I'm not sure I understood any of that, but that's me not you. Regardless, its all just subjective, theoretical meanderings that have very little to do with athletic competition. You either draw a line in athletic competitions or you don't. Drawing the line at biological men and women has the fewest variables and the most notable disparity in baseline performance. No athletic system can possibly account for all variables. While Wilt was gifted with genetically superior size, Mugsy Bogues was still competitive at a very short stature. There was a place for both in the same sport. If you let post-puberty biological males compete in women's athletics there would be no place for biological women (assuming there were enough biological men that would participate, which is not the case now) effectively ending women's sports as a category of competition. As I mentioned before, I don't have much fear that transgender women are going to take over women's sports because most people recognize when we're on a bridge too far. Common sense and reality eventually overcome the utopian concepts of those insulated from the effects of their own nonsense.
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Two problems with your bright line rule. 1. you have to define what you mean by "biological"...again there's a small portion (higher in female athletes than the regular pop) with some weird conditions you have to account for. Yes, it's still a small number, but those cases (as in the case of the boxers) WILL come up so you need to decide what to do with them and those cases are not going to be clear but messy since life isn't that simple. 2. your bright line rule leaves them without ANY place to play since play with the "biological" males leaves them unable to compete with any meaning....that just fails the Rawls test...you have to come up with an alternative....which complicates things rather than makes them simple....it's only simple if you come down on "no, I don't care what happens to them" (which fails most ethics tests).
Been over this. Anyone with a Y chromosome would be in the men’s category. Anyone without a Y chromosome would be in the women’s.
Everyone is eligible to compete in one of the two categories. No one has been “banned from competition”.
You have no response to it, other than to create a word salad about obscure philosophers.
Hi Dad
Yes I do. It's the same two objections as to watfly:
1. You still have the problem of the boxers. There are some individuals even with a chromosome test you would find objectionable and not all chromosomes are xx and xy....small problem but one you'll need to address which doesn't make it simple.
2. "Ban from competition" is ridiculous. If women were forced to play in the same league as men they would not be "banned from competition". What would be the effect? There wouldn't be many women playing competitively because all the slots would go to the men. So why do even have a women's league if women's sports are worse than men's sports (at least from a spectating perspective)? Participation.
3. The reality is the MTF, because estrogen and testosterone blockers are performance suppressants and they lose their natural testosterone after surgery, is they also cannot compete with the men. It's the same concern if you believe women are entitled to a league for participatory reason. So it's up to you to set up separate but equal situations where they can in fact participate (which is not the men's league) and to fund it from money taken from both the men and women.
Hence my test for adults:
Question 1: Do we care about the result and/or are there safety concerns? If yes go to 2. If no, inclusion.
Question 2: Is the sport one where someone having gone through male puberty has an advantage over women? If yes, go to 3. If no, inclusion
Question 3: Does the MTF transgendered individual have such an advantage by having gone through male puberty that it cannot be corrected by testosterone blockers and/or by a sufficient time post surgery? If yes, go to 4. If no inclusion.
Question 4: Is there a separate forum established (it's not the men's) where such MTF individual can participate without someone else having an undue advantage. If yes, separate. If no, inclusion. (It will be easy to do for running and swimming, which are the sports with the greatest impact anyways, and hardest for large team sports like soccer, rugby and baseball).
You can have your separate but equal but it will cost you some money and scholarships (and from the boys).
What Dad4 said. Philosophy is just the opinions of self important people. It's great for cocktail party conversation, but it has no dispositive value, particularly for sport. Some Polynesian countries have a formally recognized "3rd gender", a biological male that takes on the role and identity of a woman, i.e. a transgender woman. The American Samoa men's "World Cup" team in fact had one of these individuals compete and captain their team. Having men's and women's teams excludes no one. The exclusion is in the mind of the individual.
Ok just have one division…everyone in the pool everyone plays together, men and women. It “excludes no one”. Since I have a boy, no doubt I’d be foolish to pass up the opportunity. Cool right?
Ok. Suppose someone manages to jump through all four of your hoops.
Who is allowed on the women's teams? All humans? If only some humans, then which ones?
You still haven't answered the question.
Are you suggesting that Slobo is a "tranny"?
The questions apply only to mtf adults seeking to play on adults womens teams. The 4th question gives a definitive answer or inclusion or not. They are self evident, self explanatory.
You know that's not remotely what I suggested.
Just FYI I could consider possibly consider participation for pre-puberty transition, although that's a whole other can-of-worms for medical ethics.
Yes.
It’s the logical test that flies from your conclusion. If the only thing that matters is that it “excludes no one”, women can play with the men in 1 division. Your terms are acceptable. Otherwise, what’s the problem with that? Please articulate.
Its not logic, its your attempt to mischaracterize my position to make your position sound more credible. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I said. Of the many possible, distinctions the most obvious/logical/common (however you want to characterize it) is to divide sport along the lines of biological sex. Is it perfect? no, but its far and away the least imperfect solution. Trying to design a system that incorporates rare exceptions is unproductive, ineffective and creates ambiguity that opens the door for abuse regardless of whether it violates some philosophical norm.
I’m not mischaracterizing anything. I used your words that what mattered is just they are allowed to play…”excludes no one”. You are avoiding the answer because it would show you have a problem you’d have to address. An equally consistent and simple solution is to include the set of all humans…don’t make any distinctions…full equality women’s lib style….everyone plays together…no exceptions.
Pardon me, Fudd. I prefer "senora sans minora".
I don't think Slobo is a Tranny but you never know. My old Elder's son does Drag Queen shows and gets paid per show. He is gay and loves being his true self. My Elder pal had to resign his position because the church they all went to, would not allow that behavior in the open and be a member. I was called all the names when I played basketball and baseball at Laguna in early 80s. They didn't call us the little San Francisco for nothing. Tranny or MTF was not even one of the letters back then. In fact, my gay friends didn't like the deception with the pull out of the Mamba after making out. That would scare the other person because they weren't prepared for the big surprise. I was called queer, homo, fag, gay but not tranny.Yes.
Last edited:
I've provided a clear standard which answers your question. A cheek swab would tell us that both boxers have a Y chromosome, which means they would be eligible for the men's leagues.
You have not answered my question. Supposing someone manages to jump through all your hoops. Who is allowed to play in the women's league?
There is no evidence that they in fact had a Y chromosome. It’s speculation. We do know they had some condition. There are other conditions that can produce male puberty or high testosterone including xx women with certain rare hormone conditions. Plus we’ve been through this once before: your rule isn’t as simple as you’d like either because the ftm could compete with the women which is a result you didn’t like either. Your answer has always been throw everyone else (ftm mtf intersex) into the m pool which is not acceptable due to the question Watfly can’t answer.
Yes I did several times. Again reading comprehension. My test for who can play in the women’s league is anyone who has not gone through male puberty plus those permitted by the questions.
Apparently, she believes that there are other chromosome combinations than xx and xy which would be news to the scientific world. Or that's at least her implication since she doesn't believe xx and xy is a binary equation. Are there individuals that have some form of intersex/DSD conditions? Yes, they represent 0.016% of the population. There are individuals that have all sort of genetic shortcomings that prevents them from competing at a high level of athletics that represent a significantly higher percentage than those with intersex/DSD conditions.
In reality, an xx and xy standard is far more inclusive than any other standard. There are xx athletes like Caster Semenya that can't compete as a woman because they fail the testosterone test. What are the odds that Brittany Griner would have very elevated levels of testosterone? Reality, not philosophy, is the most reliable standard for athletic competition.