Girls sue school system for allowing trans athletes to complete

Sigh, we're going in circles here.

The ambiguity of it all is exactly my point. How can you definitively say that cisgender females are at a disadvantage against transgender females when we're still learning? How can you adequately compare the physical traits of someone who began the transition process at 13 compared to one who began at 19 to one who began at 29? How can you properly compare someone who is intersex or who has genetically occurring hormonal imbalance? You can't. There are too many variables.

That's been my argument all along - you can't possibly come up with a rule or bylaw that adequately addresses all of those variables. That's why the default position needs to be one of inclusion rather than exclusion.

Let me phrase it this way: Who has more taken away from them in this scenario? By allowing transgender girls to compete against cisgender girls, then cisgender girls still have the opportunity to compete against their peers. Their identity is not questioned. Their role in society is not questioned. They are immediately accepted. But if you take away the opportunity for transgender girls to compete with cisgender girls, then transgender girls can no longer compete against their peers. Their identity, which they are already often struggling to come to grips with, is publicly questioned. You are essentially telling them, "No, all of that you've been going through is wrong, you're still a boy." They continue to feel out of place in society and unaccepted.

Is it possible some transgender girls have an inherent physical advantage when going against cisgender girls? Yes. I grant you that. My counter is that the low number of transgender athletes makes those cases far more scarce and incredibly similar to going up against an extraordinarily gifted cisgender athletes, like the thousands of girls who are born to former college stars or those who simply have an abnormal lung capacity.

The sheer number of transgender youth in the US tells us that there are thousands of transgender teens competing in sports who no one talks about simply because they aren't successful. We're only focused on those who win, and therein lies the problem.

Your point seems to be that by allowing transgender girls to compete with cisgender girls, some cisgender girls may lose out on winning an event at a track championship. Maybe that's unfair. But, to me, that argument is too orientated around success in a competition.

My argument is that by allowing transgender girls to compete with cisgender girls, we are affirming their identity. We are allowing them to finally hear, "Yes, you are who you believe you are and you belong here." To me, that's far more important than worrying about who will win a race.

 

The issue isn't just who has had more taken away from them. It is how many people have something taken away from them. Far more people are being treated unfairly if the male-to-female transsexual is allowed to play with biological females if she has to stay with the other biological males.

The other issue is the one that is fundamental to sports, the level playing field. Do you make it uneven for everybody else to accommodate one person or do you make it unfair to one person to keep it fair for everybody else? Sorry, but you've got to do right by the larger number.

It isn't just possible that some transgender girls have a physical advantage over cisgender girls. It is reality. Maybe not if the transition happens early enough, but we don't even know that for sure because the numbers are so small. The integrity of women's sports relies on only allowing women to play. That's why it is wrong that guys play with girls in sports like field hockey.

What is important to you is being unfair to the many and damaging the integrity of the sport for one person, who then has an unfair advantage. Winning in sports matters. Take that away, and the sport itself loses meaning.

We are going in circles because I believe in fairness for as many people as possible while you feel it is fine to screw over a large group to give one person affirmation.

 

And therein lies the rub in this discussion.

Sorry, but I'll risk damaging the integrity of sports if it means helping at risk individuals feel included for the first time in their lives.

Since you have a bunch of West Wing quotes in your signature, I'll throw a scene back at you that is applicable here.

Allowing transgender females to participate in sports alongside cisgender females may be somewhat disruptive now, but it's for the greater good. Trans teens are some of the highest risk individuals in the world when it comes to self-harm and suicide. If an inclusive sports world helps reduce those numbers, it'll be worth any disruption to the integrity of sports.

 

Yeah it’s not the greater good. The greater good is having women’s sports be for women.

 

That is a great scene, but it still doesn't apply. This isn't a temporary disruption based on some false idea. This is a very real disruption that will continue to be an issue because biological males will always have a physical advantage against biological females.

The greater good is subjective. That greater good you want for one person cheats a very large number of others around them.

Where do you draw the line? What about the kid battling depression who has no talent? Letting him play would sure make him feel better. Maybe fewer of them would end up committing suicide, too.

You are asking sports to do something that isn't its job because you have compassion for one group while not giving a damn about others.

 

Absolutely let him join the team.

Nowhere in this have I said that anyone is guaranteed playing time. I've simply said that they should be allowed to participate. By definition, that means signing up for the team, going to practices, and being eligible to play in a competition. Public schools should not be allowed to cut players from the team short of a violation of school district policy. If that means you have varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams, so be it. So if the kid with depression wants to play football, you give him shoulder pads and a helmet. If the kid with Down's syndrome wants to play soccer, you give her cleats and shin pads.

And if the transgender girl wants to run track with her female friends, she should be allowed. I noticed for all the talk of unfairness you keep throwing around, you've mentioned nothing about the waves of support these teens have received from their opponents and teammates. The ESPNW story includes an anecdote of a competitor congratulating one of the Connecticut transgender girls for her win. Incredible how someone who just lost a race can be more understanding and gracious than those watching from afar.

Sports should be inclusive. The fact that you seem to think winning matters more than encouraging kids to participate is craven and sad.

 

Since this discussion is really about suicide rates than it is anything else, I’ll examine this through the other end of the looking glass: What, if any, demographic can not and should not use suicide rates as a rationale for promoting a given policy change?

 

Is it medically accepted to begin transitioning at 13? That seems absurd to me. I’m a bigot and a TERF, I know.

My gut tells me none of this should be taking place until college or later. The brain continues to develop until 25. Doing anything chemically or surgically before that.... I don’t see it but I haven’t read all the research (which I’m sure has a both sides-ism that’d make climate change research look tame anyway)

 

I actually agree more with outofplace on this, but this is an excellent post, SoloFlyer.

 

Essentially, we're still learning, but yes it is accepted by the American Medical Association.

Usually teens are on puberty blockers (which are reversible) and hormone therapy. Gender reassignment surgery typically isn't approved until the individual turns 18 and can consent on their own rather than through parents/guardians, although severe diagnosis can lead to surgery on minors.

Also, none of the above is done without extensive screening by mental health professionals and an official diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It's a multi-stage, multi-year process.

 

Maybe the US is more stringent but reassignment surgery routinely done on minors in the UK and Canada.

A bit alarmed at the conviction you have that puberty blockers are reversible.

Additionally issue with the transgender athletes is that they have already gone thru puberty and gained the biological advantage.

 

This entire post is factually incorrect.

For one, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care says that:
"Genital surgery should not be carried out until (i) patients reach the legal age of majority in a given country, and (ii) patients have lived continuously for at least 12 months in the gender role that is congruent with their gender identity. The age threshold should be seen as a minimum criterion and not an indication in and of itself for active intervention. Chest surgery in FtM patients could be carried out earlier, preferably after ample time of living in the desired gender role and after one year of testosterone treatment. The intent of this suggested sequence is to give adolescents sufficient opportunity to experience and socially adjust in a more masculine gender role, before undergoing irreversible surgery. However, different approaches may be more suitable, depending on an adolescent’s specific clinical situation and goals for gender identity expression."

Are there exceptional circumstances? Yes. And some doctors do perform it earlier. But in the US, the legal age is 18. I believe it is 16 in the UK, but I might be mistaken. Here's a page from Aetna on approval for surgery - Gender Reassignment Surgery - Medical Clinical Policy Bulletins | Aetna

Two, doctors around the world agree that the effects of puberty blockers are reversible. Straight from the MayoClinic:
Use of GnRH analogues doesn't cause permanent changes in an adolescent's body. Instead, it pauses puberty, providing time to determine if a child's gender identity is long lasting. It also gives children and their families time to think about or plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues ahead. If an adolescent child stops taking GnRH analogues, puberty will resume.

Pubertal blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth

Hormone therapy, on the other hand, can have effects that are not reversible.

Finally, the idea behind puberty blockers is to start before puberty is underway or at least in its early stages. It halts puberty. That's the entire reason for it. Are there transgender athletes who did not transition until after puberty? Absolutely. But there are others who transitioned with a full load of puberty blockers and hormone therapy. To make a blanket statement that all trans athletes have already gone through puberty is flat out wrong.