The CardBoard
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

Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - cardcrimson - 04-12-2021

The NCAA is fully supportive of transgender athletes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ncaa-backs-transgender-athletes-says-events-will-be-places-free-n1263879

Fantastically inclusive policy, or the death of women's collegiate sports? As Stanford has probably the best women's college sports program in the county, curious as to the thoughts and potential repercussions. . . .

Mods, feel free to delete if the topic is too controversial to discuss here.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - OutsiderFan - 04-12-2021

For me, it seems the most fair way to handle is to set a testosterone max/estrogen minimum for males transitioning to females, to participate in women's sports. If they have a female hormone profile, let them compete with women. If more of a male profile, don't.

Men are tested for excessive hormones in the form of steroids and HGH, so I don't see how this proposal would be controversial.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - akiddoc - 04-13-2021

(04-12-2021, 09:04 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  The NCAA is fully supportive of transgender athletes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ncaa-backs-transgender-athletes-says-events-will-be-places-free-n1263879

Fantastically inclusive policy, or the death of women's collegiate sports? As Stanford has probably the best women's college sports program in the county, curious as to the thoughts and potential repercussions. . . .

Mods, feel free to delete if the topic is too controversial to discuss here.

It's not going to affect women's sports much at all. There aren't many trans athletes in the first place, and the hormone level requirements make it even less of an issue. 

These states are enacting laws to regulate a non-problem. In 50 years people will look back and wonder why such idiotic laws were enacted.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Goose - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 01:09 AM)akiddoc Wrote:  These states are enacting laws to regulate a non-problem. In 50 years people will look back and wonder why such idiotic laws were enacted.
I agree it is a non-problem. However, given the number of idiotic laws that have been enacted over the years I doubt anyone will wonder why this one was. Fixing non-problems is a politicians bread and butter. When it turns out to not be a problem they can take credit for "solving" it.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BobK - 04-13-2021

Thank you akiddoc and goose. While these these laws are political statements when those politicians are afraid to tackle real problems ah enough

The old Stanford stadium was built with bathrooms to accommodate men not women. So when large crowds the bathrooms became open to both men and women at the same time. No one cared.
A complete non issue

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - martyup - 04-13-2021

You might consider this a minor issue due to the small number of male-to-female trans-gender athletes.  However, it is a big deal to a young biological female that has trained most of her life to win in her sport only to have her hard work and dreams dashed by a young biological male, with over 4 times her level of testosterone, who took the opportunity to compete against her as a trans-gender female.  Even with testing, the new Olympic standard allows trans-gender athletes to compete with testosterone levels of 10 nanomoles per litre.  Women’s testosterone levels tend to range between 0.12 and 1.79 nmol/l.

Here's is a summary from one perspective:

<RT video deleted by moderator>

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Phogge - 04-13-2021

Athletic competition is a small part of the issue.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Jamesy - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 08:32 AM)martyup Wrote:  You might consider this a minor issue due to the small number of male-to-female trans-gender athletes.  However, it is a big deal to a young biological female that has trained most of her life to win in her sport only to have her hard work and dreams dashed by a young biological male, with over 4 times her level of testosterone, who took the opportunity to compete against her as a trans-gender female.  Even with testing, the new Olympic standard allows trans-gender athletes to compete with testosterone levels of 10 nanomoles per litre.  Women’s testosterone levels tend to range between 0.12 and 1.79 nmol/l.

Here's is a summary from one perspective:

<RT video deleted by moderator>

The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Farm93 - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 09:21 AM)Jamesy Wrote:  The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?
There may be a decent argument against this movement, but using RT to summarize that position doesn't help much.

At some point a transgender 6' 10" player will dominate women's hoops or women's volleyball, but generally the struggles to voluntarily change gender will be too much to then become a top tier athlete.

I hope we don't get to a place where some countries in the world force some of their athletes to change gender for Olympic glory of the nation.   I guess that's the type of scenario the NCAA and the IOC hope doesn't emerge.

Ultimately, the NCAA's current position works for me because it seems likely that several ruby red states will not be allowed to host NCAA championships for a while.  That should mean more championship events will be held in CA.   That works for me.  :)   As I enjoyed attending the 2019 women's water polo championship and the 2019 women's soccer championship in the SF Bay Area.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - martyup - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 09:21 AM)Jamesy Wrote:  The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?

I don't know who sponsored.  Are the facts in dispute?  Educate us if there are falsehoods being disseminated.  I have no agenda, other than wanting to be fair to biological female athletes.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Jamesy - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 09:38 AM)martyup Wrote:  
(04-13-2021, 09:21 AM)Jamesy Wrote:  The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?

I don't know who sponsored.  Are the facts in dispute?  Educate us if there are falsehoods being disseminated.  I have no agenda, other than wanting to be fair to biological female athletes.

The example in the screen shot, Mack Beggs is a trans man who is prevented by state law from competing against other males. The NCAA policy would have allowed Mack to compete against other males and be more "fair to biological female athletes".

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Goose - 04-13-2021

I have always marveled at the distinction between various levels of athletics and the somewhat arbitrary divisions and distinctions that exist. Most of these distinctions exist to foster competition. P5 schools vs. Division II schools in football wouldn't in general be very interesting. To me, distinctions based on gender serve the same interest. In many sports males as a group perform "better" than females. However, this isn't universally true. Stanford Women's Basketball could undoubtedly beat may teams composed of men. It is all relative, and it is not absolute. A few "ringers" are problematic only in so far as they change the nature of the balance. If that happens, action will need to be taken. However, right now it seems to me that a female athlete who is defeated by a genetic female athlete is no better off than one who is defeated by a transgender athlete. The other player was better on that day. You can imagine rules that eliminate players based on ability/performance, but many people would say those rules would be "arbitrary". I say a rule based on gender, however defined, is no less arbitrary.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Phogge - 04-13-2021

I doubt that Stanford Women's BB could beat a good HS boys team.

However it's two dimensions and they are not on the same dimension.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - Papa John - 04-13-2021

It looks like the NCAA policy on transgender athletes is 10 years old. I agree that folks are making a big stink now for political reasons or just anti-trans reasons.

For a Stanford perspective, I refer you to this Daily article: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/06/05/nobodys-really-tried-it-any-other-way/

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-13-2021

Really good article, thanks for sharing.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - OutsiderFan - 04-13-2021

(04-13-2021, 09:38 AM)martyup Wrote:  
(04-13-2021, 09:21 AM)Jamesy Wrote:  The perspective of Russian state sponsored television?

I don't know who sponsored.  Are the facts in dispute?  Educate us if there are falsehoods being disseminated.  I have no agenda, other than wanting to be fair to biological female athletes.

You seriously can't be spreading Russian propaganda.  The only way discussions like this get locked up is because people bring that kind of crap into  them.

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - BostonCard - 04-13-2021

I don't think the topic is too controversial (or, more accurately, too removed from Stanford athletics) to qualify, given that we are talking about NCAA policy.

For marty, "RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

I think there are better sources that probably still support your point.

BC

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - terry - 04-13-2021

So, does posting Russian propaganda videos violate the "no politics" rule?

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - cardcrimson - 04-13-2021

A real situation from just a couple of years back. Transgender woman wins a state track championship, cisgender women cry foul:

https://www.courant.com/sports/high-schools/hc-sp-transgender-policy-runners-respond-20190619-20190620-5x2c7s2f5jb6dnw2dwpftiw6ru-story.html

Granted the Courant is pretty much a propaganda machine as well. . . .

RE: Too Controversial of a Topic? - dabigv13 - 04-13-2021

Important distinction, college sports require hormone therapy for transgender women to compete, while it seems HS sports in Connecticut do not.

I don't have a problem with that. I think HS sports should encourage participation and inclusion. And I'm pretty skeptical that their competitors are losing out on college scholarships. I suspect if they put up fast times no matter if they are a place or two lower, they would get scholarships. I would feel a little sore in their situation perhaps, but it's high school track and field, you should be doing it for the fun of it. There is always going to be someone faster.