Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) (/thread-21846.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) (/thread-21846.html)
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - needle - 04-13-2021
(04-13-2021, 07:15 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Important distinction, college sports require hormone therapy for transgender women to compete, while it seems HS sports in Connecticut do not.
I don't have a problem with that. I think HS sports should encourage participation and inclusion. And I'm pretty skeptical that their competitors are losing out on college scholarships. I suspect if they put up fast times no matter if they are a place or two lower, they would get scholarships. I would feel a little sore in their situation perhaps, but it's high school track and field, you should be doing it for the fun of it. There is always going to be someone faster.
My unpopular opinion is based on the perhaps shaky idea that trans women have physical advantage over other women.
Because we all know equity is not the same as equality, I would like to see colleges and the NCAA make it a requirement to add one womens scholarship for ever trans woman receiving a scholarship. I believe that we are likely to see more trans women competing at high levels of sport as the high school trans population increases. I think it is appropriate to act now, so I don't like the argument that this issue is completely irrelevent to NCAA sports given the small numbers currently of top athletes who are trans women and trans men.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BigJohn043 - 04-14-2021
(04-13-2021, 11:09 AM)Phogge Wrote: I doubt that Stanford Women's BB could beat a good HS boys team.
However it's two dimensions and they are not on the same dimension.
I am not sure if makes much sense to compare men's and women's sports. That is until you want to have biological men actually compete with women and then it becomes relevant. The Stanford women's basketball team could not beat a mediocre HS boys team. I played on a 3a team in SoCal that won one league game our senior year and we would have crushed the Stanford women's team.
I am not sure it really matters as long as you have almost no female trans athletes. Of course when you do you get the CN track situation. What happens when a 21 year old Kaitlyn Jenner transitions? What happens when a person born a man wins 5 gold medals in the Olympics. This is a real issue.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-14-2021
Again, the Connecticut HS track athletes would not be able to compete in college unless they are on hormone therapy, which would likely significantly affect their athletic ability. As far as I can tell, neither of them are on any college rosters, and were actually defeated by the original female complainant in subsequent track meets at the HS level.
At this point it is a non-issue, except as a means of ginning up the culture wars.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-14-2021
(04-13-2021, 07:15 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I would feel a little sore in their situation perhaps, but it's high school track and field, you should be doing it for the fun of it. There is always going to be someone faster.
Yes, one can argue that kids should be participating for the fun of it (and the myriad of other benefits) as few will be going on to play at college. But couldn't the same be said of college athletes, as most won't be going pro or to the Olympics? But we know that's not the case, as being successful pays dividend. Kids should play to win. Or at least they used to before orange slices, participation trophies and not keeping score became the rage.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-14-2021
At least where I went to HS, anyone can play on the HS track team or cross country team, or even competitive sports like football would roster kids who never saw the field as long as they came to practice. I ran cross country even though I was slower than plenty of girls and only very rarely scored any points for the team. Even so it was a fun activity where I made friends and learned some valuable things.
The remedies being sought by Republican states, that would exclude trans athletes or force them to compete against members of a gender they don't identify with, I think are abhorrent, certainly not in the best interest of the athlete. Is winning in HS sports really that important?
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - martyup - 04-14-2021
(04-13-2021, 10:42 AM)Jamesy Wrote:(04-13-2021, 09:38 AM)martyup Wrote:(04-13-2021, 09:21 AM)Jamesy Wrote: The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?
I don't know who sponsored. Are the facts in dispute? Educate us if there are falsehoods being disseminated. I have no agenda, other than wanting to be fair to biological female athletes.
The example in the screen shot, Mack Beggs is a trans man who is prevented by state law from competing against other males. The NCAA policy would have allowed Mack to compete against other males and be more "fair to biological female athletes".
I used the term "fair" in the context of competition. I contend that in certain sports, not all, it is unfair for biological men to compete against biological women. This is not coming from an anti trans-gender perspective. It comes from a pro biological woman perspective. For those who disagree with my view, consider another area of separation of competitors to achieve fairness of competition -- age. Would you allow 18 year olds to compete against 8 years olds in basketball or football. Of course not, because it would not be fair to the younger athletes. The 18 year olds are bigger and stronger than the 8 years olds. So, we protect the 8 year olds, even if the 18 year old "identifies" as an 8 year old perhaps because of mental disabilities.
Goose, you say that:
Quote:You can imagine rules that eliminate players based on ability/performance, but many people would say those rules would be "arbitrary". I say a rule based on gender, however defined, is no less arbitrary.
If a rule preventing a biological male from competing against a biological female in a certain sport is "arbitrary," then why would not a rule preventing an 18 year old from competing against an 8 year old also be arbitrary?
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BostonCard - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 11:22 AM)martyup Wrote: If a rule preventing a biological male from competing against a biological female in a certain sport is "arbitrary," then why would not a rule preventing an 18 year old from competing against an 8 year old also be arbitrary?
Yes, of course age cut-offs are arbitrary (if reasonable). Why does an 8 year-old born on Jan 1, 2013 get to compete in U9, while an 8-year old born on Dec. 31, 2012 have to compete in U10? It's because you have to set a threshold somewhere and a calendar year was a convenient place to do it. But it is unquestionably an arbitrary threshold.
BC
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - martyup - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 11:52 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-14-2021, 11:22 AM)martyup Wrote: If a rule preventing a biological male from competing against a biological female in a certain sport is "arbitrary," then why would not a rule preventing an 18 year old from competing against an 8 year old also be arbitrary?
Yes, of course age cut-offs are arbitrary (if reasonable). Why does an 8 year-old born on Jan 1, 2013 get to compete in U9, while an 8-year old born on Dec. 31, 2012 have to compete in U10? It's because you have to set a threshold somewhere and a calendar year was a convenient place to do it. But it is unquestionably an arbitrary threshold.
BC
The way I read Goose's post was that he was saying that "arbitrary" equated to unjustified. He went on to say that any rules based on gender were arbitrary.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 11:08 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: The remedies being sought by Republican states, that would exclude trans athletes or force them to compete against members of a gender they don't identify with, I think are abhorrent, certainly not in the best interest of the athlete. Is winning in HS sports really that important?
Help me understand, the abhorrent Republican remedies are not in the best interest of which athlete, the transgender or the cisgender athlete?
As to your question, when does winning become important? I think many, especially on a sports board, might disagree that winning isn't important, unless of course you're Bernard Muir.
"All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. "
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-14-2021
I think I've been pretty clear that HS sports should be inclusive. What would you propose for a transgender athlete who wants to play HS sports? Tough shit? I'm sure they'd appreciate your quote about the sting and clash of battle.
These are real, living children, and they won't stop existing just because some people don't like it.
Sure winning is important, but at the high school level, it's pretty gross to say winning is more important than just being decent to a kid who wants to play sports. Or do you think these trans kids are putting themselves at great risk for harm (even murder) and derision by a a cruel society, just so they can do better in high school sports?
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - martyup - 04-14-2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTNh3d1LLk
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 12:43 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I think I've been pretty clear that HS sports should be inclusive. What would you propose for a transgender athlete who wants to play HS sports? Tough shit? I'm sure they'd appreciate your quote about the sting and clash of battle.
These are real, living children, and they won't stop existing just because some people don't like it.
Sure winning is important, but at the high school level, it's pretty gross to say winning is more important than just being decent to a kid who wants to play sports. Or do you think these trans kids are putting themselves at great risk for harm (even murder) and derision by a a cruel society, just so they can do better in high school sports?
What do you tell the cisgender girls who lost the state championship to a transgender girl? Tough shit? Yeah, she has the body of a male athlete, but she's a decent kid, so get over it? What do you tell a cisgender girl who gets cut from a team and her sport because a transgender girl performed better?
Can you think of a sport where biological males aren't superior to biological females (okay, I'll give you equestrian and sailing)? How do you propose to make competition equitable? If you really want to make competition gender neutral, then have all sports gender neutral, right?
Sure transgenders are real, living children, and to say that those that don't share your position wish they'd stop existing is pure hyperbole.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-14-2021
Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 01:53 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.
I guess my opinion is somewhat biased, but not for the reasons you think. I'm the dad of a 14 year old cisgender female, who is working really hard to be a better athlete. She is finally getting to be pretty competitive at her sports at the levels in which she is competing, and has set some pretty ambitious, but achievable goals. Both of her chosen sports are separated by gender, where the males are traditionally much better than the females. So theoretically, a transgender female could come along and derail those goals, as happened to the girls running track in Connecticut. Extrapolating that across sports where such a large advantage can be gained, I would come down on the side that competitions should be held on a biological basis.
And no, I don't think the vast majority of these transgender kids are transitioning just for the glory of high school sports. That said, I don't think they should get an advantage in sports just because they are, either.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BostonCard - 04-14-2021
We don't generally bat an eye at the fairness of a rich parent installing a basketball court in their mansion and hiring a private shooting tutor to work out with their kid. That's not really "fair" either. Parents also routinely mess with holding their kid back so that they will be athletically advantaged over other kids in the same grade, transferring their kids between schools so that they can start or get better coaching or be in a higher division, etc.
Why does this particular brand of unfairness chap your hide in a way that other types of unfairness don't?
That's not to say that there aren't cases where some exclusions might make sense. World rugby decided to exclude male to female trans players from female teams:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rugby-women-transgender/world-rugby-rules-trans-women-out-of-elite-female-teams-idUSKBN26V00Q
With the understanding that data is severely lacking (either to support or oppose), the rationale in terms of safety and the willingness to be open-minded and periodically review the decision makes sense:
Quote:Ross Tucker, a sports scientist who sat on a panel advising World Rugby, said the decision was not made lightly and it was not possible to balance inclusion, safety and fairness.
“We genuinely did strive for inclusion (see trans men ‘bypass’), but where it is apparent that it would compromise safety and performance, it cannot be achieved,” Tucker tweeted.
“Categories of sex exist for a reason and with the contact injury risk of rugby, this is the correct decision.”
Of course, that is in an contact sport where there is conceivably a greater risk for injury. Then again, the article notes that there are no female transsexual athletes competing in World Rugby.
BC
BC
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - OutsiderFan - 04-14-2021
Why are we all of a sudden talking about High School sports? The topic was allowed under the guise of discussion about college sports.
Getting into High School discussion is a purely political exercise because Republican controlled states are making it into one. That being said, and if we are going to discuss this, I have a very simple question for anyone who thinks government even getting involved in this issue makes any sense at all.
Do you think there are any born males who want to become females in part because doing so will make them better sports performers against those born as and participating as girls?
Personally, I can't even imagine the horror of having a body that contradicts what you feel you are. And I am dead certain that being able to play sports is a great psychological release that makes such kids feel some sense of peace in their lives. Character is displayed by how we treat the least among us. That can be the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the mentally challenged, and it can mean the small number of trans people in society.
I agree 100% with dabivg13. There will always be someone bigger and faster. And High School in particular is a place to encourage participating and development. It seems there should just be standards for what classifies as trans girl athlete. Like, if you are just a guy who wears dresses and makeup, that's not enough to participate in girls sports. But, if you have started hormone treatment and have a doctor's certification, then I don't see the problem with allowing trans girl participation in High School sports. I mean just this requirement of a doctor's confirmation would probably lend itself to assessing hormone level just like the NCAA. And, each state can set a threshold for what minimum testosterone level qualifies a trans girl to participate in girls sports.
Again, politicians and governments have ZERO place in this matter and they are ONLY using it as a wedge issue to divide people. Disgusting.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-14-2021
' Wrote:What do you tell the cisgender girls who lost the state championship to a transgender girl? Tough shit? Yeah, she has the body of a male athlete, but she's a decent kid, so get over it?
I would say you barely lost, and if you work hard and train harder than your competition maybe next year you will win. There will always be someone who may be bigger or faster, but if you work harder there is a chance you can beat them. (Incidentally the plaintiff in the Connecticut case did beat the trans athletes the next year, and in fact was recruited to William and Mary for track.)
https://www.outsports.com/2020/2/25/21151031/transgender-chelsea-mitchell-terry-miller-adf-lawsuit-connecticut-track-and-field
https://tribeathletics.com/sports/womens-track-and-field/roster/chelsea-mitchell/11498
Quote:What do you tell a cisgender girl who gets cut from a team and her sport because a transgender girl performed better?
I am pretty sure this has never happened and will never happen at the HS level. If it did I would say again, train harder for next year, or maybe a different sport may be more your speed.
There are just not that many trans females in HS sports, and I doubt in the future they will dominate HS sports, in spite of what the fear mongering right wing press or legislators would have you believe. Most of the R legislators passing these laws can't point to any in their state, so they keep bringing up the Connecticut situation.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 02:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Why does this particular brand of unfairness chap your hide in a way that other types of unfairness don't?
I assume you're referring to me. I posted the topic as an interesting question for discussion that could has a direct impact on women's sports. "Chap my hide" is an unfair and inaccurate assumption and or portrayal. I was asked my opinion and gave it, no hide chapped on me over this type of 'unfairness'.
As for holding kids back, my daughter deals with that everyday as a young 14 year old in high school. When she was four, she was ready for kindergarten; never once did I imagine she'd be playing HS school sports, let alone making the varsity teams in two sports (okay, tryouts finish in one today, but it looks good).
And to OF: "if you are just a guy who wears dresses and makeup, that's not enough to participate in girls sports."? I would certainly agree with that statement. However, isn't a guy who wears dresses and makeup (or whatever girls wear these days), and identifies as a girl, the definition of a transgender girl? Nowhere in the definition of transgender is hormone therapy.
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BostonCard - 04-14-2021
I meant it as a figure of speech; sorry for singling you out. I do appreciate the way you have approached this thread, which I think has generally allowed a more civil engagement than what one would expect for the controversy of this subject. To the extent that I undermined that, I am sorry.
I still wonder why a theoretical possibility that your daughter hasn't encountered would prompt you to "come down on the side that competitions should be held on a biological basis" while an actual disadvantage that your daughter deals with everyday merits a shrug (and, if I am reading between the lines, I detect a little pride in the fact that she is out-competing older girls). Is this a bit fear of the unknown? Like, if there were a couple of transgender girls on your daughter's team or the teams she plays against, and she were still doing well, would your opposition be the same? Or are the sex advantages in her chosen sports so profound, and the rewards for success in those sports so great, that you are concerned about the proverbial floodgates opening. Is it a safety issue (as was the case for the World Rugby League)?
There may be ways that the unfairness of sex at birth is qualitatively different than the unfairness that is the result of age or money. If that's the case, I'm wondering what those differences are.
By the way, I am surprised GR hasn't weighed in here. In another forum, he discussed a different approach to the issue of sex and transgender, which is to do away with dividing sports by sex per se, and have two divisions: an open division that has no restrictions, and a restricted division where there might be age, gender, hormone, etc. restrictions to keep the competition a bit more balanced. Hopefully I conveyed his plan accurately. It is an interesting concept.
BC
RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Goose - 04-14-2021
(04-14-2021, 11:52 AM)BostonCard Wrote:Actually BC, my argument would say you don't "nave" to set a threshold if you don't wish to do so. The consequences would be ugly, so undoubtedly a threshold will be set. I don't accept the idea any such thresholds are more "moral" than any other. They are all, in fact, arbitrary.(04-14-2021, 11:22 AM)martyup Wrote: If a rule preventing a biological male from competing against a biological female in a certain sport is "arbitrary," then why would not a rule preventing an 18 year old from competing against an 8 year old also be arbitrary?
Yes, of course age cut-offs are arbitrary (if reasonable). Why does an 8 year-old born on Jan 1, 2013 get to compete in U9, while an 8-year old born on Dec. 31, 2012 have to compete in U10? It's because you have to set a threshold somewhere and a calendar year was a convenient place to do it. But it is unquestionably an arbitrary threshold.
BC