[lex24]

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."

[lex24]

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."