RIP Ellen Page...

[dixiehack]

For adults, that's fine. But it's tougher for youth.

Not every trans youth is on hormone therapy yet. Some are advised to wait until they are 18 and are just on hormone blockers, not full therapy.

Some are now in states that explicitly prohibit that therapy until they turn 18.

 

[SoloFlyer]

Some are now in states that explicitly prohibit that therapy until they turn 18.

Right, and there's a lot that goes into that decision, from a medical standpoint and an ethical/consent standpoint.

That's why many are just on blockers - they can be removed and puberty progresses normally, if a bit late.

And that's why it's harder to come up with testing for youth sports. These are teens and pre-teens. Development is critical, including their mental well-being. Putting them through embarrassing protocols just so they can do an activity with their peers is just wrong.

 

[outofplace]

That's the only way that I can see to handle it. It has to be measurable. If it's allowed to be subjective, there will be unending arguments about the judgement. That's imperfect, but the only way I can see to draw a defensible line.

That is why I have an issue with involving advocates. Solo is pushing subjectivity over objectivity.

 

[outofplace]

Advocacy groups should be involved so as to ensure that the development of any testing standards are done with care and sensitivity. You don't have a bunch of cisgender folks make rules for transgender people, just as you wouldn't have a group of exclusively white people make policies about race.

And results don't matter for college recruiting. They never have. Potential and build are what matter.

If a girl runs 14.5 in the 100, she ain't running in college, even if she finishes first in the state. If results mattered, then the girl who scored 30 points per game would be better recruited than the girl who scored 14 per game. If results mattered, then the boy who threw for 4,000 yards would be going to Notre Dame rather than his rival who threw for 2,000.

Saying results matter for kids who want to play in college is just wrong. No, potential matters. The 6'4 QB with athleticism is going to get D1 looks over the 5'10 kid who threw for a bunch of yards out of the spread. The girl running sub-5:00 in the 1600 is getting recruited, even if she finishes fifth, more than the girl at 6:40 who happens to win in another state.

You are pushing for subjectivity over science and covering it up with words like sensitivity and care to try to make your argument look pretty. Science needs to be driving the rules, not advocacy groups.

I'm not sure if you are incapable of understanding the argument I made above or if you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I'll try explaining it again so perhaps even you can follow. Your approach to this issue ignores athletes who will never compete above the high school level. They don't really have the next level to grow and develop for, so the results are the most important thing. Again, it is a matter of personal pride in their accomplishments, not catching a recruiter's eye. Apparently, you have a hard time understanding that competition has value even if it doesn't come with a scholarship or a contract. Even some athletes who are going to compete at the next level still want to win in high school, more as a matter of pride than anything.

In other words, I'm not saying the results matter to recruiters. I am saying they matter to the athletes. I think you just don't want to acknowledge that because it hurts your false premise that any female athlete who doesn't want to compete against transgender females must only be doing it out of hate.

 

[SoloFlyer]

You are pushing for subjectivity over science and covering it up with words like sensitivity and care to try to make your argument look pretty. Science needs to be driving the rules, not advocacy groups.

I'm not sure if you are incapable of understanding the argument I made above or if you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I'll try explaining it again so perhaps even you can follow. Your approach to this issue ignores athletes who will never compete above the high school level. They don't really have the next level to grow and develop for, so the results are the most important thing. Again, it is a matter of personal pride in their accomplishments, not catching a recruiter's eye. Apparently, you have a hard time understanding that competition has value even if it doesn't come with a scholarship or a contract. Even some athletes who are going to compete at the next level still want to win in high school, more as a matter of pride than anything.

In other words, I'm not saying the results matter to recruiters. I am saying they matter to the athletes. I think you just don't want to acknowledge that because it hurts your false premise that any female athlete who doesn't want to compete against transgender females must only be doing it out of hate.

There is a lot of pseudoscience and hate out there. Including the voice of advocacy groups while drawing up competition guidelines ensures that the affected individuals have a seat at the table while still adhering to science-based decisions.

And you're right that I'm largely ignoring your comments about results. It's not being dismissive to the athletes. Winning means a lot. Earning a place on the podium is a huge accomplishment. I will never dismiss that.

But results are highly variable. Are these same athletes who are upset that they've lost to a transgender competitor going to complain if they lose to the next Alyson Felix? Or if their basketball team is crushed by the next Lisa Leslie? I ask that sincerely, because that's the territory most of these complaints come from. Almost all of the public complaints at the youth level have come from someone who finish second or third. Not someone who finished 40th and didn't even make the final heat. Not someone whose team went 2-20.

You've continually cited fairness in this argument, even dating back to our last go-round. That it's not fair for a transgender female to compete with a cisgender female because of a perceived biological advantage. Doesn't Lisa Leslie 2.0 have a distinct biological advantage? What about Jennie Finch, Jr? Kids face seemingly unfair competition all the time.

You can't control how good your competition is. But you can control giving everyone an opportunity. Yeah, it might be a little unfair that a cisgender girl loses a few at-bats because she's hitting fifth instead of fourth. Or that a cisgender girl finishes second instead of first in the swim meet. I get it. But you know what's more unfair? Not being allow to hit or swim at all, just because of who you are.

Competition matters. Results have meaning. But these are kids. It is a critically important time in their development, and while I'm not dismissing the mental health of cisgender kids, trans teens are at a substantially higher risk of being isolated and to suffer from severe depression. Excluding them from something that brings them joy because of who they are is only going to do damage. And that's the most unfair thing of all.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Re: Gender vs sex

A Guide To Gender Identity Terms

 

[outofplace]

There is a lot of pseudoscience and hate out there. Including the voice of advocacy groups while drawing up competition guidelines ensures that the affected individuals have a seat at the table while still adhering to science-based decisions.

And you're right that I'm largely ignoring your comments about results. It's not being dismissive to the athletes. Winning means a lot. Earning a place on the podium is a huge accomplishment. I will never dismiss that.

But results are highly variable. Are these same athletes who are upset that they've lost to a transgender competitor going to complain if they lose to the next Alyson Felix? Or if their basketball team is crushed by the next Lisa Leslie? I ask that sincerely, because that's the territory most of these complaints come from. Almost all of the public complaints at the youth level have come from someone who finish second or third. Not someone who finished 40th and didn't even make the final heat. Not someone whose team went 2-20.

You've continually cited fairness in this argument, even dating back to our last go-round. That it's not fair for a transgender female to compete with a cisgender female because of a perceived biological advantage. Doesn't Lisa Leslie 2.0 have a distinct biological advantage? What about Jennie Finch, Jr? Kids face seemingly unfair competition all the time.

You can't control how good your competition is. But you can control giving everyone an opportunity. Yeah, it might be a little unfair that a cisgender girl loses a few at-bats because she's hitting fifth instead of fourth. Or that a cisgender girl finishes second instead of first in the swim meet. I get it. But you know what's more unfair? Not being allow to hit or swim at all, just because of who you are.

Competition matters. Results have meaning. But these are kids. It is a critically important time in their development, and while I'm not dismissing the mental health of cisgender kids, trans teens are at a substantially higher risk of being isolated and to suffer from severe depression. Excluding them from something that brings them joy because of who they are is only going to do damage. And that's the most unfair thing of all.

That part in bold is a lie. You've been dismissing those things this entire discussion. What follows is a terrible argument. Losing to someone who is better than you in a fair competition is part of any sport. Of course, nobody likes that, but at least they know the competition was fair. Lisa Leslie 2.0 is still competing on a level playing field. She doesn't have the very real biological advantage that comes with being born male creating an advantage for her.

I do love the way you moved the goalposts there. You insisted that a cisgender female fighting back against competing against trans females must be doing it from a position of hate, but now you tell us that she would complain about anybody beating her. Which is it? Hate or competitiveness? Did you not realize you just contradicted yourself?

Also, please stop with this "perceived" biological advantage bull****. The advantage is real. That doesn't mean the person with the advantage is going to win every time. See my example of PED users in baseball. Some of them cheat just to be mediocre. That doesn't mean they didn't get an unfair advantage from what they did.

It's not that results don't matter to athletes in youth sports. They don't matter to you. You don't care who gets hurt as long as your agenda is served.

 

[User 150927]

That part in bold is a lie. You've been dismissing those things this entire discussion. What follows is a terrible argument. Losing to someone who is better than you in a fair competition is part of any sport. Of course, nobody likes that, but at least they know the competition was fair. Lisa Leslie 2.0 is still competing on a level playing field. She doesn't have the very real biological advantage that comes with being born male creating an advantage for her.

I do love the way you moved the goalposts there. You insisted that a cisgender female fighting back against competing against trans females must be doing it from a position of hate, but now you tell us that she would complain about anybody beating her. Which is it? Hate or competitiveness? Did you not realize you just contradicted yourself?

Also, please stop with this "perceived" biological advantage bull****. The advantage is real. That doesn't mean the person with the advantage is going to win every time. See my example of PED users in baseball. Some of them cheat just to be mediocre. That doesn't mean they didn't get an unfair advantage from what they did.

It's not that results don't matter to athletes in youth sports. They don't matter to you. You don't care who gets hurt as long as your agenda is served.

I don't know why you continue to insist that boys are stronger, better youth athletes than girls because in my experience that's not true. The best youth athletes are the ones that work at it. Boys and girls are virtually indistinguishable physically at that age. And you continue to carry the bias that every transgirl is some kind of super hero athlete just because she is biological male. Please find one example other than the Connecticut case where people are upset about competing against transgirls at the HS or youth sports level.

 

[outofplace]

I don't know why you continue to insist that boys are stronger, better youth athletes than girls because in my experience that's not true. The best youth athletes are the ones that work at it. Boys and girls are virtually indistinguishable physically at that age. And you continue to carry the bias that every transgirl is some kind of super hero athlete just because she is biological male. Please find one example other than the Connecticut case where people are upset about competing against transgirls at the HS or youth sports level.

I'm talking about high school athletes. You really think they are indistinguishable physically in high school?

Also, where did I ever indicate that any transgirl is some kind of superhero athlete? I wrote that she has an advantage because she does, but not that it is an insurmountable one. That is why I used the example of PED users in MLB. Neifi Perez was no superhero athlete. He lagged well behind, say, Derek Jeter. That doesn't change the fact that Perez, who was suspended twice for PED use, gained an unfair advantage. Gaining an advantage doesn't guarantee victory.

What does the last sentence even have to do with it? We're discussing the issue. Also, do you doubt for a second that some people do have a problem and they feel like they can't speak up because they are afraid of being shouted down as being hateful bigots? I've seen arguments on this very thread that demonstrate that is exactly what would happen to them.

 

[User 150927]

Then you need to check your terminology. Because you have interchangeably used youth sports and high school sports and they are radically different beasts.

 

[SoloFlyer]

It's not that results don't matter to athletes in youth sports. They don't matter to you. You don't care who gets hurt as long as your agenda is served.

Here's what it boils down to -- You want a scenario where no one is hurt and everyone gets something out of this.

That's not reality. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to be unhappy. There is no magic fix where everyone is OK.

I would rather risk someone be upset about results than risk someone being hurt about not being allowed to participate at all. Then you let the results fall wherever they may. Maybe the transgender girl dominates. Or maybe she's the last player off the bench and is just a part of the team. At least everyone gets a chance to play. That's the bottom line for me.

 

[outofplace]

Then you need to check your terminology. Because you have interchangeably used youth sports and high school sports and they are radically different beasts.

Actually, it is SoloFlyer who keeps moving the goalposts all over the place. My apologies if you lost the conversation in the process.

 

[outofplace]

Here's what it boils down to -- You want a scenario where no one is hurt and everyone gets something out of this.

That's not reality. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to be unhappy. There is no magic fix where everyone is OK.

I would rather risk someone be upset about results than risk someone being hurt about not being allowed to participate at all. Then you let the results fall wherever they may. Maybe the transgender girl dominates. Or maybe she's the last player off the bench and is just a part of the team. At least everyone gets a chance to play. That's the bottom line for me.

You still aren't being honest. People are hurt in both cases. Your use of being upset in one case and being hurt in the other is misleading. In both cases, someone loses something of value.

No, there is no magic fix. That has been my primary point all along, that people like you are oversimplifying this. There is no one, right answer. Pushing advocacy over science, however, is absolutely the wrong answer.

 

[SoloFlyer]

You still aren't being honest. People are hurt in both cases. Your use of being upset in one case and being hurt in the other is misleading. In both cases, someone loses something of value.

No, there is no magic fix. That has been my primary point all along, that people like you are oversimplifying this. There is no one, right answer. Pushing advocacy over science, however, is absolutely the wrong answer.

I state right in the post that you quoted that people are hurt in both cases.

I just don't believe that the pain of enduring a worse result is the same as being excluded completely from participating.

So you can throw around accusations of me being dishonest, just like the last thread this discussion came up in, but you're not being honest with yourself if you believe losing and being completely excluded from participating carry the same weight.

 

[outofplace]

I state right in the post that you quoted that people are hurt in both cases.

I just don't believe that the pain of enduring a worse result is the same as being excluded completely from participating.

So you can throw around accusations of me being dishonest, just like the last thread this discussion came up in, but you're not being honest with yourself if you believe losing and being completely excluded from participating carry the same weight.

No, you stated that one group of people would be upset and the other would be hurt. I understand the difference. I am certain that you understood it when you wrote it. It was an attempt to manipulate through word choice, to minimize what is being done to the people you don't care about.

Also, they aren't being told they can't participate. They are being told they can't participate with the gender with which they identify. Of course, that is still hurtful to them, but it is important to be clear and honest.

By all means, show me the post in which I state or imply that those hurts are equivalent. I'll save you some time. The post doesn't exist. I didn't do it.

If you don't like being accused of posting dishonestly, there is a very simple solution. Stop doing it.

 

[SoloFlyer]

No, you stated that one group of people would be upset and the other would be hurt. I understand the difference. I am certain that you understood it when you wrote it. It was an attempt to manipulate through word choice, to minimize what is being done to the people you don't care about.

Please, tell me more about how I'm wrong about what I intended to convey.

I think it was pretty clear that multiple sides could be hurt. That I used upset as a synonym reflects the fact that I'm posting between breaks in work and not fretting every word, and I hate using the same descriptive word twice in a row. It's a message board, not a thesis paper.

Also, they aren't being told they can't participate. They are being told they can't participate with the gender with which they identify. Of course, that is still hurtful to them, but it is important to be clear and honest.

I'm going to skip the rest of your usual condescending bull**** and clip the quote here.

I want you to answer a question that you've routinely dodged in this discussion, even though you've regularly cited the importance of fairness:

Why is it OK to be unfair to transgender athletes by preventing them to play sports with their peers, but it is not OK to be unfair to cisgender athletes by having them play with trans students?

And we're talking strictly high school and youth sports, not the Olympics or NCAA or pro leagues.

Why is it OK to hurt one group but not the other?

 

[User 150927]

Actually, it is SoloFlyer who keeps moving the goalposts all over the place. My apologies if you lost the conversation in the process.

I did. No worries.

 

[outofplace]

Please, tell me more about how I'm wrong about what I intended to convey.

I think it was pretty clear that multiple sides could be hurt. That I used upset as a synonym reflects the fact that I'm posting between breaks in work and not fretting every word, and I hate using the same descriptive word twice in a row. It's a message board, not a thesis paper.


I'm going to skip the rest of your usual condescending bull**** and clip the quote here.

I want you to answer a question that you've routinely dodged in this discussion, even though you've regularly cited the importance of fairness:

Why is it OK to be unfair to transgender athletes by preventing them to play sports with their peers, but it is not OK to be unfair to cisgender athletes by having them play with trans students?

And we're talking strictly high school and youth sports, not the Olympics or NCAA or pro leagues.

Why is it OK to hurt one group but not the other?

I already explained how your post was misleading. Upset and hurt are not the same thing. Upset implies the person is simply unhappy. Hurt implies actual suffering of some kind. This part of the issue has already gotten more bandwidth than you deserve, but you chose that, too.

I don't accept the premise of your question because I never said it was okay to be unfair to transgender athletes. It isn't okay to be unfair to anybody. That's the problem here. You can't be fair to everyone. It is not at all accurate to say I dodged that question. You really need to try to approach this conversation more honestly.

Also, you really shouldn't lump high school and youth sports together, as was made clear by Mngwa's posts. The expectations regarding competition are different for younger children than they are for those in high school.

Why do you think it is okay to be unfair to cisgender athletes? You seem adamant that we absolutely must be unfair to them. Why is that okay?

 

[SoloFlyer]

I don't accept the premise of your question because I never said it was okay to be unfair to transgender athletes. It isn't okay to be unfair to anybody. That's the problem here. You can't be fair to everyone. It is not at all accurate to say I dodged that question. You really need to try to approach this conversation more honestly.

So you don't want to discuss a possible solution? We can't be fair to everyone, so it's not worth discussing ways to address a situation that's grown to the point where legislation is being drawn up in multiple states? You seem content to say, "Well, that's just the way things go" and if transgender athletes are barred from competing with their peers by legislation, then so be it. You're certainly not proposing alternatives that would lead anyone to think otherwise.

Also, you really shouldn't lump high school and youth sports together, as was made clear by Mngwa's posts. The expectations regarding competition are different for younger children than they are for those in high school.

Expectations regarding competition are subjective. Age is not.

High school and youth sports involve children under 18. They are minors. They require parent/guardian sign-off to participate in activities, whether it's sports or drama club or the honor society. Individuals out of high school are adults.

That's what the line needs to be. Athletics involving children vs athletics involving adults. My position has always been that athletics involving children should be focused on inclusion and skill development. Competition is valuable, but it is also variable. Some kids simply want to participate to stay active, others want to win, earn college scholarships, and have professional aspirations.

Why do you think it is okay to be unfair to cisgender athletes? You seem adamant that we absolutely must be unfair to them. Why is that okay?

Coming up with a solution to this situation is going to result in someone being treated unfairly. That it is unavoidable. So it becomes a question of degree.

In my opinion, the pain and discomfort experienced by cisgender athletes having to compete against transgender athletes is substantially less damaging - short-term, but especially long-term - than the pain and discomfort experienced by barring transgender athletes from competing against their peers.

As I have said repeatedly, I prefer to operate from a stance of inclusion rather than exclusion when it comes to children participating in athletics. Including transgender athletes and allowing them to participate alongside the students they identify as their peers may not be a perfect solution and may be unfair, but it is less damaging and more fair than requiring children to go through a hormone check and certainly less damaging and far more fair than excluding them completely.

 

[outofplace]

So you don't want to discuss a possible solution? We can't be fair to everyone, so it's not worth discussing ways to address a situation that's grown to the point where legislation is being drawn up in multiple states? You seem content to say, "Well, that's just the way things go" and if transgender athletes are barred from competing with their peers by legislation, then so be it. You're certainly not proposing alternatives that would lead anyone to think otherwise.


Expectations regarding competition are subjective. Age is not.

High school and youth sports involve children under 18. They are minors. They require parent/guardian sign-off to participate in activities, whether it's sports or drama club or the honor society. Individuals out of high school are adults.

That's what the line needs to be. Athletics involving children vs athletics involving adults. My position has always been that athletics involving children should be focused on inclusion and skill development. Competition is valuable, but it is also variable. Some kids simply want to participate to stay active, others want to win, earn college scholarships, and have professional aspirations.


Coming up with a solution to this situation is going to result in someone being treated unfairly. That it is unavoidable. So it becomes a question of degree.

In my opinion, the pain and discomfort experienced by cisgender athletes having to compete against transgender athletes is substantially less damaging - short-term, but especially long-term - than the pain and discomfort experienced by barring transgender athletes from competing against their peers.

As I have said repeatedly, I prefer to operate from a stance of inclusion rather than exclusion when it comes to children participating in athletics. Including transgender athletes and allowing them to participate alongside the students they identify as their peers may not be a perfect solution and may be unfair, but it is less damaging and more fair than requiring children to go through a hormone check and certainly less damaging and far more fair than excluding them completely.

Wow. You really are desperate to turn me into a villain in this. You just keep making things up and attributing them to me.

Let's start with you admitting that it was unfair for you to claim that I said it was okay to be fair to transgender females. You just skipped right over your error on that one.

I also never said we shouldn't discuss a possible solution. That's what I've been trying to do here, but you refuse to have an honest discussion. You just keep tossing up one straw man after another and whacking away at them.

There may be some similarities between high school and youth sports, but they are not the same. Are you really just approaching this situation from complete ignorance or are you just willing to write anything, no matter how dishonest, in service of your argument? One of those things must be true here.

High school is the last level of competition for many, if not most athletes. If you don't think that it is fair to expect more from teenagers than it is from children in elementary and middle school, you are so ignorant that you have no place in this discussion.

I understand why you want the line there. It serves your argument. That is the only reason you want it there. It makes no sense whatsoever to draw the line that way. If we define youth sports as everything younger than high school, those should be developmental. High school is a completely different animal.

The pain experienced by cisgender athletes may be less damaging, but it also affects a great many more people.

Hormone checks, while uncomfortable, may be the most reasonable compromise, but you have no interest in being reasonable. You just want to run over the many for the very few.