See...lashes out. Get what you are saying but he isn't the ordinary poster. As with COVID, he doesn't like it when his pronouncements are challenged and beliefs are shaken.
Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.
- Thread starter dad4
- Start date
Sorry, but your "birth certificates are compromised" argument was 3 year old lutefisk.
You tossed it out there without bothering to think it through. You didn't even bother looking at a birth certificate before you posted it.
Dude I’ve done pro bono gender change birth certificates almost a dozen times. The two things which change are the date issued down at the bottom (in purple for certified copies) and the gender. It is otherwise completely indistinguishable. I’m literally looking at one right now that I did. That date issued changed for duplicates and lost documents too (my sons was lost. Looking at it now too. It has the new date).
your test was the Y chromosome. Your methodology was check the birthcert and if not test. It fails because other than the issuance date it is the same (anyone who loses there’s would have to test). It doesn’t catch the xxy people which means you are back to targeting people that may look trans. It doesn’t solve your ftm who are taking performance enhancing testosterone. Fail.
So, it is indistinguishable, except for the field which distinguishes it perfectly.
As arguments go, that's still a dead fish.
Indistinguishable except for a field that doesn’t point to a gender change but can point to a whole slew of other reasons including simply a lost document, which puts the burden of finding it and ordering and administering the test on the hapless club and league registrars (“sorry your birth certificate burned in the fire…here’s a genetic test”), which despite you saying you care about the Y chromosome you target trans and give Xxys a pass (why is that I wonder) and which doesn’t solve your ftm problem.
you’d honestly just be better off saying genetic tests for everyone and that you don’t care about ftm. Instead you Build a system with no limiting principle and just gets you the result you wanted: dump just the trans people. Fail.
You say I give a pass to XXY.
Think for a second.
Does an XXY individual have a Y chromosome?
It's not a hard question.
Duh doy. The birth certificate doesn’t list out a genetic composition. To catch it you’d have to test everyone. The system you laid out only tests people who have their birth certificates reissued.
I don't have to care whether I find every single undiagnosed XXY trisomy athlete.
It is extremely rare, not particularly performance enhancing, and most present as male anyway. I can ignore it.
So again:
A. You don’t really care about the Y chromosome. It was pretextual
B. You built a system that produces the result you wanted to begin with: exclude the mtf trans. Rather than apply a principle and build from there.
C. You don’t care about one particularly small group but you do seem to care about a slightly larger but also uncommon group and when you take the other genetic abnormalities you yourself set out it closes that gap even more
D. You’ve also made normative judgements over what’s particularly performance enhancing. A male to female that wasn’t particularly athletic or have a high testosterone count might not be more performanced enhanced than say Jamie Lee Curtis.
E. You aren’t particularly concerned with the ftms for some reason which your system doesn’t address.
you may as well just come out and say you don’t want mtf to play with your daughter because you don’t like them. Wow.
Part of any discussion is that each person does a little internal editing and brings forward their most well reasoned ideas.
You seem to want to play "what if" with super long posts while the other person does all the heavy lifting of sorting out which ideas have merit.
Not interested. You already gave us two rotten fish: one factually false claim about birth certificates, and one unnecessary diversion into an extremely rare trisomy condition.
That's enough for me.
As I said that what if is the entire way they teach reasoning in law school. The theory is that is your proposition is strong enough to withstand the what if questions then you have a winner
yours has been weighed, measured and found wanting. It starts with the proposition mtf should be excluded, builds a system that produces that result, and spits out the answer you wanted. What’s worse if you’ve targeted the community because youve appointed registrars to hunt down anyone who has an anamoly in their birth certificates (even those that lost and replaced them or has some paternity issue such as a father that was added) and force just those people to test in an attempt to root out those you want to exclude. There’s some words for that: witch hunt.
you could have stuck to your Y chromosome test and tested everyone. You could have done a testosterone test and caught the performing enhancing drugs. You could have had a physical test. You could have had a performance test. You could have had a test that trusted the documents issued by California. But you didn’t do that: you singled out mtf individuals because you wanted them excluded to begin with for some reason that doesn’t have to do with performance (or you’d test for performance enhancing drugs too). Wow.
Meh take it up with the law schools. It’s why you never want to hire a lawyer if you are trying to innovate something. They’ll just tear it down and give you every reason not to do it
There are some pretty reasonable posts before the recent nonsense. Shame on me for helping Grace divert the whole thing.
I gave you my two propositions which are actually quite centrist:
1. sliding scale of scrutiny depending on the level, whether team or individual sport, and age
2. As a thumbnail if it ain’t important enough to test for performance enhancing drugs, it’s probably not important enough to warrant heightened scrutiny
you’re the one that trotted out the witch hunt proposal. That more than anything is what you should be ashamed of.
GoldenGate
GOLD
Well, somebody got so bent that they just had to sent me a DM.
GoldenGate
GOLD
The simplest rule is to let trans children play and for you to stop freaking out over a fake problem. Regardless, a rule that involves DNA testing "suspected" trans children for 10 year old soccer tournaments is definitely not the simplest rule. In fact, it is the most inappropriately complex rule possible. Presumably you want to be the one to pick out the suspected 10 year old trans girls for DNA testing? I take it you have a good eye for that kind of thing? If a simple rule is so important, why don't we just dispense with the DNA testing and you can conduct a personal inspection?
Were you planning to suspend the suspected trans children pending investigation while waiting on the results? Is it at least ok if the team lets a trans girl play in some leagues, but just not the ones you deem important?
o.k., let's give you the benefit of the doubt (something you didn't do for others very much during COVID debates) and say you've rethought your proposal but just can't bring yourself to say it. No more witchhunt, don't care about the y chromosome, not going to do a complicated testing regime...out the window. The new proposal is: clubs ask people to check a box...I doubt you are asking them "what gender do you see your child"....correct me if I'm wrong, please, but you are asking them "what sex was your child assigned at birth?"
It's a more streamlined elegant proposal, so let's weigh, measure and see if it's found wanting:
1. You've once again targeted MTF trans because you are singling them out with no express reason. Presumably let's assume it's not that you don't like them, or don't want them to play with your child, but you think they have a performance advantage. The issue here is you are neglecting the people who cheat (testosterone/steroids) and picking on the ones that just want to live their lives for a whole host of complicated reasons. So let's fix it for you: presumably the form has a box that asks you to confirm no steroid/testosterone usage. You also get rid of your FTM issue that way. Good so far?
2. Your premise is based though on the fact that there isn't cheating in the system and that people wouldn't lie. It's a false assumption. We know there are fake birth forms floating around out there. Let's fix it for you: yeah but we don't care enough to hunt down those people so we won't hunt down the trans. Well the other issue is that unlike the cheater, the mtf have the revised birth certificate to back them up.
3. The reality is in California your system doesn't survive legal scrutiny assuming that the parent has a revised birth certificate. It's probably discriminatory per se in the absence of a testosterone testing regime and the way the question is asked. A question which talks about testosterone levels might be able to survive the legal scrutiny. Now, you can argue that shouldn't be the ruling, but it is the reality. (you could also probably just rely on the birth certificate deferring the legalities to the state of California though you never know)
4. You also have the problem of well what if someone does want to challenge. Some coach playing for the state cup championship sees a kid and says that kid is trans...this is unfair....I want to challenge...might even file a lawsuit for a rules violation. Well, the issue there is you get back to testosterone...you going to allow challenges picking on the trans kid, you have to allow challenges for testosterone usage. So you've backdoored yourself into an (albeit limited) testosterone testing regime.
So, better, but I don't think you can ask the question that way and it sucks in the entire testing mechanism. Hence my thumbnail, if it's not important enough to steroid test, it's not important enough to worry about the trans kids. If you wanted to do a testosterone testing regime, it wouldn't necessarily extend to the whole system: you could cut out the younger ages, lower levels, non high level games...but to survive scrutiny it has to meticulously be tied to performance, not status.
how about girls that play on the MLS next teams ?
so can girls plan on boys league? I know plenty of them.
2 just got committed to Stanford.
human is not just science, please have some empathy.