With respect to the ftm problem the impression I get from some (not saying you) is that these people are freaks and have made their own choices so if they can’t compete too bad so sad. The same people who object to their dds playing a caitlyn Jenner type would probably object to their dds playing with a mtf with full beard, testosterone supplements and an artificial unit. Sorry...that’s my line...”just go away” isn’t an acceptable outcome for me particularly when we are dealing with high performing athletes who are already privileged.
How will this affect womens sports in college?
- Thread starter Lavey29
- Start date
correction ftm
met61
GOLD
No judgement here, we're all sinners...I love and pray for you.
Again, no He doesn't. Actually, it's not very complicated, it's designed to be a struggle, which includes free will...not a utopia, that will come in the afterlife through faith and belief.
Ditto and as a person of faith myself, I appreciate this perspective.
I've always myself regarded it more as a series of challenges and test through which we improve ourselves, the most basic test of which is fear, but another being compassion, and yet another being self-awareness. I agree utopia is elusive (which has always been a failing of both the extreme right and left). Where the challenge is, and has always been, is to where that free will can/should lead us.
gotothebushes
GOLD
Great watch for parents and players:
At least we agree about what is possible with medicine. Trans athletes, in either direction, end up in the middle. Athletically, they are neither men nor women.
A middle tier would be rejected by all sides. Who would actually want to be in it? The exception would be if you are talking about creating more non-varsity sports opportunities, which is a good idea in its own right.
Better to just refer to the top group as “open” or “unrestricted”. Stop calling it men’s sports. Have a women’s division and an everyone division. Mtf athletes and ftm on testosterone would be in the everyone group, as would I.
Agree until the last sentence. 1. There are some biological women who are due to chromosomal or hormonal treatment would not be in the norm....test everyone before they apply to the bottom tier?, 2. it's an "unfair" treatment of the ftm who if the test is biology....well they are biological females, leading to your rule being in place just because "ts" are "ts"....it's declaring one unique group a loser in this, for the sake of preserving the win for another unique and privileged group (high performing d1 athletes and higher) just because you feel like privileging that group (there's no logical rhyme nor reason for forcing the ftms up if your rule is biology and you refuse to test the biological women). I also note 3. this undermines the entire tenants of 20th century feminism by acknowledging females are somehow lesser.
p.s. if you buy into this notion as well it should put to rest the entire notion of pay parity for women's sports even on the national team level....setting aside the market and they both represent the colors equally, they should never be paid the same because women's sports are lesser to the everyone competes, and therefore they should be treated as such (both in pay and resources). If a woman can play up in the everyone's division, they can access there the equal pay and resources.
On average, in terms of speed or upper body strength, women are lesser. Just as, in terms of heart health, men are lesser. Take a quick look at track and field records or actuarial tables if you doubt either comparison.
You are defending a counterfactual equality claim in an irrelevant arena. Women, on average, are not the athletic equals of men. Just the same as men and women are not equal in height or longevity. Of these, only longevity means much.
Why tie yourself to a claim that does not matter and is so easily disproven?
Well, because the entire justification for equal pay and resources for equal sports has been that they are not lesser, just different. You've undermined the entire foundation of title Ix and the USWNT quest for equal pay.
Also your line lacks a coherent rational. "Biology" would be one...but that means ftms should be allowed to compete against the dds if they so choose. Testosterone levels are another, but that means some dd should not be allowed to compete in the lesser division either.
If the USWNT claim to equal pay requires Alex Morgan to be able to beat Christian Pulisic in direct competition, then it’s time to give up. That standard will never be met.
Women’s sports are valid in their own right, for their own reasons. It has nothing to do with whether women are athletically competitive with men.
The answer to your ftm question is that ftm athletes should be subject to the same anti-doping rules as everyone else. A ftm athlete who uses testosterone does not qualify, because they are taking a performance enhancing drug. A ftm athlete who does not use performance enhancing drugs should absolutely be allowed to compete as a woman if they so choose.
Where exactly in your god book does it say that sports governing bodies may not allow transgender athletes to participate in sports? But if god doesn’t make mistakes, awesome, there must be no mistake with sports governing bodies letting trans athletes participate, just as they’ve been doing for more than a decade. Let it be, as you say
I get that magats are incapable of paying attention to anything more than a Newsmax sound bite.
Yeah, but then the mtf is being deprived of that naturally occurring performance enhancing drug, particularly after full transition, which means there's a hole there they don't fit in under the testosterone test.
"Women's sports are valid in their own right"....that's part of the problem....why? If they are lesser, why are they equally valid?
You're bending over backwards to try and have it both ways.
No one is talking about banning trans athletes from participation.
The question is, given that trans athletes can participate, which division do they belong in?
It's not just a which question but also a when question which complicates things and for what level. The temporal answer from when a switch permitted ranges from everywhere from "when they declare" to "after treatement" to "at a certain testosterone level" to "after transition" to "never". It's why this isn't an easy question since the answer may be different from rec to Olympic level competition.
They belong in the division the sports governing body puts them in, unless the sports governing body unlawfully discriminates against a protected class. And although snowflake magat whiners complain that women are “discriminated against” when transgender athletes are allowed to participate, that is simply not the case. They are provided the exact same opportunity to participate in the league as the transgender athletes. They have no fundamental, or constitutional, “right” to win a race or sporting event.
People seem to completely ignore that the rules allowing transgender participation have not been driven by laws forcing participation but, rather, by
private entities making their own rules, including rules regarding who gets to participate. These magats claim they want businesses to be able to do whatever the f**k they want, but it it turns out they only mean that so long as it aligns with what the magats want. Maybe these magats should create their own bigot league to compete with CIF, or ECNL, or the NCAA.
I don’t know, that’s why I mention this needs to be looked at. I did read an article that mentioned this exact subject and I thought I read that after 2 years the differences in testosterone levels were minuscule. But what does that mean? Does that make any difference in muscle mass 2 years later? I have no idea.
Study on the 2 years later question:
Sit ups and push ups mostly equalled out.
1.5 mile times still had a 12% gap, even after 2 years of HT. That works out to winning a 6 lap race by about 3/4 of a lap.
So, if your sport includes a lot of running, 2 years is not enough.
[/URL]
1. The study though seems to focus on transgenders in both directions prior to SRS so it doesn't tell us anything about the effects of SRS which (in the case of mtf would radically alter the testosterone count)
2. The study also shows that the performance of mtf did in fact decline...which means putting them in with the cis men is also not a good option.
3. The study also mentioned some hyperandrogenism in certain cis females. Apparently, on higher level track and field events (presumably the Olympics?) women are required to maintain a certain testosterone level. A consistent rule, if we are using the testosterone test to exclude either mtf or ftm athletes from the lower division of competition tier, would be to test and exclude these women as well. Apparently, it is implied (but not stated) that sporting events have limited such testing to higher level track events due to the running issue you point out. If it means any running event, logic would dictate extending the tests to any other sports where we care about such exclusions and applying the testosterone test across the board.