Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.
- Thread starter dad4
- Start date
Sounds like fun for your kid. Also sounds like a similar "immersion" teaching model to what Junior Achievement does, but on a much greater scale.Hey, Disneyland once had a massive cosplay game called "Legends of Frontierland". My boy was 7 at the time and this was pre him getting involved in the club craziness so we had annual passes and played the game every weekend. It was one of the best experiences of his life (he still looks back fondly on the days before club soccer overwhelmed his life and every weekend). He was Doctor Who in the game. For me, it was actually a great experience because I got to see all my econ degree stuff in actual practice as they tried to build a system with an economy and the incentives people took on the rule changes. I actually learned more in that experience about economics and human sociology than in any classroom I ever took.I was most certainly at the time not a young adult living in my parents basement playing video games and would most certainly if I could build my son an actually time machine to go back since the summer was far more productive than anything club soccer has ever given either of us. When I am old and in the nursing home, I'm sure I'll look over to him and mention "hey, remember the time you blew up the frontierland mine with your sonic screwdriver" way before "hey remember that goal you saved at the Surf tournament". In any case, the game was a massive failure, too disruptive to be allowed to continue for park operations, but it was a once in a life time experience and it's shadow lives on in "Ghosttown Alive" at Knotts.
If you agree there is a considerable difference between a team with one trans girl and a team with 11 boys, then stop using that bs to rationalize why you hate trans children.
Also, as you also know, professional sports serve a different role in society than kiddie sports, and the privacy interests of children are also very different than those of an adult professional athlete. ECNL and CIF understand these things even if you don't. Again, if your daughter is so terrible that she can't compete against a team with a trans girl, the problem is her, not the trans girl.
Yes, I'm so crazy that CIF, ECNL, the NCAA, the NWSL, the USWNT and the Olympics all agree with me. But even aside from this, I'm pretty sure the one who is terrified that trans children are going to destroy society by taking over kiddie sports is the crazy one.
How do you do a sliding scale for eligibility?It's almost as if there's a sliding scale....sounds like a good idea....I wonder who pointed out here a sliding scale would be a good idea?
Sounds more like an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to include transgirls, but you want to avoid a Lia Thomas situation, and you have no idea how to draw a line between the two.
I know of two proposed eligibility standards. One is "Biological girls not on PED." The other is "anyone who says they are a girl."
NWSL uses a third standard. Neither you nor I find it appropriate for a youth league, because it requires medical treatment.
Do you have a specific standard you think is reasonable? Or just a nice sounding phrase that means one thing to you and a different thing to someone else?
Oh that's not true. There's a bunch of other standards.
Youth league= anyone living in the other gender. That doesn't require medical treatment but it does require an extensive period of the youth living in the opposite gender to make absolutely certain they are sure when they are ready (and again, I said there may be very rare instances were a youth does need to be transitioned, but I think that standard needs to be very very very incredibly high). Here's another= birth certificate change.
For the ones that matter (for the ones where there is PED tests), I think it has to be set sport by sport, and level by level. Here's a question for you: if in a particular sport it can be shown that performance of a MTF can be reduced (even if it's x number of years post surgery) so that the bell curve distribution is not that far different from a cis female, you o.k. with MTF participating in the female division? Again, assuming arguendo, the science showed it was possible?
Dangerous question BTW. Your failure to answer or ducking it might reveal more than you want to reveal, or prove once and for all you are an honest broker on the issue. Up to the dare? Again, not debating the science of whether it's even possible (I concede it might not be for some sports), since we know they are in the middle of that research right now.
Yeah, use the specific standard that already exists. 1. stop losing your mind about trans children in kiddie sports and accept that the possibility that your daughter might win a trophy is a stupid reason to ban trans children; 2. impose more restrictive requirements at the NCAA level where winning and losing actually starts to have some importance, but not enough to completely ban trans participants; 3. impose even greater restrictions at the professional level, which serve a very different purpose than kiddie sports. Maybe also stop ignoring the actual standards that exist and making up fake ones that don't to feed your self-pity.
It's really quite simple when you don't hate trans children and are looking for solutions that address everyone's interests, instead of excuses to rationalize your hatred of trans people without coming right out and admitting it.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Dizzy was in too much of a tizzy to make that connection. At least Dizzy is consistent.
So your proposed standard is social transition? (either as measured by birth certificate or by sustained social interaction.)
Birth cert filing is a standard, in that it is verifiable. Much better than “sliding scale”.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t even pretend to deal with the unfair advantage question. There is no reason to assume that the athletic distribution among socially transitioned youth is going to differ at all from the athletic distribution of their birth gender.
As to your youth sports MTF technology what if, both of us have already ruled it out on ethical grounds. You don’t tell some kid that they can compete on a girls team, but only if they agree to a medical procedure. That’s just wrong.
For adults, I don’t have a strong opinion. I do not object to a weakened male competing against females, assuming the procedure makes it a fair contest. The problem is that most people are past their prime for sports by the time the brain matures. There may not be an age where someone is old enough to understand the procedure but young enough to be good at the sport.
Well, as we've covered already a.n.: 1. I don't think there should be any rope at the youth level but if you insist on a velvet rope either social transition or birthcertificate would be acceptable (in California, the birth certificate standard is declaration but at least it requires that someone be sure enough to actually go through the bother to change it.....which used to be pretty paper intensive but I haven't done one in a long long time), 2. again in the youth sports, I don't care about unfair advantage because we don't care about the unfair advantage of outright cheaters...talk to me again if we start to drug screen youth sports (the only place in youth soccer in the US I'm aware that might do it is some of the MLS academies and national team camps), 3. I haven't ruled out medical intervention on youth....I just think that the standard needs to be mindnumbling high, and 4. o.k. fair position among adults, but then we are just arguing about the year. 21 is the recognized maximum age of consent in the US....18 for pretty much everything else....I'd be o.k. with you raising the consent age for 21 but then you'd have to do it for everything else including without limitation firearms, alcohol, military service, abortions, tobacco, marijuana, marriage, sex, and voting. I don't think there's a realistic prospect of rolling back voting rights and if they are old enough to vote in the socialist utopia or the fascist paradise, they are certainly old enough to make medical decisions for themselves (and we should lower the drinking age, which is only there because of the uncomfortable concern we have with drunk driving and our unwillingness to restrict driving before alcohol). Realistically, we might need a hybrid model for 18-21 year olds that give parents limited veto or information rights over what their young adults this age can do, but the abortion activists would go nuts with that. If you are old enough to decide on an abortion, you are old enough to decide your trans surgery.
Here you are again claiming that allowing that trans children participate in sports is "unfair" because of your irrational fear that it might impact your daughter winning a trophy in a kiddie game. I can tell you from experience that you have nothing to worry about. My daughter has boxes of trophies and medals despite having to play against scary trans girls. Trophies are only a problem when your daughter sucks at soccer.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I am having difficulty understanding what "living in the other gender" means other than gender by proclamation. If it's not gender by proclamation, how is living in the other gender defined, and, who will enforce it and how will it be enforced?
Velvet rope in answer to dad4's argument well there's a throw away line in the code of conducts (which most leagues don't require signature on or enforce) prohibiting illegal ped and other narcotics. There could be a line where the individual attests they are living full time as the other gender (e.g. you've picked a girl's name and are being referred to that and presenting as a girl, if the concern is the sort of red herring that you are going to get a south park strong woman situation).
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Ok, but "presenting as a girl" sounds sexist - not Don Lemon level - but still sexist.
Here is a simple solution. Eliminate differentiating sex in youth sports. Players play at a level based on their capabilities. Also, everyone has to change their name to Pat. Ok, ok - I'm only kidding about that last part.
o.k. two things in response. The entire trans thing is kind of sexist in some ways. If it really is biological and there are differences in the male and female brain, and the desire is to present as the opposite gender, then it's essentially really wedded to the concept that there are two biological sexes and those two sexes tend to present differently (girls tend to play with dolls, boys with trucks). Gender cannot be a construct or spectrum as the radicals on the left of this issue have been claiming (which also BTW has undermined traditional feminist ideology). If the radical left is correct, and gender is just a spectrum, then dividing people into two competing genders will never make sense (in which case what are the trans people complaining about...they are just on a spectrum somewhere so no need to really surgically transition). We really do have to sort individuals to each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.
Second if fairness is the sole guiding principle behind youth athletics, we really would differentiate based on not only capabilities but also by height, weight and maturity (which are the prime differentiators at the youth level). There is nothing fair about having the early developed, 6 foot 12 year old competing against my son's friend whose back was broken when he was little and now is uncommonly short but is pound for pound a better soccer player than the 6 foot 12 year old that just muscles his way through the game. We do, after all, differentiate in boxing, wrestling and martial arts by weight classifications. There are numerous problems with this, however: 1. fairness is not the only guidepost but also participation (hence the women's division, and hence why some people argue trans people need to be accommodated somehow in order to be able to participate, rather than just thrown in the men's division where they can't), 2. the other guiding principle we have is ease of administration (can you imagine the nightmare of sorting kids that are growing into respective groups...teams would never hold together and each tryout season would be a mess) and simplicity, 3. there would be mass objections when their little Johnny or Mary precocious 12 year old winds up being assigned to play with the 14 year olds and goes from superstar to merely above average, and 4. there would still be some unfairness in the process, as like in boxing, the main event people care about is the highest levels: the heavyweight champions of the world, though not necessarily exclusively (sports is, in some ways about being the best of the best and the women's division only makes sense from a participatory rationale otherwise we'd be living in Starship Troopers)
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Eliminating the gender distinction in youth sports will increase the competition level for the top girls and create more opportunities for locally competitive soccer - since they'd get to play with
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Yes, yes, and yes.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I can't argue with anything here, either. I do think it makes sense to have the top-level girls play with boys - as I mention in my post above. I agree that we should make some accommodations for size as it relates to safety concerns.
Starship Troopers was ahead of its time.
