Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.

[Grace T.]

Holy moly you are dramatic.

There is a reason we don't allow boys to play vs girls and men vs women. A biological one. It's about safety, and it's about fairness.

You may be willing to sacrifice fairness for inclusivity, but lots of people care that competitions are fair for all involved. It's why we have referees.

actually one of the prior drivers of title ix was inclusivity. It was to get more women to play sports and to force schools to open up more places for athletics than just gridiron football. Fairness had little to do with it. Fairness would have been opening a women’s division in gridiron football. They didn’t do that.

fairness is also in the eye of the beholder. Why after all should a sport as unpopular as field hockey be needed to balance the scholarships from football when clearly it’s football the students, alumni and audiences demand? Hint: inclusivity…to give women an opportunity to play Even though across the board their play is lesser. Again, how is that fair to the male soccer player who is an all around better player than his female equivalent but doesn’t get a scholarship because of the males on the gridiron football team and the fact women weren’t forced to/give the opportunity to play football (btw there is a movement afoot for women’s flag football teams…the move for it has been building including in Sunday leagues and cif…if it takes off the female soccer world is going to be turned on its head so y’all will be lucky your kids will have aged out 10 years from now)

 

[espola]

actually one of the prior drivers of title ix was inclusivity. It was to get more women to play sports and to force schools to open up more places for athletics than just gridiron football. Fairness had little to do with it. Fairness would have been opening a women’s division in gridiron football. They didn’t do that.

fairness is also in the eye of the beholder. Why after all should a sport as unpopular as field hockey be needed to balance the scholarships from football when clearly it’s football the students, alumni and audiences demand? Hint: inclusivity…to give women an opportunity to play Even though across the board their play is lesser. Again, how is that fair to the male soccer player who is an all around better player than his female equivalent but doesn’t get a scholarship because of the males on the gridiron football team and the fact women weren’t forced to/give the opportunity to play football (btw there is a movement afoot for women’s flag football teams…the move for it has been building including in Sunday leagues and cif…if it takes off the female soccer world is going to be turned on its head so y’all will be lucky your kids will have aged out 10 years from now)

The original objective of Title IX had nothing to do with sports. It was addressing the difficulty women were experiencing when attempting to get into law schools, medical schools, and other graduate programs.

 

[SurFutbol]

Holy moly you are dramatic.

There is a reason we don't allow boys to play vs girls and men vs women. A biological one. It's about safety, and it's about fairness.

You may be willing to sacrifice fairness for inclusivity, but lots of people care that competitions are fair for all involved. It's why we have referees.

Uh, when you say "we don't allow boys to play vs girls and men vs women", you are obviously wrong. The Olympics has allowed transgender participation for 20 years and the NCAA for over a decade. I don't know how long ECNL and most other youth sports programs have allowed trans participation, but it has also been a while.

I am sorry if your daughter isn't good enough to make a team that has a trans player, but that only means her career was coming to an end anyway. She can feel free to play in one of those co-ed leagues or maybe rec.

 

[GLangevinito]

actually one of the prior drivers of title ix was inclusivity. It was to get more women to play sports and to force schools to open up more places for athletics than just gridiron football. Fairness had little to do with it. Fairness would have been opening a women’s division in gridiron football. They didn’t do that.

fairness is also in the eye of the beholder. Why after all should a sport as unpopular as field hockey be needed to balance the scholarships from football when clearly it’s football the students, alumni and audiences demand? Hint: inclusivity…to give women an opportunity to play Even though across the board their play is lesser. Again, how is that fair to the male soccer player who is an all around better player than his female equivalent but doesn’t get a scholarship because of the males on the gridiron football team and the fact women weren’t forced to/give the opportunity to play football (btw there is a movement afoot for women’s flag football teams…the move for it has been building including in Sunday leagues and cif…if it takes off the female soccer world is going to be turned on its head so y’all will be lucky your kids will have aged out 10 years from now)

Well, you've moved off onto another subject, but Title IX was all about fairness of opportunity. Men had far greater opportunities to play in college. Title IX changed that.

We are talking about fairness on the field. There is a reason we have referees, we separate genders, and separate based on age.

 

[GLangevinito]

Uh, when you say "we don't allow boys to play vs girls and men vs women", you are obviously wrong. The Olympics has allowed transgender participation for 20 years and the NCAA for over a decade. I don't know how long ECNL and most other youth sports programs have allowed trans participation, but it has also been a while.

I am sorry if your daughter isn't good enough to make a team that has a trans player, but that only means her career was coming to an end anyway. She can feel free to play in one of those co-ed leagues or maybe rec.

I am obviously wrong? So you don't consider transwomen, women? They are still men and thus the Olympics allows men to play vs women?

And yes, we GET IT that you don't care about fairness. We get it.

 

[SurFutbol]

If you think the sports issue is contentious, how about this:

California prisons grapple with hundreds of transgender inmates requesting new housing

There have been more than 260 requests for housing transfers this year under a new law that gives transgender, intersex and nonbinary inmates the right, regardless of anatomy, to be housed based on their gender identity.

news.yahoo.com

Get ready for the lawsuits that are going to flow from this. At least one female inmate has already been impregnated.

What is your point? This has nothing to do with whether a 12 year old trans girl should be allowed to play with other girls. Or are you saying that trans girls shouldn't be allowed to play with other girls because they might rape other little girls like one hard core criminal inmate? Of course, to the extent the behavior of those in our correctional system is relevant to anything involving youth sports, I'd say it supports allowing trans girls to play with other girls given that they're the victims 100% of the time when they're stuck with the men.

 

[Grace T.]

Well, you've moved off onto another subject, but Title IX was all about fairness of opportunity. Men had far greater opportunities to play in college. Title IX changed that.

We are talking about fairness on the field. There is a reason we have referees, we separate genders, and separate based on age.

Can you even hear yourself? You concede title ix was about fairness of opportunity (which you support) but then in another breath say you don't care about fairness of opportunity for the trans people (whether ftm or mtf, since neither can compete against a cis male who has gone through puberty, yet you want to relegate them all to that and if they can't compete there, who cares if they don't get the opportunity to play).

Then you talk about fairness on the field (a concept, which others have pointed out to you is elusive, because unless you do height and weight categories you are never going to get to complete fairness, never mind the december birthday that is lumped in with the january birthday which BTW is personally offensive to me because my kid went from oldest to middling when they messed with the age brackets), but aren't willing to undertake steps to suss out the overt cheater before you go after the trans people.

I'm not saying your position is utterly without merit. In fact I am sympathetic to many of the arguments raised here and agree this is all a complicated balancing act. But is it too much to ask for a little bit of intellectual consistency in people's arguments? I'm no EOTL fan but I gotta give him the consistency.

 

[SurFutbol]

I am obviously wrong? So you don't consider transwomen, women? They are still men and thus the Olympics allows men to play vs women?

And yes, we GET IT that you don't care about fairness. We get it.

The Olympics does allow transgender women to participate against biological women provided they meet Olympic requirements. What are you talking about?

No, I care very much about fairness, but you seem to think "fair" means "do what I want". If you actually cared about fairness, you would at least consider why allowing a 12-year old trans girl to play with other girls, especially when the alternative is to play with abusive boys and surrounded by abusive transphobic parents like yourself, should be part of the fairness consideration.

 

[sockma]

You talk about fairness and can't even realize most boys are decent human beings.

Some girls are abusive.

Why don't you give those boys a chance to learn how to play with trans MTF? Educate them and punish the bad ones, rather than force an unfair situation on cisgender girls.

 

[watfly]

The Olympics does allow transgender women to participate against biological women provided they meet Olympic requirements.

I don't believe that the Olympics allows or disallows transgender women to compete in the Olympics. That is done by the individual sport federations. For example, the swimming and rugby federations don't allow transgender women to compete in international competitions which includes the Olympics.

 

[GLangevinito]

Can you even hear yourself? You concede title ix was about fairness of opportunity (which you support) but then in another breath say you don't care about fairness of opportunity for the trans people (whether ftm or mtf, since neither can compete against a cis male who has gone through puberty, yet you want to relegate them all to that and if they can't compete there, who cares if they don't get the opportunity to play).

They have an opportunity to compete. They can very easily compete against the individuals that were born the same sex they were.

 

[GLangevinito]

Then you talk about fairness on the field (a concept, which others have pointed out to you is elusive, because unless you do height and weight categories you are never going to get to complete fairness, never mind the december birthday that is lumped in with the january birthday which BTW is personally offensive to me because my kid went from oldest to middling when they messed with the age brackets), but aren't willing to undertake steps to suss out the overt cheater before you go after the trans people.

Yes, there will never be complete "fairness". We can't control for everything. We don't have enough kids to endlessly subdivide based on every factor. But that doesn't mean we can't target the most obvious factors: age, and sex.

just like we wouldn't let an 18 year old who identifies as an 8 year old play U9 soccer, we should not allow a boy who went through puberty to compete against girls.

The problem is, you have no solution other than "oh well" and to allow an advantage in the spirit of inclusivity.

 

[Grace T.]

Yes, there will never be complete "fairness". We can't control for everything. We don't have enough kids to endlessly subdivide based on every factor. But that doesn't mean we can't target the most obvious factors: age, and sex.

just like we wouldn't let an 18 year old who identifies as an 8 year old play U9 soccer, we should not allow a boy who went through puberty to compete against girls.

The problem is, you have no solution other than "oh well" and to allow an advantage in the spirit of inclusivity.

I've stated my solution numerous times: sliding scale getting more restrictive the higher age/level you move up. More restrictive for individual sports than team sports. The test of whether we should care is if we are trying to catch the doping cheaters and have more than just a velvet rope on the age cheaters. Your preferred solution is "I just want it my way and I don't care if my reasoning is inconsistent...I just don't like it".

p.s. "we don't have enough kids to endlessly subdivide based on every factor". That's a fallacy because age is not the most obvious factor. It's the most efficient for ease of administration. If we really cared about fairness we'd subdivide based on weight, height, and development age, but we don't because it's too complicated given the stakes at hand. There's also the politics of it...the parents of some high performers would find their kids grouped in with like individuals removing the specialness of it all (e.g. the super tall and mature 9 year old forced to play with 11 year olds).

 

[Grace T.]

They have an opportunity to compete. They can very easily compete against the individuals that were born the same sex they were.

They can't. The MTF are at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis the cis males because even if they went through puberty as a male, the hormones and testosterone blockers mean they can't keep up with the cis males. The FTM are in a worse position....you yourself said that puberty changes something....so the FTM are at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis the cis males that did go through puberty. The "very easily" is a lazy and bad faith argument, especially considering the arguments which you yourself have previously advanced.

Look even you if you were to gain enough of a critical mass for a nonbinary, FTM and MTF league, someone is going to get shafted and put at a competitive disadvantage. The only thing we are doing is assigning winners and losers. The only thing at issue is who gets the short end of the stick and what we can do to mitigate it so that we harm the fewest people with the least impact to minimize the harm overall. Here's another hint....if your answer is always "well it always has to be the trans person, regardless if they are FTM and MTF, f them" something may be motivating you other than fairness.

 

[Grace T.]

They can't. The MTF are at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis the cis males because even if they went through puberty as a male, the hormones and testosterone blockers mean they can't keep up with the cis males. The FTM are in a worse position....you yourself said that puberty changes something....so the FTM are at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis the cis males that did go through puberty. The "very easily" is a lazy and bad faith argument, especially considering the arguments which you yourself have previously advanced.

Look even you if you were to gain enough of a critical mass for a nonbinary, FTM and MTF league, someone is going to get shafted and put at a competitive disadvantage. The only thing we are doing is assigning winners and losers. The only thing at issue is who gets the short end of the stick and what we can do to mitigate it so that we harm the fewest people with the least impact to minimize the harm overall. Here's another hint....if your answer is always "well it always has to be the trans person, regardless if they are FTM and MTF, f them" something may be motivating you other than fairness.

p.s. be careful what you wish for...if we ever get to a third league they'll have to be scholarship opportunities for them, with a push by activists to have those scholarships funded at equivalent levels (the $ is probably enough incentive to have some fence sitters worried about this very issue and their ability to compete to go ahead and transition...you'll just get more trans and nonbinary people (esp. since nonbinaries don't need to do anything...saw stat this morning somewhere that shocked me....6% of UC students self-declared as nonbinary....don't know if it's accurate)). Since money is fungible and doesn't grow on trees, between this and women's flag football (if it does take off....test pilot launches in CIF next year the rumors are) female soccer scholarships will get pummeled.

 

[SurFutbol]

Can you even hear yourself? You concede title ix was about fairness of opportunity (which you support) but then in another breath say you don't care about fairness of opportunity for the trans people (whether ftm or mtf, since neither can compete against a cis male who has gone through puberty, yet you want to relegate them all to that and if they can't compete there, who cares if they don't get the opportunity to play).

Then you talk about fairness on the field (a concept, which others have pointed out to you is elusive, because unless you do height and weight categories you are never going to get to complete fairness, never mind the december birthday that is lumped in with the january birthday which BTW is personally offensive to me because my kid went from oldest to middling when they messed with the age brackets), but aren't willing to undertake steps to suss out the overt cheater before you go after the trans people.

I'm not saying your position is utterly without merit. In fact I am sympathetic to many of the arguments raised here and agree this is all a complicated balancing act. But is it too much to ask for a little bit of intellectual consistency in people's arguments? I'm no EOTL fan but I gotta give him the consistency.

Also, to the extent "safety" is a real concern, it only supports transgender participation at the youth level. The reality is that not a single person here can point to a single unsafe or dangerous incident involving a trans girl in soccer, whereas a trans girl takes her life into her own hands every time she goes to school, let alone tries to step on a field with boys with their abusive parents on the sidelines. Transphobes don't care about safety at all.

 

[SurFutbol]

I don't believe that the Olympics allows or disallows transgender women to compete in the Olympics. That is done by the individual sport federations. For example, the swimming and rugby federations don't allow transgender women to compete in international competitions which includes the Olympics.

You are correct that the decisions at the Olympics are made by each sport's governing body. Although swimming has not completely banned swimming at the Olympic level, it did recently impose restrictions that are restrictive to the point of making it incredibly difficult and unlikely. I don't know about rugby, but that seems fine if true. Many other sports are less restrictive of course. Ultimately, hardly anyone cares about trans participation at the Olympic or pro sports because, as I keep saying, there reaches a point where inclusivity and protecting trans children no longer outweigh other considerations.

 

[SurFutbol]

p.s. be careful what you wish for...if we ever get to a third league they'll have to be scholarship opportunities for them, with a push by activists to have those scholarships funded at equivalent levels (the $ is probably enough incentive to have some fence sitters worried about this very issue and their ability to compete to go ahead and transition...you'll just get more trans and nonbinary people (esp. since nonbinaries don't need to do anything...saw stat this morning somewhere that shocked me....6% of UC students self-declared as nonbinary....don't know if it's accurate)). Since money is fungible and doesn't grow on trees, between this and women's flag football (if it does take off....test pilot launches in CIF next year the rumors are) female soccer scholarships will get pummeled.

Interesting point. Maybe colleges need to take away some of the scholarships that go to binary cis kids and give it to the trans ones, regardless of what team they play on or whether they play sports at all. It's not like sports is some sacred thing that makes some Karen's ability to play soccer any more important than a trans girl's ability to overcome the abuse they suffered growing up at the hands of parents who hang out here and their little shits who did not fall far from the tree.

It is funny that the transphobes here would probably prefer cis girls losing scholarship money to the current system, despite the fact that no trans girl has ever gotten a scholarship, or hurt another player, or apparently even played D1.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

actually one of the prior drivers of title ix was inclusivity. It was to get more women to play sports and to force schools to open up more places for athletics than just gridiron football. Fairness had little to do with it. Fairness would have been opening a women’s division in gridiron football. They didn’t do that.

fairness is also in the eye of the beholder. Why after all should a sport as unpopular as field hockey be needed to balance the scholarships from football when clearly it’s football the students, alumni and audiences demand? Hint: inclusivity…to give women an opportunity to play Even though across the board their play is lesser. Again, how is that fair to the male soccer player who is an all around better player than his female equivalent but doesn’t get a scholarship because of the males on the gridiron football team and the fact women weren’t forced to/give the opportunity to play football (btw there is a movement afoot for women’s flag football teams…the move for it has been building including in Sunday leagues and cif…if it takes off the female soccer world is going to be turned on its head so y’all will be lucky your kids will have aged out 10 years from now)

In 1972 when Title IX was passed, even the elites knew the definition of a woman. Inclusivity was achieved. There are an equal number of spots to compete for a college scholarship for women and men. Who is "excluded"?

 

[Grace T.]

In 1972 when Title IX was passed, even the elites knew the definition of a woman. Inclusivity was achieved. There are an equal number of spots to compete for a college scholarship for women and men. Who is "excluded"?

In 1972 you know this wasn’t an issue because medical tech hadnt yet caught up and it was taking your life into your own hands to be gay let alone trans. In the 80s and 90s this was exceedingly rare and handled quietly.

the problem is folks can’t have it both ways. If you kick out the mtf you are stuck with the ftm. If you want separate leagues, those scholarships are going to come from somewhere. And if non-binary is running as high as the ucs are suggesting, we are in for a much bigger mess because the non binaries don’t have to do anything to their bodies and it’s becoming as simple in the blue states as checking a form. If we literally have a third option in play, the entire title ix structure blows up

the entire def of a woman thing is a canard by the way. The real question is when you move people from one category to another (or you ok with being stuck with the ftm in women’s play permanently?)

 

[espola]

In 1972 when Title IX was passed, even the elites knew the definition of a woman. Inclusivity was achieved. There are an equal number of spots to compete for a college scholarship for women and men. Who is "excluded"?

Perhaps they did, but it is worth noting that in the entire Title IX text, the word "woman" does not appear, and "Women" appears only in the title of an organization (Young Women's Christian Association) that was exempted from the regulation. The controlling words are simply "on the basis of sex".

Title Ix Of The Education Amendments Of 1972 (justice.gov)