Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged)

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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - spike5882 - 02-04-2022

The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - teejers1 - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

You're right. Do away with girls/boys and men/women distinctions altogether. Just one 100 meter dash; 100 meter free style, etc. One team per school; one team per country, etc. I mean, since everyone is born with advantages and disadvantages, why bother with such parsing?

We all should just "get over it."

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - JustAnotherFan - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - TonyLima - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 03:40 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

You're right. Do away with girls/boys and men/women distinctions altogether. Just one 100 meter dash; 100 meter free style, etc. One team per school; one team per country, etc. I mean, since everyone is born with advantages and disadvantages, why bother with such parsing?

We all should just "get over it."

(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Harrison Bergeron was not an instruction manual. (Short story is in the public domain. If you haven’t read it, now would be a good time.)

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - thatboy - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

lex24 - lex24 - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 06:49 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

Socioeconomics? Depends on the sport. Harry Edwards “channeling” theory.

And yes, biological factors matter. But there is a distinct difference between other factors and the transgender factor. Put another way, get rid of the distinctions. Allow boys in HS to play on girls teams and girls on boys teams. Just have two non gender specific teams. What do you think that would do to girls/women in sports? If you think girls could compete you are dreaming. Biology matters.

All a “level playing field” should mean is an equal opportunity to compete. Women have fought for years to get there. Title IX helped push it closer.

There is a reason Navratilova spoke out on this. For which she was excoriated. But that is todays world. Shout down those that don’t toe the “line”. Shut them up. It seemingly works. But not really. Can’t debate. Dangerous….

thatboy - thatboy - 02-04-2022

(02-04-2022, 08:59 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 06:49 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

Socioeconomics? Depends on the sport. Harry Edwards “channeling” theory.

And yes, biological factors matter. But there is a distinct difference between other factors and the transgender factor. Put another way, get rid of the distinctions. Allow boys in HS to play on girls teams and girls on boys teams. Just have two non gender specific teams. What do you think that would do to girls/women in sports? If you think girls could compete you are dreaming. Biology matters.

All a “level playing field” should mean is an equal opportunity to compete. Women have fought for years to get there. Title IX helped push it closer.

There is a reason Navratilova spoke out on this. For which she was excoriated. But that is todays world. Shout down those that don’t toe the “line”. Shut them up. It seemingly works. But not really. Can’t debate. Dangerous….

Are you replying to me Lex? I’m agreeing with you (might be one of the first times ever if you go back to the CEB / Cardinaltree).

RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-05-2022

(02-04-2022, 08:59 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 06:49 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

Socioeconomics? Depends on the sport. Harry Edwards “channeling” theory.

And yes, biological factors matter. But there is a distinct difference between other factors and the transgender factor. Put another way, get rid of the distinctions. Allow boys in HS to play on girls teams and girls on boys teams. Just have two non gender specific teams. What do you think that would do to girls/women in sports? If you think girls could compete you are dreaming. Biology matters.

All a “level playing field” should mean is an equal opportunity to compete. Women have fought for years to get there. Title IX helped push it closer.

There is a reason Navratilova spoke out on this. For which she was excoriated. But that is todays world. Shout down those that don’t toe the “line”. Shut them up. It seemingly works. But not really. Can’t debate. Dangerous….

Socioeconomics doesn’t depend on the sport. It’s relevant in every sport. Take two similarly athletic males of the same race. One family can afford to send their kid to a private trainer and the best camps every summer. That kid will excel at a higher rate than the other. Perhaps the other will catch up later in life, but it’s relevant in every single sport.

I also agree with your definition of a level playing field … an equal opportunity for all to compete. And that’s be great in all sports but it already does t exist for a variety of reason. None of get to decide our definition of a level playing field because there’s not a right answer … primarily because it’s not equal from the start. So, everybody is creating their definition of what’s a level playing field and that’s based on our own personal experiences in life, in sports, and with our children or family in sports. We all have tinted glasses on. I get that. But people do need to take off their glasses and realize their definition is not the only one, not is it the only right one.

Brooke Ford nailed it on the head by saying she would love to compete against Lia. Whether Brooke wins or loses, she knows she swam to her highest potential. And she knows her life is going to continue for many many years, and what she does after swimming is going to be much more important than whether she won or lost a swim meet. And there is nothing in that which takes away from the likely blood, sweat, and tears she has put into it swimming for the majority of her life thus far.

RE: thatboy - lex24 - 02-05-2022

(02-04-2022, 10:33 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 08:59 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 06:49 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

Socioeconomics? Depends on the sport. Harry Edwards “channeling” theory.

And yes, biological factors matter. But there is a distinct difference between other factors and the transgender factor. Put another way, get rid of the distinctions. Allow boys in HS to play on girls teams and girls on boys teams. Just have two non gender specific teams. What do you think that would do to girls/women in sports? If you think girls could compete you are dreaming. Biology matters.

All a “level playing field” should mean is an equal opportunity to compete. Women have fought for years to get there. Title IX helped push it closer.

There is a reason Navratilova spoke out on this. For which she was excoriated. But that is todays world. Shout down those that don’t toe the “line”. Shut them up. It seemingly works. But not really. Can’t debate. Dangerous….

Are you replying to me Lex? I’m agreeing with you (might be one of the first times ever if you go back to the CEB / Cardinaltree).

I’m a kinder gentler lex. :).

RE: lex24 - lex24 - 02-05-2022

(02-05-2022, 04:06 AM)spike5882 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 08:59 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 06:49 PM)thatboy Wrote:
(02-04-2022, 01:33 PM)spike5882 Wrote: The thing that is being neglected is that every collegiate cis female swimmer who is upset about this was also born with significant biological advantages to even be able to swim at this level. There are less athletic females who work and practice as hard if not harder than others who are more successful. Should something be done to level that playing field so that it comes down to who works the hardest. All athletics are heavily influenced already by biological advantages and for those calling for a level playing field, how do you level a playing field when there are advantages from day one in all sports?

I do understand both sides of the conversation but until the above fact is recognized, please don’t be calling for a level playing field until you’re ready to somehow make it level for everybody. (Which isn’t going to happen….so maybe get over it? I’m an avid sports lover, but at the core, it is sports not life).

Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account level the playing field based on socioeconomics. If we want to talk about a level playing field, that can’t be ignored either.

Yes, we will never have a perfectly level playing field. Some are born with natural advantages. But the solution isn’t to drastically exacerbate those advantages even further.

Socioeconomics? Depends on the sport. Harry Edwards “channeling” theory.

And yes, biological factors matter. But there is a distinct difference between other factors and the transgender factor. Put another way, get rid of the distinctions. Allow boys in HS to play on girls teams and girls on boys teams. Just have two non gender specific teams. What do you think that would do to girls/women in sports? If you think girls could compete you are dreaming. Biology matters.

All a “level playing field” should mean is an equal opportunity to compete. Women have fought for years to get there. Title IX helped push it closer.

There is a reason Navratilova spoke out on this. For which she was excoriated. But that is todays world. Shout down those that don’t toe the “line”. Shut them up. It seemingly works. But not really. Can’t debate. Dangerous….

Socioeconomics doesn’t depend on the sport. It’s relevant in every sport. Take two similarly athletic males of the same race. One family can afford to send their kid to a private trainer and the best camps every summer. That kid will excel at a higher rate than the other. Perhaps the other will catch up later in life, but it’s relevant in every single sport.

I also agree with your definition of a level playing field … an equal opportunity for all to compete. And that’s be great in all sports but it already does t exist for a variety of reason. None of get to decide our definition of a level playing field because there’s not a right answer … primarily because it’s not equal from the start. So, everybody is creating their definition of what’s a level playing field and that’s based on our own personal experiences in life, in sports, and with our children or family in sports. We all have tinted glasses on. I get that. But people do need to take off their glasses and realize their definition is not the only one, not is it the only right one.

Brooke Ford nailed it on the head by saying she would love to compete against Lia. Whether Brooke wins or loses, she knows she swam to her highest potential. And she knows her life is going to continue for many many years, and what she does after swimming is going to be much more important than whether she won or lost a swim meet. And there is nothing in that which takes away from the likely blood, sweat, and tears she has put into it swimming for the majority of her life thus far.

Socioeconomic impact differ dramatically in sports. Compare football to country club sports.

As for your example of two athletic males one with trainer one without, it’s irrelevant. Instead take two talented sprinters, one male without a trainer, one female with a trainer - who wins.

Please do not misunderstand me. Women athletes are terrific. The women are skilled, talented hard working etc. But speed, size, strength, jumping ability etc.matter.

Again, I take you back to my original question. Let’s not have gender oriented teams. We can just have two varsity leagues. One higher level, second equivalent to club level. All can try out for either. How many HS girls end up on either team.

I don’t know what the right answer is. But I do know that simply ignoring the biological aspect and suggesting (which you most certainly are NOT doing) that those that are “against” transgenders competing are bigots is not the answer.

Frankly, I suspect the number of transgender athletes wanting to compete is at a small enough number that it is not going to significantly impact Women's sports.

Where the rubber hits the road is if you get a transgender tennis player that is at the top. Renee Richards blazed the trail years ago. But she was never good enough to challenge the top players (she also was in her forties). Interestingly she now (according to Wikipedia) “has some ambivalence about and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."

RE: lex24 - DC 86 - 02-05-2022

(02-05-2022, 04:06 AM)spike5882 Wrote: Socioeconomics doesn’t depend on the sport. It’s relevant in every sport. Take two similarly athletic males of the same race. One family can afford to send their kid to a private trainer and the best camps every summer. That kid will excel at a higher rate than the other. Perhaps the other will catch up later in life, but it’s relevant in every single sport.

I also agree with your definition of a level playing field … an equal opportunity for all to compete. And that’s be great in all sports but it already does t exist for a variety of reason. None of get to decide our definition of a level playing field because there’s not a right answer … primarily because it’s not equal from the start. So, everybody is creating their definition of what’s a level playing field and that’s based on our own personal experiences in life, in sports, and with our children or family in sports. We all have tinted glasses on. I get that. But people do need to take off their glasses and realize their definition is not the only one, not is it the only right one.

Well, certainly we have different definitions. I fail to see the relationship or the analogy (in athletics) between achieving a socioeconomically level playing field and a biologically level playing field, each is it its own issue with its own remedies. There's an obvious reason why age groups and weight categories exist in sports and why women generally compete against other women and not men. Achieving socioeconomic fairness in sports is its own complex issue, achieving competitive fairness in sports based on biology is straightforward with the possible exception of intersex athletes.

(02-05-2022, 10:37 AM)lex24 Wrote: Frankly, I suspect the number of transgender athletes wanting to compete is at a small enough number that it is not going to significantly impact Women's sports.

I disagree. The number will surely be small but the impact could be significant.

Renee Richards was ranked 20th in the world at age 44. In her mid-forties she reached the third round of US Open singles and the final of US Open doubles. John McEnroe was slammed for saying that the #700 men's player would beat Serena Williams but the reality is that an NCAA champion or mid-level pro could be grand slam champion if they competed in the women's draw. A seven foot male college basketball player would surely be dominant in the WNBA. Surely a male professional boxer or MMA athlete would be dominant against women. I understand that athletes who transition have to artificially lower their testosterone levels but the residual benefits of puberty, not to mention height and length, are still very relevant.

Lia Thomas was a good, Ivy League swimmer when competing with males. But just one or two higher level athletes who transition in each sport would significantly impact women's sports as a whole.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Stanfordindians1again - 02-05-2022

People are free to live how they want, but to compete this way is not right. Without reading through all the posts....I believe it is 100% wrong.

Lia Thomas ranked #464 men's swimmer in 2019 and now racing against females for Penn is the #1 ranked woman.

The women who spent 20 hours a week since they were 8 years old to compete at the college level, time, training, missing out on other things all to be thrown away is not fair. They have no chance to win. Period.

Maybe I should ride a motorcycle in the next Tour de France. Unfair competitive advantage.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - martyup - 02-06-2022

This movement flies in the face of womens' rights and would wipe out all progress womens' sports have made since the passing of Title 9. To be succinct, it is anti-woman to push for biological men to be allowed to compete against women in sports. It's not fair, it's not compassionate, and it's not intelligent.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - teejers1 - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 12:25 PM)martyup Wrote: This movement flies in the face of womens' rights and would wipe out all progress womens' sports have made since the passing of Title 9. To be succinct, it is anti-woman to push for biological men to be allowed to compete against women in sports. It's not fair, it's not compassionate, and it's not intelligent.

Where's your humanity, marty? C'mon now, get with Spike's and JAF's program. We all need to "get over it."

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - ColoradoTree - 02-07-2022

I think this is a really difficult question, and I'm not sure there's a bright line rule that strikes the right balance in all situations. But this is usually a solutions-oriented board, so hopefully that prevails despite temperatures running high.

This is only one aspect of this, but many states where so-called "bathroom bills" (and requiring a trans girl to play on a boys' team, etc.) have been most successful also see successful efforts to ban transition earlier. We know at this point that pre-puberty transitions are the most successful in addressing body dysmorphia, avoiding secondary sex characteristics of the sex they do not identify with, and ultimately helping the person feel "right" in their body. But from an athletic standpoint, there's also the added benefit of avoiding those durable physical advantages specifically where a male, post-puberty, transitions to female. And if you're worried a kid may change their mind, you've always got puberty blockers to give them more time to let the process play out. (I don't mean to imply there's a choice involved here in terms of what a kid's gender identity is, but sometimes time helps reveal to someone that while they know they're not male, where exactly they fall on the continuum of gender identity is something that may become clearer with more time.) If Lia Thomas had transitioned at 12 instead of 21, are we even having this conversation?

I have been opposed to blanket, uniform policies that require someone born with male genitalia to always compete against boys. Life is more complicated than that, and it seems cruel to force a trans high school boy to use a girls' restroom and compete on girls' teams. Sport governing bodies having hormone thresholds seemed to be a solution, but as others have noted, a 20-year-old's male musculature just doesn't disappear entirely even when reducing testosterone. In most examples in the past, the trans female athlete hasn't been talented enough to make much of a difference, so whether trans girls and women should compete against other women has been an easy question before--if a trans athlete isn't dominating, then who cares? Let them compete wherever. But specifically with Lia Thomas, it seems different, and I sympathize more with the members of the Penn women's swimming team who are raising concerns more than I ever have with folks complaining about trans athletes in the past. And at the same time, I agree with most everything spike said about socioeconomics and natural advantages, and I am deeply suspicious when anti-LGBTQ forces operate under the guise of protecting women's sports, and Pat Forde was right when he said on the 1/25/22 episode of the College Football Enquirer podcast that "some of the folks who are really wound up about this and screaming about the fairness to women's sports really don't give a damn about women's sports. They're using this as a political wedge issue." (Again, I don't mean to imply anyone on this board is operating from other than a legitimate concern for fair competition in women's sports and a desire to see women get the athletic opportunities they're due, but we can also be honest and recognize those elements exist in the broader conversation here.) I find Brooke Forde's statement really compelling, and there's an element of unfairness for Thomas to be punished even after following all the rules before her. And that's not something I want to see lost in this discussion--Thomas has done nothing wrong. She's followed all the rules, she loves swimming, and she wants to compete. She should be able to compete. But I'm not sure it should be against women.

Anyway. This one's tough. I'm frustrated that the NCAA hasn't led more on this issue recently, and it seems like there won't be resolution on this from a NCAA perspective until right before NCAAs. Even if USA Swimming's policy may be the best one, there is something deeply distasteful about a committee deciding just how much of a woman or a man you are. If the NCAA adopts the policy and ultimately excludes Thomas from the NCAA championships, I'll be sad for her, and I'll worry about the message it sends to young trans athletes. If the NCAA doesn't adopt the policy or otherwise permits Thomas to compete and Thomas shatters records all over the place, I'll feel sad for the other athletes competing, the results won't sit right, and the records will have less weight.

And until more states start permitting earlier transitions or at least allow puberty blockers to be utilized earlier, this situation is going to happen again, so there needs to be some fair but empathetic standard in place.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - fullmetal - 02-14-2022

What about an additional category of competition for trans athletes?

Can we at least agree that Lia Thomas has significant, fundamental biological advantages over her competitors that cannot be remedied by hormone therapy?

The status quo is ill-equipped to render a fair, competitive field because the status quo doesn't want to have these discussions...and these discussions need to happen more quickly. If the argument to allow things to stand is that Thomas has followed the rules and should not be "punished," I think that either Thomas is either woefully oblivious to the ramifications of her decision or she's leaning hard into a win-at-all-costs mentality, which...should motivate a movement toward better rules for fairness.

Signed, a day-one advocate for women's sports, anti-biological essentialism, arbiter of fairness and safety in sport

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - needle - 02-14-2022

Would putting an official asterisk on any swimming record set/championship won by a trans woman solve everything?

I sometimes think it would.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - oldalum - 02-14-2022

(02-07-2022, 02:17 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote: there is something deeply distasteful about a committee deciding just how much of a woman or a man you are.

I appreciate your thoughtful and objective parsing of the issues, but I think this sentence is an uncharitable characterization of what the "committee" is supposed to be doing. To quote from the actual policy, they are to judge whether, "From a medical perspective, the prior physical development of the athlete as a Male, as mitigated by any medical intervention, does not give the athlete a competitive advantage over the athlete’s cisgender Female competitors." The "committee" is described as "a panel consisting of three independent medical experts, with preference for experience related to transgender health and/or the physical performance of transgender athletes relevant to swimming and the effect of medical approaches in mitigating any pre-existing physical advantages . . ."

It should be noted that the policy applies only to "elite events" as defined in the policy.

RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - spike5882 - 02-15-2022

(02-14-2022, 06:21 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Can we at least agree that Lia Thomas has significant, fundamental biological advantages over her competitors that cannot be remedied by hormone therapy?

I am not sure that there is anybody that is disagreeing Lia Thomas has a significant, fundamental biological advantage. Particularly given that not only did she develop fully as a male, but she also competed at a high level as a male.

Where my issues lies is with those that are saying that biological advantages are unfair and just now bringing it up.

Biological advantages have always played an important role in sports. Seemingly people are not willing to accept or agree on that point, and that is my issue. They want to talk about Lias biological advantages but not the biological advantages that already existed from other athletes.

Like ColoradoTree, I feel for both sides. I truly do, and I don’t know what the appropriate answer is. I, too, feel badly for both sides with any outcome. I also agree it has become a political situation which irks me.

I just don’t think the proper response is to only (and continually) bring up biological differences. There is not any elite female swimmer that is competing who does not have a biological advantage they were born with. It is literally the simplest characteristic of all elite athletes, with hard work and a lot of practice coming in a distant second (but still critically important particularly at an elite level).

Female A can be biologically more adept to swimming and practice to become elite.

Female B can be biologically less adept to swimming and practice 5 times harder than Female A and still may never reach the same level and almost never will surpass Female A.

(The above can apply to pretty much any sport).

At the same time, I do understand the practice that goes into it, which is why I feel for both sides. I come from a swimming family. As a kid I hated swimming but I still won state titles in my age group. Yet, I was the only one in my generation of the family who didn’t swim in the Olympic trials (because I didn’t have a passion and did not want to practice at the level needed). I also saw other kids lose and their parents get upset. As a 10 yr old, I saw a close friend have their father throw him against his locker after a meet multiple times for not winning. And yet he practiced and practiced (sometimes out of fear and sometimes out of passion) but his body was just not going to be the body that lets him win at the highest levels. He still went on to swim collegiately but he was never going to be an Olympic swimmer like his dad wanted regardless of how much he practiced.

You could have the flip conversation re trans athletes.

Lia has a biological advantage and I assume trains at a high level. She’s succeeding.

Trans athlete B could have a biological advantage but doesn’t train hard and doesn’t win.

Trans athlete C is a small athlete (regardless of gender) and practices all day long. They still may not reach an elite level because they were not born with a body (regardless of gender) that is putting them in a position to be an elite swimmer.

Succeeding at any sport at an elite level is a combination of both high level training and genetic/biological advantages that we have no control over.

For me, I just struggle when people bring up the biological advantage as their only response because all of the athletes that are competing at a high level were born with a biological advantage. They also likely worked their butts off.

So, back to your question…yes, I am sure we can all agree Lia has a biological advantage. Can we also agree Ledecky was born with a biological advantage? Other women have practiced as hard as her but she is a freak (saying this with all positive connotations meant) which let her blow away competition like we’d never ever seen before. (Wanting to make sure that nothing is coming off as negative about Ledecky…she’s crazy amazing, dedicated, etc and just throwing her out as an example). So, can we also all agree all elite athletes were born with some type of biological advantage over their lesser peers? If so, then where do we go from there with this conversation? It’s a very difficult one. I just don’t personally feel that pitting it down to biological advantages is the right path that is going to provide any answers.

I also have mad respect for all that want to protect women in this situation. Women have often (more than often) received the short end of the stick when it comes to sports. It is daily still. I also have a trans friend that receives the short end of the stick daily. I have had so many learning moments the past 10 years in understanding his situation. There are still times I’m learning. Due to this relationship, I also unabashedly want to protect trans rights as they are often misunderstood and given the short end of the stick even moreso than women. It’s all complicated, which is why the answer is difficult.

RE: lex24 - TheWildJacko - 02-15-2022

(02-05-2022, 11:28 AM)DC 86 Wrote: I disagree. The number will surely be small but the impact could be significant.

Renee Richards was ranked 20th in the world at age 44. In her mid-forties she reached the third round of US Open singles and the final of US Open doubles. John McEnroe was slammed for saying that the #700 men's player would beat Serena Williams but the reality is that an NCAA champion or mid-level pro could be grand slam champion if they competed in the women's draw. A seven foot male college basketball player would surely be dominant in the WNBA. Surely a male professional boxer or MMA athlete would be dominant against women. I understand that athletes who transition have to artificially lower their testosterone levels but the residual benefits of puberty, not to mention height and length, are still very relevant.

Lia Thomas was a good, Ivy League swimmer when competing with males. But just one or two higher level athletes who transition in each sport would significantly impact women's sports as a whole.

These are not all equivalent examples.

7-foot male college basketball player in the WNBA? Yes, probably would do quite well, given that 7 feet is quite tall even for men. Would have to assume that the player was skilled though.

Any given male professional boxer/MMA athlete dominating vs. women? Not necessarily—not all men are inherently faster and stronger and more talented than all women and fighting is an area in which skill and speed count for a lot.

A mid-level male tennis pro or NCAA champ automatically winning a grand slam against women? I don’t think so. That vastly undersells the talent of the best female tennis players.