[dabigv13]

This is biologically verifiable by DNA.

I would say this statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_a...y_syndrome

Patients can have XY chromosomes, but have a completely female phenotype, including normal external female genitalia, but no uterus or ovaries. They would not have any advantage in sports over XX females. Most would not be diagnosed until their teen years when they fail to have normal menses.

[dabigv13]

This is biologically verifiable by DNA.

I would say this statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_a...y_syndrome

Patients can have XY chromosomes, but have a completely female phenotype, including normal external female genitalia, but no uterus or ovaries. They would not have any advantage in sports over XX females. Most would not be diagnosed until their teen years when they fail to have normal menses.

[murky]

This is biologically verifiable by DNA.

I would say this statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_a...y_syndrome

Patients can have XY chromosomes, but have a completely female phenotype, including normal external female genitalia, but no uterus or ovaries. They would not have any advantage in sports over XX females. Most would not be diagnosed until their teen years when they fail to have normal menses.

Yeah, I was curious what the criteria were meant to be for the biological verification by DNA, but decided not to ask for fear of provoking a response that BC tried to forestall.

Also, I got 2/3 through the first page before I realized that EO is short for Executive Order.

[murky]

This is biologically verifiable by DNA.

I would say this statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_a...y_syndrome

Patients can have XY chromosomes, but have a completely female phenotype, including normal external female genitalia, but no uterus or ovaries. They would not have any advantage in sports over XX females. Most would not be diagnosed until their teen years when they fail to have normal menses.

Yeah, I was curious what the criteria were meant to be for the biological verification by DNA, but decided not to ask for fear of provoking a response that BC tried to forestall.

Also, I got 2/3 through the first page before I realized that EO is short for Executive Order.

[fullmetal]

dabigV is the expert here, and I agree with his assessment.

[fullmetal]

dabigV is the expert here, and I agree with his assessment.

[Spiny_Norman]

As long as we are going to get in the weeds of how this might be enforced, the EO and the NCAA refer to the gender assigned at birth as the determining factor. This would be reflected on their birth certificate, correct? And yet many states have a process which allows an individual to change the gender on their birth certificate.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/...202020.pdf

[Spiny_Norman]

As long as we are going to get in the weeds of how this might be enforced, the EO and the NCAA refer to the gender assigned at birth as the determining factor. This would be reflected on their birth certificate, correct? And yet many states have a process which allows an individual to change the gender on their birth certificate.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/...202020.pdf

[BigJohn043]

FWIW, the polling on transgender individuals playing in women's sports is really negative.  Recent polling suggests 80% against and even 67% of Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/ny...ns-sports/

A couple of years ago it was closer to 60% against.

OTOH, roughly 60% oppose laws banning gender affirming care for minors.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim...wrong.aspx

For transgender advocates this strikes me as a poor hill to die on and likely an issue that will not help trans individuals become more broadly accepted in society.

This polling is exactly why Trump is pushing the issue....

[BigJohn043]

FWIW, the polling on transgender individuals playing in women's sports is really negative.  Recent polling suggests 80% against and even 67% of Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/ny...ns-sports/

A couple of years ago it was closer to 60% against.

OTOH, roughly 60% oppose laws banning gender affirming care for minors.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim...wrong.aspx

For transgender advocates this strikes me as a poor hill to die on and likely an issue that will not help trans individuals become more broadly accepted in society.

This polling is exactly why Trump is pushing the issue....

[OCcardinal]

Is Title IX next? Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and Trump has said he wants to disband the Dept. of Education entirely.  Is there a Title IX if no enforcement?

[OCcardinal]

Is Title IX next? Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and Trump has said he wants to disband the Dept. of Education entirely.  Is there a Title IX if no enforcement?

[needle]

Stanford has quietly acquiesced, pulling its old trans-inclusive policy and substituting it with this (a copy-and-paste job of the new NCAA policy): https://gostanford.com/documents/7e33fa1...e9e9d6.pdf

[needle]

Stanford has quietly acquiesced, pulling its old trans-inclusive policy and substituting it with this (a copy-and-paste job of the new NCAA policy): https://gostanford.com/documents/7e33fa1...e9e9d6.pdf

[chrisk]

Head of NCAA said he was aware of “less than 10” transgender athletes in the NCAA.

[chrisk]

Head of NCAA said he was aware of “less than 10” transgender athletes in the NCAA.

[cardbored]

Though we focus, understandably, on superficial or readily-apparent differences between males and females, thousands of anatomical and physiological differences exist, on average, between human males and females (if my now old, human-biology memory serves). Between any one male:female pair, the number of differences may vary, but across the vast sweep of the human population the average number of differences is quite large. This large body of differences explains the average advantage that males enjoy in many sports and other physically-demanding activities and in turn, why human societies segregate sports competitions into "men's and "women's."

Also, words matter. Those present at birth identify the sex of the child, they do not assign it. Assignment takes place about nine months prior, as nature takes its magnificent course.

[cardbored]

Though we focus, understandably, on superficial or readily-apparent differences between males and females, thousands of anatomical and physiological differences exist, on average, between human males and females (if my now old, human-biology memory serves). Between any one male:female pair, the number of differences may vary, but across the vast sweep of the human population the average number of differences is quite large. This large body of differences explains the average advantage that males enjoy in many sports and other physically-demanding activities and in turn, why human societies segregate sports competitions into "men's and "women's."

Also, words matter. Those present at birth identify the sex of the child, they do not assign it. Assignment takes place about nine months prior, as nature takes its magnificent course.

[needle]

FWIW, the polling on transgender individuals playing in women's sports is really negative.  Recent polling suggests 80% against and even 67% of Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/ny...ns-sports/

A couple of years ago it was closer to 60% against.

OTOH, roughly 60% oppose laws banning gender affirming care for minors.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim...wrong.aspx

For transgender advocates this strikes me as a poor hill to die on and likely an issue that will not help trans individuals become more broadly accepted in society.

This polling is exactly why Trump is pushing the issue....

Life comes at you quick, as they say. But it was just four years ago that 500 NCAA athletes, including a Stanford student, signed onto a letter condemning the NCAA for not openly opposing states w/trans athlete bans:

https://www.athleteally.org/student-letter-ncaa-hb500/

About one month after that letter, the NCAA came out with  a statement fully supportive of the inclusion of trans athletes:

 The NCAA Board of Governors stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition… inclusion and fairness can coexist for all student-athletes, including transgender athletes, at all levels of sport.”

I think the NCAA is trying to "memory hole" this statement, as I can't find it on their official site, but here's a link to an advocacy group applauding the NCAA's stance at the time: https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-respond...on-sports/

To give away my personal leanings, my interest (perhaps fascination is a better word) with this topic is less about ideas of inclusion or fairness and more about how large, seemingly "important" organizations like Stanford/NCAA say one thing with apparent conviction but then meekly bow down when that once "firmly"-held opinion is no longer popular. I'm fully capable of viewing this abstractedly and do not have a personal stake in this issue, even as a fan. But I would not blame the young and/or (more) idealistic for feeling towards the NCAA and even Stanford a crushing sense of betrayal at this moment.

[needle]

FWIW, the polling on transgender individuals playing in women's sports is really negative.  Recent polling suggests 80% against and even 67% of Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/ny...ns-sports/

A couple of years ago it was closer to 60% against.

OTOH, roughly 60% oppose laws banning gender affirming care for minors.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim...wrong.aspx

For transgender advocates this strikes me as a poor hill to die on and likely an issue that will not help trans individuals become more broadly accepted in society.

This polling is exactly why Trump is pushing the issue....

Life comes at you quick, as they say. But it was just four years ago that 500 NCAA athletes, including a Stanford student, signed onto a letter condemning the NCAA for not openly opposing states w/trans athlete bans:

https://www.athleteally.org/student-letter-ncaa-hb500/

About one month after that letter, the NCAA came out with  a statement fully supportive of the inclusion of trans athletes:

 The NCAA Board of Governors stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition… inclusion and fairness can coexist for all student-athletes, including transgender athletes, at all levels of sport.”

I think the NCAA is trying to "memory hole" this statement, as I can't find it on their official site, but here's a link to an advocacy group applauding the NCAA's stance at the time: https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-respond...on-sports/

To give away my personal leanings, my interest (perhaps fascination is a better word) with this topic is less about ideas of inclusion or fairness and more about how large, seemingly "important" organizations like Stanford/NCAA say one thing with apparent conviction but then meekly bow down when that once "firmly"-held opinion is no longer popular. I'm fully capable of viewing this abstractedly and do not have a personal stake in this issue, even as a fan. But I would not blame the young and/or (more) idealistic for feeling towards the NCAA and even Stanford a crushing sense of betrayal at this moment.

[fullmetal]

Is Title IX next? Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and Trump has said he wants to disband the Dept. of Education entirely.  Is there a Title IX if no enforcement?

Seems correct to me.  Seems pretty on-brand.

[fullmetal]

Is Title IX next? Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and Trump has said he wants to disband the Dept. of Education entirely.  Is there a Title IX if no enforcement?

Seems correct to me.  Seems pretty on-brand.

[M T]

I’m somewhat surprised that people aren’t making plans for when the current administration is history.  Maybe there will be a 4 year hiatus in Title IX but what will happen then?

[M T]

I’m somewhat surprised that people aren’t making plans for when the current administration is history.  Maybe there will be a 4 year hiatus in Title IX but what will happen then?

[Mick]

I’m somewhat surprised that people aren’t making plans for when the current administration is history.  Maybe there will be a 4 year hiatus in Title IX but what will happen then?

I think it's possible things will return to status quo ante. 

If you have had a basic econ class, you learn that national GDP is composed of four components; consumer spending, business investment, government spending and net of exports and imports. The export / import balance changed from a minor surplus in 1970 to a deep deficit of $800 bils. annually by 2005, improved through 2010, then resumed a downward plunge...it's almost $1 trillion annually now. Consumer spending, at best, is likely at a standstill given that consumer debt has increased 20% since 2021 (from $14 trillion to $17,943 trillion). The administration is clearly attempting to significantly reduce government outlays, leaving business investment as the necessary economic savior. Perhaps it is the intent, then, in combination with tariffs, to dramatically ramp up U. S. business investment by reshoring manufacturing with a subsequent reduction in trade deficit. 

If that's the result, then the current policies are likely to extend past four years. If it fails, then the old system will probably return. I offer no opinion as to the likelihood of success or failure.

[Mick]

I’m somewhat surprised that people aren’t making plans for when the current administration is history.  Maybe there will be a 4 year hiatus in Title IX but what will happen then?

I think it's possible things will return to status quo ante. 

If you have had a basic econ class, you learn that national GDP is composed of four components; consumer spending, business investment, government spending and net of exports and imports. The export / import balance changed from a minor surplus in 1970 to a deep deficit of $800 bils. annually by 2005, improved through 2010, then resumed a downward plunge...it's almost $1 trillion annually now. Consumer spending, at best, is likely at a standstill given that consumer debt has increased 20% since 2021 (from $14 trillion to $17,943 trillion). The administration is clearly attempting to significantly reduce government outlays, leaving business investment as the necessary economic savior. Perhaps it is the intent, then, in combination with tariffs, to dramatically ramp up U. S. business investment by reshoring manufacturing with a subsequent reduction in trade deficit. 

If that's the result, then the current policies are likely to extend past four years. If it fails, then the old system will probably return. I offer no opinion as to the likelihood of success or failure.

[cardcrimson]

 that once "firmly"-held opinion is no longer popular. 

I don't think the opinion was ever popular. Maybe in certain circles, but clearly not nationally. . . .

[cardcrimson]

 that once "firmly"-held opinion is no longer popular. 

I don't think the opinion was ever popular. Maybe in certain circles, but clearly not nationally. . . .

[M T]

...
About one month after that letter, the NCAA came out with  a statement fully supportive of the inclusion of trans athletes:

 The NCAA Board of Governors stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition… inclusion and fairness can coexist for all student-athletes, including transgender athletes, at all levels of sport.”

I think the NCAA is trying to "memory hole" this statement, as I can't find it on their official site, but here's a link to an advocacy group applauding the NCAA's stance at the time: https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-respond...on-sports/

That glaad.org post points to a News item at the NCAA which (normally) disappeared later in 2021, but you can view it here
  https://web.archive.org/web/202107010558...ticipation
That, in turn, points to this handbook, dated August 2011, which appears to have disappeared about 10 years after publication
  https://web.archive.org/web/202103301509..._Final.pdf


I will remind people that the NCAA, like Congress, is an organic organization whose members change over time, as does what is going on around them.

[M T]

...
About one month after that letter, the NCAA came out with  a statement fully supportive of the inclusion of trans athletes:

 The NCAA Board of Governors stated that it “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition… inclusion and fairness can coexist for all student-athletes, including transgender athletes, at all levels of sport.”

I think the NCAA is trying to "memory hole" this statement, as I can't find it on their official site, but here's a link to an advocacy group applauding the NCAA's stance at the time: https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-respond...on-sports/

That glaad.org post points to a News item at the NCAA which (normally) disappeared later in 2021, but you can view it here
  https://web.archive.org/web/202107010558...ticipation
That, in turn, points to this handbook, dated August 2011, which appears to have disappeared about 10 years after publication
  https://web.archive.org/web/202103301509..._Final.pdf


I will remind people that the NCAA, like Congress, is an organic organization whose members change over time, as does what is going on around them.

[TreesAndBirds]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

[TreesAndBirds]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

[cardbored]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

We create categories today on the basis of sex (male versus female) and age (maturation of athletic ability, which rises, plateaus, and then declines), and sometimes experience, e.g., "professional versus amateur" or "expert versus novice." These categories reflect a near-universal understanding of the competitive advantages that males and chronologically-mature athletes enjoy. For obvious reasons we don't have high school boys compete against high school girls in basketball, or twenty-year-olds racing eighty-year-olds in the four-hundred-meter dash. And to keep sports challenging especially for young participants, we sometimes try to group them by experience or expertise.

Distinguishing males from females is rarely difficult. Neither does segregating athletes by age pose a significant challenge.

Sure, we could create additional categories. We could have the "PED League" and the "Natural League." We could have the mishmash league, where we draw no distinctions whatsoever, and bionic men could wrestle geriatric cancer patients. To each his own.

The question on the table is whether women should be able to compete solely against other women. I favor that proposition, and believe that almost everyone else does as well.

[cardbored]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

We create categories today on the basis of sex (male versus female) and age (maturation of athletic ability, which rises, plateaus, and then declines), and sometimes experience, e.g., "professional versus amateur" or "expert versus novice." These categories reflect a near-universal understanding of the competitive advantages that males and chronologically-mature athletes enjoy. For obvious reasons we don't have high school boys compete against high school girls in basketball, or twenty-year-olds racing eighty-year-olds in the four-hundred-meter dash. And to keep sports challenging especially for young participants, we sometimes try to group them by experience or expertise.

Distinguishing males from females is rarely difficult. Neither does segregating athletes by age pose a significant challenge.

Sure, we could create additional categories. We could have the "PED League" and the "Natural League." We could have the mishmash league, where we draw no distinctions whatsoever, and bionic men could wrestle geriatric cancer patients. To each his own.

The question on the table is whether women should be able to compete solely against other women. I favor that proposition, and believe that almost everyone else does as well.

[Mudhead]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

We create categories today on the basis of sex (male versus female) and age (maturation of athletic ability, which rises, plateaus, and then declines), and sometimes experience, e.g., "professional versus amateur" or "expert versus novice." These categories reflect a near-universal understanding of the competitive advantages that males and chronologically-mature athletes enjoy. For obvious reasons we don't have high school boys compete against high school girls in basketball, or twenty-year-olds racing eighty-year-olds in the four-hundred-meter dash. And to keep sports challenging especially for young participants, we sometimes try to group them by experience or expertise.

Distinguishing males from females is rarely difficult. Neither does segregating athletes by age pose a significant challenge.

Sure, we could create additional categories. We could have the "PED League" and the "Natural League." We could have the mishmash league, where we draw no distinctions whatsoever, and bionic men could wrestle geriatric cancer patients. To each his own.

The question on the table is whether women should be able to compete solely against other women. I favor that proposition, and believe that almost everyone else does as well.

I could not say it better. Everyone can and will talk about what they want to but this thread ranks 101 out of the top 100 things that matter to Stanford or Stanford sports.  No one needs or wants my approval to keep beating this horse but folks , I am tired of it. Please move on. I will say no more.0

[Mudhead]

Now we are wrestling with the line between male and female. Previously we have wrestled with performance enhancing drugs. How long before we are wrestling with the line between unenhanced and artificially enhanced human? Ultimately the issue of creating categories for athletic participation (or other endeavors?) is going to get harder as technology advances.

We create categories today on the basis of sex (male versus female) and age (maturation of athletic ability, which rises, plateaus, and then declines), and sometimes experience, e.g., "professional versus amateur" or "expert versus novice." These categories reflect a near-universal understanding of the competitive advantages that males and chronologically-mature athletes enjoy. For obvious reasons we don't have high school boys compete against high school girls in basketball, or twenty-year-olds racing eighty-year-olds in the four-hundred-meter dash. And to keep sports challenging especially for young participants, we sometimes try to group them by experience or expertise.

Distinguishing males from females is rarely difficult. Neither does segregating athletes by age pose a significant challenge.

Sure, we could create additional categories. We could have the "PED League" and the "Natural League." We could have the mishmash league, where we draw no distinctions whatsoever, and bionic men could wrestle geriatric cancer patients. To each his own.

The question on the table is whether women should be able to compete solely against other women. I favor that proposition, and believe that almost everyone else does as well.

I could not say it better. Everyone can and will talk about what they want to but this thread ranks 101 out of the top 100 things that matter to Stanford or Stanford sports.  No one needs or wants my approval to keep beating this horse but folks , I am tired of it. Please move on. I will say no more.0

[BostonCard]

I could not say it better. Everyone can and will talk about what they want to but this thread ranks 101 out of the top 100 things that matter to Stanford or Stanford sports.  No one needs or wants my approval to keep beating this horse but folks , I am tired of it. Please move on. I will say no more.0

Agree with Mudhead; let's move on; we've moved past the "the President signed an executive order that says X" to debating the pros and cons of X.

BC

[BostonCard]

I could not say it better. Everyone can and will talk about what they want to but this thread ranks 101 out of the top 100 things that matter to Stanford or Stanford sports.  No one needs or wants my approval to keep beating this horse but folks , I am tired of it. Please move on. I will say no more.0

Agree with Mudhead; let's move on; we've moved past the "the President signed an executive order that says X" to debating the pros and cons of X.

BC