kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Yes, it does.
Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.
- Thread starter dad4
- Start date
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
"Perhaps"? How many sexes were on the government forms you filled out in 1972?
Change categories? Still not possible.
For athletics, the categories are genetic, not social. One category is XX, and the other category is XY. No technology on earth is capable of "changing your category" from one to the other.
K. Then you'll have the FTM playing with you DD, full beard, on testosterone, eligible for full scholarships with the women's team.
You'll also have FTM in the bathroom/locker room with your DD, eventually with full schlong (oh dear....avert her eyes!), quite possibly (though not necessarily) attracted to your DD.
I agree nothing can change a biological male into female but the biological test is practically useless for everything, as shown above, except as an idiotic statement of faith by either the right or the left. It's not a practical test for anything else, and indeed, the tests may need to vary situation to situation.
p.s. also doesn't help you with the very small number of people who aren't xx or xy.
Full beard? schlong? My my Gracie, I must close my ears and turn away. I blushing......lol! This is getting so xxx. I do like the open chat and sex is important to all of us. I talked with a dear pal whose dd says she knows a Transgender that is Bi and still in love with girls and that could be an issue with his snake running loose in the girls locker room.
Snake. Like it.
That's why for locker rooms I think a surgery test (with some short transitory period prior to surgery and lots of private options) is the best way to go. Give the surveys of students (both former and present) showing how traumatizing the locker rooms are for so many people, I think more privacy options are really the way to go just beyond the trans people.
Quinn is an example of an excellent trans athlete who plays with their XX peers and does not take testosterone. Seems to work out just fine.
Sloppy logic where you are grasping at straws. You know that just because 1 athlete has chosen not to (quite possibly because they value their eligibility to play in the female sports side before being made ineligible) doesn't mean they all want to make the same choice. Also, under your rule, it wouldn't matter because she's biological female. Also my understanding is that Quinn identifies primarily as non-binary which opens up that entire can of worms. Way to duck the primary challenge to your logic. Your DD still ends up face to face with the snake.
p.s. was thinking about you the other day. My kid is working on a paper on the progressive era. I was having a hard time classifying your philosophy given how hard core you are on this issue but how hard core you were on the entire COVID thing. His paper made me realize you are an old timey Matthew Harrison Brady progressive (small "p"). Fascinating.
Dorms are a completely different, just FYI.Snake. Like it.
That's why for locker rooms I think a surgery test (with some short transitory period prior to surgery and lots of private options) is the best way to go. Give the surveys of students (both former and present) showing how traumatizing the locker rooms are for so many people, I think more privacy options are really the way to go just beyond the trans people.
Agree.
Have you heard of a 12 year old male cutting off his pee pee so he can be a girl? I think most girls and women would feel safer if that was in all the cases, even in the prisons. So maybe that has to be rule #1 to even be considered eligible to use girls locker room, bathrooms, go to all girls prison and compete with and against the girls. If my son walked into my room when he was 12 or any age for that matter and said, "dad, I want to cut it off so......." I would love him regardless. Yes, I would try and talk him out and 100% have him seek counseling. This has to take time to decide from the day the thought enters the mind and the day you whack it off. Lia and those WHO allowed this to take place in swimming are 100% wrong.Sloppy logic where you are grasping at straws. You know that just because 1 athlete has chosen not to (quite possibly because they value their eligibility to play in the female sports side before being made ineligible) doesn't mean they all want to make the same choice. Also, under your rule, it wouldn't matter because she's biological female. Also my understanding is that Quinn identifies primarily as non-binary which opens up that entire can of worms. Way to duck the primary challenge to your logic. Your DD still ends up face to face with the snake.
p.s. was thinking about you the other day. My kid is working on a paper on the progressive era. I was having a hard time classifying your philosophy given how hard core you are on this issue but how hard core you were on the entire COVID thing. His paper made me realize you are an old timey Matthew Harrison Brady progressive (small "p"). Fascinating.
The addadictomy is not relevant, because it does not constitute an unfair advantage at sports.Sloppy logic where you are grasping at straws. You know that just because 1 athlete has chosen not to (quite possibly because they value their eligibility to play in the female sports side before being made ineligible) doesn't mean they all want to make the same choice. Also, under your rule, it wouldn't matter because she's biological female. Also my understanding is that Quinn identifies primarily as non-binary which opens up that entire can of worms. Way to duck the primary challenge to your logic. Your DD still ends up face to face with the snake.
p.s. was thinking about you the other day. My kid is working on a paper on the progressive era. I was having a hard time classifying your philosophy given how hard core you are on this issue but how hard core you were on the entire COVID thing. His paper made me realize you are an old timey Matthew Harrison Brady progressive (small "p"). Fascinating.
Testosterone supplements are relevant, because they do create an unfair advantage. (Regardless of gender identification.)
Make sense?
Well, the problem with this is we want to do what we can to not incentivize these choices so young, because the record is that a certain percentage of even adult trans people regret their choices. Can you imagine making this choice at age 12? We don't even allow 18 year olds to make a choice to drink at 18 and there's been a lot of discussion on both the right (abortion/voting rights) and left (gun ownership) to raise the age of consent to 21.
If you install a surgery test/hormone test for MTF to play youth sports, you'll be incentivizing full transitions even earlier. It's the reverse incentive in the Quinn case (Quinn has a lot to lose by being made testosterone ineligible). There's already enough pressure on them (to look feminine by avoiding male puberty) to transition early. We don't want to make it worse.
The test you were advocating for was a simple biological test, not a testosterone test (for which we do not test in ECNL/MLS Next and in the case of MLS Next at least don't even have a doping protocol). You also suggested a genetics test, for which we do not test everyone including the people who fall into neither camp. Sloppy logic No. 2. Also FYI, I'm not that up on the science (so I'm open to an argument I'm wrong) but my understanding is the level of testosterone supplements a FTM takes are substantially less than that taking by an athlete who is full on doping. Finally, addadictomy is relevant because you were the one insisted that no one can ever move from one category to another....my point is that yes they can beyond a mere biological test (which is useless as you yourself now imply with bringing in the testosterone test) and that different tests might be needed in different contexts. Make sense?
Look at your word count. You’re throwing sand in the air again.
Most of that word spam consists of you arguing with a straw man. Congratulations, you have defeated three arguments which no one but you put forward. I’ll let you wonder whether that makes you a winner or a loser three times over.
The argument from the other side, should you ever wish to engage with it, is that it is inherently unfair to enter an XY athlete in an XX athletic contest.
You always get testy whenever you get backed into a corner.
What you are doing is layering tests and drawing exemptions to get a preconceived result. You don't like the biological test (because it puts FTM with snakes in the same bathroom with your daughter), so you layer the genetic test (but exempt everyone except the people you are looking to target from that test), and then when it's pointed out to you there are others going the other way layer the testosterone test (for which no one else is being tested as far as youth soccer is concerned and which you don't say yeah test everyone). Then you say I haven't engaged with it, when I have, ad nauseum, engaged on both the concepts of fairness and the genetic tests.
You know, there are several here who have taken the con position (I can point to kicking for example or Marspeed) who while I may not agreed with their conclusions have shown themselves to be thoughtful and reasoned. What you are doing is not using logic or reasoning. You try to build your argument and the tests to get to a preconceived point. That's not reasoning, that's dogma (hey, where I have heard that before? Hmmmm
). "It's the gospel according to Matthew Harrison Brady....let us have a book of Brady.....Brady Brady Brady!"kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I agree with what you state regarding the "real question" above and how to handle when someone changes their sex biologically(surgically and through hormones) versus changing their sex by proclamation. I'd add that the argument regarding "inclusivity" is also a canard. Your argument isn't about inclusivity. It's about fairness. Nothing wrong with that.
Your first point is well taken. I don’t think the proclamation standard works well in most situations (again agree to disagree about youth soccer where we aren’t policing hormone/doping usage anyways). I wouldn’t mind a “must be living as that sex” standard, if folks are worried about a South Park situation (which I don’t see as a real life concern but ok)
I disagree the point isn’t about inclusivity. Titles ix application to sports was precisely about inclusivity (getting more girls to play) than fairness (since more boys were interested in sports you could argue it wasn’t fair to the boys particularly the non football playing ones, especially as cheer is not counted as a sport). Here the rules advanced by dad4 and Langevito would leave neither Ftms or Mtfs without a place to play because they can’t compete against via males on full testosterone. That leaves us then to give them the opp to play (same way cis females were accorded) give them their own leagues and divisions with equivalent scholarships taken from both the girls and boys.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I agree that Title IX was about inclusivity. My point is, Title IX achieved inclusivity - assuming 1972 definitions in college sports. I was speaking about handling the "exceptions". Accommodations like what you suggested to handle those exceptions are about fairness, not inclusivity.
GLangevinito
SILVER
They can't compete? Well, let's apply SurFutbol's logic here - oh well, then they are not good enough and should play at a rec level.
Like it or not, someone is disadvantaged in this scenario. You would prefer it to be the natural born girl. I would prefer it to be the natural born boy who is choosing to transition.