Transgender Athletes

[jojojo]

Yeah, no NBA rules prevents it. Also if I'm not mistaken FIFA doesn't prevent females from playing with males. But my experience is that at the MHSC academy girls weren't allowed to play with academy boys outside of the academy's grounds.

Most national FA rules didn't allow girls to compete with boys in organised football after about 12/13. The English FA have now upped the age limit to 18. The rule change was made mostly because there's not enough competition at the girls level yet in some parts of the country and the nearest (appropriate level) women's team might be a long/impossible trip by public transport.

Women's teams sometimes play training matches against U16 boys academy teams. That's generally viewed as a matchup where the women get pushed to their physical (speed/strength) limits relatively safely and can work on their high speed passing/technique. The women only occasionally win those matches - but that's why they play them.

 

[Alex99]

I don't think that's a good example because we know that some professional footballers can be cut from academies, drop a level and then rise back up to become a professional at the top of the game.

Of course you don't have a 'right' to a career, but I think you should have a right to opportunity.

From what I've read and I am aware of, Swim England have announced an open category which will begin in September, that's a good start in terms of alternatives and solutions.

Some teenagers make it after being cut, but vast swathes don't. The very nature of the academy system means more will miss out than make it, and plenty will get very close to a professional contract without ever seeing one. I think it's a fine example to use as a comparison.

Is an open category not an opportunity?

I feel like we're in agreement here but the discussion is continuing as if we aren't.

 

[SilentWitness]

Is an open category not an opportunity?

I feel like we're in agreement here but the discussion is continuing as if we aren't.

I do agree for now that it is a good start for opportunity and inclusion, but perhaps in the future there will be further opportunities for inclusion in different ways. As I said previously I think that also depends on advancements made in terms of gender reassignment and society in general.

My issue with @Doracle was more in how dismissive they were and how that can come across as abrasive and demeaning.

 

[The Corinthian]

My issue with @Doracle was more in how dismissive they were and how that can come across as abrasive and demeaning.

We've had people on the other side of the argument make the same exact point about women:

if she comes third and therefore strips a cis woman of third, then so be it.

 

[SilentWitness]

We've had people on the other side of the argument make the same exact point about women:

and I wouldn't say I agree with everything they've said either. I think in terms of the past few pages there are elements from both sides I agree/disagree with and comments from both sides that are unhelpful in the debate.

 

[Eriku]

We've had people on the other side of the argument make the same exact point about women:

Somewhat different when it’s done to an already vulnerable minority with high suicide rates. Someone’s getting the shorter end of this stick regardless, I can see the point in trying to allevite a very rough existence for trans people.

 

[Alex99]

I do agree for now that it is a good start for opportunity and inclusion, but perhaps in the future there will be further opportunities for inclusion in different ways. As I said previously I think that also depends on advancements made in terms of gender reassignment and society in general.

My issue with @Doracle was more in how dismissive they were and how that can come across as abrasive and demeaning.

I don't think it was dismissive as much as it was a clear line drawn. They even began their post stating that they were referring solely to pro-sports, the most exclusionary level of sports.

I've repeated it a few times now, but no individual has a right to a career in athletics. Furthermore, no individual has a right to even compete in a sport they are interested in, no matter how strong their interest. There are always barriers that need to be overcome in order to enter competitive sports, be it ability, funding, or even plain accessibility (e.g. I was never getting a shot at becoming an F1 driver). That's not to say these individuals can't enjoy these sports in a recreational capacity (depending on accessibility), but a common theme to a lot of arguments in here seems to be an incorrect belief that someone should get to compete in a sport simply because they want to.

It's a different discussion when it comes to PE lessons in school, and probably another one again when it comes to competitive youth sports (particularly at younger ages), but that's not what we've been discussing.

 

[SilentWitness]

I don't think it was dismissive as much as it was a clear line drawn. They even began their post stating that they were referring solely to pro-sports, the most exclusionary level of sports.

I've repeated it a few times now, but no individual has a right to a career in athletics. Furthermore, no individual has a right to even compete in a sport they are interested in, no matter how strong their interest. There are always barriers that need to be overcome in order to enter competitive sports, be it ability, funding, or even plain accessibility (e.g. I was never getting a shot at becoming an F1 driver). That's not to say these individuals can't enjoy these sports in a recreational capacity (depending on accessibility), but a common theme to a lot of arguments in here seems to be an incorrect belief that someone should get to compete in a sport simply because they want to.

It's a different discussion when it comes to PE lessons in school, and probably another one again when it comes to competitive youth sports (particularly at younger ages), but that's not what we've been discussing.

We obviously interpret their post differently.

 

[Alex99]

We obviously interpret their post differently.

As a wider point, I think a lot of posts in this thread have been subject to unfair interpretations. I don't think this necessarily applies to you, however.

 

[SilentWitness]

As a wider point, I think a lot of posts in this thread have been subject to unfair interpretations. I don't think this necessarily applies to you, however.

I agree, it is a tough topic because we are in the early stages of navigating it but I think engaging in the subject in good faith is all we can really ask for on the forum and the wider world.

 

[Lay]

Yeah, no NBA rules prevents it. Also if I'm not mistaken FIFA doesn't prevent females from playing with males. But my experience is that at the MHSC academy girls weren't allowed to play with academy boys outside of the academy's grounds.

I’m sure the batshit owner of Perugia 20 or so years ago tried to sign a female player but she turned it down for various reasons. He did sign Gaddafi’s son though

 

[Alex99]

I’m sure the batshit owner of Perugia 20 or so years ago tried to sign a female player but she turned it down for various reasons. He did sign Gaddafi’s son though

I remember talk in the mid 00s when Marta first started making waves about how various men's clubs were interested in signing her.

 

[maniak]

Then I'd suggest you've not really been engaging in the actual discussion, but the separate debate I alluded to about the core principles of youth sport.

You're essentially arguing that all youth sport should be non-competative. It's fine to have that stance, it's just not one I agree with.

Not at all, I'm arguing that if in specific instances competitiveness has to be reduced in order to be more inclusive, that should have priority.

 

[Carolina Red]

You are right and that's why the male competitions shouldn't be male sports but an open category. Banning is not the right way and it's not even close to be the most obvious way.

^ this

 

[maniak]

Hold one, this is Schroedinger's trans kids, they are both a rare minority, yet there are simultaneously millions of them?

Per school they are an absolute minority with little to no impact on other kids.

If you pass global laws for entire countries you affect millions of them.

In this thread I notice more of a Schroedinger's school sports. On the on hand some people praise how organized and competitive they are, but at the same time, the average of 1 transgender kid joining a sport in a single school is enough to make the whole thing crumble down and become noncompetitive.

 

[Alex99]

Not at all, I'm arguing that if in specific instances competitiveness has to be reduced in order to be more inclusive, that should have priority.

... which is a separate argument about the core principles of youth sport.

 

[maniak]

... which is a separate argument about the core principles of youth sport.

I don't see how you can separate them, to be honest.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Per school they are an absolute minority with little to no impact on other kids.

If you pass global laws for entire countries you affect millions of them.

In this thread I notice more of a Schroedinger's school sports. On the on hand some people praise how organized and competitive they are, but at the same time, the average of 1 transgender kid joining a sport in a single school is enough to make the whole thing crumble down and become noncompetitive.

No, this is a strawman.

You have both physical education, then you have what could be defined as tiered sports for those looking at it as a pathway to higher education. I think everyone in the thread (bar perhaps a few) is able to differentiate between the two. It feels like you are, deliberately or not conflating the two.

 

[maniak]

No, this is a strawman.

You have both physical education, then you have what could be defined as tiered sports for those looking at it as a pathway to higher education. I think everyone in the thread (bar perhaps a few) is able to differentiate between the two. It feels like you are, deliberately or not conflating the two.

I have explained multiple times why I don't think the scholarships issue is a valid justification. Add a few more scholarships and the problem is solved. The current system, by excluding transgender kids, also blocks them from those scholarships, so double injustice.

 

[stepic]

Somewhat different when it’s done to an already vulnerable minority with high suicide rates. Someone’s getting the shorter end of this stick regardless, I can see the point in trying to allevite a very rough existence for trans people.

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

 

[Carolina Red]

Aren’t ciswomen marginalized?

 

[stepic]

Aren’t ciswomen marginalized?

if they're allowed to compete in the first place and fight for their spot, then they're less marginalised than trans women, clearly.

 

[Alex99]

I don't see how you can separate them, to be honest.

Because the core of your argument is that all youth sport be non-competitive, and this is a discussion where the competitive element of sport is key.

Trans youth can participate in the physical education provided by their school and recreational sport. I would imagine you'd also find little opposition to them participating in competitive sport aligned with their sex.

 

[Carolina Red]

if they're allowed to compete in the first place and fight for their spot, then they're less marginalised than trans women, clearly.

Nobody has said to not allow trans women to compete. They’ve just said to not allow trans women to compete against ciswomen, who are a marginalized group.

 

[Alex99]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

Is it "a small number of cis women" though? One trans athlete highly ranking in a sport affects every single cis woman now dropping a rank. What happens if another trans athlete emerges and becomes highly ranked?

Your arguments surrounding this all seem to be based on the currently low number of trans athletes. Would your view change at all if women's sports were to become dominated by trans athletes?

Without trying to sound "slippery slope", you're basically dismissing half of the global population (who have been marginalised themselves through much of human history) and ignoring a clear and potentially huge impact such blanket inclusion would have on them.

Is it a human right to participate in a competitive sport just because you want to?

 

[Gavinb33]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

Competing in elite level sports is a human right?

 

[The Corinthian]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

It's not a human right though. That's a nonsensical point to make.

What you dismiss so casually, re: small number of cis women having to drop down a spot, is the whole crux of the issue. We're talking about female athletes who have pushed themselves, sacrificed so much of their time, money and life to get to a point where they could gain everything. Why should they just drop down a spot? It's not like anyone in this thread is advocating for trans people to not compete, just not do it in the female category. It's especially galling for a trans woman to get a podium spot when they were no where near it in the male category. And it comes down to basic, inherent, genetic and biological differences between the male and female species. As I alluded to previously, it's in this context where we reach a limitation to self identification.

So, you really can't advocate for this unless you think women are less deserving of the benefits of winning competitions and what not.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I have explained multiple times why I don't think the scholarships issue is a valid justification. Add a few more scholarships and the problem is solved. The current system, by excluding transgender kids, also blocks them from those scholarships, so double injustice.

It's not, this is wildly blaise.

It feels like you are at this point hiding behind the "school sports is about inclusion" so you can justify changing the entire sports programs at schools.

You're setting out to define all school sports as solely for inclusivity, so you can then claim, scholarships and collegiate adjacent sports are easily solved because the goal is inclusivity so nothing else matters. The fact sports at this level are inherently exclusionary is not solved by just giving 50% of the race entrants a scholarship.

 

[Alex99]

It's not, this is wildly blaise.

It feels like you are at this point hiding behind the "school sports is about inclusion" so you can justify changing the entire sports programs at schools.

You're setting out to define all school sports as solely for inclusivity, so you can then claim, scholarships and collegiate adjacent sports are easily solved because the goal is inclusivity so nothing else matters. The fact sports at this level are inherently exclusionary is not solved by just giving 50% of the race entrants a scholarship.

The scholarships argument also assumes that the funding for additional scholarships is already available and just not being used.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

The scholarships argument also assumes that the funding for additional scholarships is already available and just not being used.

That there are more places available at the colleges.

This is of course all hypothetical but it doesn't seem like the process or consequences have been logically thought through

 

[Carolina Red]

@Murder on Zidane's Floor @Alex99

This exchange from earlier in the thread would provide some context onto the current discussion…

Have you ever been involved in the collegiate athletics recruitment process?

That sounds nice… but we’re talking about actual competitive athletics here.

We have academic scholarships here too.

Schools can’t. Athletic scholarships are regulated and limited by the NCAA / NAIA.

No, and I don't care to learn as it has nothing to do with I'm defending here.

I don't think school competitions trump the well being of an already marginalized group of kids.

We have academic scholarships for everyone. No number limit. You're a good student but don't have money? The state pays 100%. Maybe the energy spent on trying to exclude transgender girls from sports could be spent on pushing for something like that.

Are you telling me rules can be changed to exclude transgender girls but not changed to allow for more scholarships? Priorities...

 

[stepic]

Nobody has said to not allow trans women to compete. They’ve just said to not allow trans women to compete against ciswomen, who are a marginalized group.

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.

Is it "a small number of cis women" though? One trans athlete highly ranking in a sport affects every single cis woman now dropping a rank. What happens if another trans athlete emerges and becomes highly ranked?

Your arguments surrounding this all seem to be based on the currently low number of trans athletes. Would your view change at all if women's sports were to become dominated by trans athletes?

possibly. we're still in the formative years of working all this out, and I expect that to continue. at the moment there is no historic evidence to suggest this will happen though, so we shouldn't be basing policy on what 'may' happen.

Without trying to sound "slippery slope", you're basically dismissing half of the global population (who have been marginalised themselves through much of human history) and ignoring a clear and potentially huge impact such blanket inclusion would have on them.

more women support trans rights than men, particularly young women. it's incorrect to pit this as women v trans. i would hope that as acceptance of trans people grows, more women, including those potentially affected in a sporting sense, would still rather the inclusive choice that doesn't involve banning people for who they are.

Is it a human right to participate in a competitive sport just because you want to?

Competing in elite level sports is a human right?

It's not a human right though. That's a nonsensical point to make.

it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans (and the alternative of asking trans women to compete against men is, as already mentioned, is not a practical solution). what's next, asking trans women to use the men's bathrooms too?

 

[The Corinthian]

it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans.

No one is banning trans people from competing. This is a made up scenario in your head. If you can find one post from a poster in the last few pages that has advocated for trans women to be banned from competing, then I'll concede.

Literally everyone has made the point that they should compete in a category that is separate from the female only one.

Also saying it's a human right to 'try' and compete - what does that even mean? You're just making things up, it seems.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

@Murder on Zidane's Floor @Alex99

This exchange from earlier in the thread would provide some context onto the current discussion…

Thank you Carolina.

 

[Carolina Red]

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.

That would be them choosing to not compete. The opportunity would be there. That’s not a ban.

And once again I’d like to point out… in instances where ciswomen want to compete and there aren’t enough numbers for a women’s team, they compete on the men’s team. So this would be following what was / has / is currently done for ciswomen.

 

[maniak]

I'm going to take a break from this thread, I've made my point (over and over) and to be honest the lack of basic empathy shown here is bringing me down, so for my own mental health I'll step aside.

 

[stepic]

No one is banning trans people from competing. This is a made up scenario in your head. If you can find one post from a poster in the last few pages that has advocated for trans women to be banned from competing, then I'll concede.

Literally everyone has made the point that they should compete in a category that is separate from the female only one.

Also saying it's a human right to 'try' and compete - what does that even mean? You're just making things up, it seems.

and i continue to tell you that it is effectively a ban, because no trans woman is going to compete against men, and nor should they have to - because they are women. to even suggest this as an option is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what trans people face on a daily basis, and trans rights generally.

it doesn't matter how many of you say that a separate category should be made - it's not an option. if it was, it would have been done already.

That would be them choosing to not compete. The opportunity would be there. That’s not a ban.

And once again I’d like to point out… in instances where ciswomen want to compete and there aren’t enough numbers for a women’s team, they compete on the men’s team. So this would be following what was / has / is currently done for ciswomen.

see above

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men - i mean, it's probably the worst possible thing you can ask a trans woman to do, and again, displays an utter lack of empathy about what trans people suffer on a daily basis.

 

[stepic]

I'm going to take a break from this thread, I've made my point (over and over) and to be honest the lack of basic empathy shown here is bringing me down, so for my own mental health I'll step aside.

frankly i don't blame you.

 

[SilentWitness]

and i continue to tell you that it is effectively a ban, because no trans woman is going to compete against men, and nor should they have to - because they are women. to even suggest this as an option is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what trans people face on a daily basis, and trans rights generally.

it doesn't matter how many of you say that a separate category should be made - it's not an option. if it was, it would have been done already.



see above

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men - i mean, it's probably the worst possible thing you can ask a trans woman to do, and again, displays an utter lack of empathy about what trans people suffer on a daily basis.

Swim England are creating an open category -

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2...gender-policy-with-open-and-female-categories

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.



possibly. we're still in the formative years of working all this out, and I expect that to continue. at the moment there is no historic evidence to suggest this will happen though, so we shouldn't be basing policy on what 'may' happen.



more women support trans rights than men, particularly young women. it's incorrect to pit this as women v trans. i would hope that as acceptance of trans people grows, more women, including those potentially affected in a sporting sense, would still rather the inclusive choice that doesn't involve banning people for who they are.







it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans (and the alternative of asking trans women to compete against men is, as already mentioned, is not a practical solution). what's next, asking trans women to use the men's bathrooms too?

Well, as a demographic (stereotype alert) women are much more agreeable than men. They also understand marginalized groups (given they are one) and empathize more. They also see how women who do voice concerns are treated.

Is this all women? No. Am I making a broad generalization? Yes.