# Trans-People Participating In Sports



## Huntn

Do biological males have an inherent biological advantage? This has sparked tons of debate in Conservative Land, and conservatives have decided that this is a fact. Is it?
We do see both male and female sports leagues. Why are they seperate, is it historical gender based, double standards or as a rule do males have a biological muscular advantage?
And in the process of changing ones biological sex are muscular advantages or disadvantages mitigated?

Based on my uneducated perspective on the topic, my impression is that many males would have a physical advantage in certain sports based on  heavy reliance on muscle mass. However I am not implying that no woman can compete in male sports. Thoughts?

Brought over from the Olympic thread:


Herdfan said:


> It's not meant to be anti-transgender.  We are simply talking about 2 different things.
> 
> On one hand there is the equity of transgenders being allowed to compete.  Then there is the equity of the competition.  Those are two separate issues whether the trans community wants to accept it or not.
> 
> Here is a report from Sports Scientists breaking it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Transgender athletes and performance advantages
> 
> 
> Ok, here goes. I've been meaning to write this for a while, but time and energy have not allowed it. But I've just been involved in some lively Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sportsscientists.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am sure it will be rebutted by another study showing the opposite.  Which means we simply don't know 100% one way or the other.
> 
> I do not mean to offend the trans community.  But I also have a daughter who was a fairly elite HS swimmer (would have swam in college had a case of scapular dyskinesis not sidelined her career) and I simply believe in fairness.  I simply do not believe the competition would be fair.  That does not make me anti-trans, that simply means I have an opinion that is1) different than some, and 2) one that is not clouded by emotion.  I realize some may disagree and some may actually hate me for it.


----------



## B S Magnet

Huntn said:


> Do biological males have an inherent biological advantage? This has sparked tons of debate in Conservative Land, and conservatives have decided that this is a fact. Is it?
> We do see both male and female sports leagues. Why are they seperate, is it historical gender based double standards or as a rule do males have a biological muscular advantage?
> And in the process of changing ones biological sex are muscular advantages or disadvantages mitigated?
> 
> Based on my uneducated perspective on the topic, my impression is that many males would have a physical advantage in certain sports based on  heavy reliance on muscle mass. However I am not implying that no woman can compete in male sports. Thoughts?
> 
> Briught over from the Olympic thread:




*STOP SAYING “TRANSGENDERS”.*

You are welcome to say “trans people”.

But we have already had this discussion — *twice* — once on PRSI, and *once on here*. No, I’m sorry… *twice*_._

*LET. IT. DIE.*


----------



## Eric

B S Magnet said:


> *STOP SAYING “TRANSGENDERS”.*
> 
> You are welcome to say “trans people”.
> 
> But we have already had this discussion — *twice* — once on PRSI, and *once on here*. No, I’m sorry… *twice*_._
> 
> *LET. IT. DIE.*



I get the need to be PC but running around here policing everyone's adjectives and pronouns is getting tiresome.


----------



## B S Magnet

Eric said:


> I get the need to be PC but running around here policing everyone's adjectives and pronouns is getting tiresome.




IT’S DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND DEHUMANIZING. This isn’t fucking rocket science and it sure ain’t “““PC”””. It’s about showing some basic human respect.

And if you’re not on board with that basic level of respect, Eric, then you may as well be moderating PRSI.

I mean, do you want trans people and other GSMs to feel welcome here, or do you want your own cisnormative comfort? You can’t have both in good conscience.


----------



## Huntn

B S Magnet said:


> *STOP SAYING “TRANSGENDERS”.*
> 
> You are welcome to say “trans people”.
> 
> But we have already had this discussion — *twice* — once on PRSI, and *once on here*. No, I’m sorry… *twice*_._
> 
> *LET. IT. DIE.*



Thanks for your calm measured response. 

I said I was uneducated.
Please point me at the discussion here about trans-people and sports.
Is “transgender“ politically incorrect? Please provide a link or your perspective. It it can be shown that “transgender” is politically incorrect in the community, I’m more than happy to change the title. 
This topic is not going to die until a majority of citizens understand it better and talking like this  does not make a case, just illustrates your anger.


----------



## B S Magnet

Huntn said:


> Thanks for your calm measured response.
> 
> I said I was uneducated.




Yes, but you didn’t search the previous discussions before opening the topic.



Huntn said:


> Please point me at the discussion here about trans-people and sports.




I linked to two of them them above in my first reply to you. Take the time to read them and the linked citations within each if you wanna break into yet-another discussion about this.



Huntn said:


> Is “transgender“ politically incorrect? Please provide a link or your perspective. It it can be shown that “transgender” is politically incorrect in the community, I’m more than happy to change the title.




_Transgender_ is an adjective. Like “cisgender” or “Black” or “gay”, it _describes _a person (in other words: it’s not kosher to be saying “the cisgenders”, “the Blacks”, or “the gays”… _or_ “the transgenders”). Please read the linked article I posted in replying to Eric’s remark.



Huntn said:


> This topic is not going to die until a majority of citizens understand it better and talking like this  does not make a case, just illustrates your anger.




So what you’re saying as a cisgender person is I shouldn’t feel in any way upset or less welcome here as a trans woman — just as I shouldn’t feel upset on MR’s PRSI, whenever cisgender people make lazy, small-minded, and armchair-transphobic takes as if they’re completely benign statements with no weight or bias or contempt whatsoever. OK. Sure.

I mean… do y’all even wanna try to do the most basic work of understanding and respecting the marginalized experiences of other people, or y’all just comfortable with your own biases and couched contempt for that other? Are none of y’all gonna go Google or DuckDuckGo what other trans people have published on how to address and recognize trans people with level respect? Cos right now I don’t see a material difference between MacRumors’ PRSI and TalkedAbout. And I don’t think y’all want to be associated with that cesspit.


----------



## Renzatic

Men do naturally have more muscle mass than women. It's an inevitability of testosterone, which men's bodies genereally produce more of. So, a pre-op trans person who hasn't undergone any hormone therapy will have a large natural advantage in women's sports.

This advantage will go away for anyone post op, or who has undergone an extended period of hormone therapy. Their muscle mass will decrease to roughly female average for their frame and height

So, is it fair to prevent trans women from competing in sports against cis women if they haven't undergone any transitional work. Is it fair to cis women to allow trans women to compete against them when they have a natural strength advantage? What's the correct answer here?


----------



## Huntn

B S Magnet said:


> IT’S DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND DEHUMANIZING. This isn’t fucking rocket science and it sure ain’t “““PC”””. It’s about showing some basic human respect.
> 
> And if you’re not on board with that basic level of respect, Eric, then you may as well be moderating PRSI.
> 
> I mean, do you want trans people and other GSMs to feel welcome here, or do you want your own cisnormative comfort? You can’t have both in good conscience.



Maybe you can calm down enough to discuss. According to this article








						How Should You Correctly Be Using The Word 'Transgender'?
					

It can be confusing; we're here to help.




					www.huffpost.com
				




_Refer to people as “transgender men,” “transgender women,” “transgender individuals,” “transgender people” ― never “transgenders.” “Transgender” should be used to modify a noun ― never as a standalone. _

I will update the title, but I’m honestly telling you, I don’t understand why the term _transgender  is _offensive, not only that but deeply offensive and dehumanizing  vs _transgender male _or _trans people _other than just saying it is, because I think there is more at play than about correct English.


----------



## B S Magnet

Huntn said:


> Maybe you can calm down enough to discuss. According to this article




“Transgender” is an adjective. When used as an adjective, it is not offensive in the slightest.

And quit tone-policing me.


----------



## B S Magnet

Renzatic said:


> [Cisgender] Men do naturally have more muscle mass than women. It's an inevitability of testosterone, which [cisgender] men's bodies genereally produce more of. So, a pre-op _[sic]_ trans person who hasn't undergone any hormone therapy will have a large natural _[cis]_ advantage in women's sports.
> 
> This advantage will go away for anyone post op _[sic]_, or who has undergone an extended period of hormone therapy.




You are literally covering no new ground here. Try and read through what I wrote exhaustively last week on this very topic, and read the linked citations within. Cheers.


----------



## Eric

Renzatic said:


> Men do naturally have more muscle mass than women. It's an inevitability of testosterone, which men's bodies genereally produce more of. So, a pre-op trans person who hasn't undergone any hormone therapy will have a large natural advantage in women's sports.
> 
> This advantage will go away for anyone post op, or who has undergone an extended period of hormone therapy. Their muscle mass will decrease to roughly female average for their frame and height
> 
> So, is it fair to prevent trans women from competing in sports against cis women if they haven't undergone any transitional work. Is it fair to cis women to allow trans women to compete against them when they have a natural strength advantage? What's the correct answer here?



This is how I see it too, there's a natural physiological difference. Without some sort of physical augmentation there will never be an equal playing field. When it comes to competition involving these attributes I don't see how they can properly compensate for it.


----------



## B S Magnet

Eric said:


> This is how I see it too, there's a natural _[sic]_ physiological difference.




The endocrinological science is not on the same page as how you see it.


----------



## Huntn

B S Magnet said:


> Yes, but you didn’t search the previous discussions before opening the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I linked to two of them them above in my first reply to you. Take the time to read them and the linked citations within each if you wanna break into yet-another discussion about this.
> 
> 
> 
> _Transgender_ is an adjective. Like “cisgender” or “Black” or “gay”, it _describes _a person (in other words: it’s not kosher to be saying “the cisgenders”, “the Blacks”, or “the gays”… _or_ “the transgenders”). Please read the linked article I posted in replying to Eric’s remark.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you’re saying as a cisgender person is I shouldn’t feel in any way upset or less welcome here as a trans woman — just as I shouldn’t feel upset on MR’s PRSI, whenever cisgender people make lazy, small-minded, and armchair-transphobic takes as if they’re completely benign statements with no weight or bias or contempt whatsoever. OK. Sure.
> 
> I mean… do y’all even wanna try to do the most basic work of understanding and respecting the marginalized experiences of other people, or y’all just comfortable with your own biases and couched contempt for that other? Are none of y’all gonna go Google or DuckDuckGo what other trans people have published on how to address and recognize trans people with level respect? Cos right now I don’t see a material difference between MacRumors’ PRSI and TalkedAbout. And I don’t think y’all want to be associated with that cesspit.




There is no dedicated Trans thread here, just comments in other thread topics.
I say blacks and whites all the time, not cool, really?
Imo you should not be upset because I started a dedicated thread on the topic, the more I/we understand about it, the better... the sooner it is no longer a topic.
With this you are being over emotional and prejudicial: : _I mean… do y’all even wanna try to do the most basic work of understanding and respecting the marginalized experiences of other people, or y’all just comfortable with your own biases and couched contempt for that other?_

And why do you think I started this thread to pick on trans people?? I am supportive of transgender individual issues. You need to calm yourself down and be constructive, I want your perspective, but not your attacks or hysteria.


----------



## Renzatic

B S Magnet said:


> You are literally covering no new ground here. Try and read through what I wrote exhaustively last week on this very topic, and read the linked citations within. Cheers.




I read it, yet fail to see where we're grossly disagreeing.

Look at the raw physicality here. A woman who comes to identify as trans well after puberty, and has yet to undergo any hormonal replacement therapies is physically male, with all the physical advantages that entails. Should they be allowed to compete in women's sports the instant they out their identity, or should a period of hormone therapy be a prerequisite?


----------



## User.45

Huntn said:


> Do biological males have an inherent biological advantage? This has sparked tons of debate in Conservative Land, and conservatives have decided that this is a fact. Is it?
> We do see both male and female sports leagues. Why are they seperate, is it historical gender based, double standards or as a rule do males have a biological muscular advantage?
> And in the process of changing ones biological sex are muscular advantages or disadvantages mitigated?
> 
> Based on my uneducated perspective on the topic, my impression is that many males would have a physical advantage in certain sports based on  heavy reliance on muscle mass. However I am not implying that no woman can compete in male sports. Thoughts?
> 
> Briught over from the Olympic thread:



The title does make my eyes hurt too, but I know there's no malice on your end. 
Transgender Athletes Participating in Competitive Sports should work better.

1. Let's humanize our fellow humans.
2. Trans people *should definitely* participate in sports, because it's necessary for health.
3. I expressed it elsewhere, even if we shave off societal connotations of gender, biological sex is still largely a continuous variable which we dichotomize to M/F, which always comes with loss of nuance. That nuance is human lives.
4. We don't know exactly how persistent muscle weight or muscle attachment to bone, bone density etc. on the level of pro sports. We are learning about it now. It will greatly depend on the age of transition too so nobody should expect a cut-and-dry answer.
5. The priorities in descending order should be health, safety, fairness. People think fairness is simple in pro level sports, but it's hella complicated. Like us people in the USA being upset by cannabinoids being considered illegal performance enhancers, but also having the power to push for changes in the policy, yet not thinking about other nations that don't have access to such (or other) performance enhancers would be at an immediate disadvantage in the rise of such policy updates.
------
What I dislike about pro sports is that it's mostly unhlealthy as fuck. So when people are fixating on the spectacular ultraelite athletes, the remaining 95% who do it for health maintenance are being ignored even though the impact and relevance of the super average athlete is much greater.


----------



## B S Magnet

Huntn said:


> There is no dedicated Trans thread here, just comments in other thread topics.




Yes. A simple search would have given you some hits on trans people and athletics.



Huntn said:


> I say blacks and whites all the time, not cool, really?




Not cool, really, no. There are Black people and there are white people.



Huntn said:


> Imo you should not be upset because I started a dedicated thread on the topic, the more I/we understand about it, the better... the sooner it is no longer a topic.




The thing is: it isn’t up to someone like you to decide for someone like me what is upsetting for someone like me.

It isn’t up to someone like you or anyone else to tell someone like me how I should feel when cisgender people like yourself choose voluntarily to speak wilfully and ignorantly about people like me, and/or speak disparagingly and negatively about people like me.

It’s not up to someone like you to decide whether that wilful ignorance or disparaging commentary should be unsettling for someone like me.

Lastly, it’s also not up to someone like you to tell someone like me how and when someone like me should “educate”, for free, cisgender people like you who won’t even do their own search for trans people far more eloquent than me who’ve written exhaustively on these subjects over the past ten years. It’s all out there if someone like you is willing to try.



Huntn said:


> With this you are being over emotional and prejudicial: : _I mean… do y’all even wanna try to do the most basic work of understanding and respecting the marginalized experiences of other people, or y’all just comfortable with your own biases and couched contempt for that other?_




Thanks for the sexism and for the continued tone-policing — rather than stopping to pause and reflect on how your own conduct in this exchange may actually be inflammatory at its root.



Huntn said:


> And why do you think I started this thread to pick on trans people?? I am supportive of transgender individual issues. You need to calm yourself down and be constructive, I want your perspective, but not your attacks or hysteria.




You started this thread without an expectation that trans people would actively stand up and say, “Hold up here.” And now that this has come to pass, you’re backtracking defensively and indignantly rather than realizing, “Hey, y’know, maybe I overstepped on a subject which perhaps I don’t really understand and which I didn’t exactly start with a gesture of wanting out of respect to understand, if trans people reading it might be willing to voluntarily shed some light.”

I let you know how you overstepped. I also know how nearly all of you are aware I was invited to TA because of the PRSI trans athlete shitshow. So in a way, to open a topic like this, _whether you intended or not_, is like rubbing salt into that not-so-distant wound.


----------



## B S Magnet

Renzatic said:


> Look at the raw physicality here. A woman _[cis? trans?]_ who comes to identify as trans _[man? woman?]_ well after [first] puberty, and has yet to undergo any hormonal replacement therapies is physically _[…]_ male, with all the physical advantages that entails. Should they be allowed to compete in women's sports the instant they out their identity, or should a period of hormone therapy be a prerequisite?




As I wrote, exhaustively, this question has already been addressed and answered, including by regulatory bodies and medical bodies.


----------



## Renzatic

B S Magnet said:


> As I wrote, exhaustively, this question has already been addressed and answered, including by regulatory bodies and medical bodies.




According to what you wrote, it depends upon the sport being considered. Though from this quote...



> Does this mean a trans woman who competes in, say, weightlifting, has an advantage over her cis competitors in the same weight class for having experienced an endogenous first puberty? If the parts of her body being used for that competition — namely, her muscles — have lost their mass, then probably not so much. (Note the qualifier here is _mass_, not nuclei, so let’s not keep shifting the goalposts here.) Fixed skeletal height also isn’t an advantage. One evidentiary case example relates to weightlifter Lauren Hubbard, because it happened _to_ Lauren Hubbard: in 2018, she broke her elbow during competition (check out that picture and clip). This was because her muscles, which in the past might have provided the torsional strength to counteract direct stress placed onto her bones, were diminished from before the start of her second puberty. She didn’t factor this into the mix, and so she tried to lift at a weight she may have lifted successfully before second puberty, but her body was operating with a new set of rules. Consequently, she paid for it in an injury which nearly ended her aspirations. But she went through the work of rehabilitation, re-learning, and being coached on that re-learning effort. As it is, Lauren was ranked below the top three women — all cis, I might add — of her weight class during Olympic qualifiers.




Your example quotes the fairness of trans women competing post hormonal therapy, which is something no one is arguing here. But if she had yet to experience her 2nd puberty, would she still be able to compete with other female weightlifters fairly?


----------



## User.45

Renzatic said:


> Your example quotes the fairness of trans women competing post hormonal therapy, which is something no one is arguing here. But if she had yet to experience her 2nd puberty, would she still be able to compete with other female weightlifters fairly?



There are set hormone level standards, @B S Magnet mentioned above.


----------



## B S Magnet

Renzatic said:


> Your example quotes the fairness of trans women competing post hormonal therapy, which is something no one is arguing here. But if she had yet to experience her 2nd puberty, would she still be able to compete with other female weightlifters fairly?




1) Not all trans people, especially with the new gen of folks, have two puberties. Some, like the 8yo trans kid whose mum is a close friend of mine, will only experience one _consensual_ puberty.

2) Lauren Hubbard, since you brought up weightlifting, began her second puberty almost a decade ago, and her body has changed substantially because of that. Not only has her body changed, but both the regulatory body overseeing women’s weightlifting and also the IOC concur that Lauren has more than met the temporal and serological requirements to compete alongside fellow competitors of the same gender.


----------



## Renzatic

B S Magnet said:


> 1) Not all trans people, especially with the new gen of folks, have two puberties. Some, like the 8yo trans kid whose mum is a close friend of mine, will only experience one _consensual_ puberty.
> 
> 2) Lauren Hubbard, since you brought up weightlifting, began her second puberty almost a decade ago, and her body has changed substantially because of that. Not only has her body changed, but both the regulatory body overseeing women’s weightlifting and also the IOC concur that Lauren has more than met the temporal and serological requirements to compete alongside fellow competitors of the same gender.




1) There's no issue there, since they'll develop according to their identified sex, rather than their physical. A physical male trans woman who goes on puberty blockers and hormone therapy at the onset of natural puberty should be allowed to compete in women's sports, since their bodies will be nearly identical to any cis female.

2) Which answers my question.


----------



## B S Magnet

Renzatic said:


> 1) There's no issue there, since they'll develop according to their identified sex, rather than their physical. A physical male *[sic]* trans woman who goes on puberty blockers and hormone therapy at the onset of natural puberty should be allowed to compete in women's sports, since their bodies will be nearly identical to any cis female.




…including cis women who have complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome (CAIS).

But as I wrote, _the only fixity in the living body of a person_, particularly after the age of 18 (or 16), _is their skeletal system_.

And to what extent that system carries a material impact in matters of athletic competition is dependent on A) their inherited traits (i.e., did they come from a tall/short family, a big/gracile-boned family, did their first and non-consensual puberty hit them early or late, etc.), and B)  the demands of the sport itself. And when you pan back on those variables, they’re identical to what cisgender people are also subject to dealing with during their one and only (consensual) puberty.


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> This is how I see it too, there's a natural physiological difference. Without some sort of physical augmentation there will never be an equal playing field. When it comes to competition involving these attributes I don't see how they can properly compensate for it.



This is how I imagine it, but  I am opened minded about having my mind changed. 

If you look at the scale  of physicality and size for the spectrum of both sexes, my impression is that males significantly outnumber females on the muscular and large size end of the scale. I imagine if there are women who could compete in NFL pro football there would be few of them, and if they are there, they should get a shot at it, if they wanted it.  Now this is probably the most physical team sport that relies on size and muscle mass.

Look at weight lifting. My impression is that woman can’t compete head to head with men (not said with a derogatory tone), and therefore have separate classes of competition. 

There are other sports that are not so reliant on size and muscle mass, but then the question becomes why are most teams gender specific, baseball men, softball women? I think arguably there  is a degree of gender bias/sexism involved. I see no reason why a woman can’t try out for a men’s baseball team.

So for trans women, a justifiable question becomes does being a biological male bestow a physical advantage after changing over?  Is there an hormonal effect of the process of a male transitioning to a female that would remove this advantage?


----------



## Huntn

Renzatic said:


> Men do naturally have more muscle mass than women. It's an inevitability of testosterone, which men's bodies genereally produce more of. So, a pre-op trans person who hasn't undergone any hormone therapy will have a large natural advantage in women's sports.
> 
> This advantage will go away for anyone post op, or who has undergone an extended period of hormone therapy. Their muscle mass will decrease to roughly female average for their frame and height
> 
> So, is it fair to prevent trans women from competing in sports against cis women if they haven't undergone any transitional work. Is it fair to cis women to allow trans women to compete against them when they have a natural strength advantage? What's the correct answer here?



IMO, the correct answer is that until you have undergone Trans therapy as a Trans Woman you should not be competing  in women’s sports.


----------



## Huntn

B S Magnet said:


> And quit tone-policing me.



FYI,  I reject your linked article‘s premise. In any vigorous debate cool and calm offers profound advantages over screaming and hysteria, and while you might not actually be hysterical and screaming, in the presentation, the exaggerations clouds, can overwhelm the logic on the receiving end, in this case my end. 

Even though a text chat is not the same as face to face, there is room to be forceful without taking it to the equivalent of yelling. If you are *TALKING LIKE THIS!!!!* the impression comes across that you are about to have a meltdown and I don’t want to be responsible for that…


----------



## Eric

B S Magnet said:


> “Transgender” is an adjective. When used as an adjective, it is not offensive in the slightest.
> 
> And quit tone-policing me.



To be fair, you've been doing that to several of us since you walked in the door here.


----------



## B S Magnet

Eric said:


> To be fair, you've been doing that to several of us since you walked in the door here.




No Eric, I really haven’t.

What I have been is very direct and very blunt with respect to confronting cisgender people on here each time cisgender people post hot takes which, regardless of intent (because intent is magic), are designed to be inflammatory to trans people. That directness and candour from me is not going to change. It’s what and how I am, and I’m sure there are other reasons for that — not least which I’ve been hearing the same old lazy, uninformed garbage from cisgender people who don’t want to bother trying for, well, thirty years. I’m also pretty blunt about calling out other inequitable treatment of people who structurally, historically, and classically get shoved to the margins.

You are, of course, welcome to ban me as the MR mods banned me when confronting cisgender people on PRSI making hot, ugly, malformed takes about trans people (who did so without the expectation that trans people might actually participate and hold them to account for their takes).

And should you choose to follow in the footsteps of the MR mods, then you will have established for whom the comfort of this forum is being designed and for whom it is not.


----------



## Eric

B S Magnet said:


> No Eric, I really haven’t.
> 
> What I have been is very direct and very blunt with respect to confronting cisgender people on here each time cisgender people post hot takes which, regardless of intent (because intent is magic), are designed to be inflammatory to trans people. That directness and candour from me is not going to change. It’s what and how I am, and I’m sure there are other reasons for that. I’m also pretty blunt about calling out other inequitable treatment of people who structurally and classically get shoved to the margins.
> 
> You are, of course, welcome to ban me as the MR mods banned me when confronting cisgender people on PRSI making hot, ugly, malformed takes about trans people (who did so without the expectation that trans people might actually participate and hold them to account for their takes).
> 
> And should you choose to follow in the footsteps of the MR mods, then you will have established for whom the comfort of this forum is being designed and for whom it is not.



The projection here, just wow.   

Look, I never said anything about banning and you're free to continue to speak your mind. Just know others can say what they want, how they want and use the words they want as well. You have no right to tell anyone else how to phrase things.


----------



## B S Magnet

Eric said:


> The projection here, just wow.
> 
> Look, I never said anything about banning and you're free to continue to speak your mind. Just know others can say what they want, how they want and use the words they want as well. You have no right to tell anyone else how to phrase things.




Then I guess that means no one here has any right to tone-police me. 

And I guess slurs are also cool here?


----------



## Eric

B S Magnet said:


> Then I guess that means no one here has any right to tone-police me.
> 
> And I guess slurs are also cool here?



Rules here are loose, it's always been that way on this site and will continue to be. If you are looking for heavy moderation this isn't the site for it. If something is blatantly out of line, we'll address otherwise you'll need thicker skin to make it here.


----------



## Renzatic

B S Magnet said:


> What I have been is very direct and very blunt with respect to confronting cisgender people on here each time cisgender people post hot takes which, regardless of intent (because intent is magic), are designed to be inflammatory to trans people.




The problem with being confrontational is that it invites confrontation in kind. No one here wants to insult you, or put you in your place. Some people may be talking from a position of ignorance, but they're not doing it to hurt you.

If you pop in, all guns blazing as if you're going for JK Rowling's throat on Twitter, yeah, you're going to get some smack back. If someone say something that rubs you the wrong way, don't smear on the sneering derision right out the gate, just correct them, and move on. If they keep at it even afterwards, then yeah, that's when you go to town on them.

This isn't tone policing. It's conversational etiquette 101.


----------



## B S Magnet

Eric said:


> Rules here are loose, it's always been that way on this site and will continue to be. If you are looking for heavy moderation this isn't the site for it. If something is blatantly out of line, we'll address otherwise you'll need thicker skin to make it here.




Cool. I’ll see myself out.

You have more in common with the folks on the other forum whom you and others here gripe about and let live in your heads for free than you’re ready to acknowledge.


----------



## SuperMatt

It’s my impression that people are not intentionally using offensive language here. I can understand why somebody would be annoyed at having to correct the 1000th person who is (unintentionally here I believe) using terminology that is upsetting.

May I suggest a thread (I guess we don’t have wiki post?) that has useful information for people who are ignorant of things involving transgender individuals? It would be a great resource for somebody to quickly point to when the inevitable questions come. I think it might lower the temperature of everybody too. It has to be tiring responding to ignorant individuals, but it’s also upsetting for people are are clueless to get an angry response.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> Rules here are loose, it's always been that way on this site and will continue to be. If you are looking for heavy moderation this isn't the site for it. If something is blatantly out of line, we'll address otherwise *you'll need thicker skin to make it here.*




Yeah, I'm still here.  LOL

Here is what I have noticed: If I am in a thread that can have an emotional issue, I get pushback.  Sometimes alot.  And that's fine.  I was warned. 

But if I am in a thread about cars or sports or any non-emotional topic, I don't get pushback.  Posters interact with me, answer my questions my questions, agree with some of my points, etc.  

But as noted, if any time someone posts something that offends you, and you come at them screaming, others are not going to want to interact with you in ANY thread.


----------



## User.191

Herdfan said:


> Yeah, I'm still here.  LOL
> 
> Here is what I have noticed: If I am in a thread that can have an emotional issue, I get pushback.  Sometimes alot.  And that's fine.  I was warned.
> 
> But if I am in a thread about cars or sports or any non-emotional topic, I don't get pushback.  Posters interact with me, answer my questions my questions, agree with some of my points, etc.
> 
> But as noted, if any time someone posts something that offends you, and you come at them screaming, others are not going to want to interact with you in ANY thread.



Dammit - what is it with this new @Herdfan. Second time I’m in complete agreement with you.

Are you really sure you’re the Herdfan of MR???


----------



## User.191

B S Magnet said:


> IT’S DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND DEHUMANIZING. This isn’t fucking rocket science and it sure ain’t “““PC”””. It’s about showing some basic human respect.
> 
> And if you’re not on board with that basic level of respect, Eric, then you may as well be moderating PRSI.
> 
> I mean, do you want trans people and other GSMs to feel welcome here, or do you want your own cisnormative comfort? You can’t have both in good conscience.



I guess if one seeks offense one will find it. I still have various family members accidentally misgender me on occasions but I know there’s zero harm meant by it.

I have folks as well who sometimes use the wrong term or name of various aspects, but that’s totally fine because I can tell when something is meant to attack, and when something is purely accidental.

This is a vast new world for a lot of people - and I’m totally fine with people using the wrong word from time to time if it’s accidental.

Life’s too short to get hung up over accidental slip ups. By going into permanent attack mode you’ll nit gain any supporters.  A little bit of honey can go a long way.

And the best thing about TalkedAbout is that it’s an open forum. Being an open forum means taking the rough with the smooth. @Herdfan  seems to have embraced that and he’s horribly outnumbered and outgunned.

So rather than attacking, embrace. Rather than shout, educate. Rather than complain, explain. It’ll go a long way.


----------



## lizkat

Adding this citation to a thread that's nearly a year old.  Interesting that Republican governors in two states have just vetoed legislation that banned trans school kids from girls' sports.  Utah,  also Indiana.  









						Utah governor becomes latest to veto transgender sports ban
					

“I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion,” Cox wrote.




					www.politico.com
				




Remarks by the Utah governor explaining his veto are quoted below, along with some stats of the actual situation, which should blow anyone's mind in terms of disproportionate response to nonexistent crisis in competitive schoolgirls' sports.   Utah Rs actually brought a bill to ban the trans kids in the last hours of a legislative session,  to deal with the reality of, are you ready:    4 trans kids out of 85,000 children qualified to compete in school sports,  and only one of them is competing in girls' sports.

Four kids.   Sure sounds like needs a law passed before things get out of hand, eh?    WTAF.



> Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a ban on transgender students playing girls’ sports on Tuesday, becoming the second Republican governor to overrule state lawmakers who have taken on youth sports in a broader culture war over how Americans view gender and sexuality.
> 
> Cox joins Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, who vetoed a statewide ban on Monday. Holcomb said Indiana’s Legislature had not demonstrated that transgender kids had undermined fairness in sports.
> 
> “I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion,” Cox wrote in a letter to Utah legislative leaders.






> The issue was one of the most contentious of the year in a state where most lawmakers are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and respectful politics are prized as “The Utah Way.” Deeply conservative leaders and LGBTQ advocates have brokered compromises to advance rights and protections in the past. But not this time.
> 
> There are four transgender players out of 85,000 who are competing in school sports after being ruled eligible by the state’s high school athletic association. There are no public concerns about competitive advantages. Only one competes in girls’ sports.






> *“Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day,” Cox said in the letter explaining his veto, in which he cited suicide rates for transgender youth. “Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.”*
> 
> Banning transgender kids from competition, their advocates argue, would have little impact on sports but would send a wider, deeply painful message to already vulnerable kids that they don’t belong in an important piece of American school culture.
> 
> But supporters of a ban argue, amid growing transgender visibility, more players could soon be in girls leagues around the country and eventually dominate and change the nature of girls sports.





... and the Republican trend has apparently been to pass these state-level bans.  Despite these two exceptions in Utah and Indiana, 11 states nowhave bans in place and 12 more are considering them.



> Eleven states have enacted laws banning transgender girls from playing in leagues corresponding with their gender identity — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
> 
> Lawmakers in at least 12 other states are considering some form of a ban on transgender student-athletes in youth sports, according to a tally from the National Conference of State Legislatures.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Adding this citation to a thread that's nearly a year old.  Interesting that Republican governors in two states have just vetoed legislation that banned trans school kids from girls' sports.  Utah,  also Indiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utah governor becomes latest to veto transgender sports ban
> 
> 
> “I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion,” Cox wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remarks by the Utah governor explaining his veto are quoted below, along with some stats of the actual situation, which should blow anyone's mind in terms of disproportionate response to nonexistent crisis in competitive schoolgirls' sports.   Utah Rs actually brought a bill to ban the trans kids in the last hours of a legislative session,  to deal with the reality of, are you ready:    4 trans kids out of 85,000 children qualified to compete in school sports,  and only one of them is competing in girls' sports.
> 
> Four kids.   Sure sounds like needs a law passed before things get out of hand, eh?    WTAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the Republican trend has apparently been to pass these state-level bans.  Despite these two exceptions in Utah and Indiana, 11 states nowhave bans in place and 12 more are considering them.



I am glad those two governors acted to protect a misunderstood and often mistreated group of people. Too bad so many politicians feel the need to attack people who are no threat to them.

For example, here is another Governor who uses hate and bigotry for personal gain:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1506295784043696131/

Context: a transgender woman was the actual winner.


----------



## Joe

How did I miss this thread? There were a lot of fireworks last summer lol

Fox News kept reporting the hell out of a trans swimmer over the weekend. Getting people pissed off is what they do best. 

That being said, I have no idea what the right answer here is. I am not an expert when it comes to trans and hormones. But I know the way Fox News goes about it isn't the correct way.


----------



## Herdfan

Joe said:


> Fox News kept reporting the hell out of a trans swimmer over the weekend. Getting people pissed off is what they do best.
> 
> That being said, I have no idea what the right answer here is. I am not an expert when it comes to trans and hormones. But I know the way Fox News goes about it isn't the correct way.




Perhaps they aren't, but this is really the first time when a transgender (is this capitalized?) person has dominated the competition on a national level.  Was it fair, not even close.  

The NCAA as usual allowed this to become what it was.  First, they said they are going to follow the guidelines from the national body, in this case USA Swimming, then they decided they weren't going to follow them.  Had they followed those guidelines, Thomas would not have been allowed to swim.


----------



## Alli

I cannot wrap my head around DeSantis deciding he has more power than a national organization. Wrong or right, it was not his decision to make.


----------



## NT1440

Perhaps the answer is to take sports a little less seriously?


----------



## lizkat

NT1440 said:


> Perhaps the answer is to take sports a little less seriously?




There's an idea....  and right during March Madness, and right before Opening Day.  

[now dusting off the prototype 'Banned for High Treason' medal in case we need it. ]


----------



## Arkitect

NT1440 said:


> Perhaps the answer is to take sports a little less seriously?



That ship sailed a while ago…

Far too much money involved.


----------



## lizkat

Arkitect said:


> That ship sailed a while ago…
> 
> Far too much money involved.




Yeah now you can't even watch a ballgame without having ads shoved in your face to place a bet.  Wow.


----------



## Huntn

Joe said:


> How did I miss this thread? There were a lot of fireworks last summer lol
> 
> Fox News kept reporting the hell out of a trans swimmer over the weekend. Getting people pissed off is what they do best.
> 
> That being said, I have no idea what the right answer here is. I am not an expert when it comes to trans and hormones. But I know the way Fox News goes about it isn't the correct way.



Based on my past experience, this topic can be a mine field. I apologize in advance of my description if anyone is offended by how I describe it.

The issue in sports is the natural strength advantage people born as males have. That is a thing, correct?  Now I have seen some very muscular women, but my impression is males typically possess a natural hormonal advantage in this realm.

My position is that if a former male maintains an undo physical advantage based on that status then there should be limits on their ability to compete against people who were born as women if it is a same sex competition.

However my impression is it is possible, through hormone therapy to bring the physical ability of a person born male, within the spectrum of people who were born female. And in no case should laws be enacted that make blanket assumptions and restrictions regarding when and where trans- people can compete based on that status.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> However my impression is it is possible, through hormone therapy to bring the physical ability of a person born male, within the spectrum of people who were born female. And in no case should laws be enacted that make blanket assumptions and restrictions regarding when and where trans- people can compete based on that status.




The on thing that can't be undone is size.  In the case of Thomas, hand and feet size and lung size/capacity, both pretty important in swimming, can't be undone with drugs or supplements.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> The on thing that can't be undone is size.  In the case of Thomas, hand and feet size and lung size/capacity, both pretty important in swimming, can't be undone with drugs or supplements.



I can see this being a point of contention. I’d ask are there women of his size?


----------



## Herdfan

Probably not very many.   Hard to tell height on a multi-tiered podium, but look at the size of the calf and arms.





All anyone wants to talk about is inclusivity, but no wants to talk about fairness.  Especially to these girls.  If you aren't a swimmer, or parent of a swimmer, you have no idea the dedication they put into getting to the level they are at.  My daughter missed out on lots of activities & parties growing up because she was in the pool 5 days a week.  When she got older, it was twice a day, 6 days a week.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Adding this citation to a thread that's nearly a year old.  Interesting that Republican governors in two states have just vetoed legislation that banned trans school kids from girls' sports.  Utah,  also Indiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utah governor becomes latest to veto transgender sports ban
> 
> 
> “I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion,” Cox wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remarks by the Utah governor explaining his veto are quoted below, along with some stats of the actual situation, which should blow anyone's mind in terms of disproportionate response to nonexistent crisis in competitive schoolgirls' sports.   Utah Rs actually brought a bill to ban the trans kids in the last hours of a legislative session,  to deal with the reality of, are you ready:    4 trans kids out of 85,000 children qualified to compete in school sports,  and only one of them is competing in girls' sports.
> 
> Four kids.   Sure sounds like needs a law passed before things get out of hand, eh?    WTAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the Republican trend has apparently been to pass these state-level bans.  Despite these two exceptions in Utah and Indiana, 11 states nowhave bans in place and 12 more are considering them.



In response to that well-reasoned and heartfelt explanation from the governor, the Utah legislature responded with a collective middle finger. They voted to override the veto.

The cruelty is the point.


----------



## SuperMatt

A Republican politician in Mississippi called for transgender children and their parents to be killed by a firing squad. Twitter took down the statement, but there are screenshots.









						Ex-GOP Gov Candidate Calls For ‘Firing Squad’ For Trans Rights Supporters
					

Robert Foster called for the execution of political foes who support the rights of transgender people by firing squad.




					www.mississippifreepress.org


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> A Republican politician in Mississippi called for transgender children and their parents to be killed by a firing squad. Twitter took down the statement, but there are screenshots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-GOP Gov Candidate Calls For ‘Firing Squad’ For Trans Rights Supporters
> 
> 
> Robert Foster called for the execution of political foes who support the rights of transgender people by firing squad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mississippifreepress.org




What a fucktard


----------



## Herdfan

So does everyone really think it is fair for someone born a biological male to compete against biological females?


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> So does everyone really think it is fair for someone born a biological male to compete against biological females?




The question might be more whether that's a frequent enough situation to warrant state lawmaking over it.   Otherwise it pretty much falls into the same category as the sometimes not very random unfairness of life in general under a Constitution that says we're equal under US law.

I mean this:   a short girl may try to compete in basketball but she's going to have to work her heart out to get anywhere.   Same with a short guy on a boys' basketball team.   Someone who's "big boned" and has the frame to go with it has a hell of a time trying to make it in ballet or the fashion industry.

Also it's becoming far more common now for trans kids to begin taking puberty blockers around age 11 and cross-sex hormones by age 16.   Both of those reduce the extent to which the male's eventual edge in strength or speed comes into play in high school sports.

 I agree the issue can be debated,  but I'm more likely to think it should be left to individual schools than up to the state.  For instance, some schools have elected to let trans women compete on boys' teams in some sports, rather than make rules that elimiinate them from all sport where gender may eventually lend an edge to men,  although some parents have objected to that as discriminatory against trans kids.  Still it shows me that reasonable people -- working from the premise that the federal Constitution prescribes equal opportunity--  can take *a particular local situation* and seek to find a compromise that isn't cruel to the kids,  no matter their gender.

All this just my opinion.  And i think it's both more and less complicated than the political and pretty vocal extremes of both left and right would have it. The solution might be to talk it over at an extension of the kitchen table, not up in the state legislature.   Why not  take it to the town council or school board:  assemble a panel of medical experts, shrinks, clergy, parents... to air the feelings and facts.  Not just try, as some of these state legislators or governors are doing,  to pitch a talking point to a statewide arena of millions of people already too well primed to adopt a hyperpartisan view of every issue.


----------



## Joe

Herdfan said:


> So does everyone really think it is fair for someone born a biological male to compete against biological females?




Most people don’t think it’s fair.  And that includes both people on the left and right. 

But how common is it? I follow high schools sports in Texas from football to soccer for both boys and girls sports. I have yet to come across a transgender athlete. I’m sure they’re out there somewhere. I just don’t think it’s that common or as big of an issue as conservatives make it out to be. Conservatives always need a boogie man.  It’s like when they made an issue here over transgender bathrooms. Most people don’t give a shit. My mom is almost 70 years old and she says she remembers trans women using the same bathroom and no one cared until Republicans made it an issue. I’ve been at the urinal when women walk in our bathroom to use it because they don’t want to wait in line for the womens bathroom. No one cared then. Tx politicians should be focused on fixing our shitty power grid instead of some non issue like trans athletes that probably make up a tiny percentage of total athletes in TX. 

The problem are the loud mouth extremes on both sides. The right making it seem like the entire team will be trans women. And the left extreme acting like it’s not an unfair advantage. Like I said, I’m not an expert in this nor do I really fucking care. Because I know it’s not very common. UT Austin isn’t gonna have an entire track team made of trans women beating everyone. But listen to Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz and they’ll make it seem that way.


----------



## SuperMatt

Joe said:


> The problem are the loud mouth extremes on both sides.



Only one “side” is passing laws in state after state taking away freedoms from Americans. Before the “they are cheating at sports” attacks, it was “they are creeps only changing gender so they can go into the other sex’s bathroom and sneak a peek.”

I don’t know what changes (if any) need to be made at the highest levels of competitive sports. They already have some rules in place to try and keep things fair; maybe they need tweaking? Not sure.

But there is no reason to ban all transgender kids from school sports. It’s discrimination, pure and simple.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> Only one “side” is passing laws in state after state taking away freedoms from Americans. Before the “they are cheating at sports” attacks, it was “they are creeps only changing gender so they can go into the other sex’s bathroom and sneak a peek.”
> 
> I don’t know what changes (if any) need to be made at the highest levels of competitive sports. They already have some rules in place to try and keep things fair; maybe they need tweaking? Not sure.
> 
> But there is no reason to ban all transgender kids from school sports. It’s discrimination, pure and simple.




True. Republicans are taking it to the extreme. There’s no reason to pass legislation. But they always need a boogie man. They always need to keep their base mad and scared about something.


----------



## AG_PhamD

I think this is an incredibly complex and sensitive topic. The variables alone of puberty blockers / age of initiation of hormone therapy make this far more complicated and difficult to have a consistent conversation. And to make things even more problematic, there is a difference talking about MtF and FtM transitions.

As someone who swims nearly every day and swam competitively in my youth, fairly successfully at that, I can say there is absolutely a difference in ability between male and female swimmers. That is why male and female divisions have existed for as And female swimmers actually have it more difficult in terms of developing their technique because of changes with body shape with age.

I respect people’s rights to express their gender identity and believe they, like anyone, should have the ability to compete. But there is also a aspect of fairness that seems to be ignored. 

With the Lia Thomas situation I can understand the frustration female swimmers have devoting years of their lives to their sport to be at the top, only to be bumped down by a transgender woman who as a male was a mediocre swimmer. Beating the #2 swimmer by 30-something seconds in the 500 Freestyle is literally an eternity. Metaphorically that would be like soccer score of 1 to 10. 

It’s east to say sports are overvalued in society- maybe, maybe not. Either way it undermines the years of devotion athletes put into their art, the fact particularly at higher level schools  sports can play a significant role in being a competitive applicant (whether you’re going to play or not), and athletic scholarships do help students afford schools. 

And by the argument of sports are overvalued and women should just accept the current situation isn’t any different than telling trans people they are overvaluing sports and should accept not being allowed to compete with their indemnified gender. 

It’s not uncommon at the pre-college HS level to have co-Ed teams that compete directly, but then the rankings are separated by gender. Having a league for trans athletes could be an option, but there’s so few trans athletes and then you get into the argument is this ultimately excluding trans people from their identified gender. 

I really have no idea what the right solution is here. There needs to be a balance of respecting everyone’s right to compete in a fair competition while also not doing so at one groups expense. Maybe that’s not possible. And just as how most MTF athletes have an advantage over biological females, many FTM athletes will likely have a much more difficult time competing with biological males. So it goes both ways.


----------



## AG_PhamD

Just to put things in perspective, at the 2016 Olympics the gold medal for the women’s 50 _meter_ Freestyle went to Pernille Blume with a time of 24.07 seconds. 

IIRC in High School (during the 00’s) my best 50 _yard_ freestyle time was 23.88 seconds, which put me ranked as 18th in my division. The top swimmers my division were in the low 21.xx. There are high school aged male swimmers with sub-21 second times though- this was Connecticut though. HS swimming is much more competitive in other parts of the country and sub 20-second times do occur. 

Now, keep in mind high school competition the pools are swam in short course 25 yard pools while the Olympics swam in 50 meter long course pools. So race is about 5 meters or 15ft longer in the Olympics and there is no turn required. There are formulas to convert times between meters and yards and short and long course pools. This of course is somewhat theoretical. 

The formula says Blume’s time would be 20.9 seconds in a short course yard pool, meaning there’s a quite a number of high school aged boys whose times would make them gold medal winning Olympic swimmers. 

Swimming is different than some other sports where brute strength or endurance alone is not enough to win.  A female with decent technique could easily out swim the most jacked dude with no skill. Most people can’t swim 100 yards in a pool without struggling.


----------



## Herdfan

AG_PhamD said:


> Swimming is different than some other sports where brute strength or endurance alone is not enough to win.  A female with decent technique could easily out swim the most jacked dude with no skill. Most people can’t swim 100 yards in a pool without struggling.




When my daughter first started swimming, there was a meet we went to that seeded everyone by time, but scored by age/gender.  So you might have a fast 12yo in the same heat as a slow 15yo.  What was apparent was that as a general rule, girls were faster in the 12U age groups, but then boys just took off.  This was most likely due to girls having better strokes at that age.  Then boys calmed down, their strokes got better and puberty hit and they were gone.

When I was coaching HS, we had a special needs girl who just wanted to be part of a sports team.  She wasn't fast, but she could plod as long as practice was.  Had a guy, who thought he was an athletic stud, come in after football season was over.  She flat embarrassed him.  He was hanging on the lane line trying to catch his breath and she would swim right past him.  He never came back.


----------



## AG_PhamD

Herdfan said:


> When my daughter first started swimming, there was a meet we went to that seeded everyone by time, but scored by age/gender.  So you might have a fast 12yo in the same heat as a slow 15yo.  What was apparent was that as a general rule, girls were faster in the 12U age groups, but then boys just took off.  This was most likely due to girls having better strokes at that age.  Then boys calmed down, their strokes got better and puberty hit and they were gone.
> 
> When I was coaching HS, we had a special needs girl who just wanted to be part of a sports team.  She wasn't fast, but she could plod as long as practice was.  Had a guy, who thought he was an athletic stud, come in after football season was over.  She flat embarrassed him.  He was hanging on the lane line trying to catch his breath and she would swim right past him.  He never came back.




I would generally agree with that observation. First of all, when talking about pre-pubescent kids, there’s not a huge difference between boys and girls. Boys still tend to be stronger and have better aerobic fitness overall, but when it comes to upper body and abdominal strength specifically and muscle endurance the advantage is small. Girls have better flexibility which is very important in swimming, as well as balance which I would guess relates to a better sense of kinesthesis, which would suggest better technique. Boys also tend to not have a lot of body fat making it harder to float. Boys also start puberty later. Even at the high school level, especially 9th and 10th graders, it’s not uncommon to see girls out swim boys. 

Interesting, Women have tend to be very competitive with men in ultra long distance swimming. 

I can’t tell you the number of times some a-hole 6’4” 250lb bodybuilding bro who may or may not be on steroids attempts to stop by the pool for the first time and show off- getting into the lane next to me and clearly trying to “race”, assuming his strength is everything. Only to be quickly disappointed that me at 5’10” and 150lbs can swim laps around him without even trying. After 200 yards of flailing in the water they then leave, never to be seen again.


----------

