Here
and
Now

opinions

Why do dozens of U.S. states want to ban transgender women from sport?

52 Comments
By Rachel Savage

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters Foundation

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

There should be transgender sports categories. Either that or compete with men in a kind of “open” category.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

Why?

Because in the vast majority of cases, trans women have an unfair physical advantage over natural-born women when the two compete against one another.

Cue activists disputing the indisputable.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

BigYen..... Has the answer... no need for further comments. Though you will notice there is no ban on trans-gender "men", that is men who were born female, competing. Strange? Why is this? Could it be that those born as men have natural physical advantages?

Let them play but simply have two categories... women (real women) and others.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

What’s next? I identify as disabled, therefore I have a right to compete in the Paralympics? That’s nonsense, but it’s essentially what is happening to women’s sports in America now.

For a naturally born woman, the Olympics would almost certainly ban her for doping if she had testosterone levels approaching a man’s. Biologically, it’s almost impossible for that to happen.

If we look at world records across all sports, the difference is clear. For virtually every women’s world record, the mark is about the same as the world record for 15-year-old boys. By sixteen, elite boys are faster and stronger than elite women of any age.

Even if a trans person starts various hormone therapies, this doesn’t eliminate the biological advantage. Besides, many trans people are on prescribed hormone therapies. We would ban athletes from the Olympics for shooting their bodies full of hormones. Does a trans person get a special exemption to take hormones, whether blockers or boosters, but still compete? Nonsense!

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Why do dozens of U.S. states want to ban transgender women from sport?

Bigotry.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

"Because in the vast majority of cases, trans women have an unfair physical advantage over natural-born women when the two compete against one another."

Purely speculative. Until they are allowed to compete and data has been gathered, no empirical evidence exists to support this assertion. If you want, put a "handicap" in place, as is done in other sports, then gather data rather than discriminate from the outset. And the real reason behind the ban is that the god-fearing people of the plains don't want transgendered women using the same toilets and showers as their daughters.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

In fact they nowadays look and also mostly physically are all the same, ‘men’, ‘women’ and ‘trans’ pro sports participants, considering the medications, dopings, hormones they all have to take , just only to have a small chance to take part or come further than first qualifying round.... Just half all the competitions in question, open them for everyone, it makes no real difference and you don’t need to exclude or ban any of the dozens ‘genders’...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Why do dozens of U.S. states want to ban transgender women from sport?

Bigotry.

Is any research which finds people who transition from men to women retain an physical advantage carried out by bigots?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Purely speculative.

Hardly. A comparison between men's and women's records, as pointed out by @mikeylikes it up above, illustrates the sometimes vast differences in performance records between men and women, and a simple extrapolation from there gives you the likely outcome of unrestricted competition between natural-born women and trans women. It's not rocket science.

the real reason behind the ban is that the god-fearing people of the plains don't want transgendered women using the same toilets and showers as their daughters.

No doubt, mostly, although many parents would also presumably be unhappy at seeing their daughters' ambitions come to nothing if and when they're forced to compete against trans athletes with a built-in advantage. And the big question is, what do their daughters want? Are you aware of the controversies and dissatisfaction among female athletes faced with having to compete against trans athletes? This isn't just an issue confined to the Great Plains of North America, despite the article headline.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@expat.

Actually not speculative.

The Australian weight lifting championship the transgender woman blew away the closest rivals by more weight than has ever been done.

The 2 transgender runners that suddenly became eligible to compete took 1st and 2nd the qualifiers without breaking a sweat, and have continued to do so since then always 1st and 2nd.

The saddest part is by the 2 above winning other women got knocked down beyond qualifications and also lost their eligibility for university scholarships.

There are far more very similar to the above.

Let's be honest a 190cm formerly male on one year hormone reduction has far more physical advance over the born female now add in the fact that the testosterone level they must reduce to us still 2 times higher than the highest levels most born women have transgender level must be below 5 nmol/L born women is 0.3 and 2.4 nmol/L.

More ironic is a woman Athlete that has higher than 3.2 nmol/L will trigger a review for doping.

So to some it up.

A transgender can have testosterone of 4.5 nmol/L. No problem.

A natural born women has over 3.2 nmol/L and they are reviewed and have to submit to doping investigation.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

If we are going to go this route of permitting transgenders, then a full rethink of categories will be needed.

One cannot expect a 170 perhaps 180 cm born female runner with a high 2nmol/L testosterone levels to be able to equality compete with a 190cm~195cm 4.5nmol/L transgender.

One cannot expect a 90 Kg born woman with a weight lifter with 2 nmol/L testosterone to be able to compete equally with a transgender woman that is over 110kg and 5nmol/L testosterone, that as a man would place them 5 classes higher ( women's highest class is 87 kg up men have 89, 96, 102, 109 and over 109kg).

So if we insist on going this route then either we split the women sports into multiple categories by height and weight or we join men and women and slit all sports into weight and height categories.

Logic needs to be used not emotions.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Because it makes sense.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

If the ruling bodies of various sports are begging or lobbying governments to do this, then I fully agree to it.

If the government is simply doing it from above, then I would question why this is a government priority over the hundreds of other injustices out there. 99% of all athletes, trans or otherwise, are not elite, so their finishing times and positions are mostly irrelevant.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If the ruling bodies of various sports are begging or lobbying governments to do this, then I fully agree to it.

No ruling body is doing this of their own volition.

This is all totally coming from pressure by special interest groups and politicians.

Women's groups have become more and more vocal in opposing the move but as with most that try and do so, the inevitable labeling of bigotry, false claims some conservative religious organizations is backing them, etc...

So most are frightened into silence.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Why do dozens of U.S. states want to ban transgender women from sport?

Common sense.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Why?

Christian fundamentalism.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Because of the last paragraph. Whatever lobbyist, politicians, interests groups say, the only way to make a fair decision is based on scientific data.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Stupid question.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Becase biologically male athletes have advantage over biological females. Taking female hormones makes no difference to the physical advantage men have. It means biological females will not be competing on level playing field and means women and girls will be excluded from sport. Stating this obvious fact gets you labelled a bigot, nazi, transphobe etc, but you cannot argue with facts. Anyone resorting to these insults are not participating in debate. Did anyone ask female athletes about this? It was just foistered on them.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It is interesting that nearly all the articles or supposed debunking of the view transgender women have a physical advantage over born women are nearly all "opinion" pieces and never have any real studies or facts.

As the articles I can find on the effects of trans women in women's sports are based on scientific studies and all say that transgender women retain advantages for several years at a minimum if not permanently.

On study pointed out something very minor as a side observation.

Top born female athletes preform worse during their periods, this is only natural as blood loss and iron deficiency can affect performance.

So most born female athletes have a clearly fluctuations in performance.

Transgender women not having the same biological effects tend to have no such fluctuations.

As I read that (remember just a secondary observation of a much bigger study) I realised that this had never occurred to me how a woman's period could impact their performance and I should have as it clearly has an impact on the physical health of all the women in my family.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Here is how all this is affecting born women negatively.

As of 2019 all women must now have a testosterone level below 5 nmol/L this affects very few women but about 14% of women have naturally high testosterone even fewer over 5 nmol/L.

This move had been opposed by the women and the medical establishment as being unfair but mostly possible long term negative health effects on the women.

But after the establishment of permitting transgenders women that reduce their levels below the 5 nmol/L this opened the door to impose this new regulation.

But any born female that has over 3.2 nmol/L and lower than 5 nmol/L and has not submitted a medical report that they are on hormone reduction meds, is automatically subject to doping investigation.

For years women's groups and female athletes have fought against forcing natural females having to modify their biology but now under the flawed thinking of "if transgender have to reduce to under 5nmol/L then so should the natural females."

Here is the irony, it is considered not good to take hormones in general if not actually needed for medical reasons but now they are forcing women to do just that.

The type of medication used to reduce testosterone in women are known to increase the risks of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, something the transgender do not need to worry about.

We have now entered the world of the Ludacris.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Bigotry

Not at all. But transgender men should never compete with biological women because they are by birth and anatomically and biologically men and as men there is no way the average woman can match a man physically any almost all levels, not to mention a biological man has no business being in the same dressing room as a biological female, now if you want to make a separate transgender category I wouldn’t mind at at all, but to be alongside with women into compete with women, nope! I’m sorry, it doesn’t fly.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I don't know much about the issue, but I do wonder about one thing - aside from hormone treatments, do transgender hopefuls have their genitals removed and traded for those of the sex they want to join? Just asking.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A new study suggests transgender women maintain an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers even after a year on hormone therapy.

. . .

For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”

Their running times declined as well, but two years on, trans women were still 12 percent faster on the 1.5 mile-run than their cisgender peers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Open all sports to both sexes and be done with this nonsense! Let men and women compete against each other and as team mates in team sports. If you have to know who was the highest scoring male, female, transexual male or femal, fine, go ahead and note this for the record. Just my own brief experience with competitive judo but I think some big manly-man make egos are going to get crushed when they get their backsides whipped by a female competitor. Especially in team sports women are going to bring competitive qualities absent their bulkier, heavier male counterparts. Segregated male and female sports needs to come to an end. Btw, spend a little time reading up on all the ways a newborn's sex can be ambiguous. Find out what AIS, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is. In the most extreme case baby born with AIS can be physically female but genetically they are XY, male. Find out what "Intersex" babies are, babies born with mixtures of male and female gonads. This can occur to individuals who have XX and XY genes. Some babies are also born with XXY genetics. Extra chromosomes. In the past doctors surgically modified their bodies and assigned them a sex right after birth. That is no longer the case and a growing body of both science and law lets these kids grow up a bit and make their own choices about which sex to identify with. Open your minds and be informed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Open all sports to both sexes and be done with this nonsense! Let men and women compete against each other and as team mates in team sports. If you have to know who was the highest scoring male, female, transexual male or femal, fine, go ahead and note this for the record.

That's just not going to happen.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Since there are not very trans people in this planet of 8 billion people, it looks to me like an issue brought out of the hat to distract us all from the more pressing issues at hand here today. These stupid politicians have been pushing these idiotic restroom laws, for instance. Sheer hysterical stupidity.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well, here we go again. We know there is a solution to this issue but first we will need to spend years exchanging ignorances in loud voices and accusing each other of all sorts of esoteric flaws and political undesirabilities and hidden agendae and ...(ad infinitum) until a simple solution, obvious to all involved from the beginning, is settled on and we find some new bone to try to stab each other with. And natural allelic variability will, of course, add the confounding spice to this episode of "Humanity Confronts Itself and Fails Self-Recognition". Tune in, should be a good show as usual...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

That's just not going to happen.

No logical counter argument naturally. Because there really isn't, is there.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you have to know who was the highest scoring male, female, transexual male or female, fine, go ahead and note this for the record.

You just classified female as different from transsexual female.

Are you suggesting that transsexual females be excluded from the female titles and scores?

BTW, the male pelvis is shaped differently (and better suited for running) than the female pelvis, no amount of hormone therapy will ever change that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Open all sports to both sexes and be done with this nonsense!

This would result in biological women being dominated by biological men in every competition.

I miss the days when we could refer to people as simply male or female and didn’t need to include “biological” in front of either.

By the way, I feel Asian to my bones despite being white. As such, I demand the rest of you treat me as a Asian and I demand the right to tick off Asian in questions about ethnicity.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You just classified female as different from transsexual female.

Because they are. No uterus and no periods.

Are you suggesting that transsexual females be excluded from the female titles and scores?

No. The first sentence of the post made that painfully obvious.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No logical counter argument naturally. Because there really isn't, is there.

Yes, there really is. You just can't be bothered reading them.

Btw, spend a little time reading up on all the ways a newborn's sex can be ambiguous.

Irrelevant. But btw, spend a little time reading up on Caster Semenya, South African 800-metre runner and world record holder.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/aug/23/caster-semenya-backlash-jemma-simpson

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No logical counter argument naturally. Because there really isn't, is there.

No need for argument or trying to split hairs, it’s just not going to happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I miss the days when we could refer to people as simply male or female and didn’t need to include “biological” in front of either.

We don't now, you just think we do. If someone tells me they want to change their name from Tom to Bob, I would every effort to change my reflexive thinking from Tom to Bob. If someone told me that they have finally freed themselves from their gender prisons and are now another gender, I would do my best to realign my thinking according to 'society's' appropriates for the selected gender. What's the BIG deal? We're all on this adventure together and have no right to condemn that which affects us personally in NO WAY whatsoever. 'Adaptability' is the Darwinian success story, more adaptability, more success. It works in Human Reality also.

By the way, I feel Asian to my bones despite being white. As such, I demand the rest of you treat me as a Asian and I demand the right to tick off Asian in questions about ethnicity.

Again, is there a law against using the ethnicity you say you FEEL? And, really, you don't have to "demand"? I think most would try to help you with your feelings of identity. Many Americans from other places seem to do okay with that challenge. For myself, I do not check White, I write in Celtic. One has to be 'special' to call themselves White, as it has developed somewhat disturbing aspects of a 'religion'. Gender dysphoria is REAL. How do we help people so consumed with inner conflict? We accept the difficult and painful roads they must walk and give them a hand when they need one and, in the last, we do our best to integrate them into our worlds because they will not go away nor will they, anymore, tolerate a life of torture when there is a 'cure'. Now we just need to find a general 'cure' for our thoughtless and reflexive presumption of our own opinion as 'important' when we have no skin in the game nor on the operating table. If I were gender dysphoric in this world, I would be terrified.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

William Bjornson By the way, I feel Asian to my bones despite being white. As such, I demand the rest of you treat me as a Asian and I demand the right to tick off Asian in questions about ethnicity.

Again, is there a law against using the ethnicity you say you FEEL? And, really, you don't have to "demand"? I think most would try to help you with your feelings of identity. Many Americans from other places seem to do okay with that challenge. For myself, I do not check White, I write in Celtic.

We have words of classification to describe what we are and it's only meant to be a matter of convienance.

On checklists where it says 'check allthat apply', I check White and Native American because that's my ethnic makeup. I don't think there's anybody of just one 'pure' race, certainly not in North America.

Burning BushToday  05:38 am JST

If you have to know who was the highest scoring male, female, transexual male or female, fine, go ahead and note this for the record.

You just classified female as different from transsexual female.

Are you suggesting that transsexual females be excluded from the female titles and scores?

BTW, the male pelvis is shaped differently (and better suited for running) than the female pelvis, no amount of hormone therapy will ever change that.

That's totally correct. If a person goes trans, that will never be changed and it can't. But you can distinguish a trans female from a transsexual female. All the extrogens in the world will never change that, ever.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is another factor to consider in the 'transsexual' issue. Shaking hands with or getting a hug from such a woman, there's no innate feminine 'tenderness' or 'softness' that natural born females have. That alone probably would give a number of people confusion at best.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Because they are. No uterus and no periods.

Is it your view that women who have had a hysterectomy are no longer women?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How about someone who was born with XX chromosomes, but without a uterus? Are they not women?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllerian_agenesis

I think it's quite a bad idea to reduce "woman" to "someone with the ability to bear children".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Shouldnt be necessary because everyone should know the difference between man and woman.

Unfortunately sports associations cannot stand up by themselves against the pressure from supporters of men who call themselves women that want to compete in women's categories

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Laws have to be created to ban men from competing in women's sports.

Preposterous, but unfortunately, now necessary.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Again, is there a law against using the ethnicity you say you FEEL?

No law, just like there isn’t a law requiring us to use biological male or biological female. The problem is the unhinged mob that forms if you don’t.

Look up Rachel Dolezal and see how it worked out for her.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Is it your view that women who have had a hysterectomy are no longer women?

Not at all. It’s Adams’s equivalency to compare a biological woman who had a hysterectomy to a transgender woman who never had a uterus in the first place.

How about someone who was born with XX chromosomes, but without a uterus? Are they not women?

You just hit the nail on the head: XX chromosomes.

I support people dressing and being however they want as long as it’s not harming others. Transgender women participating in biologically female sports is harming biologically female athletes be use the transgender women have physiological advantages that allow them to dominate biological females.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You just hit the nail on the head: XX chromosomes.

I see. So, how about someone with XY chromosomes, who are born with female genitals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

Are they not women?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not at all. It’s Adams’s equivalency to compare a biological woman who had a hysterectomy to a transgender woman who never had a uterus in the first place.

I see. It's just that you were the one who said that not having a uterus was proof that someone wasn't a woman.

Transgender women participating in biologically female sports is harming biologically female athletes be use the transgender women have physiological advantages that allow them to dominate biological females.

There is no evidence of this. Per Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is no evidence of this. Per Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/

Appreciate the cite and you engaging in this discourse in a rational manner.

I would point out the article was written by a child psychiatrist and now a biologist. It also only touches on the issue of elevated testosterone levels.

My counter to your cite can be found in my post of 9:37 p.m. on March 17 above, which is evidence that transgender women have an unfair advantage over biological women.

Again, I support people acting (not in the sense of film acting) and dressing however they want.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I would point out the article was written by a child psychiatrist and now a biologist. It also only touches on the issue of elevated testosterone levels.

You may not know much about psychiatry, but you actually have to become a medical doctor - and therefore be pretty informed on human biology - before you can qualify. That is the case with Dr. Turban, who got his BA in neurobiology from Harvard and his MD from Yale, before becoming a medical research fellow at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, then going on to become a resident physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, before taking his current post as a fellow at Stanford.

I think this is an impressive CV, and I think his concentration in researching and treating the issues at hand give his views some weight. If you disagree, and think that experts on any given subject should be trusted less, can you tell me why? Are you planning to take the vaccine? Medical experts recommend it, but perhaps you disagree with them?

Yes, it "barely touches" on testosterone, but where it does it makes it clear that the research is inconclusive: some studies say higher testosterone benefits athletes, some say it has negligible effect, some even say it has negative correlations. You might disagree, but he's referencing a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University. So I think her view is worth deferring to, as well.

My counter to your cite can be found in my post of 9:37 p.m. on March 17 above, which is evidence that transgender women have an unfair advantage over biological women.

The study is, first off, not of athletes but of soldiers' fitness. It does not prove anything, but "suggests" something. It also suggest that transmen gain an advantage over cismen after a time - do you think transmen should be banned from male sports? If so, do you agree that it is good and right that Mack Riggs, a transman with greater muscle mass than his ciswomen peers, competes in the girls' wrestling league, where he dominated them two year running, just because he was assigned female at birth? If not, why not?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If you disagree, and think that experts on any given subject should be trusted less, can you tell me why?

I don’t disagree. I also am aware psychiatrists are M.D.s.

Are you planning to take the vaccine? *

I am.

Medical experts recommend it, but perhaps you disagree with them?

Not in the least.

The study is, first off, not of athletes but of soldiers' fitness.

Fitness is fitness whether in sport or the military.

It does not prove anything, but "suggests" something. *

I never claimed it proved anything, just that it was evidence.

It also suggest that transmen gain an advantage over cismen after a time - do you think transmen should be banned from male sports?

Yes because they are not biologically male.

If so, do you agree that it is good and right that Mack Riggs, a transman with greater muscle mass than his ciswomen peers, competes in the girls' wrestling league, where he dominated them two year running, just because he was assigned female at birth? If not, why not?

Yes, it is good that a person who was assigned female at birth competes against other biological females.

I’m not able to find any information on Mack Riggs, but I’m inferring from your post that person has XX chromosomes, which is why that person was assigned female at birth.

Do you think we should accept white people who feel black and want to dress black and “act” black as black? If so, why? If not, why not?

Again, I appreciate the manner in which you are engaging in this conversation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not in the least.

Then why not trust in the medical experts now? Even your study, which you claim proves that ciswomen are being harmed, suggests, "eh, maybe give it another year". This is not evidence of harm. We know that ciswomen are not being harmed, because transwomen are categorically not dominating sports.

The top experts are in agreement. There is no evidence that transwomen harm ciswomen, in sports or elsewhere.

The thing that people on this board, and elsewhere, keep falling back into is this logic cycle:

Transwomen aren't really women, they're men in dresses.

Men are stronger than women.

Because of this strength, men would destroy women in any given sport.

Because transwomen are really men in dresses, they would destroy ciswomen in any given sport, and would frequently break records.

Transwomen are competing in sports with ciswomen.

We can conclude that transwomen are destroying ciswomen in any given sport and are frequently breaking records (or, as one poster put it, "regularly obliterate" them).

But this doesn't fit with the evidence we have. Transwomen are not destroying ciswomen in any given sport, and are not frequently breaking records.

So it becomes, "well, the evidence might not exist, but I believe it must be happening, because of my logic. Therefore, it is happening, despite the fact that it's not happening".

This isn't science. We should listen to the scientists.

Fitness is fitness whether in sport or the military.

No, it isn't. An 75 year old man who goes for a five mile job every day is likely to be very fit, but I wouldn't describe them as an athlete and doubt they will be appearing in the Olympics.

I’m not able to find any information on Mack Riggs, but I’m inferring from your post that person has XX chromosomes, which is why that person was assigned female at birth.

My apologies - Macks Beggs. This is him:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/22/mack-beggs-texas-transgender-wrestler-state-title-defense/

He went 56-0 in 2017. The photo used here is deliberately provocative, I believe, but the article illustrates the point.

A transathelete is dominating a sport and dunking on ciswomen - but only because he is being forced to compete with them, due to his birth certificate. He was in the wrong league for his gender, and no ciswomen competitors stood a chance. This is despite the fact that, as his mother says, the testosterone he was taking was barely enough to help him grow a wispy beard.

This is not good for Beggs, nor for the girls he was competing against. It's illogical, and needs to change.

Do you think we should accept white people who feel black and want to dress black and “act” black as black? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't really have an opinion on transracialism. I'd rather stick to the topic at hand.

Again, I appreciate the manner in which you are engaging in this conversation.

Same.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

My apologies - Macks Beggs. This is him:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/22/mack-beggs-texas-transgender-wrestler-state-title-defense/

Thanks. Seems I need to rethink my position given the evidence you have provided and the dearth of evidence supporting my opinion.

I don't really have an opinion on transracialism. I'd rather stick to the topic at hand.

Fair enough.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm with Lazarus Knows in this topic even if it's against a stiff competition of reasonable thinkers like P. Smith and folks who seem like the age of science just happened to other people.

I should stay off anything about transgender and intergender topics on JT - it just hurts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Most transgenders and intergenders will never be opting for sports anyway as they are discouraged from start.

Imagine your sports teacher tells you, "Team playing now, boys to the left, girls to the right!" Whether you stay in the middle or choose the "wrong" side, if the teacher pulls down your shorts in front of 40 other kids and exclaims loudly, "Ohhh, other side then!", the laughter and jeers will never leave you. Not ever.

I was good at throwing, jumping and swimming. Becoming a sports pro never occurred to me.

Just open up all sports competitions to all genders and give points up or down for muscle mass like they do in ski jumping for wind advantage.

Would also include intergenders. Looking at the Williams sisters muscle mass has never been an issue in tennis.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites