Men taking over Women's sports

[Spider-Dan]

I think I could find several instances in sports of rarely-occurring-but-questionable circumstances that are not prevalent enough to warrant changing the rules for everyone.

If transgender women were actually "dominating" and "taking over women's sports" then sure, I would be open to changing the rules.  But it's not like we have women's world records in track being shattered by trans women.  To the contrary, all of the examples CF cited seem to be fairly insignificant lower-level events, and given that the source is WorldNetDaily, I am inclined to believe that said list is a fairly exhaustive account of the worst cases of an uneven playing field.

In fact, looking at the main article CF linked, the vast majority of the instances cited are not trans women "dominating," but singled out anyway for even being allowed to compete.  This is why motives matter: the headlines ("Female athletes crushed by 'women who were once men'") are effectively used as a smokescreen to attack the much larger number of trans women who AREN'T dominating, but simply being allowed to participate in the sport.  One might wonder why these trans women, who aren't even doing exceptionally well, merit inclusion on such a list.

[Phishfan]

You complain that these are low level events. That is because those level events so far have been just about all we know of. There were some examples in the Olympics but the IOC did not release the names of the competitors. You can't shout out that it isn't happening when hardly anyone knows who the examples are. There very well may be Olympic medalists.

This doesn't mean that I think it is widespread practice. I actually believe the reasoning to be that there are very few who have even tried competition as a female at the highest levels.

[Spider-Dan]

You complain that these are low level events. That is because those level events so far have been just about all we know of. There were some examples in the Olympics but the IOC did not release the names of the competitors. You can't shout out that it isn't happening when hardly anyone knows who the examples are. There very well may be Olympic medalists.

I am unable to think of a way to discuss the topic under the context of "We don't know who the examples are, it could be anyone!" that does not precisely resemble the rambling of conspiracy theorists.

Let me put it this way: the known examples of competitively successful transgender women athletes have been rare, and at relatively insignificant low-level events.

[CF DolFan]

I am unable to think of a way to discuss the topic under the context of "We don't know who the examples are, it could be anyone!" that does not precisely resemble the rambling of conspiracy theorists.

Let me put it this way: the known examples of competitively successful transgender women athletes have been rare, and at relatively insignificant low-level events.

Just wait because its coming. Millennials are suddenly the most "confused" generation of any period in time and they and their children will soon will moving into the professional ranks. 

[Tenshot13]

I think I could find several instances in sports of rarely-occurring-but-questionable circumstances that are not prevalent enough to warrant changing the rules for everyone.

If transgender women were actually "dominating" and "taking over women's sports" then sure, I would be open to changing the rules.  But it's not like we have women's world records in track being shattered by trans women.  To the contrary, all of the examples CF cited seem to be fairly insignificant lower-level events, and given that the source is WorldNetDaily, I am inclined to believe that said list is a fairly exhaustive account of the worst cases of an uneven playing field.

In fact, looking at the main article CF linked, the vast majority of the instances cited are not trans women "dominating," but singled out anyway for even being allowed to compete.  This is why motives matter: the headlines ("Female athletes crushed by 'women who were once men'") are effectively used as a smokescreen to attack the much larger number of trans women who AREN'T dominating, but simply being allowed to participate in the sport.  One might wonder why these trans women, who aren't even doing exceptionally well, merit inclusion on such a list.

I am unable to think of a way to discuss the topic under the context of "We don't know who the examples are, it could be anyone!" that does not precisely resemble the rambling of conspiracy theorists.

Let me put it this way: the known examples of competitively successful transgender women athletes have been rare, and at relatively insignificant low-level events.

Right now it may not be an issue of dominance.  Transgender has only recently been widely accepted, at least more in years past.  So it's only a problem if trans BECOME dominant in womens sports...why are you waiting for the become part?  Who really cares if it's before or after said domination?

I agree with Sun, to me that's cheating.

[Phishfan]

I would stop short of calling it cheating, but I don't think it is competitively fair.

[Spider-Dan]

So it's only a problem if trans BECOME dominant in womens sports...why are you waiting for the become part?  Who really cares if it's before or after said domination?

Because these kind of slippery slope arguments have been used to justify discrimination against vulnerable groups for centuries.

As I just pointed out: the premise is supposed to be that trans women are crushing their born-female competition, yet the authors of an approvingly-cited article can't help but show their real agenda and start calling out the trans women who AREN'T dominating, but are simply being allowed to participate.  And that's the underlying true objection: not that they are dominating, but that they are being permitted to join as if they are real women, when clearly they do not qualify as real women.

This is gay marriage or transgender bathrooms all over again: some excuse is trotted out ("sanctity of marriage," "religious freedom," "child predators") but the actual matter of contention is that those people should not be treated the same way we are.

[Tenshot13]

Because these kind of slippery slope arguments have been used to justify discrimination against vulnerable groups for centuries.

As I just pointed out: the premise is supposed to be that trans women are crushing their born-female competition, yet the authors of an approvingly-cited article can't help but show their real agenda and start calling out the trans women who AREN'T dominating, but are simply being allowed to participate.  And that's the underlying true objection: not that they are dominating, but that they are being permitted to join as if they are real women, when clearly they do not qualify as real women.

This is gay marriage or transgender bathrooms all over again: some excuse is trotted out ("sanctity of marriage," "religious freedom," "child predators") but the actual matter of contention is that those people should not be treated the same way we are.

I think you're projecting.  Gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, etc. is not the topic HERE (as in here, on this website, in this thread).  Yes, there will be people that don't want trans people playing sports with women just because they are trans, but that shouldn't affect your opinion on whether they should or should not be able to play sport with women.  What should justify that opinion is "is it fair if a former man who is now a woman, be allowed to compete in sports with women."  and the answer to that IMO is no, it is not fair.  Any amount of discrimination is not going to change that.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, there will be people that don't want trans people playing sports with women just because they are trans, but that shouldn't affect your opinion on whether they should or should not be able to play sport with women.  What should justify that opinion is "is it fair if a former man who is now a woman, be allowed to compete in sports with women."  and the answer to that IMO is no, it is not fair.  Any amount of discrimination is not going to change that.

How is that statement any different from the following:

"Yes, there will be white people that don't want their kids going to school with black kids just because they are black, but that shouldn't affect your opinion on whether they should or should not be forced to attend a distant school.  What should justify that opinion is "is it fair to force kids to attend a distant school against their parents' wishes."  and the answer to that IMO is no, it is not fair.  Any amount of discrimination is not going to change that."

You see, I can't simply discard the discrimination and look at the decision in a vacuum, because I think the discrimination is an important factor in making the decision.  To ignore it is to sanction it.

(And yes, I know that this discussion is not about forced busing, just as I know it is not about gay marriage or transgender bathrooms.  I am merely drawing an analogy from other forms of discrimination to help explain how I see this situation.)

[Phishfan]

How is that statement any different from the following:

"Yes, there will be white people that don't want their kids going to school with black kids just because they are black, but that shouldn't affect your opinion on whether they should or should not be forced to attend a distant school.  What should justify that opinion is "is it fair to force kids to attend a distant school against their parents' wishes."  and the answer to that IMO is no, it is not fair.  Any amount of discrimination is not going to change that."

This is so off base it shouldn't even warrant a response but I can't help myself to say how dumb this comparison is. One is physical competition and the other is racial discrimination.

Based on your stance, at what point is a person born male disqualified from competing as a woman? Do they have to go through the surgery? What if they are only taking hormones? What if they just cross dress? What if they just woke up and felt a little bloated this morning (this one I admit is tongue and cheek)? You are basing this on discrimination so I'm really curious at what point you would discriminate (definition 2 from Dictionary.com: 2.to note or observe a difference) who is allowed to compete in women's sports. You have to at some point but your stance so far has been that you basically can't discriminate at all.

[Spider-Dan]

From my perspective, if we would allow this person to qualify as "female" in every other part of society, why would this part be any different?

Again, I am open to revisiting the rules if that proves to be necessary, i.e. if women's sports actually become dominated by trans women.  But what you all are proposing is a ban because you think it might become a problem down the line.  So far, you all have seemed to agree that right now, they are not dominating nor have they taken over.  My position is that while it is possible that women's sports will be overran by people who were not born women, it is also possible that nothing of the sort will happen and everything will be fine (as would seem to have been the case when previous warnings of dangerous perversions destroying our society have been issued).

So rather than take extra steps to exclude people who already face a lot of exclusion in their life, why don't we just wait and see if such steps are even necessary?

On a side note: one of the individuals in the article CF cited is a girl transitioning to a boy... that is competing with girls in the meantime.  So which gender should this person compete with, boys or girls?  Do trans individuals always have to compete with males, regardless of the direction of their transition?

I will say this: one thing I am open to is a blanket classification of external sources of testoterone and estrogen as PEDs, regardless of your gender identity.  Such a rule would have the effect of excluding most transgender individuals, but it would also exclude cisgender men and women that have hormone imbalances.  I would not see that as a form of discrimination.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I am perfectly okay with transgender people competing in sports, just not in women only sports.  But both male to female and female to male transgender are welcome in any sport without a gender requirement...NBA, NHL, NFL, MLS, NASCAR, etc.  What Billy Jean King did is impressive, a biological male that calls himself a female winning the girls tennis tournament not so much.

[CF DolFan]

I am perfectly okay with transgender people competing in sports, just not in women only sports.  But both male to female and female to male transgender are welcome in any sport without a gender requirement...NBA, NHL, NFL, MLS, NASCAR, etc.  What Billy Jean King did is impressive, a biological male that calls himself a female winning the girls tennis tournament not so much.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Women's sports were created because they cannot compete with men on a physical level and not because men didn't want to play with women.  Therefore women's leagues should be women only and anything else should not be allowed. Taking testosterone isn't allowed so why should it be if you have it naturally?

It seems like the world is trying to play that everyone has a right to do and have whatever everyone else does and that simply isn't the case. I think teaching that life isn't fair and you have to make the best with what you are given should be the motto. If you were born a guy, regardless of what you "feel" you should have been, you will never be 100% a woman. I mean, I can want  and call myself whatever I like but I'll never be a black man regardless of how much I augment my skin. That's just the cards I was dealt and I have to accept that.

[Tenshot13]

This is so off base it shouldn't even warrant a response but I can't help myself to say how dumb this comparison is. One is physical competition and the other is racial discrimination.

Based on your stance, at what point is a person born male disqualified from competing as a woman? Do they have to go through the surgery? What if they are only taking hormones? What if they just cross dress? What if they just woke up and felt a little bloated this morning (this one I admit is tongue and cheek)? You are basing this on discrimination so I'm really curious at what point you would discriminate (definition 2 from Dictionary.com: 2.to note or observe a difference) who is allowed to compete in women's sports. You have to at some point but your stance so far has been that you basically can't discriminate at all.

Thanks, I don't need to respond now.  Pretty much how I feel too.

[Dave Gray]

I think you guys are giving Spider an unnecessarily hard time.  While I don't agree with his conclusion, I certainly understand his point and where he's coming from.

Discrimination is tricky.  I'm certainly not being accusatory of CF or anyone else because here I think it's a valid question, but historically, groups (in an effort to discriminate) will find outlier problems (or maybe even create fear of problems that don't exist) in order to make a group feel lesser.

You see this with things like voter ID laws.  There is no problem, but by raising a potential problem, you're able to make it more difficult for a specific group that you're trying to keep down, either for your advantage or to serve your ideology.

If your intent is to de-legitimize transgender-ism, making them not be able to compete as women in a thing specifically designed for women would surely be a notch in the belt.  ("See, I told you they're not real women...why are they using womens' bathrooms")   I'm not saying that's the reasoning here, but historically (and even now), things like this did and continue to occur, so it's not absurd of Spider to raise those concerns.