[DC 86]

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.

---

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.

[DC 86]

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.

---

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.