Can't stop talking about me, can you? Is it love?
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
So what is it Slobi....why all the hate? Shall we get to the root cause of it? Care to share? Do you drive a porsche or cybertruck? Does your wife's underthings get you a little too excited? Did you find the story about crush and the masseuse a little bit too tittalating? Did you get picked on as a child? Have you been disappointed with work and your career? Do find Putin heroic? Are you short? Have you ever been inside a Turkish prison?
I dedicate this song to Slobo and Grace
I think everyone practically agrees that MTF in biological female sports is a NO NO even Grace to some degree. It's the slight nuances Grace can't agree on because she feel MTF's are being excluded given they are labeled a protective group. I can see where she is coming from and I do not see any easy solution to this unless we draw a hard line and totally create their own category. My argument is there are plenty of MTF athletes were we can now create their own high level league but the activists don't want this because it does not fit their narrative period...
Open League (anyone can tryout, including MTFs)
Girls Only League
Since 21% of Genz identifies as LGBTQ+.... there should theoretically be lots of participants for MTF category sports. But the reality is most LGBTQ+ do not play sports? Just because 21% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+ doesn’t mean all of them are actively involved in competitive sports. A large portion might not engage in physical sports at all. Many could be more drawn to activities like gaming or other forms of entertainment where physical attributes aren’t as critical.
Competitive sports require a high level of physical commitment, and for some, the perceived low reward of training, especially in environments where they might not feel included or comfortable, could discourage participation. So while that 21% may represent a growing demographic in terms of identity, it doesn’t necessarily translate into a proportional number of athletes ready to fill new sports categories.
It’s worth looking deeper into actual participation rates in competitive sports among LGBTQ+ athletes before we assume that creating entirely new categories will have the necessary numbers to make it viable. We also have to consider if these athletes want specialized categories, or if their focus is on inclusion within existing ones. That may be the issue but it's not society's problem then but a generation's problem.
Another well reasoned argument. Look I get that you want clarity and easiness...it's always clarity clarity clarity with you. You want it clean and easy. But sorry, that ship has sailed. There's not some magical line you can draw around sports and say the rules don't apply here. I get the desire, but sorry Joey, life just doesn't work that way. Sorry but "the line must be drawn here....this far and no further" went out the window a long time ago (my personal theory is it went out the window when they destroyed private men's clubs....that was the whole ball of wax which made what happened in the BOYS scouts inevitable). Sorry, but this battle was lost decades ago.
There are three remaining ways (besides stick the FTM with the men and MTF with the women) out of the dilemma that are clean and work legally but you (and I) probably won't like any of them. You can go full discrimination law rubric, you include the MTF and FTM in the men's division, but you put a handicap on the cis men to make up for it, and you have to take out dad4's hammer and force the use of the pronouns. You can take the merits (and money like scholarships) out of sports and render it something as meaningful as a dog show competition. Or you could stick the FTM with the women and the MTF with the men, but again there's the hammer and people would object the FTM are on performance enhancing testosterone, which is a performance enhancing drug. Other than that, everything is messy, which is why I think the disability law rubric is the best way forward....it allows us to tailor approaches on a case by case basis.
I note this is EXACTLY, EXACTLY! the same argument the men made against the women when Title IX protections and equality rules were being debated. Women just don't care enough about sports....sports is a men's thing....you'll be taking scholarships away from people who want them from those that don't....it will be too hard to administer the equality and to find people to play the sports.
Weak....your come backs are declining. Shame, it's the one thing you were really good at.
Grace, I totally get it...life isn’t simple, and we can’t just draw a neat little line around sports and call it a day. The world is messy, and we’ve been dealing with that mess for decades, from private men’s clubs to the Boy Scouts falling apart. But here’s the thing: just because the ship sailed doesn’t mean we have to keep steering into chaos, especially when it comes to competitive sports right?
Now, you’re throwing out a few options here, but let’s be real none of them sound like a good fix. Take the idea of handicapping cis men to make room for MTF athletes. That’s like telling athletes, "Hey, you’re too good, so let’s slow you down to make it fair." It’s like adding a weight belt to a sprinter
no one wants to win or lose because someone was forced to level the field artificially. Athletes want to compete based on skill, not some forced handicap. That’s not competition that’s a participation trophy with extra steps you think?And don’t get me started on the idea of turning sports into a dog show. Sure, those pups strutting their stuff are cute, but are we really going to strip away scholarships, prize money, and the merit that drives sports? Athletes don’t train their whole lives to be told, “Hey, we’re just doing this for fun now.” Take away the stakes, and all you’ve got left is glorified exercise class. No one’s tuning into the Olympics to watch people compete for funsies
with Raygun being the exception... smhThen there’s the thought of sticking FTM athletes with the women and MTF athletes with the men. But hold up a minute...if the FTM athletes are on testosterone, isn’t that basically a big red flag in women’s sports? It’s like putting a jet engine on a bike and saying, “Sure, this is fair.” And tossing MTF athletes back with the men after transitioning? Well, they’re not going to be able to compete fairly there anymore either it’s basically a lose-lose, and nobody’s happy.
I get why you like the case-by-case thing under disability law. It sounds flexible and tailored. But honestly? That just turns every competition into a soap opera. You’re inviting endless debates about who deserves special rules and why. Sports don’t need more drama, they need structure. If we try to tailor everything, we’re just opening Pandora’s box of complaints... smh
Here’s the deal Grace... I know life’s not clean, but sports need rules. If we keep making exceptions, we’re going to lose what makes women’s sports competitive in the first place. Letting MTF athletes compete in women’s elite sports isn’t about inclusion, it’s about tipping the scales. That’s why I’m drawing a line here. Sometimes, you’ve got to set rules that might not make everyone happy, but they protect the fairness of the game. Without that, what are we even competing for?
I think the top MTFs in our country have been hiding their true identity. In sports, you can make a lot of money playing the role of a girl and same with politics. This is now mainstream and these men who think they are a lady are now illegible to play with and against females in female only leagues. On top of a physical advantage, they & them also want to undress next to our daughters and take showers with them as their one eye monster is poking its dangerous pistol for all to see. This is insane!!!
Grace has declined every invitation to declare support for women's events as XX. If she actually cared about the impact on female athletics, she has had ample opportunity to show it.
First, I don't disagree with any of your critiques of each of the "simple" solutions. They are my critiques as well. The other simple solution however also doesn't work, because you are sticking the MTF with no place to play since they cannot remain competitive with the men. As I stated, all the simple solutions don't work.Grace, I totally get it...life isn’t simple, and we can’t just draw a neat little line around sports and call it a day. The world is messy, and we’ve been dealing with that mess for decades, from private men’s clubs to the Boy Scouts falling apart. But here’s the thing: just because the ship sailed doesn’t mean we have to keep steering into chaos, especially when it comes to competitive sports right?
Now, you’re throwing out a few options here, but let’s be real none of them sound like a good fix. Take the idea of handicapping cis men to make room for MTF athletes. That’s like telling athletes, "Hey, you’re too good, so let’s slow you down to make it fair." It’s like adding a weight belt to a sprinter
And don’t get me started on the idea of turning sports into a dog show. Sure, those pups strutting their stuff are cute, but are we really going to strip away scholarships, prize money, and the merit that drives sports? Athletes don’t train their whole lives to be told, “Hey, we’re just doing this for fun now.” Take away the stakes, and all you’ve got left is glorified exercise class. No one’s tuning into the Olympics to watch people compete for funsies
Then there’s the thought of sticking FTM athletes with the women and MTF athletes with the men. But hold up a minute...if the FTM athletes are on testosterone, isn’t that basically a big red flag in women’s sports? It’s like putting a jet engine on a bike and saying, “Sure, this is fair.” And tossing MTF athletes back with the men after transitioning? Well, they’re not going to be able to compete fairly there anymore either it’s basically a lose-lose, and nobody’s happy.
I get why you like the case-by-case thing under disability law. It sounds flexible and tailored. But honestly? That just turns every competition into a soap opera. You’re inviting endless debates about who deserves special rules and why. Sports don’t need more drama, they need structure. If we try to tailor everything, we’re just opening Pandora’s box of complaints... smh
Here’s the deal Grace... I know life’s not clean, but sports need rules. If we keep making exceptions, we’re going to lose what makes women’s sports competitive in the first place. Letting MTF athletes compete in women’s elite sports isn’t about inclusion, it’s about tipping the scales. That’s why I’m drawing a line here. Sometimes, you’ve got to set rules that might not make everyone happy, but they protect the fairness of the game. Without that, what are we even competing for?
Second, I think we've hit on the fundamental reason why your preferences don't work. "they protect the fairness of the game". Well, here's the thing. The law doesn't care about the fairness of the game. The game itself is not a concern for the courts. In fact the courts (both SCOTUS in the PGA v. Martin with only Scalia in dissent on this point and the ECJ) have ruled on this point. They care about the rights of individuals (and in the case of conflicting rights between individuals, the results must be balanced, unless you conclude the individual or group of individuals is not entitled to legal protections, which again no one here has been able to express a non-bigoted reason).
So that's where we are at. You can pick one of the clean solutions (here's dad4's hammer if you want it....yeah I know I carved his name on it but I'm pretty sure he won't mind), or you can go with the way I offer forward out of this mess which is disability law. Yes, it's messy and will lead to ever changing rules as we struggle to get things rights. Yes, we may not get critical masses for some leagues and yes the trans people will be reluctant to accept the offer. But here's the thing about the messy disability solution....the accommodation just has to be reasonable and we can argue about what is reasonable. When they put handicapped stalls in the bathrooms they required new builds and certain existing builds (like stadiums and airports) to put them in....they did require every home owner in every private home to put them in on the off chance someday they'd get a handicapped visitor or sell the home to someone handicapped.
Could possibly be because she does not have a daughter with her skin in the game. IMO... If she did, she may quickly change her tune.
I've said I care about them because I a) acknowledge the concern those athletes have, and b) don't think the trans rights are absolute but need to be balanced. Your answer, by contrast, has been "f the trans person, they always lose" and you've even declined to take up this hammer (after I put so much work and effort to carve your name into it) to ensure the space they place in (say for example at the youth level) would be safe, yet you were previously open on COVID to picking up that hammer and even went so far as to tell me for the public good I should shut up about it. Now, I'm open to the idea that people evolve, but come on. Again, I'm not accusing you here of bigotry. But you are ignoring the two problems with your solution because you just don't want to address them because you know it ruins it for you: 1) once they transition, the MTF no longer have a level playing field with the men, and 2) you know there are bigots like Slobi that won't make it safe for them to play with the men.
I have nieces, one of whom is named after me and I will reluctantly confess I'm probably closer to than my own sons, and I myself was a high level athlete in one of the most bad ass sports ever invented (eventing).
This is the Kitty Dukakis raped and murdered question. How we feel about something doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of right and wrong. Facts, and ethical rules, don't care about your feelings.
Grace, I see what you’re getting at by comparing this to the Title IX debate, but there’s a big difference between women’s sports in that era and the LGBTQ+ sports discussion today. Title IX was about giving women the opportunity to compete in sports where they were previously shut out. There were tons of women ready and willing to play, they just didn’t have the access or the funding. Once the doors were opened, women’s sports flourished.
Now, with the LGBTQ+ community, it’s not necessarily about lack of access or opportunity, I believe it’s more about whether there’s enough actual interest in competitive sports to justify creating entirely new categories. Sure, 21% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+, but that doesn’t mean 21% of them are signing up for soccer tryouts or training for the Olympics. From what we can see, a lot of people in that group might gravitate more toward other interests, like gaming or arts, where the focus isn’t on physical competition.
The problem isn’t that LGBTQ+ people are being shut out of sports, there are already paths for inclusion. The issue is whether there’s enough demand to build a whole new sports category. You don’t build an extra lane on the highway if there aren’t enough cars to fill it. And that’s where the comparison to Title IX falls short. Women were eager to compete but didn’t have the infrastructure. With LGBTQ+, it’s not just about opening the doors but about about seeing if anyone’s even standing there waiting to walk in.
So yeah, it might sound like a repeat of the old arguments, but this time it’s not about denying opportunity, you see Grace it’s about whether there’s enough interest to support creating new divisions in sports. If LGBTQ+ athletes want inclusion, that’s one thing, but carving out entirely new categories when participation rates don’t back it up? That’s a whole different issue. If people don’t care enough to fill those spots, then it’s not society’s problem it’s a generational preference shift, and you can’t force sports on people who aren’t interested.
Veritas I see where you are coming from but my mother was very active in the title IX stuff. This is EXACTLY the same argument that they raised against the women. Almost word for word. The only way to distinguish the two is to say women are deserving of the protection and LGBTQ are not, which would be bigoted (not saying that's you...just that's the only line you can draw). Again, your argument is almost VERBATIM what the men said about the women and title IX.
As to the highway, disability law (if that's the rubric we adopt) does NOT require that the solution actually work. Just that it be offered (hence the FINA figleaf). The accommodation is limited to reasonableness (as opposed to discrimination law where it is an absolute). If we try, and we can't make it work, and there are no other accommodations (such as in shooting or equestrian inclusion, or in female gymnastics where men would actually be at a biological disadvantage) at that point it's too bad, so sad, we tried. It is not a reasonable accommodation to force an airline to hire the blind guy to be the pilot (at least not under current technology) or the ADHD guy to be the air traffic controller.
Grace, I get what you’re saying that the courts don’t care about fairness in the game, they care about individual rights. But here’s the issue: when it comes to sports, fairness is the essence of the highest level of the game when it comes to competition. It’s not just some side point; it’s the foundation of why we even have competitions. Sports exist to see who’s the best, within agreed-upon boundaries. If you strip that away, you might as well toss out the scoreboard and hand everyone a gold star for showing up.
Now, you’re right that MTF athletes can’t compete fairly with men after transitioning, but that doesn’t automatically mean they should slot into women’s sports. If the goal is fairness (and I get that the law doesn’t always play nice with that), sticking MTF athletes in women’s categories tilts the scales way too much. And if the courts don’t care about that tilt, then the whole spirit of competition is getting sacrificed for the sake of balancing individual rights. In that case, it’s not about the sport anymore but about about navigating legal minefields.
As for the disability law approach, yeah, I get that it’s “reasonable accommodation” based. But here's where it gets dicey. Reasonable for who? What’s reasonable in one sport could be unreasonable in another. It’s like trying to build a custom rulebook for each athlete...one game might require ramps, another wants elevators, and suddenly we’re throwing new builds into every sport like it’s a game of Monopoly. Sure, it works for handicap stalls in public buildings, but sports aren’t just public utilities, they’re about merit, training, and natural competition. If every time we compete, we have to tweak the rules to accommodate everyone’s individual circumstances, we’re opening up Pandora’s box and you know how that story goes.
You mentioned the courts and rights, and yeah, maybe the law doesn’t care about keeping sports “fair,” but if we throw out fairness, we’re basically saying the game itself doesn’t matter. And in sports, if the game doesn’t matter, then what are we all showing up for?
So yeah, maybe there’s no perfect solution. But I’d rather have a firm line that keeps competition meaningful even if it’s not the most legally comfortable than keep patching over a broken system with temporary fixes that turn every tournament into a court case waiting to happen.
Here is the bottom line...If we sacrifice fairness for individual rights, we’re no longer playing a sport, we're just managing legalities.
No point, just an observation that Olympic equestrian is a gender neutral sport. The horse is the great equalizer.