Trans-People Participating In Sports

[Renzatic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.