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: lex24 - M T - 02-17-2022
Spike5882,
Did your post go completely over my head? Was it really a comment similar to "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." and I just took it at face value ("to bury" how fast her times are compared to cis-female swimmers)?
Putting someone's early-season bests against the lifetime bests of American record holders is not very informative. (For instance, when Ledecky went the 1:40.36 in the 200 Fr in March 2017, she swam a 1:43.09 (and faster than Manuel at the time) against Cal a few weeks earlier. That 2017 time at Cal was a pool record, which is notable because the (still current) American Record was set by a Cal swimmer a couple of years earlier. You indicate Lia Thomas has a 1:41.93 so far this year.)
I have added (in red) her best swims (as Will Thomas) to your table and noted the American records. Whether she will go faster or slower than those lifetime bests is unknown at this time. If she goes near her lifetime bests, she will break the American record in three events.
(02-16-2022, 05:11 PM)spike5882 Wrote: To put in perspective how Lia Thomas is doing this year, I have put her best times vs previous Stanford swimmers in all events.
200 Free
Missy Franklin 1:39.10 American Record for Women
Will Thomas 1:39.31
Lia Thomas 1:41.93
Ledecky 1:40.36
Taylor Ruck 1:40.37
Simone Manuel 1:40.37
500 Free
Will Thomas 4:18.72
Lia Thomas 4:34:06
Katie Ledecky. 4:24.06 American Record for Women
Brooke Ford 4:31.34
Ella Eastin 4:32.89
1000 Free
Will Thomas 8:55.75
Lia Thomas 9:35.96
Ledecky 8:59.65 American Record for Women
Ledecky 9:05.89
1650 Free
Will Thomas 14:54.76
Lia Thomas 15:59.56
Ledecky 15:03.31 American Record for Women
Plus 5 more (she would be 7th on Stanford's list)
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - M T - 02-17-2022
Lia Thomas swims for Penn and is participating in the Ivy League Conference Championships, which are on ESPN+ TODAY.
Heat sheets, results, and video link can be found here.
The 800-free relay was swum on Wed. Lia Thomas led off the relay with a 1:44.50, touching first (but barely).
It appears that all teams (except one) put their fastest swimmer first (presumably to swim in the cleanest water possible).
Lia Thomas had the fastest split of anyone.
Ok, so you're asking, why did she swim a 1:44.5 when she swam 2.5 seconds faster in December? What I would suspect is that she's continuing to work out through this meet and is aiming to peak at the NCAA championships in a month. Speed is the last thing to peak. I expect she will do relatively better in this meet in the longer races.
The 500 Free leads off at 8AM PST, with finals at 3PM PST.
Lia Thomas is seeded a pool length (13 seconds) ahead of 2nd.
On Friday, she is listed as seeded first in the 200 Free, some 4.9 seconds ahead of 2nd.
Prelims start at 8AM and finals at 3PM PST. The 200 Free will be the 3rd event of the prelims, 4th of the finals)
(She is not listed as an entrant in the 1000yd free even though she swam a time 13 seconds better than the #1 seed.)
She may swim the freestyle leg on the 400 medley relay at the end of the evening.
On Saturday, the 1650yd Free final heat will begin at 3:00PM PST.
Lia Thomas is seeded 24 seconds ahead of 2nd (not quite lapping 2nd, but lapping 3rd).
She is seeded 2nd in the 100 Free. I suspect she'll swim it hard in the prelims (to assure making Nationals in it), and maybe scratch it in the finals as it follows the 1650 free by about a half hour.
I suspect she will instead swim a leg on the 400 Free Relay, the last event of the meet.
RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 03:10 AM)M T Wrote: Spike5882,
Did your post go completely over my head? Was it really a comment similar to "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." and I just took it at face value ("to bury" how fast her times are compared to cis-female swimmers)?
Putting someone's early-season bests against the lifetime bests of American record holders is not very informative. (For instance, when Ledecky went the 1:40.36 in the 200 Fr in March 2017, she swam a 1:43.09 (and faster than Manuel at the time) against Cal a few weeks earlier. That 2017 time at Cal was a pool record, which is notable because the (still current) American Record was set by a Cal swimmer a couple of years earlier. You indicate Lia Thomas has a 1:41.93 so far this year.)
I have added (in red) her best swims (as Will Thomas) to your table and noted the American records. Whether she will go faster or slower than those lifetime bests is unknown at this time. If she goes near her lifetime bests, she will break the American record in three events.
(02-16-2022, 05:11 PM)spike5882 Wrote: To put in perspective how Lia Thomas is doing this year, I have put her best times vs previous Stanford swimmers in all events.
200 Free
Missy Franklin 1:39.10 American Record for Women
Will Thomas 1:39.31
Lia Thomas 1:41.93
Ledecky 1:40.36
Taylor Ruck 1:40.37
Simone Manuel 1:40.37
500 Free
Will Thomas 4:18.72
Lia Thomas 4:34:06
Katie Ledecky. 4:24.06 American Record for Women
Brooke Ford 4:31.34
Ella Eastin 4:32.89
1000 Free
Will Thomas 8:55.75
Lia Thomas 9:35.96
Ledecky 8:59.65 American Record for Women
Ledecky 9:05.89
1650 Free
Will Thomas 14:54.76
Lia Thomas 15:59.56
Ledecky 15:03.31 American Record for Women
Plus 5 more (she would be 7th on Stanford's list)
Do you not understand the impact of hormone therapy during transitioning on a persons strength or do you think she is just the same physically as two years ago before treatment? As a female, she will never swim nearly as fast as the times while swimming as a male prior to her transitioning. There have been ample medical studies showing this.
Also, the times posted are her lifetime bests as a female as well. Though I do understand she has been swimming for a short time as a female and certainly may surpass those. The times posted for the Stanford swimmers are their collegiate bests not necessarily lifetime bests.
Obviously this week will be a reflection of where Lia is at today.
RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-16-2022, 09:30 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 05:11 PM)spike5882 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 11:00 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 05:59 AM)spike5882 Wrote:(02-15-2022, 10:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Perhaps not. However, Lia is certainly capitalizing on that advantage, isn't she. Six foot five, broad shoulders, 15+ years training and competing as a guy. . . .
When does it become not okay? When a trans girl maims or kills a cisgender girl in a contact sport?
Good lord. You make it sound like hordes of football players are running to their doctors to transition. A pretty far fetched perspective you have. In your world, pretty soon all these males will be infiltrating all of women sports, maiming and killing other girls along the way, so they can more easily win and finally get paid since they weren’t good enough as a male. But wait, there’s no money in women’s sports. Hmm. So what actually would be their motivation…a ribbon, a medal, a trophy? Genuine question.
And how exactly is she capitalizing on transitioning? I don’t see her taking advantage of anything since she has transitioned; she has just swam and been pretty quiet about it. Has she gotten tons of endorsements or NIL money? Another genuine question. Just how is she capitalizing?
Breaking swimming records - many would argue unfairly - isn't "capitalizing?"
Making a team (at someone else's expense) isn't capitalizing?
Look, I get it. Transitioning is not easy, and there are lots of trials and tribulations for those who do it. So why "penalize" these folks when they are already going through so much by taking something away from them that is obviously so important them (important enough to endure commentary like this - and far more severe, I'm sure)?
But like everything in life, policymaking is all about a balancing of interests. And fairness. And the needs of the many versus the needs of the few . . . or the one. There is no hard and fast rule or recipe that spits out the optimal policy, as each issue has its own set of circumstances, interests, sense of fairness, numbers affected, etc..
But here, the fairness coefficient and the numbers of benefitted versus adversely affected are just so out of whack that the correct policy seems pretty evident (at least from here). And again, at least from the view of a father of a cis daughter who has worked hard to compete in her sport.
What records is Lia Thomas exactly breaking?
She broke a few UPenn records. UPenn is not exactly a power house in their conference, and their conference is far from a powerhouse in swimming in general. As we all know, they do not even offer athletic scholarships. If most any Stanford swimmer were to join their team, they would tear up the school's record books.
It comes off like people think she is smashing records left and right (by a biological advantage she is using to capitalize on).
To put in perspective how Lia Thomas is doing this year, I have put her best times vs previous Stanford swimmers in all events.
50 Free
Lia Thomas 22.78
Simone Manuel 21.17
Lia Neal 21.65
Janet Hu 21.65
Plus many many more (she would not fall on the top 10 list for Stanford)
100 Free
Lia Thomas 49.42
Simone Manuel 45.56
Taylor Ruck 46.76
Plus many many more (she would not fall into the top 10 at Stanford)
200 Free
Lia Thomas 1:41.93
Ledecky 1:40.36
Taylor Ruck 1:40.37
Simone Manuel 1:40.37
500 Free
Lia Thomas 4:34:06
Katie Ledecky. 4:24.06
Brooke Ford 4:31.34
Ella Eastin 4:32.89
1000 Free
Lia Thomas 9:35.96
Ledecky 9:05.89
1650 Free
Lia Thomas 15:59.56
Ledecky 15:03.31
Plus 5 more (she would be 7th on Stanford's list)
Furthermore, here is where she places in comparison to all times by women this year so far:
50 Free Not listed in the top 100
100 Free Not listed in the top 100
200 Free First as of today
500 Free First as of today by a hair
1000 Free Not listed as being ranked
1650 Free 8th as of today
Summing it up, she has broken 3 school records at a mediocre (at best) swimming school. She does have the fastest time in two events this year but both by a slim margin, and she has not swam those times consistently so definitely not guaranteed to win those evens (a la Ledecky while swimming). In both the 200 and 500 free her average time from all meets would not even put her in the top 100 women in the country in either event. She swam really well solely one time in each event but has not been able to do so consistently this season. So, I really don't see how she is changing the landscape of women's swimming with her biological advantages.
What is the policy you're advocating? It's okay for trans women to compete in sports if they don't break X amount of records at a school? Nationally? World level? Don't score X amount of points/game?
I'm sure the former record holders at Penn are thrilled with her success, as is/are the woman/women who are not allowed to compete because Thomas took her/their spot, same with competitors at other schools who may have been edged out of any national qualifications.
You get the point.
Why should Thomas's wishes/desires be afforded any greater consideration than theirs?
I don’t have a policy I feel is correct. What we do have is the current policy and she has followed the rules. And yet she is being villanized for it. If those who have the power to change then decide to do so….well, I think she needs to follow those rules as well. If she doesn’t follow them, then she shouldn’t be allowed to compete.
RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-16-2022, 11:00 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 05:59 AM)spike5882 Wrote:(02-15-2022, 10:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(02-15-2022, 09:02 PM)spike5882 Wrote: We have yet to see a trans athlete change gender with the purpose to create an advantage.
Perhaps not. However, Lia is certainly capitalizing on that advantage, isn't she. Six foot five, broad shoulders, 15+ years training and competing as a guy. . . .
When does it become not okay? When a trans girl maims or kills a cisgender girl in a contact sport?
Good lord. You make it sound like hordes of football players are running to their doctors to transition. A pretty far fetched perspective you have. In your world, pretty soon all these males will be infiltrating all of women sports, maiming and killing other girls along the way, so they can more easily win and finally get paid since they weren’t good enough as a male. But wait, there’s no money in women’s sports. Hmm. So what actually would be their motivation…a ribbon, a medal, a trophy? Genuine question.
And how exactly is she capitalizing on transitioning? I don’t see her taking advantage of anything since she has transitioned; she has just swam and been pretty quiet about it. Has she gotten tons of endorsements or NIL money? Another genuine question. Just how is she capitalizing?
Breaking swimming records - many would argue unfairly - isn't "capitalizing?"
Making a team (at someone else's expense) isn't capitalizing?
Look, I get it. Transitioning is not easy, and there are lots of trials and tribulations for those who do it. So why "penalize" these folks when they are already going through so much by taking something away from them that is obviously so important them (important enough to endure commentary like this - and far more severe, I'm sure)?
But like everything in life, policymaking is all about a balancing of interests. And fairness. And the needs of the many versus the needs of the few . . . or the one. There is no hard and fast rule or recipe that spits out the optimal policy, as each issue has its own set of circumstances, interests, sense of fairness, numbers affected, etc..
But here, the fairness coefficient and the numbers of benefitted versus adversely affected are just so out of whack that the correct policy seems pretty evident (at least from here). And again, at least from the view of a father of a cis daughter who has worked hard to compete in her sport.
I also get your side, and I don’t think your daughter should have any reason to feel like the hard work she has put in has been for naught. I have great respect for any athlete, as it is hard work.
I tend to view policies a bit differently. In this particularly case, I don’t think the policies currently were made for one person. She just happens to be the first that is pushing the boundary in any way to make the policy relevant, which may eventually lead to the policy being changed. Which in that case, it may be an example of a policy being set for one person (and there is a chance that it is changed to be against her.)
My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender. Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do. It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competivitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.) Coincidentally, I had a conversation about this with my mother last night. My sister was a swimmer earlier in her life, having swam in the Olympic trials at 15, then decided to stick with basketball and was a top 25 recruit in the nation and played at a P5 school. She was the one who brought it up, having seen something on the news about it. I was amused as it’s been quite a long time since we had discussed sports, and it was also very coincidental as I had been responding with my opinion here. I hesitantly obliged in the conversation. I say hesitantly because I grew up in Indiana and my parents carry what is perceived by me to be a very small town conservative opinion about most things and it usually doesn’t lead to productive conversations about this type of subject (partly because we differ in opinion but also partly because she gets upset when I ask her to explain her side more so that I can try to understand it.) I was a bit surprised by her response. She also understood both sides as well, but if I had to sum it up her response was: ‘I put so much emotional energy into you and your sister’s sports your whole childhood, running you both around everyday, every night, every weekend, and for what? You’re happy doing your thing now. Your sister has 5 kids and is happy doing her thing now. I sit and watch your sister push her kids in their sports and she gets so emotional like I did, and it frustrates me. Because in 20 years they’re all going to forget all the emotions of sports as they continue their life after, just like I have forgotten the purpose of being so emotional about it then. It just sucks you in emotionally and I’m glad that’s not the case for me anymore. So, as long as she is following the rules, what more do people want from her?’ I was a little shocked (and honestly proud) because that is not the person I knew growing up. I say all this bc it is easy to be emotionally involved (actually kind of required) when your kid competed in any sport at a high level. I do understand that. But I’m not sure that policies should be set based on emotions. By the time the emotions of your daughters athletic career later in life, you probably won’t care about the policies in general. From that perspective, whether this policy or a policy totally unrelated, I think it is key to be decided from an unemotional perspective and I personally think policies should be meant to protect the small minorities not the masses. The masses will survive; the minorities need the help. Im not saying they should be creating an advantage necessarily, which is obviously why this particular policy is so difficult. It’s a new topic, new medical studies to try to understand, a new way of looking at fairness.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 06:11 AM)spike5882 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 09:30 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 05:11 PM)spike5882 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 11:00 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(02-16-2022, 05:59 AM)spike5882 Wrote: Good lord. You make it sound like hordes of football players are running to their doctors to transition. A pretty far fetched perspective you have. In your world, pretty soon all these males will be infiltrating all of women sports, maiming and killing other girls along the way, so they can more easily win and finally get paid since they weren’t good enough as a male. But wait, there’s no money in women’s sports. Hmm. So what actually would be their motivation…a ribbon, a medal, a trophy? Genuine question.
And how exactly is she capitalizing on transitioning? I don’t see her taking advantage of anything since she has transitioned; she has just swam and been pretty quiet about it. Has she gotten tons of endorsements or NIL money? Another genuine question. Just how is she capitalizing?
Breaking swimming records - many would argue unfairly - isn't "capitalizing?"
Making a team (at someone else's expense) isn't capitalizing?
Look, I get it. Transitioning is not easy, and there are lots of trials and tribulations for those who do it. So why "penalize" these folks when they are already going through so much by taking something away from them that is obviously so important them (important enough to endure commentary like this - and far more severe, I'm sure)?
But like everything in life, policymaking is all about a balancing of interests. And fairness. And the needs of the many versus the needs of the few . . . or the one. There is no hard and fast rule or recipe that spits out the optimal policy, as each issue has its own set of circumstances, interests, sense of fairness, numbers affected, etc..
But here, the fairness coefficient and the numbers of benefitted versus adversely affected are just so out of whack that the correct policy seems pretty evident (at least from here). And again, at least from the view of a father of a cis daughter who has worked hard to compete in her sport.
What records is Lia Thomas exactly breaking?
She broke a few UPenn records. UPenn is not exactly a power house in their conference, and their conference is far from a powerhouse in swimming in general. As we all know, they do not even offer athletic scholarships. If most any Stanford swimmer were to join their team, they would tear up the school's record books.
It comes off like people think she is smashing records left and right (by a biological advantage she is using to capitalize on).
To put in perspective how Lia Thomas is doing this year, I have put her best times vs previous Stanford swimmers in all events.
50 Free
Lia Thomas 22.78
Simone Manuel 21.17
Lia Neal 21.65
Janet Hu 21.65
Plus many many more (she would not fall on the top 10 list for Stanford)
100 Free
Lia Thomas 49.42
Simone Manuel 45.56
Taylor Ruck 46.76
Plus many many more (she would not fall into the top 10 at Stanford)
200 Free
Lia Thomas 1:41.93
Ledecky 1:40.36
Taylor Ruck 1:40.37
Simone Manuel 1:40.37
500 Free
Lia Thomas 4:34:06
Katie Ledecky. 4:24.06
Brooke Ford 4:31.34
Ella Eastin 4:32.89
1000 Free
Lia Thomas 9:35.96
Ledecky 9:05.89
1650 Free
Lia Thomas 15:59.56
Ledecky 15:03.31
Plus 5 more (she would be 7th on Stanford's list)
Furthermore, here is where she places in comparison to all times by women this year so far:
50 Free Not listed in the top 100
100 Free Not listed in the top 100
200 Free First as of today
500 Free First as of today by a hair
1000 Free Not listed as being ranked
1650 Free 8th as of today
Summing it up, she has broken 3 school records at a mediocre (at best) swimming school. She does have the fastest time in two events this year but both by a slim margin, and she has not swam those times consistently so definitely not guaranteed to win those evens (a la Ledecky while swimming). In both the 200 and 500 free her average time from all meets would not even put her in the top 100 women in the country in either event. She swam really well solely one time in each event but has not been able to do so consistently this season. So, I really don't see how she is changing the landscape of women's swimming with her biological advantages.
What is the policy you're advocating? It's okay for trans women to compete in sports if they don't break X amount of records at a school? Nationally? World level? Don't score X amount of points/game?
I'm sure the former record holders at Penn are thrilled with her success, as is/are the woman/women who are not allowed to compete because Thomas took her/their spot, same with competitors at other schools who may have been edged out of any national qualifications.
You get the point.
Why should Thomas's wishes/desires be afforded any greater consideration than theirs?
I don’t have a policy I feel is correct. What we do have is the current policy and she has followed the rules. And yet she is being villanized for it. If those who have the power to change then decide to do so….well, I think she needs to follow those rules as well. If she doesn’t follow them, then she shouldn’t be allowed to compete.
She's not being villanized, at least not by anyone here. She's following the rules that allow her to exploit her physical advantage as a post puberty male who's had at least one year of hormone suppressing therapy. And that's incredibly unfair to the cisgender female swimmers and could also put cisgender athletes at risk in contact sports.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - fullmetal - 02-17-2022
What if the NCAA said tomorrow that any record-breaking times from trans athletes would be provisionally categorized as they are this season until a full review of the season was complete, and that the option remained to move those times to a new trans category later? That's one policy idea I have. A review of the outdated hormonal standards is warranted as well, and a policy favoring pre-pubescent transitions could lead to a more level playing field (but more controversy in the culture war, I suppose).
And honestly, given the high level of training in women's sports these days, I still can't get over the fact that trans athletes will never have to go through menstruation, specifically shedding of the uterine lining -- seems like an enormous advantage right there. As far as level playing fields go...that's a big issue that I can't think past right now. Open to ideas.
RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 06:42 AM)spike5882 Wrote: My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender. Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do. It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.)
FWIW, all of the same applies to me (cis male, no daughters, no connection to youth sports), but you can count me among those who are concerned about these policies. It's not that I don't care, it's just that (a) with demands on my time I haven't even had a chance to watch our WBB team's wins over OSU and Colorado yet, let alone write up my own two cents, and (b) I don't voice them much, because among my crowd, the "TERF" accusations seem to run rampant the second anyone says anything even vaguely questioning of some of these policies. And it's just not worth the risk of social disdain given how tangential my real-world interests are to this issue and all the other things on my plate. (And to this, I would echo BC's gratitude for the "cooler heads prevail" approach this thread has taken, which is the sole reason I'm wading into the waters with my two cents here at all.)
But I definitely have concerns, and if I could sum them up briefly, it's this: there's a brobdingnagian tension between views around construction and essentialism in gender and sex. In the case of Queer movements, that effort has mostly required treating notions of gender identity and construction as fluid, but sexual biology as fixed. So we've rewritten what it means to navigate the world as a man or woman, but not that they are men or women. In other words, while some straight guys might be a little uncomfortable in the locker room around a gay guy (because traditional notions of the gender performance of a "man" is that they should not be sexually attracted to other men), no one's disputing that, as a matter of sexual biology, that gay guy belongs in that locker room. And while a man can now say "my husband" without turning heads, the term "husband" has remained fixed as it always has been - a person's legally wedded male life partner. So gender identity may have to change, but sexual biology has remained fixed.
By contrast, the notion of trans inclusionism needs to reject any essential link to gender and sexuality at all, while treating gender, rather than sexual biology, as essential or fixed. "I felt uncomfortable in my body" essentially means "my sexual biology doesn't map onto my gender performance and identity," and my sexual biology, rather than my gender performance and identity, needs to become fluid. Trans-inclusion, then, is in part about respecting individuals' assertion of gender over their sexual biology, and making sexual biology follow gender identity. On a case by case basis, this is all well and fine.
But the slope gets slippery in places where we've traditionally policed boundaries on the basis of sexual biology as being fixed. One example of this is in language. You used the phrase "any daughter of any gender." That's a striking turn of phrase to me, since I think many associate the term "daughter" with female sexual biology as much as gender identity. So it will be necessary, for example, to revisit all linguistic terms that are sex-specific to determine whether those specifics are based on sex or gender - if the latter, then we need new phrases like "pregnant persons" rather than "pregnant women." And to do so, of course, requires detaching the gender and sexual biology linguistic link altogether, because as a matter of sexual biology, only individuals biologically sexed as what we call women can get pregnant.
Where the slope gets slipperiest, however, is how to police literal boundaries. When we divide locker rooms or sports competitions, we've traditionally done so, I've assumed, on the basis of sexual biology, not gender. And I've assumed we've done so, especially in sports, because we recognize that sexual biology is so determinative of performance and team cohesion, both on and off the field. (Thus, I view this issue very differently than, say, access to bathrooms, for which I don't see anywhere near the biologically determinative need for division on either performance or cohesion lines.)
Now, science may show us that in some sports, and with some kinds of sex transitioning hormones, there's little to no performance advantage for fully transitioned MTF trans athletes. But I don't think we know enough, yet, to be able to sort that out - how long, how far into transition, how much of certain hormones being present? And socially, what about those who have later decided to detransition? Does their existence suggest that, in fact, gender is not necessarily any more essential than sexual biology? At what age should we decide that individuals are legally and emotionally competent to decide their gender construction should triumph over their sexual biology?
In short, there's a lot to sort out here, and the world is moving quickly. In the mean time, I think many with hesitation about these issues have felt shouted down for questioning any of these issues at all, and have had it insinuated, if not outrightly stated, that they are bigots and transphobes. Sure, many are (especially the crude types on social media). In my case, I hope I am not, and don't think I am, either a bigot or a transphobe. But I do think these are complicated questions and to act like everything can be settled by simply being "inclusive" strikes me as both overly naive, overly simplistic, and unfairly flattening of very reasonable questions and concerns.
(*And yes, this is overly simplifying, and there are good arguments that sexual biology is not fully essential nor as cleanly divided into woman/man or XX/XY as some suggest. But I think those are questions of degree rather than kind.)
Thanks for hearing my two cents, and have enjoyed reading everyone else's.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 08:20 AM)2006alum Wrote:(02-17-2022, 06:42 AM)spike5882 Wrote: My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender. Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do. It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.)
FWIW, all of the same applies to me (cis male, no daughters, no connection to youth sports), but you can count me among those who are concerned about these policies. It's not that I don't care, it's just that (a) with demands on my time I haven't even had a chance to watch our WBB team's wins over OSU and Colorado yet, let alone write up my own two cents, and (b) I don't voice them much, because among my crowd, the "TERF" accusations seem to run rampant the second anyone says anything even vaguely questioning of some of these policies. And it's just not worth the risk of social disdain given how tangential my real-world interests are to this issue and all the other things on my plate. (And to this, I would echo BC's gratitude for the "cooler heads prevail" approach this thread has taken, which is the sole reason I'm wading into the waters with my two cents here at all.)
But I definitely have concerns, and if I could sum them up briefly, it's this: there's a of immense proportions tension between views around construction and essentialism in gender and sex. In the case of Queer movements, that effort has mostly required treating notions of gender identity and construction as fluid, but sexual biology as fixed. So we've rewritten what it means to navigate the world as a man or woman, but not that they are men or women. In other words, while some straight guys might be a little uncomfortable in the locker room around a gay guy (because traditional notions of the gender performance of a "man" is that they should not be sexually attracted to other men), no one's disputing that, as a matter of sexual biology, that gay guy belongs in that locker room. And while a man can now say "my husband" without turning heads, the term "husband" has remained fixed as it always has been - a person's legally wedded male life partner. So gender identity may have to change, but sexual biology has remained fixed.
By contrast, the notion of trans inclusionism needs to reject any essential link to gender and sexuality at all, while treating gender, rather than sexual biology, as essential or fixed. "I felt uncomfortable in my body" essentially means "my sexual biology doesn't map onto my gender performance and identity," and my sexual biology, rather than my gender performance and identity, needs to become fluid. Trans-inclusion, then, is in part about respecting individuals' assertion of gender over their sexual biology, and making sexual biology follow gender identity. On a case by case basis, this is all well and fine.
But the slope gets slippery in places where we've traditionally policed boundaries on the basis of sexual biology as being fixed. One example of this is in language. You used the phrase "any daughter of any gender." That's a striking turn of phrase to me, since I think many associate the term "daughter" with female sexual biology as much as gender identity. So it will be necessary, for example, to revisit all linguistic terms that are sex-specific to determine whether those specifics are based on sex or gender - if the latter, then we need new phrases like "pregnant persons" rather than "pregnant women." And to do so, of course, requires detaching the gender and sexual biology linguistic link altogether, because as a matter of sexual biology, only individuals biologically sexed as what we call women can get pregnant.
Where the slope gets slipperiest, however, is how to police literal boundaries. When we divide locker rooms or sports competitions, we've traditionally done so, I've assumed, on the basis of sexual biology, not gender. And I've assumed we've done so, especially in sports, because we recognize that sexual biology is so determinative of performance and team cohesion, both on and off the field. (Thus, I view this issue very differently than, say, access to bathrooms, for which I don't see anywhere near the biologically determinative need for division on either performance or cohesion lines.)
Now, science may show us that in some sports, and with some kinds of sex transitioning hormones, there's little to no performance advantage for fully transitioned MTF trans athletes. But I don't think we know enough, yet, to be able to sort that out - how long, how far into transition, how much of certain hormones being present? And socially, what about those who have later decided to detransition? Does their existence suggest that, in fact, gender is not necessarily any more essential than sexual biology? At what age should we decide that individuals are legally and emotionally competent to decide their gender construction should triumph over their sexual biology?
In short, there's a lot to sort out here, and the world is moving quickly. In the mean time, I think many with hesitation about these issues have felt shouted down for questioning any of these issues at all, and have had it insinuated, if not outrightly stated, that they are bigots and transphobes. Sure, many are (especially the crude types on social media). In my case, I hope I am not, and don't think I am, either a bigot or a transphobe. But I do think these are complicated questions and to act like everything can be settled by simply being "inclusive" strikes me as both overly naive, overly simplistic, and unfairly flattening of very reasonable questions and concerns.
(*And yes, this is overly simplifying, and there are good arguments that sexual biology is not fully essential nor as cleanly divided into woman/man or XX/XY as some suggest. But I think those are questions of degree rather than kind.)
Thanks for hearing my two cents, and have enjoyed reading everyone else's.
Great post. I agree right down the line with one small exception: on The Great Bathroom Debate. I get why those identifying as one gender would prefer to use the designated bathroom for that gender. But I think the debate ignores the very real discomfort others (perhaps a lot more others) feel about having that person in "their" designated bathroom. And the fix is easy - another bathroom. But perhaps that's too simplistic.
And to spike, I had to smile at your anecdotal post about mom and sister. The interplay between passion and wisdom occurs on many fronts.
RE: lex24 - martyup - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 12:32 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And the fix is easy - another bathroom. But perhaps that's too simplistic.
Being familiar with construction, I can safely say that such a fix is not easy. If an additional bathroom was required at all public facilities, let alone private facilities open to the public, the cost would be in the billions.
The less costly fix would be to make all public accessible bathrooms gender neutral. However, this would not end the debate about pointers and setters in the same bathroom.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 03:11 PM)martyup Wrote:(02-17-2022, 12:32 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And the fix is easy - another bathroom. But perhaps that's too simplistic.
Being familiar with construction, I can safely say that such a fix is not easy. If an additional bathroom was required at all public facilities, let alone private facilities open to the public, the cost would be in the billions.
The less costly fix would be to make all public accessible bathrooms gender neutral. However, this would not end the debate about pointers and setters in the same bathroom.
Do what you reasonably can. In public facilities with lots of bathrooms - stadia, schools, etc. - reallocate designations on existing bathrooms. For all new construction or remodels, require 3 bathroom types. For restaurants that only have one of each, do nothing (or make both gender-neutral for single use).
There is no constitutional right to pee in the bathroom of one's choosing. And if some people have to be "uncomfortable," then I'd lean toward making the fewest people uncomfortable (which means status quo remains for those places that can't make change(s) above).
RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 08:20 AM)2006alum Wrote:(02-17-2022, 06:42 AM)spike5882 Wrote: My perspective is as a cis male without any daughter of any gender. Nor any connection to a competitive female athlete at this moment (beyond some beyond their prime professional volleyball players that are friends from my time at Stanford, but nothing familial.) Given this, I do not have the emotional ties to this as many people do. It does seem like the majority of people with issue with this problem currently have daughters competing competitively at the moment (or have issues with trans in general; definitely not implying that is you or anybody who has posted here, just stating in general.)
FWIW, all of the same applies to me (cis male, no daughters, no connection to youth sports), but you can count me among those who are concerned about these policies. It's not that I don't care, it's just that (a) with demands on my time I haven't even had a chance to watch our WBB team's wins over OSU and Colorado yet, let alone write up my own two cents, and (b) I don't voice them much, because among my crowd, the "TERF" accusations seem to run rampant the second anyone says anything even vaguely questioning of some of these policies. And it's just not worth the risk of social disdain given how tangential my real-world interests are to this issue and all the other things on my plate. (And to this, I would echo BC's gratitude for the "cooler heads prevail" approach this thread has taken, which is the sole reason I'm wading into the waters with my two cents here at all.)
But I definitely have concerns, and if I could sum them up briefly, it's this: there's a of immense proportions tension between views around construction and essentialism in gender and sex. In the case of Queer movements, that effort has mostly required treating notions of gender identity and construction as fluid, but sexual biology as fixed. So we've rewritten what it means to navigate the world as a man or woman, but not that they are men or women. In other words, while some straight guys might be a little uncomfortable in the locker room around a gay guy (because traditional notions of the gender performance of a "man" is that they should not be sexually attracted to other men), no one's disputing that, as a matter of sexual biology, that gay guy belongs in that locker room. And while a man can now say "my husband" without turning heads, the term "husband" has remained fixed as it always has been - a person's legally wedded male life partner. So gender identity may have to change, but sexual biology has remained fixed.
By contrast, the notion of trans inclusionism needs to reject any essential link to gender and sexuality at all, while treating gender, rather than sexual biology, as essential or fixed. "I felt uncomfortable in my body" essentially means "my sexual biology doesn't map onto my gender performance and identity," and my sexual biology, rather than my gender performance and identity, needs to become fluid. Trans-inclusion, then, is in part about respecting individuals' assertion of gender over their sexual biology, and making sexual biology follow gender identity. On a case by case basis, this is all well and fine.
But the slope gets slippery in places where we've traditionally policed boundaries on the basis of sexual biology as being fixed. One example of this is in language. You used the phrase "any daughter of any gender." That's a striking turn of phrase to me, since I think many associate the term "daughter" with female sexual biology as much as gender identity. So it will be necessary, for example, to revisit all linguistic terms that are sex-specific to determine whether those specifics are based on sex or gender - if the latter, then we need new phrases like "pregnant persons" rather than "pregnant women." And to do so, of course, requires detaching the gender and sexual biology linguistic link altogether, because as a matter of sexual biology, only individuals biologically sexed as what we call women can get pregnant.
Where the slope gets slipperiest, however, is how to police literal boundaries. When we divide locker rooms or sports competitions, we've traditionally done so, I've assumed, on the basis of sexual biology, not gender. And I've assumed we've done so, especially in sports, because we recognize that sexual biology is so determinative of performance and team cohesion, both on and off the field. (Thus, I view this issue very differently than, say, access to bathrooms, for which I don't see anywhere near the biologically determinative need for division on either performance or cohesion lines.)
Now, science may show us that in some sports, and with some kinds of sex transitioning hormones, there's little to no performance advantage for fully transitioned MTF trans athletes. But I don't think we know enough, yet, to be able to sort that out - how long, how far into transition, how much of certain hormones being present? And socially, what about those who have later decided to detransition? Does their existence suggest that, in fact, gender is not necessarily any more essential than sexual biology? At what age should we decide that individuals are legally and emotionally competent to decide their gender construction should triumph over their sexual biology?
In short, there's a lot to sort out here, and the world is moving quickly. In the mean time, I think many with hesitation about these issues have felt shouted down for questioning any of these issues at all, and have had it insinuated, if not outrightly stated, that they are bigots and transphobes. Sure, many are (especially the crude types on social media). In my case, I hope I am not, and don't think I am, either a bigot or a transphobe. But I do think these are complicated questions and to act like everything can be settled by simply being "inclusive" strikes me as both overly naive, overly simplistic, and unfairly flattening of very reasonable questions and concerns.
(*And yes, this is overly simplifying, and there are good arguments that sexual biology is not fully essential nor as cleanly divided into woman/man or XX/XY as some suggest. But I think those are questions of degree rather than kind.)
Thanks for hearing my two cents, and have enjoyed reading everyone else's.
Agreed, great post. And nothing about your post came off as bigoted or transphobic -- I have a hard time thinking anybody would read it that way.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Phogge - 02-17-2022
Just relax the standards for public nudity. If a woman wants to enter a public men's restroom let them. I've got NOTHING to hide.
RE: lex24 - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 12:32 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Great post. I agree right down the line with one small exception: on The Great Bathroom Debate. I get why those identifying as one gender would prefer to use the designated bathroom for that gender. But I think the debate ignores the very real discomfort others (perhaps a lot more others) feel about having that person in "their" designated bathroom. And the fix is easy - another bathroom. But perhaps that's too simplistic.
And to spike, I had to smile at your anecdotal post about mom and sister. The interplay between passion and wisdom occurs on many fronts.
Glad you got a smile out of it :)
My simplistic view on the bathroom debate is: Let's go into the bathroom and use it for why it was built, wash our hands, and go on our way. Worrying about the person in the stall next to me is really none of my concern nor do they effect that I need to pee or how I wipe my tush. Usually my only concern when entering a public restroom is if there will be toilet paper and a toilet seat (had a bad experience once when neither was present!)
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Phogge - 02-17-2022
Hey Spike ever been to India? Sometimes all there is is a hole in the ground.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BobK - 02-17-2022
Two new parks where I live are any gender
But I presume one at a time
Maybe bars and restaurants are any gender one at a time
And yes so what
But from 1959 in the stadium for big games many of the old bathrooms were used by both men and women when the crowds were large. No one cared.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - spike5882 - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 07:05 PM)Phogge Wrote: Hey Spike ever been to India? Sometimes all there is is a hole in the ground.
I have, along with many other countries with similar situations. I am an avid traveler that loves different experiences (70+ countries), but toilets are still a luxury I much prefer when possible!
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - ca245 - 02-17-2022
When I visited Paris as a student many years ago, the public men's toilets had these long urinals plainly visible to the old ladies who kept the place clean. We just went ahead and did our business and we didn't pay attention to the ladies and they didn't pay attention to us.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Phogge - 02-17-2022
(02-17-2022, 07:14 PM)BobK Wrote: Two new parks where I live are any gender
But I presume one at a time
Maybe bars and restaurants are any gender one at a time
And yes so what
But from 1959 in the stadium for big games many of the old bathrooms were used by both men and women when the crowds were large. No one cared.
Outside the concourse on ground level you stood at the urinals. The there were no windows only chain link that showed an adult torso and head. You could scope out people walking past and still do your business.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BostonCard - 02-17-2022
My newly remodeled office has a single gender restroom. There are no urinals, and all the toilets are private (completely enclosed).
The whole debate about bathrooms typically centers around trans females and ignores trans males. If you forced people to use their gender assigned at birth you would have people (regardless of external genitalia) who maybe taking testosterone and thus might have facial hair and other male characteristics to use a women’s bathroom.
I’m with Spike. Go to the bathroom, do your business, and don’t obsess over the gender (or for that matter sexual orientation) of anyone else who is there.
BC