (one of five universities in Calif. to have such a policy): https://www.gennyb.com/research/trans-su...-policies/

Will the university officially rescind its policy? This week, I doubt it, but as long as it is in place this is a very real issue for Stanford.

Stanford policy on trans athletes: https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...sivity.pdf

EDIT: Here's the latest coming out of the Dept. of Ed. San Jose State among three entities officially under investigation.

Based on the language below, seems like Stanford's policy would fall under this new scrutiny, so maybe the university will feel compelled to rescind its existing trans varsity athlete policy sooner rather than later:

Additionally, OCR is actively reviewing athletic participation policies at a number of schools to evaluate their alignment with Title IX protections for female athletes.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-rele...-athletics

My sense is that without any MTF athletes competing for Stanford, and I don't think there are any, the university won't really make a good target for the administration just based on the existence of this policy.

The NCAA president seemed to welcome the EO as providing definitive guidance, so unless there are legal proceedings that enjoin the EO, whatever Stanford's policy is will probably be moot.

[SkiBum80]

From a breaking article:

The NCAA has officially changed its gender eligibility policies to ban all biological males from women's sports one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to address the issue.
The governing body of college sports announced on Thursday afternoon its new participation policy for transgender student-athletes.
"A student-athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team," the new policy reads.

---

Regarding the Olympics, since Nov 2021 the IOC has deferred to each sports governing body to decide rules of eligibility.
Here's from a July 2024 article about some of the sports response and leading up to Paris games:

Since the IOC allowed sporting bodies to set their own policies on trans participation, multiple official bodies have updated their policies, largely in relation to trans women.
At least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of trans athletes in female categories.
World Rowing has issued a near-blanket ban on the participation of trans women in female categories, while the World Boxing Council does not allow any trans athletes to participate.
The world bodies for athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket have banned trans women from competing in female categories if they underwent puberty before starting their transition.
The governing bodies for the triathlon, tennis and archery require testosterone levels to be suppressed within a specified limit.
Other sporting bodies, such as the Badminton World Federation, have said they will consider trans athletes on a case-by-case basis, while FIFA, global soccer's governing body, announced in 2022 that it would review its policy.

[SkiBum80]

From a breaking article:

The NCAA has officially changed its gender eligibility policies to ban all biological males from women's sports one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to address the issue.
The governing body of college sports announced on Thursday afternoon its new participation policy for transgender student-athletes.
"A student-athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team," the new policy reads.

---

Regarding the Olympics, since Nov 2021 the IOC has deferred to each sports governing body to decide rules of eligibility.
Here's from a July 2024 article about some of the sports response and leading up to Paris games:

Since the IOC allowed sporting bodies to set their own policies on trans participation, multiple official bodies have updated their policies, largely in relation to trans women.
At least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of trans athletes in female categories.
World Rowing has issued a near-blanket ban on the participation of trans women in female categories, while the World Boxing Council does not allow any trans athletes to participate.
The world bodies for athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket have banned trans women from competing in female categories if they underwent puberty before starting their transition.
The governing bodies for the triathlon, tennis and archery require testosterone levels to be suppressed within a specified limit.
Other sporting bodies, such as the Badminton World Federation, have said they will consider trans athletes on a case-by-case basis, while FIFA, global soccer's governing body, announced in 2022 that it would review its policy.

[needle]

From a breaking article:

The NCAA has officially changed its gender eligibility policies to ban all biological males from women's sports one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to address the issue.
The governing body of college sports announced on Thursday afternoon its new participation policy for transgender student-athletes.
"A student-athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team," the new policy reads.

---

Regarding the Olympics, since Nov 2021 the IOC has deferred to each sports governing body to decide rules of eligibility.
Here's from a July 2024 article about some of the sports response and leading up to Paris games:

Since the IOC allowed sporting bodies to set their own policies on trans participation, multiple official bodies have updated their policies, largely in relation to trans women.
At least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of trans athletes in female categories.
World Rowing has issued a near-blanket ban on the participation of trans women in female categories, while the World Boxing Council does not allow any trans athletes to participate.
The world bodies for athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket have banned trans women from competing in female categories if they underwent puberty before starting their transition.
The governing bodies for the triathlon, tennis and archery require testosterone levels to be suppressed within a specified limit.
Other sporting bodies, such as the Badminton World Federation, have said they will consider trans athletes on a case-by-case basis, while FIFA, global soccer's governing body, announced in 2022 that it would review its policy.

Since the executive order, I've seen only one community college, Santa Monica College, put out a fiesty, defiant statement: https://www.smc.edu/news/announcements/2...hletes.php

I still think there will be a legal fight over this, but, given that the NCAA is the de facto voice of college presidents, I don't think any major college/university is eager to pick that fight.

[needle]

From a breaking article:

The NCAA has officially changed its gender eligibility policies to ban all biological males from women's sports one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to address the issue.
The governing body of college sports announced on Thursday afternoon its new participation policy for transgender student-athletes.
"A student-athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team," the new policy reads.

---

Regarding the Olympics, since Nov 2021 the IOC has deferred to each sports governing body to decide rules of eligibility.
Here's from a July 2024 article about some of the sports response and leading up to Paris games:

Since the IOC allowed sporting bodies to set their own policies on trans participation, multiple official bodies have updated their policies, largely in relation to trans women.
At least 10 Olympic sports have restricted the participation of trans athletes in female categories.
World Rowing has issued a near-blanket ban on the participation of trans women in female categories, while the World Boxing Council does not allow any trans athletes to participate.
The world bodies for athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket have banned trans women from competing in female categories if they underwent puberty before starting their transition.
The governing bodies for the triathlon, tennis and archery require testosterone levels to be suppressed within a specified limit.
Other sporting bodies, such as the Badminton World Federation, have said they will consider trans athletes on a case-by-case basis, while FIFA, global soccer's governing body, announced in 2022 that it would review its policy.

Since the executive order, I've seen only one community college, Santa Monica College, put out a fiesty, defiant statement: https://www.smc.edu/news/announcements/2...hletes.php

I still think there will be a legal fight over this, but, given that the NCAA is the de facto voice of college presidents, I don't think any major college/university is eager to pick that fight.

[81alum]

The national debate over transgender athletes, predictably, devolves into a binary fair/unfair debate and loses the evolving focus over the nuances of when trans competition is appropriate and when it is not.  This is not surprising, given that political entities wish to capitalize on the controversy.

So let me say this outright and take the risk of being deemed inappropriate:  some trans athletes compete fairly and some do not.  It depends upon the SPORT and it depends upon the age of TRANSITION.  Only experts in an individual sport can say whether a particular trans athlete has developed an unfair "edge" over the competition.  In many cases, if the transition happens early, the impact is irrelevant to the sport.  If the impact happens late, it might well be relevant.

Put this in the context of those who wish to deny kids the right to transition early, and you get into very controversial waters.  The camp who want all transitions to be late can accurately say that such transitions often present an unfair advantage.  Of course, they are the folks who insist on late transitions...early transitions often (depending on the sport) present no such advantage.

I say all this without pronouncing judgment on whether early or late transitions are better psychologically and physically for the trans person.  But it is clear that early vs. later transitions have a major impact on sports.

---

And I might add that I teach at a Univesity with a very high profile trans athlete.  But even I do not know the circumstances to the transition, and I feel I am in no way in a position to judge the fairness or unfairness of the situation.  I do not know the age of transition, and even if I did, I am not an expert on the particular sport and am unable to judge whether the transition had an effect on the ability of the athlete to be competitive.  I am content to allow the experts in that sport to make the judgement.  I hardly think this is a matter that should be determined by a Presidential executive order, that (quite obviously) lacks all such analysis of nuance.

I was a proponent of the "no politics" rule when it was first instituted.  I still am.  I think my post is sufficiently sport-oriented to be left up.  But I won't be offended if a moderator decides to take this down.  The overall climate of this board is probably more important than the finer details of this debate.

[81alum]

The national debate over transgender athletes, predictably, devolves into a binary fair/unfair debate and loses the evolving focus over the nuances of when trans competition is appropriate and when it is not.  This is not surprising, given that political entities wish to capitalize on the controversy.

So let me say this outright and take the risk of being deemed inappropriate:  some trans athletes compete fairly and some do not.  It depends upon the SPORT and it depends upon the age of TRANSITION.  Only experts in an individual sport can say whether a particular trans athlete has developed an unfair "edge" over the competition.  In many cases, if the transition happens early, the impact is irrelevant to the sport.  If the impact happens late, it might well be relevant.

Put this in the context of those who wish to deny kids the right to transition early, and you get into very controversial waters.  The camp who want all transitions to be late can accurately say that such transitions often present an unfair advantage.  Of course, they are the folks who insist on late transitions...early transitions often (depending on the sport) present no such advantage.

I say all this without pronouncing judgment on whether early or late transitions are better psychologically and physically for the trans person.  But it is clear that early vs. later transitions have a major impact on sports.

---

And I might add that I teach at a Univesity with a very high profile trans athlete.  But even I do not know the circumstances to the transition, and I feel I am in no way in a position to judge the fairness or unfairness of the situation.  I do not know the age of transition, and even if I did, I am not an expert on the particular sport and am unable to judge whether the transition had an effect on the ability of the athlete to be competitive.  I am content to allow the experts in that sport to make the judgement.  I hardly think this is a matter that should be determined by a Presidential executive order, that (quite obviously) lacks all such analysis of nuance.

I was a proponent of the "no politics" rule when it was first instituted.  I still am.  I think my post is sufficiently sport-oriented to be left up.  But I won't be offended if a moderator decides to take this down.  The overall climate of this board is probably more important than the finer details of this debate.

[ADPinWDC]

This is more about who qualifies to compete -- for example, the athlete must be a student at the school.
And, not exceed years of eligibility.  

The NCAA has revised clear criteria now... 
No males at birth in women's sports.  
This is biologically verifiable by DNA.  

Males in women's soccer or basketball would ruin those sports, among others.  

What the New Regime has promised is to deny visas for Transgender athletes in 2028.  That is the first line of enforcement.   
The US Olympic Team will not qualify Trans-athletes.

[ADPinWDC]

This is more about who qualifies to compete -- for example, the athlete must be a student at the school.
And, not exceed years of eligibility.  

The NCAA has revised clear criteria now... 
No males at birth in women's sports.  
This is biologically verifiable by DNA.  

Males in women's soccer or basketball would ruin those sports, among others.  

What the New Regime has promised is to deny visas for Transgender athletes in 2028.  That is the first line of enforcement.   
The US Olympic Team will not qualify Trans-athletes.