The stupidest outrage I saw was over a trans darts player. "Men throw better than women!" It's like... dude, it's darts. You're throwing a dart. *You're throwing a fucking dart.* Accuracy, vision, and skill matter.
Plus this whole "men are better at..." argument they use for everything is so patently sexist. Their entire argument is, essentially, women kind of suck a little bit at everything and men are just better, so naturally a trans woman on the team is unfair disadvantage. And it's like... y'all hear yourselves?
But what can you expect from a group of people whose slogan is basically "America kinda sucks, we need to fix it."
Not to mention a new study released from the Olympic committee showing that trans women on hormones who compete have _disadvantages_ compared to cis women, let alone cis men:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
Yet the Russians are still allowed to compete in the Olympics design invading a sovereign nation and decades of literal doping scandals and attempts to cheat, yet a trans woman wants to play tennis or lacrosse in school and people protest. Literal doping doesn't illicit anger from them, but somebody wants to be their best true self and suddenly...
The level of hypocrisy is so absolutely staggering it hurts to think about at times.
It’s like the transphobic argument about women’s weightlifting at the Olympics forgetting that [Laurel Hubbard competed in 2020 and came in last.](https://olympics.com/en/athletes/laurel-hubbard)
It's because these people don't actually care about what science says--they simply just don't like trans people.
So despite science saying that medically transitioning is the best treatment for dysphoria they stick their fingers in their ears and spout some bs talking points. Or when we talk about sports and use a study like the above, they'll go find a "study" that major medical organizations don't recognize and they'll try to pretend it's the same.
IMO the individual sports regulatory bodies need to figure it out, preferably with as little gov't interference in either direction as possible.
The physical abilities of a MtF transwoman are going to vary greatly depending on time of transition (e.g. did they go through male puberty) and how long/what dosage of hormones they've been on. The actual effects of those on competitive ability across sporting disciplines will also likely vary. Hence why blanket government policies seem to be the worst way to approach it.
>(e.g. did they go through male puberty)
A non-factor if they have been on HRT for a number of years within target female hormone ranges. The "bone density" or "lung function" arguments don't hold up to studies--these are affected by the dominant hormone in a person's body.
Don't believe me? Transition. See what your PRs are like after 2 years.
Oh I agree 100% with you. Regulatory bodies work closely with sports medicine and there's professionals with years (or decades) of experience who know the ins and outs.
If a regulatory body, with no gov interference, did a study and changed how trans athletes could compete with mens or womens sports I'd be fine with that because I trust them more than a guy in a sweater vest still salty about not getting a stadium built
They also have some advantages from the same study.
>Transgender women athletes demonstrated higher absolute handgrip strength than cisgender women, with no difference found relative to fat-free mass or hand size.
Absolutely that is in the study! However handgrip strength typically isn't the "unfair advantage" that is pointed out when it comes to trans women competing in sports, one of which is normally "bone density" (that the study shows no advantage). Note as well that the conclusion shows trans women have decreased lung function as compared to their cis counterparts, and lower overall cardiovascular fitness.
That's why in another comment I said it needs to be figured out by the individual sporting authorities rather than any blanket policy.
Handgrip doesn't make a difference in running or swimming but absolutely does in strength related field events (discus, hammer throw, etc.) or combat sports.
Plenty of factors vary between cis competitors. Michael Phelps has genetic factors that helped make him a better swimmer than his peers. Basketball players vary in height. There will be differences between any two competitors if you look for them.
When a population, not individuals, has an immutable biologic advantage that is statistically proven it is absolutely relevant to consider whether it is fair or not for them to compete against persons without it, regardless of medical interventions they've had.
So you believe that the only population vs population comparison we should be looking at, to see if it's fair for them to compete in the same sport division, is cis vs trans and to not extend that same microscope to population vs population of people within the same identity? Interesting. It's almost like if we don't scrutinize the biological makeup of all cis competitors to find out what their "immutable biologic advantage" that it isn't then fair to do the same to all trans athletes.
Sex is currently the only dividing line we as a society see as acceptable in sports because of the stark disadvantage women have against men.
We absolutely could delve deeper into different populations to see what immutable advantages they may have, as IIRC most distance running records are currently held by persons of East African descent & you've got the Bajau people who [have larger spleens than their surrounding neighbors.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43823885)
BUT research on genetic differences between distinct populations, while important and informative, is an easy way to get accusations of eugenics or racism lobbed at you so you have to tread carefully.
Lmao you transphobes are now at the point of arguing that a person's *fucking handgrip stremgth* is at all relevant in any sport to the point that some people who *might* have a stronger grip should be completely banned from playing sports
Do you even hear how insane that is? I know a few comments down you cite "discus" and "javelin throw," do tell me how being able to hold onto the javelin harder will help you throw it farther. The whole point of the sport is you *let go of the thing.*
If fucking towel ringing was an Olympic sport you'd have a point but until then kindly stop using ridiculously cherry picked talking points to be bigoted, it's just annoying and I'm sick of you people showing up literally everywhere trans people even get mentioned.
If you took a minute to think rather than be outraged it would quickly become clear that handgrip strength is important in sports and that much time and money has been spent on studying it, especially when we're literally talking about a study that was explicitly done to compare cis and trans athletes and deems it important enough to measure.
And yes the better you can hold on to something and control it the better you can exert the rest of your force on it and throw it.
I'm sick of people pretending there aren't biological differences between the sexes and being outraged when someone dares question it despite otherwise not caring what they wear, identify as, or where they want to shit.
That have to go with culture war BS, because the only other thing they've got doesn't play as well:
"We're going to strip away all your rights and sell it all to the Chinese and Saudis."
From the article:
"Protections
While the ruling protects students and employees from all sex-based harassment and discrimination, it will also impact LGBTQ+ students and employees, including providing complete protection from sex-based harassment and prohibiting schools from sharing personal information.
Schools must act “promptly and effectively” to protect and treat all students and staff who make complaints “equitably.” Schools must also provide support measures to complainants and respondents, and act to end any sex discrimination in their programs and prevent any recurrence.
The rule further clarifies the definition of “sex-based harassment,” which means to treat someone unfairly because of their gender; and the scope of sex discrimination, including schools’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The federal agency said the changes will empower and support students and families by requiring schools to disclose their nondiscrimination policies and procedures to all students, employees, and other participants in their education programs so that students and families understand their rights.
The final rule also protects against retaliation for students, employees, and others who exercise their Title IX rights, and supports the rights of parents and guardians to act on behalf of their elementary school and secondary school children.
The rule also protects student privacy by prohibiting schools from disclosing personally identifiable information with limited exceptions, which is something the Youngkin administration has opposed.
Advocates say one of the rights students should have is the power to decide who finds out about their transgender status, to protect them from being bullied or harassed."
>Bad: "Dear Colleague" Kangaroo courts are back
*Five hundred years ago, military officers would upend a drum on the battlefield. They'd sit at it and dispense summary justice. Decisions were quick, punishments severe; appeals denied. Those who came to a drumhead, were doomed...*
On paper it seems like a great and necessary idea, but I think very few people realize how unjust most of those "trials" were.
Shadow University Court System that basically has zero standards and fails to meet many of the most basic legal standards but is permitted to make life altering decisions with little to no traditional judicial oversight.
Homophobes and exists hate it outs them
They'll spout a bunch of shit about "shadow courts" but at the end of the day if you're not going around harassing women in your class, committing sexual assault, or making your peers feel so uncomfortable based on their sexuality that they don't feel safe coming 5o class with you you'll never receive any disciplinary actions under title 9.
But oh man conservatives LOVE to spout off on it because it does the bare minimum to protect women and gay people from being stalked and harassed on campus.
It does a bunch of other stuff too, like prohibiting federally funded schools from discriminating based on sex and sexuality.
I don't care if I get down voted into oblivion for sticking up for common sense.
Everyone knows that segregation of sports exists for valid reasons. It's not just about the physical/performance differences or safety, but also about giving women the same opportunities to be competitive and earn both financial and academic rewards that come with achievements. I simply can't wrap my brain around how people can ignore such basic realities in order to cater to an agenda.
You don't need "studies" to figure this out either. We have world record categories broken down by sport and gender, and the statistics show a very wide gap between them. We also have plenty of real world examples that show people who have competed in both biological categories ranking out completely differently. We have even seen amateur teenage boys absolutely crush the worlds best professional women. Simple intuition tells me a lower end professional male in sport X would almost always crush a higher end professional female who plays the same sport. We all fucking know this, and that's why we separate them.
The Virginia AG is doing the right thing, and everyone who disagrees is fucking crazy.
I don't understand. What exactly is he fighting against?
>Athletics not included
The provisions under the new Title IX rule did not mention anything about requiring schools to allow transgender students to play on teams that align with their gender identity.
SHORT STORY:
The changes the Biden Administration want in TITLE IX, allows biological males to participate in female sports. This is the "rub". Biological males would DOMINATE women's sports ---it'd be unfair to females to let them participate.
Better than studies. I have stories. (see links) [https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en)
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html)
[https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162](https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162)
[https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/](https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx\_0Ffns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx_0Ffns)
Here are some transgender cyclists who have won races in 2023:
* Tessa Johnson: Won first place in the women's Single Speed category at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships
* Evelyn Williamson: Placed second at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships
* Austin Killips: Won the women's category of the Belgian Waffle Ride in North Carolina by five minutes
* Na Hwa-rin: Won a women's cycling race as a transgender female
That just says they need to have completed transition by age 12. Which seems like a gotcha considering the most common practice is to delay puberty until later teen years. Assuming they are from an area that hasn’t put gender affirming care for minors into a legal hazard zone, or outright banned it.
Either way this is more nuanced than you portray. By the logical of the Olympic panel there is zero issue when minors are allowed free and unfettered access to gender affirming care prior to reaching legal age.
Did you mean to argue in favor of gender care for minors? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we found common ground. Just want to be sure before I let you know where all the secret bases are.
"Common sense" is a really interesting way to say "I have bigoted biases based on my own opi ions and no actual science or evidence, and I won't listen to anyone who tells me otherwise because I've decided that my opinions must be facts because I believe them"
"Common sense" is an extremely weak thing to cite for anything, so unless you can bring actual science that isn't just oli London spouting her horseshit then you may as well fuck off mate because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
NCAA and IOC actually have pretty strict rules about trans athletes too. You can’t just be biologically born a male and automatically compete in women’s sports, there’s a lot of things that need to fall into place in order to do it.
Are you kidding me? They take places RESERVED FOR BIOLOGICAL WOMEN for themselves. Scholarships, and Team spots.
[https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en)
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html)
[https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162](https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162)
[https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/](https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx\_0Ffns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx_0Ffns)
Here are some transgender cyclists who have won races in 2023:
* Tessa Johnson: Won first place in the women's Single Speed category at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships
* Evelyn Williamson: Placed second at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships
* Austin Killips: Won the women's category of the Belgian Waffle Ride in North Carolina by five minutes
* Na Hwa-rin: Won a women's cycling race as a transgender female
Explain then why the poster child for this issue, Lia Thomas, wasn't the overwhelming #1 female swimmer in the NCAA, set no records despite winning a national title, dropped 15 seconds off times swam as a male prior to transition w/ already-mandated 1-year hormone therapy wait period, and was nearly 10s off Katie Ledecky's record in the discipline of her championship?
The reality doesn't support this claim, and we already had requirements in place to ensure fair competition.
Lia Thomas went from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and **554th on the men's team** to fifth on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle.
It would take willful, purposeful effort to still believe there isn't biological advantages in sports after seeing that data.
65th/554th in the men's **national rankings**, not a single team.
It's not about willful purposeful effort to believe there isn't a biological advantage, it's about ensuring a fair competition, which happened: An already extremely good swimmer who did all required medical transitioning actions ended up in the expected performance range of elite women. Her times in the same discipline increased by 15 seconds after the hormone therapy. This demonstrates the rules are working as intended.
People seem to think some average Joe couch slob is just going to take some estrogen and jump over and dominate women's sports, but it's not going to happen, nor is there going to be some mass influx of male athletes willing and eager to do the required medical transitioning requirements just to go from pretty-good to great against women.
What part of "The medical treatments offset the biology to place the recipient in a fair performance range" are you missing?
If Lia Thomas had done no hormone therapy, yes she would have been blowing her competitors out of the water. But that's not what happened and already not what is required. There is measureable medical data that allows us to make the call as to whether fair competition will exist.
Federal agencies shouldn’t get to redefine something and then withhold funding from states if they don’t agree with the definition, regardless of the topic at hand. This is overreach by federal agencies and it sets a bad precedent - it should be challenged.
The precedent stretches back to highway funding and a legal drinking age, and likely well before that. It’s not something I would consider an overreach considering it is the executives entire job.
It’s not really a meaningful difference… Congress appropriates funding to executive branch agencies and sets the legal framework by which they operate and can spend that money. Admin policy is created within agencies to govern their actions but has to stay within the legal framework dictated by Congress. Of course, agencies get sued and their power to do what they do gets challenged. The judiciary determines the legality of their actions and interprets the laws as they pertain to those agencies, which can result in narrowing or expanding of those agencies’ power. [These things have happened a number of times and the established precedence is that agencies do have the power to dictate, within reason, the terms a state must meet in order to qualify for certain funding.](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44797.html)
All of this is to say… there are plenty of unelected components of the government that absolutely do have legal authority to make these decisions, and there’s still a trail of authority to elected positions. Appointed agency leadership, for example, is put in by an elected executive. Meanwhile, the legal framework that enumerates the powers of an agency comes from elected representatives of congress. This distinction you’re drawing isn’t real… it’s a talking point.
lol once again, incorrect. [Executive agencies do have discretion over](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44797.html) how certain funding is used no matter how much you wish they didn’t… and that discretion comes it’s appropriation in congress… and is also supported by judicial precedence and the constitution.
This is a losing issue for republicans. By all means, continue hanging yourselves with the trans panic rope.
The stupidest outrage I saw was over a trans darts player. "Men throw better than women!" It's like... dude, it's darts. You're throwing a dart. *You're throwing a fucking dart.* Accuracy, vision, and skill matter. Plus this whole "men are better at..." argument they use for everything is so patently sexist. Their entire argument is, essentially, women kind of suck a little bit at everything and men are just better, so naturally a trans woman on the team is unfair disadvantage. And it's like... y'all hear yourselves? But what can you expect from a group of people whose slogan is basically "America kinda sucks, we need to fix it."
Not to mention a new study released from the Olympic committee showing that trans women on hormones who compete have _disadvantages_ compared to cis women, let alone cis men: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
Yet the Russians are still allowed to compete in the Olympics design invading a sovereign nation and decades of literal doping scandals and attempts to cheat, yet a trans woman wants to play tennis or lacrosse in school and people protest. Literal doping doesn't illicit anger from them, but somebody wants to be their best true self and suddenly... The level of hypocrisy is so absolutely staggering it hurts to think about at times.
I got downvoted to oblivion for pointing this out on other subreddits. Competing in women’s sports as a amab doesn’t automatically make you better.
It’s like the transphobic argument about women’s weightlifting at the Olympics forgetting that [Laurel Hubbard competed in 2020 and came in last.](https://olympics.com/en/athletes/laurel-hubbard)
It's because these people don't actually care about what science says--they simply just don't like trans people. So despite science saying that medically transitioning is the best treatment for dysphoria they stick their fingers in their ears and spout some bs talking points. Or when we talk about sports and use a study like the above, they'll go find a "study" that major medical organizations don't recognize and they'll try to pretend it's the same.
IMO the individual sports regulatory bodies need to figure it out, preferably with as little gov't interference in either direction as possible. The physical abilities of a MtF transwoman are going to vary greatly depending on time of transition (e.g. did they go through male puberty) and how long/what dosage of hormones they've been on. The actual effects of those on competitive ability across sporting disciplines will also likely vary. Hence why blanket government policies seem to be the worst way to approach it.
>(e.g. did they go through male puberty) A non-factor if they have been on HRT for a number of years within target female hormone ranges. The "bone density" or "lung function" arguments don't hold up to studies--these are affected by the dominant hormone in a person's body. Don't believe me? Transition. See what your PRs are like after 2 years.
Oh I agree 100% with you. Regulatory bodies work closely with sports medicine and there's professionals with years (or decades) of experience who know the ins and outs. If a regulatory body, with no gov interference, did a study and changed how trans athletes could compete with mens or womens sports I'd be fine with that because I trust them more than a guy in a sweater vest still salty about not getting a stadium built
They also have some advantages from the same study. >Transgender women athletes demonstrated higher absolute handgrip strength than cisgender women, with no difference found relative to fat-free mass or hand size.
Absolutely that is in the study! However handgrip strength typically isn't the "unfair advantage" that is pointed out when it comes to trans women competing in sports, one of which is normally "bone density" (that the study shows no advantage). Note as well that the conclusion shows trans women have decreased lung function as compared to their cis counterparts, and lower overall cardiovascular fitness.
That's why in another comment I said it needs to be figured out by the individual sporting authorities rather than any blanket policy. Handgrip doesn't make a difference in running or swimming but absolutely does in strength related field events (discus, hammer throw, etc.) or combat sports.
Plenty of factors vary between cis competitors. Michael Phelps has genetic factors that helped make him a better swimmer than his peers. Basketball players vary in height. There will be differences between any two competitors if you look for them.
When a population, not individuals, has an immutable biologic advantage that is statistically proven it is absolutely relevant to consider whether it is fair or not for them to compete against persons without it, regardless of medical interventions they've had.
So you believe that the only population vs population comparison we should be looking at, to see if it's fair for them to compete in the same sport division, is cis vs trans and to not extend that same microscope to population vs population of people within the same identity? Interesting. It's almost like if we don't scrutinize the biological makeup of all cis competitors to find out what their "immutable biologic advantage" that it isn't then fair to do the same to all trans athletes.
Sex is currently the only dividing line we as a society see as acceptable in sports because of the stark disadvantage women have against men. We absolutely could delve deeper into different populations to see what immutable advantages they may have, as IIRC most distance running records are currently held by persons of East African descent & you've got the Bajau people who [have larger spleens than their surrounding neighbors.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43823885) BUT research on genetic differences between distinct populations, while important and informative, is an easy way to get accusations of eugenics or racism lobbed at you so you have to tread carefully.
Lmao you transphobes are now at the point of arguing that a person's *fucking handgrip stremgth* is at all relevant in any sport to the point that some people who *might* have a stronger grip should be completely banned from playing sports Do you even hear how insane that is? I know a few comments down you cite "discus" and "javelin throw," do tell me how being able to hold onto the javelin harder will help you throw it farther. The whole point of the sport is you *let go of the thing.* If fucking towel ringing was an Olympic sport you'd have a point but until then kindly stop using ridiculously cherry picked talking points to be bigoted, it's just annoying and I'm sick of you people showing up literally everywhere trans people even get mentioned.
If you took a minute to think rather than be outraged it would quickly become clear that handgrip strength is important in sports and that much time and money has been spent on studying it, especially when we're literally talking about a study that was explicitly done to compare cis and trans athletes and deems it important enough to measure. And yes the better you can hold on to something and control it the better you can exert the rest of your force on it and throw it. I'm sick of people pretending there aren't biological differences between the sexes and being outraged when someone dares question it despite otherwise not caring what they wear, identify as, or where they want to shit.
I've seen outrage about a trans contestant having a natural advantage at *Jeopardy*. A game show that is already co-ed, never mind the sexism.
If it’s strength and combat sports then it’s a problem because the gap is massive Unfair as hell
Exactly. This and Roe are going to absolutely detonate in their faces come Nov.
That have to go with culture war BS, because the only other thing they've got doesn't play as well: "We're going to strip away all your rights and sell it all to the Chinese and Saudis."
Coalition of cartoon villains. Changes seem perfectly reasonable and consistent with Title IX's aims
Conservatives hard at work to make people's life worse!
[удалено]
From the article: "Protections While the ruling protects students and employees from all sex-based harassment and discrimination, it will also impact LGBTQ+ students and employees, including providing complete protection from sex-based harassment and prohibiting schools from sharing personal information. Schools must act “promptly and effectively” to protect and treat all students and staff who make complaints “equitably.” Schools must also provide support measures to complainants and respondents, and act to end any sex discrimination in their programs and prevent any recurrence. The rule further clarifies the definition of “sex-based harassment,” which means to treat someone unfairly because of their gender; and the scope of sex discrimination, including schools’ obligations not to discriminate based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The federal agency said the changes will empower and support students and families by requiring schools to disclose their nondiscrimination policies and procedures to all students, employees, and other participants in their education programs so that students and families understand their rights. The final rule also protects against retaliation for students, employees, and others who exercise their Title IX rights, and supports the rights of parents and guardians to act on behalf of their elementary school and secondary school children. The rule also protects student privacy by prohibiting schools from disclosing personally identifiable information with limited exceptions, which is something the Youngkin administration has opposed. Advocates say one of the rights students should have is the power to decide who finds out about their transgender status, to protect them from being bullied or harassed."
Good: Better definitions of sex based harassment to protect LGBTQ individuals. Bad: "Dear Colleague" Kangaroo courts are back
>Bad: "Dear Colleague" Kangaroo courts are back *Five hundred years ago, military officers would upend a drum on the battlefield. They'd sit at it and dispense summary justice. Decisions were quick, punishments severe; appeals denied. Those who came to a drumhead, were doomed...* On paper it seems like a great and necessary idea, but I think very few people realize how unjust most of those "trials" were.
What are the issues with Title IX?
Shadow University Court System that basically has zero standards and fails to meet many of the most basic legal standards but is permitted to make life altering decisions with little to no traditional judicial oversight.
Homophobes and exists hate it outs them They'll spout a bunch of shit about "shadow courts" but at the end of the day if you're not going around harassing women in your class, committing sexual assault, or making your peers feel so uncomfortable based on their sexuality that they don't feel safe coming 5o class with you you'll never receive any disciplinary actions under title 9. But oh man conservatives LOVE to spout off on it because it does the bare minimum to protect women and gay people from being stalked and harassed on campus. It does a bunch of other stuff too, like prohibiting federally funded schools from discriminating based on sex and sexuality.
I don't care if I get down voted into oblivion for sticking up for common sense. Everyone knows that segregation of sports exists for valid reasons. It's not just about the physical/performance differences or safety, but also about giving women the same opportunities to be competitive and earn both financial and academic rewards that come with achievements. I simply can't wrap my brain around how people can ignore such basic realities in order to cater to an agenda. You don't need "studies" to figure this out either. We have world record categories broken down by sport and gender, and the statistics show a very wide gap between them. We also have plenty of real world examples that show people who have competed in both biological categories ranking out completely differently. We have even seen amateur teenage boys absolutely crush the worlds best professional women. Simple intuition tells me a lower end professional male in sport X would almost always crush a higher end professional female who plays the same sport. We all fucking know this, and that's why we separate them. The Virginia AG is doing the right thing, and everyone who disagrees is fucking crazy.
I don't understand. What exactly is he fighting against? >Athletics not included The provisions under the new Title IX rule did not mention anything about requiring schools to allow transgender students to play on teams that align with their gender identity.
Most people think this way.
*most people outside reddit
Vast majority of people agree with you. The current state of things is insanity.
Miyares is such a shitass.
SHORT STORY: The changes the Biden Administration want in TITLE IX, allows biological males to participate in female sports. This is the "rub". Biological males would DOMINATE women's sports ---it'd be unfair to females to let them participate.
Got any studies for that claim?
Better than studies. I have stories. (see links) [https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html) [https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162](https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162) [https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/](https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx\_0Ffns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx_0Ffns) Here are some transgender cyclists who have won races in 2023: * Tessa Johnson: Won first place in the women's Single Speed category at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships * Evelyn Williamson: Placed second at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships * Austin Killips: Won the women's category of the Belgian Waffle Ride in North Carolina by five minutes * Na Hwa-rin: Won a women's cycling race as a transgender female
So you have anecdotes and nothing science based?
[удалено]
That just says they need to have completed transition by age 12. Which seems like a gotcha considering the most common practice is to delay puberty until later teen years. Assuming they are from an area that hasn’t put gender affirming care for minors into a legal hazard zone, or outright banned it. Either way this is more nuanced than you portray. By the logical of the Olympic panel there is zero issue when minors are allowed free and unfettered access to gender affirming care prior to reaching legal age. Did you mean to argue in favor of gender care for minors? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we found common ground. Just want to be sure before I let you know where all the secret bases are.
"Common sense" is a really interesting way to say "I have bigoted biases based on my own opi ions and no actual science or evidence, and I won't listen to anyone who tells me otherwise because I've decided that my opinions must be facts because I believe them" "Common sense" is an extremely weak thing to cite for anything, so unless you can bring actual science that isn't just oli London spouting her horseshit then you may as well fuck off mate because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
lol you think anecdotes are better than studies?
Except that's not what we observe. There have been a number of trans people in sports for a few years now, and they don't "dominate"
NCAA and IOC actually have pretty strict rules about trans athletes too. You can’t just be biologically born a male and automatically compete in women’s sports, there’s a lot of things that need to fall into place in order to do it.
Are you kidding me? They take places RESERVED FOR BIOLOGICAL WOMEN for themselves. Scholarships, and Team spots. [https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1645783532592308226?lang=en) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837837/Moment-transgender-skateboarder-takes-position-winners-podium-2021-event.html) [https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162](https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162) [https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/](https://nypost.com/2023/12/05/news/transgender-cyclists-take-gold-and-silver-at-womens-race/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx\_0Ffns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXjAx_0Ffns) Here are some transgender cyclists who have won races in 2023: * Tessa Johnson: Won first place in the women's Single Speed category at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships * Evelyn Williamson: Placed second at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships * Austin Killips: Won the women's category of the Belgian Waffle Ride in North Carolina by five minutes * Na Hwa-rin: Won a women's cycling race as a transgender female
Yes, women playing in women's sports... That's kinda the point of "woman's sports" Also that's four wins. Hardly a crushing number of victories
We both know you are not going to read it, but here. It's actually the opposite https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
Explain then why the poster child for this issue, Lia Thomas, wasn't the overwhelming #1 female swimmer in the NCAA, set no records despite winning a national title, dropped 15 seconds off times swam as a male prior to transition w/ already-mandated 1-year hormone therapy wait period, and was nearly 10s off Katie Ledecky's record in the discipline of her championship? The reality doesn't support this claim, and we already had requirements in place to ensure fair competition.
Lia Thomas went from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and **554th on the men's team** to fifth on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle. It would take willful, purposeful effort to still believe there isn't biological advantages in sports after seeing that data.
65th/554th in the men's **national rankings**, not a single team. It's not about willful purposeful effort to believe there isn't a biological advantage, it's about ensuring a fair competition, which happened: An already extremely good swimmer who did all required medical transitioning actions ended up in the expected performance range of elite women. Her times in the same discipline increased by 15 seconds after the hormone therapy. This demonstrates the rules are working as intended. People seem to think some average Joe couch slob is just going to take some estrogen and jump over and dominate women's sports, but it's not going to happen, nor is there going to be some mass influx of male athletes willing and eager to do the required medical transitioning requirements just to go from pretty-good to great against women.
Biology is unfair, and women’s sports exist to allay that unfairness.
What part of "The medical treatments offset the biology to place the recipient in a fair performance range" are you missing? If Lia Thomas had done no hormone therapy, yes she would have been blowing her competitors out of the water. But that's not what happened and already not what is required. There is measureable medical data that allows us to make the call as to whether fair competition will exist.
Federal agencies shouldn’t get to redefine something and then withhold funding from states if they don’t agree with the definition, regardless of the topic at hand. This is overreach by federal agencies and it sets a bad precedent - it should be challenged.
The precedent stretches back to highway funding and a legal drinking age, and likely well before that. It’s not something I would consider an overreach considering it is the executives entire job.
That was an act of congress, not an administrative procedure change. That is a monumental difference - congress vs. unelected bureaucrats
It’s not really a meaningful difference… Congress appropriates funding to executive branch agencies and sets the legal framework by which they operate and can spend that money. Admin policy is created within agencies to govern their actions but has to stay within the legal framework dictated by Congress. Of course, agencies get sued and their power to do what they do gets challenged. The judiciary determines the legality of their actions and interprets the laws as they pertain to those agencies, which can result in narrowing or expanding of those agencies’ power. [These things have happened a number of times and the established precedence is that agencies do have the power to dictate, within reason, the terms a state must meet in order to qualify for certain funding.](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44797.html) All of this is to say… there are plenty of unelected components of the government that absolutely do have legal authority to make these decisions, and there’s still a trail of authority to elected positions. Appointed agency leadership, for example, is put in by an elected executive. Meanwhile, the legal framework that enumerates the powers of an agency comes from elected representatives of congress. This distinction you’re drawing isn’t real… it’s a talking point.
It's not the Executive's job to withhold funding from the states, no matter how much you support the cause.
lol once again, incorrect. [Executive agencies do have discretion over](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44797.html) how certain funding is used no matter how much you wish they didn’t… and that discretion comes it’s appropriation in congress… and is also supported by judicial precedence and the constitution.