Again there are ways to discuss this issue without resorting to be a bigot. Like my friend you can believe mtf trans do not belong in womens sports. That’s fine but some of you have come beyond that and it’s not cool. Dad4, watfl and veritas have, so far, not done that. It’s a question of motivation: are you really motivated by protecting women (again it’s the men here and we can do without certain types of protection….see the radical Islam post) or are you motivated by disgust and hatred?
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
My closing argument is as follows…
Grace makes a compelling case for equal participation, but I think we need to acknowledge a key distinction: there’s a difference between the right to participate and the right to compete at the highest level. Everyone has the right to participate in sports, but when it comes to elite competition, it’s about fairness, not just inclusion. If we start making exceptions for one MTF athlete based on appearance or meeting certain weight criteria, we open a door that’s impossible to close. If one MTF athlete competes, it sets a precedent, and suddenly, we're back at square one, where biological advantages come into play.
That’s why I stand firm in saying there has to be a clear line, MTF athletes can participate in lower-level or coed competitions, but at the highest level, where fairness is paramount, they shouldn’t compete against biological women. When these athletes were competing as men, they didn’t have the right to join women’s competitions. The biological advantage doesn’t disappear with transition, and giving them access to women’s sports at the highest level now feels inherently unfair to the women who’ve trained their whole lives under different conditions.
The essence of elite competition is about fairness, performance, and equality within clear biological categories. Once we start bending the rules for one group, we risk compromising the very foundation of that fairness.
Grace makes a compelling case for equal participation, but I think we need to acknowledge a key distinction: there’s a difference between the right to participate and the right to compete at the highest level. Everyone has the right to participate in sports, but when it comes to elite competition, it’s about fairness, not just inclusion. If we start making exceptions for one MTF athlete based on appearance or meeting certain weight criteria, we open a door that’s impossible to close. If one MTF athlete competes, it sets a precedent, and suddenly, we're back at square one, where biological advantages come into play.
That’s why I stand firm in saying there has to be a clear line, MTF athletes can participate in lower-level or coed competitions, but at the highest level, where fairness is paramount, they shouldn’t compete against biological women. When these athletes were competing as men, they didn’t have the right to join women’s competitions. The biological advantage doesn’t disappear with transition, and giving them access to women’s sports at the highest level now feels inherently unfair to the women who’ve trained their whole lives under different conditions.
The essence of elite competition is about fairness, performance, and equality within clear biological categories. Once we start bending the rules for one group, we risk compromising the very foundation of that fairness.
Exclusion ant the highest level isn’t inherently bad, it’s a part of the process that defines elite sports. Biological women are excluded all the time from the highest levels of competition because they don’t meet the performance standards. That’s the nature of elite competition: not everyone qualifies, and that’s what makes it competitive. So, if we’re comfortable excluding biological women based on their performance, why should it suddenly be an issue when it comes to MTF athletes who have a clear biological advantage?
Excluding MTF athletes at the highest level isn’t about denying participation altogether it’s about maintaining fairness in a space where biological differences matter. If we allow MTF athletes to compete at the highest level with women, we’re effectively creating an uneven playing field, and that’s where the unfairness comes in. It’s not just about inclusion for the sake of inclusion; it’s about ensuring that the competition remains fair for the athletes who have been training and competing within a certain biological framework their whole lives.
At the highest level, exclusion happens based on ability, not identity. By drawing a line with MTF athletes, we’re ensuring that the essence of competition fairness remains intact. Otherwise, we’re not just excluding biological women who don’t meet the cut; we’re putting them at a disadvantage against athletes who may have inherent physical advantages.
Excluding MTF athletes at the highest level isn’t about denying participation altogether it’s about maintaining fairness in a space where biological differences matter. If we allow MTF athletes to compete at the highest level with women, we’re effectively creating an uneven playing field, and that’s where the unfairness comes in. It’s not just about inclusion for the sake of inclusion; it’s about ensuring that the competition remains fair for the athletes who have been training and competing within a certain biological framework their whole lives.
At the highest level, exclusion happens based on ability, not identity. By drawing a line with MTF athletes, we’re ensuring that the essence of competition fairness remains intact. Otherwise, we’re not just excluding biological women who don’t meet the cut; we’re putting them at a disadvantage against athletes who may have inherent physical advantages.
This is a well reasoned argument and one which doesn’t resort to bigotry. I have a few bones to pick.
i agree that the threshold gets different the higher you go up in the sport. If you are enforcing a level playing field by testing for peds and hgh, there’s a sound argument for the level playing field. If you are enforcing height and weight restrictions, there’s a sound argument for safety concerns. But again then it’s incumbent to the extent feasible come up with alternatives. In some sports protocols (the rules we’ve had from 1960-about 2008) might be able to get you there and in others you’ll need separate divisions. I disagree with one exception sets a precedent: that’s why we have standards and protocols and despite your desire for simplicity every sport may well wind up different with the toughest standards for running and swimming and who cares for equestrian and shooting. I understand the desire for clear lines but sometimes life is messy as illustrated by the moroccan boxer. The most persuasive argument to your point is “excluding biological women that don’t make the cut”
Grace, I get where you're coming from, and I respect that you're trying to find a balanced approach here, but I think there are a few cracks in your logic we need to look at. Let's break it down:
First off, comparing PED and HGH testing to the biological advantages gained from male puberty doesn't quite hold water. You can test for PEDs and regulate height/weight, sure, but hormone therapy for MTF athletes doesn’t reverse things like bone density, muscle mass, or lung capacity that are developed during male puberty. Those advantages stick around, and that’s where the issue lies. It’s not like reducing testosterone levels magically puts everyone on the same playing field. While PED testing can level certain aspects, you can't undo the biological foundation that gives an edge in competition and that is a fact.
Then, you mention separate divisions as a possible solution in some sports. In theory, sure, but in practice? hmm
It’s a logistical nightmare. You’d have to create new divisions for every potential category, which complicates things and could water down the competition. Are we really going to create multiple divisions just to accommodate everyone? Sports are about competition, and too many divisions dilute that. The more categories we create, the less meaningful the victories become. Plus, it becomes a bureaucratic mess...who’s going to fund and organize all these separate divisions?Now, the big one imo which you don't agree with is setting a precedent. If you let one exception through, you’re opening the door for more. Sports run on rules and consistency. If one MTF athlete gets to compete, others will expect the same, and it becomes a slippery slope opening the activist door which spells trouble. We have rules to keep things fair, and once we start bending them, it’s hard to stop. It’s not about denying participation bit about ensuring that fairness isn’t compromised across the board.
You also mentioned different standards for different sports. Sure, some sports might not rely on the same physical traits, like equestrian or shooting, but that’s where consistency is key. You see, If we start applying different rules across the board, it chips away at the overall integrity of sports. Athletes could end up choosing sports based on where the rules are more favorable, rather than based on their talents. Which could also lead to erroneous transitions like in the case of Lia Thomas who didn't go all the way and kept his pistol thinking he had all the rights as biological women. Well he lost in court...
And finally, you acknowledge that biological women get excluded when they don’t make the cut. That’s my exact point. Exclusion is a natural part of elite competition as it happens because not everyone qualifies. Allowing MTF athletes with inherent biological advantages puts women, who are already fighting to make the cut, at an unfair disadvantage. So, if exclusion happens based on ability, we should apply that same logic across the board to protect fairness.
Now, to your point about biological women with natural advantages like height, lung capacity, or wingspan etc... Yes, some athletes are naturally gifted, but they’re competing within the same biological category. They’ve developed under the same biological conditions as their peers, and their advantages fall within the normal range of female biology. That makes it fair...That’s the nature of elite sports some people are just naturally more talented, but they’re still operating within the same framework. The same framework being the key here.
MTF athletes, however, bring in advantages from male puberty like I've mentioned before increased bone density, muscle mass, and lung capacity that's largely driven by testosterone. Even after hormone therapy, those physical traits remain, and that’s where the imbalance lies. It’s not just natural variation within a category, it’s a different category altogether.
So yes, natural variation exists, but everyone is still competing within the same biological framework. That's why it is fair. MTF athletes bring an entirely different set of advantages that hormone therapy can’t fully mitigate, and that’s where fairness breaks down. It’s not about limiting participation; it’s about maintaining a fair competitive landscape for everyone involved.
So @Grace T. can we agree on MTF being a big NO in biological female sports? The only case left to argue about is the female XX with high T levels. Because they were developed within the same framework as biological women XX they should be allowed to compete given the option to reduce T levels. Aside from that there should be a hard line drawn for any XY in XX category.
Your arguments are well reasoned and it's a good well thought out argument. My objections are annotated here. We don't disagree on this point. We know that because FTM athletes on high testosterone don't catch up with the men in most sports. But the thing YOU fail to acknowledge is that hormone therapy, eliminating testosterone from the testes post surgery, and estrogen are all performance inhibitors. So the level playing field for the MTF no longer exists with the men. The reality is they can't compete on a level playing field there either. My only objection to this point of your answer is that it is incomplete. There's another problem you fail to acknowledge.
As all discrimination law states, your logistical nightmare is not my problem. They said the same thing when they put handicap accessible stalls into the restrooms. That was a too bad so sad. Who's going to fund it? Well that money gets taken from the others (The same as handicapped accessible stalls were a hidden tax on businesses and the public). You want your exclusion, that's the price. TANSTAAFL.Then, you mention separate divisions as a possible solution in some sports. In theory, sure, but in practice? hmm
As I stated there are 3 possible legal rubrics here and these are the only 3 you can really fit them into:
-Discrimination law. That means the protected class is entitled to full protection and there two ways to do it. Include them with the women. Include them with the men but handicap the men (such as with start times) to make up for the drop in performance to maintain a level playing field.
-Disability law. Which means making accommodations to the extent within reason. It's messy. You don't get your clean line. It means there will be different results in different circumstances, in this case by athlete or by sport.
-No protection. It means trans people should not be entitled to a protection as a protected class. The issue here is no one has articulated an argument for why they aren't protected beyond bigotry ("mental illness...they don't deserve it").
As to the rules, hey every once in a while you are going to get it wrong. Soccer can't settle on a handle ball rule (the game is fundamentally broken because of it like basketball was before the shot clock rule). You adjust until you get it right, but that adjustment requires specifics which means it's going to have to be sport by sport, and it's going to take time.
The precedent v. slippery slope argument is a valid one. It pops up in numerous fields. I'm just not overly concerned with it because in sports it's easy to change guidelines and rules...something doesn't work, you adjust it. Soccer is doing that all the time with its handball rule. And as I stated, the concept of "fairness" is elusive in sports. Part of it is preordained by genetics reducing it to little more than a dog show competition. Part of it is a function of the rules. This argument is the same as the dog show breeders make that a "labrador must only be a labrador". As someone else pointed out, that's fine, but then take the merit and money out of it....especially for college...switch to an entirely academic based system like they do in Europe, stop the fuss with the Olympics and recognize between the doping and things like the PRC does, it's just a farce built for entertainment. The fights over merits occur because they are societal merits, as Aristotle pointed out.
Now you are mission creeping from the highest level to any category. Again, the fundamental issue with you is that you want it clean. Unfortunately , given the precedents (yes precedents...I know) set first on race, then with women, and then with LGB, your hands are tied legally. There's nothing about discrimination and disability laws, given the precedents set, that's clean You may want clarity but there's no way legally to give you clarity beyond the trans MTF play with the women, the trans FTM play with the women, and screw the women, which is a result neither you nor I likes. The other way to get clarity is to chuck the entire discrimination and disability law structure (and just say humans should associate with whoever they want and just prohibit government discrimination) but the ship has sailed on that one and I sincerely doubt anyone on the boards (even Slobi) would say that's ok.
Grace, I get it that you’re telling me I’m looking for too much clarity... I really do. But here is the thing...sports need clarity, especially when it comes to categories as basic as biological sex. You’re right, it’s not always clean, and I’m fully aware of the precedents with race, gender, and LGB issues. But just because the legal framework is messy doesn’t mean we should keep making it messier. If anything, this is exactly the point where we should be drawing some hard lines to protect the integrity of competition.
Now, about this "mission creep" you mentioned... let’s be clear. I’m talking about elite sports here. These aren’t fun runs or weekend leagues where participation is the main goal. We’re talking about top-tier athletes, where fairness is everything. And yes, I’m advocating for a hard line when it comes to MTF athletes in women’s sports. Why? Because we’re no longer comparing apples to apples. A biological woman with high T levels (who is still XX) developed within the same framework as other biological women, same hormones, same reproductive anatomy, just with a slight genetic boost in testosterone. If they need to reduce those levels it's fine. But they’re still playing in the same sandbox, with the same toys. And that is my point so they belong in the biological female category.
MTF athletes, on the other hand, were playing in a totally different sandbox, one where male puberty gave them a head start. It’s like having a sprinter trained at altitude running against someone trained at sea level, you follow me? Sure, you can limit their testosterone later, but those years of male development still give them an advantage you can’t undo with hormone therapy. I think we agree on this part.
And about FTM athletes, here’s the thing, I think we can agree that they’re actually at a disadvantage when they compete with biological men. Even with testosterone treatments, they can’t fully catch up to men who’ve gone through male puberty. Why? Because they developed as females. No male puberty means no extra bone density, muscle mass, or larger lung capacity. So yeah, they may be in the ring, but they’re not dominating men’s sports by any stretch. If anything, their struggle in men’s competition highlights exactly why MTF athletes do have a massive advantage when competing against biological women. Which totally proves my point.
I get that you’re bringing up legal precedents, but let’s not ignore the biological realities here. FTM athletes can compete with men and, while they may be at a disadvantage, they aren’t skewing the competition. Meanwhile, MTF athletes are stepping into women’s sports with physical advantages that just can’t be leveled out with a few years of hormone therapy. The symmetry isn’t there. And the possibility of skewing the competition is quite high, especially if we open the dam and the water pours in like a roaring rapid. We won't be able to control it.
And yes, I understand your point about the legal side of things. We’re tangled up in discrimination and disability laws, and it feels like our hands are tied. But if we keep going down this road, it’s not just about making room for more inclusion Grace but it’s about slowly erasing the competitive distinction in women’s sports altogether. You said it yourself: we both don’t like the idea of “screwing the women,” but isn’t that exactly what we’re doing by allowing biological males with XY chromosomes, who’ve reaped the benefits of male puberty, to compete in categories meant for XX women? That's why we must draw the hard line in this specific case. And if they want to participate, they can but not at the highest level of competition. They needed to understand that when they decided to transition, that this decision came with consequences especially when referring to elite level of sports. That's life and the price we must pay for going against nature and society norms.
If we keep moving the goalposts, soon enough, we won’t have women’s sports left, it’ll just be a coed free-for-all where the women lose out. And that’s the slippery slope we need to avoid. You mention precedents, but let’s be real, Grace, precedents can be changed, rules can be adjusted, and sports should be no different. After all, we didn’t stick with the original basketball rules forever; we added the shot clock, adjusted the three-point line, and adapted over time. So why can’t we do the same for gender categories in sports? Just because the legal framework is messy doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up and say “Well, too bad.”
At the end of the day, sports are built on fairness, not participation for the sake of it. The women’s category exists for a reason, and when XY athletes start stepping into that space, we’re no longer protecting that fairness. So yeah, I’m drawing a hard line. We need to start acknowledging that some rules, like keeping MTF athletes out of women’s elite sports, aren’t just necessary but essential to maintaining what’s left of competitive balance.
Can't stop talking about me, can you? Is it love?
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?