5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season

[Grace T.]

I don't how you are able to articulate so fast Grace but let me start with this one



Grace, I see how you interpreted my point, but I want to clarify. First stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

This isn’t about denying trans people their rights far from it. Everyone, including trans people, is entitled to basic human rights, like dignity, respect, and freedom from discrimination. What I’m talking about here is specific to sports, which are built on the concept of fair competition within biological categories.

When I say we can’t hand out special rights, I’m referring to changing the competitive structure of women’s sports to accommodate individuals who have gone through male puberty and retain those physical advantages. It’s not about denying trans people their rights in general, it’s about preserving the fairness of competition that women’s sports were created to protect. Sports aren’t about identity; they’re about physical capability, and that’s why we separate athletes based on biology in the first place. This you don't seem to comprehend.

So no, I’m not advocating for trans people to be “put in the back of the bus.” I’m saying that in the specific context of competitive sports, the rules need to reflect biological realities to maintain fairness. This isn’t about denying trans rights; it’s about ensuring that women’s sports remain a fair competition between biological women. That’s not a radical position it’s one rooted in the integrity of the game. I'll get back to you on the rest later... lol I have no time now.

I SPECIFICALLY said that I thought you misspoke and didn't mean what you wrote. But you were the one that chose to call the rights "special". BTW, that's the exact same phrase the segregationist lawyers made to the courts in trying to keep in place separate but equal. It's THE EXACT SAME WORDING. but I know you didn't know that, and didn't intend to mean it that way, so I am glad you clarified

No as to the wording....SPECIFIC TO SPORTS....it's a decent argument. Perhaps a hard conservative court (harder BTW than the current SCOTUS since I think ECB and the chief both reject this interpretation given the PGA precedent) would rule that sports are somewhat different and you can draw a blue line around it. But I don't think it survives anything short of that. The reason is because we know sports are about more than just a level playing field, because of the arguments surrounding title IX regarding participation. Again, men arguing against title IX made the VERY SAME argument which was rejected. That argument was surrendered the moment title ix got put into place and I don't think you can argue "well we really didn't mean it" without undermining title IX itself (which BTW, might be in the end the result you get in a hard conservative court which has always had hostility towards both Title IX and Title XI). TANSTAAFL.

 

[Grace T.]

@Grace T. before I go. Do you believe trans women are biological women ? If no then why should they have the same right to compete in the same space? We should not be arguing over this space. If yes then you’re logic is flawed

Again the first question is irrelevant. For legal and ethical purposes it stops as soon as you say "trans". That means rights are triggered.

And it's not that my logic is flawed. Again, you are complaining about the logic used to put in place Title IX. If you are arguing that, you are arguing against the equality principle in title IX since that logic then doesn't make sense either. And if you get your wish and a hard right court were actually to agree with you, the result you might get is that certain protections under title ix and title xi get swept right out the window along with it. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Grace T.]

Again the first question is irrelevant. For legal and ethical purposes it stops as soon as you say "trans". That means rights are triggered.

And it's not that my logic is flawed. Again, you are complaining about the logic used to put in place Title IX. If you are arguing that, you are arguing against the equality principle in title IX since that logic then doesn't make sense either. And if you get your wish and a hard right court were actually to agree with you, the result you might get is that certain protections under title ix and title xi get swept right out the window along with it. TANSTAAFL.

p.s. if you were to tell me right here right now, o.k. I get the participation argument of title IX was wrong. Women's sports have advanced as far as they can from a participation point of view and sports are different. I get it. Men and women can never be equal, including participation, so thanks title ix, like affirmative action, it's time for you to go. Then, 1. I'm going to be outraged for woman, but 2. I'll also declare o.k. you win....draw a blue around sports....they are special, but 3. then it's not about the women....it maybe as simple as your desire for simplicity, or in the case of people like Slobi bigotry, but it's not about the women.

 

[Veritas]

p.s. if you were to tell me right here right now, o.k. I get the participation argument of title IX was wrong. Women's sports have advanced as far as they can from a participation point of view and sports are different. I get it. Men and women can never be equal, including participation, so thanks title ix, like affirmative action, it's time for you to go. Then, 1. I'm going to be outraged for woman, but 2. I'll also declare o.k. you win....draw a blue around sports....they are special, but 3. then it's not about the women....it maybe as simple as your desire for simplicity, or in the case of people like Slobi bigotry, but it's not about the women.

Grace, I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not arguing that Title IX’s participation argument was wrong back when it was created. Title IX was essential in giving women the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and get the same access to sports that men had. It worked because it addressed a genuine imbalance in access. But we have to acknowledge that fair competition was also at the heart of Title IX & not just participation. Women were granted their own categories because their biological realities required it to ensure fair competition.

Now, fast forward to today. Women’s sports have come a long way, thanks to Title IX, but the conversation has shifted. The issue now isn’t just about participation anymore; it’s about maintaining that fairness for the women who have worked so hard to carve out these spaces. Allowing trans women, who still carry the biological advantages of male puberty, to compete in women’s sports changes the whole dynamic. It’s not about inclusion vs. exclusion but about protecting the fairness that Title IX was built to uphold.

So no, I’m not saying Title IX’s participation argument was wrong. But the reality is that we can’t apply the same logic to trans athletes without undermining the fairness that was the bedrock of Title IX from the start. Sports are different because competition inherently involves categories based on physical realities, and those categories need to be respected if we want to keep things fair. Do you get this Grace?

It’s not about bigotry or simplicity. It’s about recognizing that biological differences still matter in sports and that we need to protect the fairness and integrity of competition for all athletes, especially the women Title IX was designed to support in the first place.

 

[Veritas]

@Grace T. So while we both agree that trans women and biological women are different, I’m arguing that this difference is precisely why MTF athletes shouldn’t compete in women’s sports after they have gone through male puberty. It’s not about exclusion; it’s about keeping the competition fair for the women who have worked so hard to compete in their own category. That's it and if you can agree to that then I have nothing else to argue about. The original Topic on this thread is "

"5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season"​

Based on my argument above... What Australia allowed in their women's soccer league is not fair

 

[Grace T.]

Grace, I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not arguing that Title IX’s participation argument was wrong back when it was created. Title IX was essential in giving women the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and get the same access to sports that men had. It worked because it addressed a genuine imbalance in access. But we have to acknowledge that fair competition was also at the heart of Title IX & not just participation. Women were granted their own categories because their biological realities required it to ensure fair competition.

Now, fast forward to today. Women’s sports have come a long way, thanks to Title IX, but the conversation has shifted. The issue now isn’t just about participation anymore; it’s about maintaining that fairness for the women who have worked so hard to carve out these spaces. Allowing trans women, who still carry the biological advantages of male puberty, to compete in women’s sports changes the whole dynamic. It’s not about inclusion vs. exclusion but about protecting the fairness that Title IX was built to uphold.

So no, I’m not saying Title IX’s participation argument was wrong. But the reality is that we can’t apply the same logic to trans athletes without undermining the fairness that was the bedrock of Title IX from the start. Sports are different because competition inherently involves categories based on physical realities, and those categories need to be respected if we want to keep things fair. Do you get this Grace?

It’s not about bigotry or simplicity. It’s about recognizing that biological differences still matter in sports and that we need to protect the fairness and integrity of competition for all athletes, especially the women Title IX was designed to support in the first place.

You can have the fair competition without having the equality principle in place. But in fact, the equality principle runs against biological requirements, because otherwise you should let biology have at it and let the chips fall where you may...if there wind up being more men in sports than women, then so be it....that's biology and the way nature has set up things. Some people sometimes argue that affirmative action was necessary at the time to deal with the after math of segregation but is now longer necessary now. If so, removing the equality principle of title IX would mean that women's sports should be able to continue without interruption because the market will take care of it now since it was a temporary measure needed to address the imbalances created by the patriarchy. Any takers? What if we were to tell to your daughters, o.k. here's the tradeoff, we're going to ban all trans (FTM MTF) at all levels of women's sports, but we are losing the equality principle of title IX and letting the market dictate where things fall, do you think they'd take it? Because that's what a conservative court is likely to do since they've always hated the equality principle of title IX (as well as some of the problems that have resulted from title XI). Fair trade off?

And for the record, no I'm not actually advocating this. If that's the tradeoff, y'all know I vote no...I like my equality principle. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Grace T.]

@Grace T. So while we both agree that trans women and biological women are different, I’m arguing that this difference is precisely why MTF athletes shouldn’t compete in women’s sports after they have gone through male puberty. It’s not about exclusion; it’s about keeping the competition fair for the women who have worked so hard to compete in their own category. That's it and if you can agree to that then I have nothing else to argue about. The original Topic on this thread is "

"5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season"​

Based on my argument above... What Australia allowed in their women's soccer league is not fair

Hey I could be wrong on this....but didn't someone mention that was a rec or semi pro league? If so, that's outside the scope of your elite athletes so what are you complaining about? If not, sorry I misheard someone and I'm sorry.

 

[Veritas]

Hey I could be wrong on this....but didn't someone mention that was a rec or semi pro league? If so, that's outside the scope of your elite athletes so what are you complaining about? If not, sorry I misheard someone and I'm sorry.

researching this again yes you are right... This is not the top league in Australia. So yea who cares then CASE CLOSED

 

[Grace T.]

researching this again yes you are right... This is not the top league in Australia. So yea who cares then CASE CLOSEDView attachment 23239

Fifty plus pages when we could have been done in 1 Well, I appreciate the debate and it was fun. Your arguments were really great and really challenged me. Great job!

Putting on my lawyer cap, the actual best argument I think for the segregation side is a technical one: one where the supreme court rules that transgendered people are not a protected class for sports purposes simply because Congress did not expressly include transgendered people into title ix. There are two issues with that. Firstly, if you get a D president and congress, and they blow up the filibuster (or ram it through as part of reconciliation funding) it's an easy, tiny legislative fix. But assuming not, the legal result then is, like Dobbs, it gets kicked back to the states. The result in California is very clear: you get to play where you preferred gender. The result in Florida is equally clear to the contrary. But given higher level sports takes place nationally, it's going to head for a collision because people on either side are going to argue full faith and credit to the laws of their state. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but by then I'm fairly certain we'll have an ECJ ruling in Europe that definitive applies discrimination law, making a further mess of things.

 

[Dominic]

Great stuff Grace and Veritas!

 

[crush]

Way to go Veritas. Trophy, points and now praise from the man himself, Dom. Excellent OP as well brother. How many avatars have filed a report against me Dom?

 

[Veritas]

Fifty plus pages when we could have been done in 1 Well, I appreciate the debate and it was fun. Your arguments were really great and really challenged me. Great job!

Putting on my lawyer cap, the actual best argument I think for the segregation side is a technical one: one where the supreme court rules that transgendered people are not a protected class for sports purposes simply because Congress did not expressly include transgendered people into title ix. There are two issues with that. Firstly, if you get a D president and congress, and they blow up the filibuster (or ram it through as part of reconciliation funding) it's an easy, tiny legislative fix. But assuming not, the legal result then is, like Dobbs, it gets kicked back to the states. The result in California is very clear: you get to play where you preferred gender. The result in Florida is equally clear to the contrary. But given higher level sports takes place nationally, it's going to head for a collision because people on either side are going to argue full faith and credit to the laws of their state. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but by then I'm fairly certain we'll have an ECJ ruling in Europe that definitive applies discrimination law, making a further mess of things.

It was a great debate @Grace T. I have to admit I was quite challenged myself as well. Took me back to my college days for sure…

 

[watfly]

I think we have and I agree that they should be allowed to compete with biological woman because they are just that. But there is a big BUT in this…

Due to the fact there is no clear-cut way to distinguish between natural high testosterone levels and doping, I believe they need to be given the options to adjust their T levels if they wish to enter the biological arena.

Doesn't that leave the door open a little bit to GraceT's argument that women are on a spectrum. I.e. she's an X chromosome woman, but she looks too much like a dude and has high T, so she's really not a woman for competition purposes. I still struggle with T being the defining measure of the level of advantage (or of manhood vs womanhood) and "forcing" a woman to take a serious feminizing hormone, a potential health risk, to compete. A woman having high T doesn't mean she necessarily has an advantage, just that her T levels are closer to a normal male vs normal female...i.e. more guy like than girl like.

Agreed that the sticky wicket is the level of natural vs unnatural T. However, I would think you might be able to alleviate that issue somewhat with baseline testing, and address the spikes which would be more likely to indicate doping. (I'm way outside of my area of expertise here).

I struggle with someone telling me that if I had a masculine daughter that she's too manly and needs to dial it down with hormone treatment.

I guess I'm just simple minded. You have only X or X's, your a woman, or female. If you have any Y's your a man, or male. If you have a condition or genetics where you have either feminine or masculine traits outside of typical biology*? So be it, you may have hit the lottery for sports, but probably not so much for other things.

*Although the only issue that seems to concern anyone is biological males leaning female when it comes to sports, bathrooms and massages.

 

[crush]

Good night, everyone. Veritas, super high props again for being a trophy winner and getting all those points and praise from da man. I'm tired and need to go to sleep. Grace T, I would love to see you and Slobo out on a friend date. Veritas and Grace T were amazing with finding middle ground, without giving up their true core values. I have hope after tonight that we can come together as a country. Good night my friends.

 

[Grace T.]

Doesn't that leave the door open a little bit to GraceT's argument that women are on a spectrum. I.e. she's an X chromosome woman, but she looks too much like a dude and has high T, so she's really not a woman for competition purposes. I still struggle with T being the defining measure of the level of advantage (or of manhood vs womanhood) and "forcing" a woman to take a serious feminizing hormone, a potential health risk, to compete. A woman having high T doesn't mean she necessarily has an advantage, just that her T levels are closer to a normal male vs normal female...i.e. more guy like than girl like.

Agreed that the sticky wicket is the level of natural vs unnatural T. However, I would think you might be able to alleviate that issue somewhat with baseline testing, and address the spikes which would be more likely to indicate doping. (I'm way outside of my area of expertise here).

I struggle with someone telling me that if I had a masculine daughter that she's too manly and needs to dial it down with hormone treatment.

I guess I'm just simple minded. You have only X or X's, your a woman, or female. If you have any Y's your a man, or male. If you have a condition or genetics where you have either feminine or masculine traits outside of typical biology*? So be it, you may have hit the lottery for sports, but probably not so much for other things.

*Although the only issue that seems to concern anyone is biological males leaning female when it comes to sports, bathrooms and massages.

O.k. last point and I promise I'm out...I'm not making a point....just something I found fascinating. A few studies dropped in recent weeks (I forget where and with whom, and yada yada all dad4's qualifications about study protocols) but one basically found that with men T is basically determinitive of a lot of things in life including their level of success in business, athletic prowess, number of children they tend to sire, crime. Now there was a second one and it actually found a correlation between t and political affiliation. Now you might say this study is complete hokum, but they found low t men tend to be democrats and high t men tend to be republicans....and most fascinating of all, when you gave the beta males t, they tended to take more conservative positions on the issues. Finally, there were some t studies and a birth study done on women. On the women it found that women who are abnormally high in t for long periods of time have certain frontal cortex growth associated with higher reasoning, math skills (taboo!) and an increase in IQ. Another study found that the effect is also reproduced by women giving birth to children...that they literally became smarter once they had children. I didn't have time to read all these so yes dad4 agendas and protocols....they just came across my flash feed. O.k. I'm out. Bye y'alls. Was fun.

 

[watfly]

O.k. last point and I promise I'm out...I'm not making a point....just something I found fascinating. A few studies dropped in recent weeks (I forget where and with whom, and yada yada all dad4's qualifications about study protocols) but one basically found that with men T is basically determinitive of a lot of things in life including their level of success in business, athletic prowess, number of children they tend to sire, crime. Now there was a second one and it actually found a correlation between t and political affiliation. Now you might say this study is complete hokum, but they found low t men tend to be democrats and high t men tend to be republicans....and most fascinating of all, when you gave the beta males t, they tended to take more conservative positions on the issues. Finally, there were some t studies and a birth study done on women. On the women it found that women who are abnormally high in t for long periods of time have certain frontal cortex growth associated with higher reasoning, math skills (taboo!) and an increase in IQ. Another study found that the effect is also reproduced by women giving birth to children...that they literally became smarter once they had children. I didn't have time to read all these so yes dad4 agendas and protocols....they just came across my flash feed. O.k. I'm out. Bye y'alls. Was fun.

There is a lot of fodder there!

 

[Dominic]

We have some smart soccer parents in here!!

Educated!

 

[LASTMAN14]

We have some smart soccer parents in here!!

Educated!

This may be one the longest and highly debated/discussed threads so far on this forum as well as on the old.

 

[Dominic]

This may be one the longest and highly debated/discussed threads so far on this forum as well as on the old.

And kept civil with both shaking hands at the end. Yes this might be the longest thread within the "SoCal Scene" ever.

 

[Slobodan]

@Grace T. Here is the reality Grace and I respect all your arguments and pov’s but if you can’t provide us with a simple definition of the meaning of the word woman, then we will never come close to a resolution but continue in an endless infinite mathematical loop. Because if we can’t come to terms in agreement to what that means then we are talkng apples to oranges.

No... it's 'irrelevant' because she can't answer it and still support her ridiculous argument.