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!!!
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
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 sprinterno 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
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.
I have a question for you watty. I have shared my life on here openly and I would like you to share yours. Would you allow another mans touch outside of a bro handshake or a hug, like a male masseuse give you rub down? Veritas and pewpew are 100% a no. I'm not cool with it or down with it, but if my back is twisted in knots, I want the best masseuse out there, male or female, right?
Yeah it gets dicey. But that's a feature not a bug. It allows both sides to argue over what is reasonable in the particular circumstances. It's why it works. Because otherwise, everyone would have been required to remodel their homes to include handicapped stalls (and at their expense), all books would be printed side by side with braille, and all movies you go to would have subtitles under them. That's the clean world you'd be stuck with (or you can always say F the disabled, let them cope, but are you willing to say that? Is anyone here?).
Again, you may disagree with it, but there is nothing magical about sports that require an exception. As far as the courts are concerned it's a widget. The courts are concerned with people as individuals, because that's ultimately what our democratic society is about....rights....because democracy without rights becomes Venezuela, or Russia (remember both Putin and Hitler were democratically brought into government).
Again, you lost your firm line decades ago...and if you insist on a firm line it's just going to be whoever has the power to enforce one of the 4...every court decision and every election becomes existential because otherwise dad4's hammer is just going to start swinging away.
I addressed the level playing field question. Here it is again:
MTF athletes don't have a level playing field with ANYONE. They are too weak for the men, too strong for the women, and too few to compete amongst themselves.
Even an international trans league would not be a level playing field, because the transitions themselves are athletically dissimilar.
Your complaint: "no level playing field at the highest level" applies equally to every single available option, including yours.
Noticer
SILVER
If the skill/quality difference in masseuses you're talking about is something like kobe vs michael or messi vs cr7 , then I'm taking a female (actual female) every time.
Since you're asking, I will answer.
I have no problem with a man giving me a massage. I've had many a PT massage done by a man, but I can't recall if I've ever had a "regular" massage done by a guy. Is that apples and oranges? IDK. KInda one in the same to me.This is another great argument from you. It's a fair one. My rebuttal: 1. "too few"...again it's the title IX starting out problem....you offer scholarships, you offer prize money, assuming they get over the entire we want what we want issue (which is a them problem, not a you problem), they will come....will it be as exciting as the men's competition? No, but then as professional athletic revenues show, neither are the women...the women's are by definition "lesser".
2. As FINA recognized, offering the option at least gets you a road out of the legal trouble. Again, the 4 simple solutions are all imperfect (which I readily acknowledge). If a disability law rubric is established, the accommodation merely needs to be reasonable (it may work, it may not, it ma work in some sports like running which are easy, it won't work in soccer).
3. No playing field is ever perfectly level. If it were we wouldn't do year long age lines (there's nothing level about that). Then there is a question of what is "level" such as the discussion we've been having about women with errant t readings. If you wanted a perfect level, remember at one point private trainers were not allowed in Olympic competitions (it's a plot point of "Chariots of Fire") Sometimes, you have to do "as good as it gets" because that's what's "reasonable" under the circumstances...not perfect....there's a "Rick and Morty" where Morty finally gets to experience perfect level....it does not go well for Morty.
@Grace T. I think may be understanding why you are so gun-ho on this issue with inclusion for trans MTF. Can I ask you one thing though. What is your definition of a woman? Literally what does it mean to be a woman ? I need to know your exact definition of what is a woman before I conclude with my final argument.
Love this answer…If the skill/quality difference in masseuses you're talking about is something like kobe vs michael or messi vs cr7 , then I'm taking a female (actual female) every time.
I think it's irrelevant for these purposes since what we are discussing is individual rights. The gender status of an individual is irrelevant....they all have rights that need to be balanced. For other things like marriage it's also irrelevant since we've decided gay marriage is legal so it's completely beside the point...it used to be a question that was relevant. For bathrooms, again I think a penis no penis rule is appropriate (with an effort for single stalls for those undergoing changes). On your driver's license, it's irrelevant....let people declare whatever they want to present. For biological purposes, it's xx and xy but there are individuals that don't fit neatly into either category. For birthing purposes, well there are plenty of women who are sterile and we know how that went for Henry VIII. In horses, we actually classify them into 3 because the 3 act very differently for purposes of riding: stallions, geldings and mare's. But for these purposes, it's a completely and totally irrelevant question....the law is concerned with rights, and legally in sports there are 4 concerns: level playing field, safety, efficiency, participation.