Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Someone in another thread said there should be a separate league for trans athletes. I asked which specific sport the league would be in since there are not enough trans athletes in any one sport to make a league.
They said they didn't care. And that's part of the problem.
I refer broadly to these as policies as "banning trans people in sports" for this exact reason. It is a de facto ban on our inclusion at all.
Boycott NCAA
Cowardly and shameful
Their choice was lose federal funding. which means a lot less under privileged people going to college or banning trans from sports. Also federal funding means not only money for tuition but also helps to fund university research and development labs. Also for contracts, where the government purchases goods or services from universities for government use
So does it suck. Hell yes. Which do they give up though, all of the above or trans in sports?
You lose federal funding and colleges have to make harsh cuts.
I’ve been deeply frustrated by the progressive stance on trans people in professional sports.
Anyone who began medical transitioning after puberty will have reasonably notable physical differences from cisgender people in their appropriately gendered sport. It’s similar to doping, but something their body was doing naturally with incorrect hormones that didn’t reflect their gender.
I certainly don’t feel good about it, but I do think there is a very viable argument to disqualify those kinds of trans people (who medically transitioned after puberty) from competition. The debate becomes much more nuanced as you consider different sports where physical differences between gender matter less. Rugby, weightlifting; trans folks are out. Target shooting, chess, darts; no problem. It’s a debate to be had sport by sport, league by league. The whole issue should have been messaged that way from the beginning.
Queer advocacy groups taking a broad “all or nothing” civil rights stance on this was a HUGE mistake. It’s an argument they were destined to lose, only affected a minuscule number of athletes, and wasted so much time and effort that could have been spent on other battles for trans rights. US Democrats take their cues on queer issues from those queer advocacy groups, so they rolled with it and got trampled.
I really want to have a conversation with queer strategists and Democrat policy leaders to understand why this was the hill they decided to make trans rights die on.
Just want to preface this whole argument with a "This issue is pretty complex, and there are valid reasons to be concerned on both sides."
I always see the "physical differences" argument, and my response is where do you draw the line? There are outliers of both cis men and women, so if we're going purely off natural physical ability, is it okay to bump the lowest performance cis men into the women's league, or the highest performance women into the men's leagues?
It's funny you mention rugby, because I have a cis female friend who plays. She's 5'11 and ~180lbs, and an absolute tank on the field. I'm trans, and we're basically the exact same size/weight. Her 1RM on basically anything other than bench has always been higher than mine, even as a guy. If the concern is purely about physical differences, then at what point do you start singling out non-trans people for being outliers, even if it's 100% natural?
While I absolutely understand the issues with allowing those who've gone through testosterone puberty into sports with those who haven't (painting with as broad a brush as possible), I think the main reason I struggle to agree with bans of trans athletes in any capacity is simply because it's 100% going to be abused by shitty people, and is an overly simplistic solution.
My overly simplistic solution? Stop grouping people by gender, and just break it up into tiered leagues/divisions/weight classes like football/soccer, baseball, or wrestling? Will there be a natural segmentation based off sex? For a lot of sports, almost definitely. But I think it's the most equitable solution, and also helps break down the idea that women can't possibly compete against men in any way, or that men are inherently better than women. You now also get the added benefit that people who might normally be cut from a team for low performance now have the opportunity to play in a lower division, and have a reason for the players in the low/mid divisions who might obliterate the competition to have a reason to keep improving for a shot at a higher division.
Now, feel free to tear apart my idea, because I'm sure there are many aspects of it I didn't clearly think through, but it's just a thought.
It's funny you mention rugby, because I have a cis female friend who plays. She's 5'11 and ~180lbs, and an absolute tank on the field. I'm trans, and we're basically the exact same size/weight. Her 1RM on basically anything other than bench has always been higher than mine, even as a guy
Just to add on to this: I was an all state scrum half and played at a division 1 school in college, and I have played with women that can absolutely wreck my ass on a rugby pitch. There's absolutely no reason a woman couldn't play with men if they're at the same skill level.
I mostly agree. But at the same time, unmedicated humans are not strictly male or female either. Bodies vary a lot. So there are women out there with an advantage over other women because their bodies are more male than the average. So determining who is fair to compete against who by chromosome isn't really fair either. What they need is some better measure of advantages earned by genetics vs hard work. Then there should be categories of competition based on that. The middle categories would have overlap between men and women. That would really allow more people to fairly compete.
Completely agree.
The whole point of women's sport leagues is because it's unfair to have them compete against men. Trying to impose fairness with something designed to be unfair is folly.
"The whole point of having negro sports leagues is because it's unfair to have them compete against whites. Trying to impose fairness with something designed to be unfair is folly."
Followed by:
"There's no rule saying that negroes can't play in the National League."
That's not even close to similar since race has no significant bearing on physical capabilities as is easily proven by the Olympics results even when black people were still being excluded in North America.
The top female athletes get absolutely wrecked at strength based sports by even mediocre male athletes. Just go look up the Williams sisters vs Braasch (tennis)
Anyone who keeps claiming that trans athletes have zero benefit are lying to themselves. There are some who have no benefit, especially if they transitioned pre-puberty, but it's clear as day biologically that they were literally doping for a decade of their development if they transitioned later.
Can you show the results where cis women and trans women have competed where it is "easily proven" that they always have an advantage?
Do you really think Britney Griner has a disadvantage over all trans women?