sports

Mississippi becomes first U.S. state to ban transgender athletes from women's sports

103 Comments

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

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

103 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Mississippi burnin'

-8 ( +12 / -20 )

And Mississippi leads the pack of other "red" states into ignorance, fear, and down-right stupidity!

-36 ( +16 / -52 )

I would have thought the Southern juntas would be too busy keeping people of color down, and/or allegedly engage in inappropriate behaviour with minors... but no, got to go and make life miserable for yet more folk.

People will be bullied, attacked and even worse over this.

-21 ( +13 / -34 )

Jim Crow is in Mississippi.

-19 ( +10 / -29 )

anything wrong with that?

good move.

more states to follow?

41 ( +55 / -14 )

If biological differences between the sexes don't make a difference how come trans men aren't breaking records?

8 ( +19 / -11 )

Good.

If they want to play, let them make their own division. Being trans shouldn't mean getting an easy ride in women's sports, just because you suck at men's sports.

40 ( +50 / -10 )

This "PC," 100 different genders crap is getting way out of hand.

Make everything co-ed, sports, locker rooms, classes, toilets, etc.

Everyone wants equality, make everyone on the same level, same rooms, same rules.

No complaints from anyone on anything after that.

And stop making it such an issue.

List everyone as HUMANS, or don't put any labels on any one already.

Tired of hearing it.

But good luck having people change and relieve themselves all in the same area, especially with horny teens.

Like that won't cause any problems.................

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Trans children competing in the sport other than their birth is not actually a thing anymore than trans people going into bathrooms to watch women use the toilet was a thing. It's just another attempt by desperate Trump's sychopants to gin up the base in another culture war do de-legitimize trans people.

Not surprising, just disappointing.

-28 ( +7 / -35 )

A new emerging and really tough issue. While I don't think the Mississippi's ban will give real solutions, I also wonder how LGBTQ proponents and liberal critics would respond to actual cases of "masucline" transgendered women athletes who outperform other women competitors. Musles indeed count!

Believe or not, there are people willing to switch their sex fat will or more pragmatic reasons. Back in Chinese history, many men from poor or maginalized classes volunteered to become eunoch to serve the court, for the sake of upward mobility, power and money.

If all sexes are to be treated equally, men-women binary category on sport events and records should be abolished altogether (and male althetes would be more likely to perform better or gain more medals). I would suggest co-ed category, perhaps more viable for some team sports. But again it's not a real solution to satisfy all people.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

There are a few misogynistic comments here today from the usual suspects. I would have hoped you would have come out in support of women's rights. Those are rights that the alphabet crowd are doing their Heaven-sent best to erode.

12 ( +22 / -10 )

I can imagine the biological advantage that a male that has trans to a female would have in weightlifting events.

My daughter lifts weights, so this seems like a reasonable step as far as fairness in competitive sports is concerned.

gary

27 ( +31 / -4 )

 I would have hoped you would have come out in support of women's rights. 

Huh? Transgender rights is not about supporting just "women's rights". You are discriminating against guys here too!

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

West Alabama.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Men, women and open (to transgendered, and anyone regardless of sex) trilateral categories may be a viable solution, I ponder. In realty men would still has more advantage in such arrangements.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Why not just add the catagory?

Mens, Womens, Transgender.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

I don't see a need for a state-wide ban. Individual sports should operate as they see fit.

The state deliberately coming in gives the impression that LGBT are a big threat to sports organizations and protection from above is needed. There is only going to be the odd individual, so this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

If they are so worried about fair playing fields, Mississippi better start banning bouncy running shoes, slippery swimsuits, energy drinks (caffeine boosts performance) and "surgical doping", elective surgery to improve performance.

-21 ( +5 / -26 )

Mens, Womens, Transgender.

Did you read the article? They did, but they called it "Coed." Seems fair.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

As far as I am aware, it is female athletes in women's events that feel this most strongly on the ground, as Gary mentions above. Then there are those in society of all shades of category that try to judge this fairly and tend to agree. Purely from the stance of fairness in sports, Mississippi is probably right.

Going transgender is fine, but you should not be using your remaining 'maleness' (muscle mass, testosterone?) to gain an enormous advantage over the top athletes of your new gender identity. Common sense.

19 ( +24 / -5 )

Well done Mississippi, it is totally unfair for those who used to be men to compete in women's sports. I think the three category idea is the best long-term solution, sports for men, sports for women, and then one more to include those who are trans.

27 ( +32 / -5 )

This does look like legislation in search of an issue that doesn't exist.

-18 ( +9 / -27 )

Well done Mississippi! A state that clearly cares about womens rights and allowing them to compete fairly in sports.

Male to Female Transgender athletes would have far too much advantage in most sports competing against women. It would be grossly unfair and put back womens sport by decades.

20 ( +28 / -8 )

Male to Female Transgender athletes would have far too much advantage in most sports competing against women. It would be grossly unfair and put back womens sport by decades.

If it were actually true.

I don't think that they should compete cross-gender, but I also don't think the law was necessary outside of placating the faux outrage.

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

OWH wrote that laws should be designed narrowly to stop the "bad [person]" otherwise the law will eventually fail by being overbroad or not broad enough. I don't see the bad [person] this law is trying to address.

Don't you think parents would pull their children out of a sport if they learned that a trans-female wanted to compete? So, it will not be a widespread problem.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

This is fair. Well done. Biological boys/men have already begun to dominate the events they enter. Give them their own category.

11 ( +19 / -8 )

Excellent. The world is not totally devoid of commonsense just yet.

18 ( +26 / -8 )

Trans female athletes dominate the events they enter. That is why this Mississippi law is necessary.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

16 ( +23 / -7 )

Have a transgender games and that'd be fine.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

Thanks, behind a paywall, but this should work:

https://www.wired.com./story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Well done, Mississippi!

Pretending that a male is female helps no one, let alone the gender confused person. Lying to him by pretending that we are all confused, i.e. falsely affirming he is a woman, is unloving. We should speak the truth in love.

Pretense is not the solution. Therapy is.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Now that is one intelligent state.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

Disgraceful.

-18 ( +4 / -22 )

God help us when they start testing your fertility ability.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of allowing trans males to compete in women's soports (I notice that the issue of people transitioning from female to male and competing in mens sport doesn't appear to bea thing), I really don't see how this bill does this: "By making this harmful bill the law in Mississippi, Governor Reeves is openly welcoming discrimination and putting the lives of transgender kids in danger."

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I notice that the issue of people transitioning from female to male and competing in mens sport doesn't appear to bea thing

Guess you're not very observant.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title

A transman won the girl's highschool state-wide wrestling tournament in Texas, two years running - even though he wanted to compete with the boys.

So now, you have someone with elevated testosterone and musclemass competing against girls. Because you insist that his genitals at birth are what was most important.

This is what you wanted.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I don’t think it’s fair to have female born athletes on testosterone competing against female born athletes not on testosterone. Nor do I think it’s fair to have male born athletes competing against female born athletes not on testosterone. I can see it maybe being fair for female born athletes on testosterone competing with male athletes.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Nor do I think it’s fair to have male born athletes competing against female born athletes not on testosterone. 

Transwomen typically take estrogen, which reduces muscle mass, and can bring about physical changes, such as reductions in height and bone mass. Transwomen should compete with women. They have been doing so for over a decade, why stop now?

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

Indeed. I don't really follow Texas wresting. But not sure how this addresses my observation. How do you know "what I wanted"?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

While the initiative itself is fabulous, it will potentially only work with a small selection of sports.

This can be a risky move for some sports as MMA and most martial arts im general, for example.

Most transgenders would have a clear physical advantage, and for that reason this is something that should be well though before implementing.

While we should all be for equal rights for all genders, we should remain realistic and aware of some limitations along the way.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

This "PC," 100 different genders crap is getting way out of hand.

I know! Even my MacBook swings both ways. Disgusting!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

There should have been no need for a law like that but seems people don't know the difference between male and female anymore.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Indeed. I don't really follow Texas wresting. But not sure how this addresses my observation. How do you know "what I wanted"?

Because if you were opposed to men taking part in women's sports, you wouldn't be in favor of banning transpeople from competing in the right category. And if you weren't in favor of banning transpeople from the right category, you'd understand why this is transphobic, and endangers transchildren's lives.

But I'm happy to be corrected. Do you think it's right that a transman, with elevated testosterone compared to women, should be forced to compete in the women's league, even if he wants to compete with his fellow men?

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Mississippi ranks in the last 5 states for public education, but this is what they choose to tackle.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

a better system would be to have the same two categories but rename them... women and others. So women, real women, born women, not men on drugs or men with severed penises can compete and the rest can also have a fair crack at their event.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Transwomen typically take estrogen, which reduces muscle mass, and can bring about physical changes, such as reductions in height and bone mass.

Yes. I can see how this would put them at a disadvantage over male-born men. However, being born with male physiology, and growing up male, puts them at an unfair physiological advantage over female-born women not on testosterone.

The difference is, they've chosen to take the hormones, so when that puts them at a disadvantage, that's the result of their choices. Female-born women competing in their sports are put at a disadvantage through a choice not of their own.

Transwomen should compete with women. They have been doing so for over a decade, why stop now?

For the reasons above. And if you haven't noticed, the transwomen are obliterating female-born women regularly.

There's a reason why we separate female and male sports. If we didn't, there would be no female in sport.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Yes. I can see how this would put them at a disadvantage over male-born men. However, being born with male physiology, and growing up male, puts them at an unfair physiological advantage over female-born women not on testosterone.

What I am telling you is their physiology literally changes. You've ignored my point.

The difference is, they've chosen to take the hormones, so when that puts them at a disadvantage, that's the result of their choices. Female-born women competing in their sports are put at a disadvantage through a choice not of their own.

Women are at a disadvantage against women? I'm not sure I follow.

For the reasons above. And if you haven't noticed, the transwomen are obliterating female-born women regularly.

Regularly, you say? Could you give me 6 examples, or one every two months, of a transwoman "obliterating" women's sports records in the past year? Well, Covid makes that hard. Let's say over the course of 2019. And, let's say it's true, why did it suddenly start happening, despite transpeople being able to compete in their true gender categories for years?

There's a reason why we separate female and male sports. If we didn't, there would be no female in sport.

It's actually called "men's sports" and "women's sports".

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Yes. I can see how this would put them at a disadvantage over male-born men. However, being born with male physiology, and growing up male, puts them at an unfair physiological advantage over female-born women not on testosterone.

What I am telling you is their physiology literally changes. You've ignored my point.

Your point isn’t really the main issue. Nobody is arguing the physiology doesn’t change.

What you need to do is convince us that no physical advantage is retained after transitioning.

Can you do this?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Can you do this?

If they did, why do transwomen not hold every - or almost every - women's sporting world record, despite having been able to compete in their correct gender category for years?

Here is a list of athletic world records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics#Women

I have searched, in vain, for a single transwoman athlete. It's very possible I have missed one or two. But every single one I have clicked on is a ciswoman. If trans athletes are so powerful, they would hold the majority of these records. Yet, they don't.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Just curious, were they competing in those events you looked up?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just curious, were they competing in those events you looked up?

I don't have the records for all competitors on hand, but I would consider it unlikely, as most transwomen athletes would not have gotten past the qualification stages. Nor because they are trans, but because they didn't reach the required standard.

And to be clear, the Olympics have allowed transwomen to compete since 2004.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

What I am telling you is their physiology literally changes. You've ignored my point.

No I haven't. I agree, their physiology changes. Nevertheless, it leaves them at an unfair advantage above female-born women who aren't taking testosterone. When one grows up with the musculature and ligamenture of a male, particularly if it's through puberty, then transitions, taking hormones will change their body and put them at a disadvantage to male born men. But it will not disadvantage them to the same level as female born women.

Women are at a disadvantage against women? I'm not sure I follow.

See the above.

Regularly, you say? Could you give me 6 examples, or one every two months, of a transwoman "obliterating" women's sports records in the past year?

Why these specific restrictions? Is it only egregious if transwomen have an unfair advantage on a particular schedule? It's ok the rest of the time?

It's actually called "men's sports" and "women's sports".

Exactly. And while I fully support the right of trans people to exist and have the same rights and emotions as all humans everywhere deserve, trans women and women are not equal on a physiological level. You are trying to pigeonhole an ideal (one I agree with), into a physical meritocracy, which just doesn't work. A physical meritocracy does not take into consideration human ideology.

This is why the two traditional category of sport - men's and women's, does not contain the appropriate number of categories to accurately reflect the changing world, and therefore needs to be expanded. Or, if we are to stick with only two categories of sport (which I don't think makes sense), then those who make life choices that disadvantage themselves must compete with those whom their choices have disadvantaged themselves against.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Transgenders should just start their own league of sorts. Then they can move on to major professional sports and then create a transgender Olympics. Then they can ban non transgendered folks. And wheels on the bus go round and round.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I completely agree with Mississippi on this.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Let's look at it a different way. Trans women are born male. They make a transition to female. This decision is entirely within their right, and they should be supported in it. However, a result of this decision is that they now need to transition to a new category in sport. This can only be considered fair if they do not bring any advantage along with them. They must be competing on an even physiological level with female-born females, who are in their category through right of birth, in order for it to be fair for them to compete as females.

I am open to the idea that there may be no physiological advantage for trans-women in female sports. But, males are at a physiological advantage over women, and transwomen are born male, so in order to now compete in the category over whom they previously had a physiological advantage, they need to show that they don't have any physiological advantage.

I don't even necessarily think that this has to happen on a gender-wide scale. For example, maybe it doesn't even need to be shown that transwomen as a whole are not advantaged over female-born women, but it must be shown for each individual athlete at least. After all, they are transitioning gender categories, which humanity decided a long time ago was required for women to have sport in which to compete, so the onus on them before competing is to show that they are not advantaged by having been born and lived a period of their life as males.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I agree, their physiology changes.

Great!

Nevertheless, it leaves them at an unfair advantage above female-born women who aren't taking testosterone. When one grows up with the musculature and ligamenture of a male, particularly if it's through puberty, then transitions, taking hormones will change their body and put them at a disadvantage to male born men. But it will not disadvantage them to the same level as female born women.

Any evidence of this?

Why these specific restrictions? Is it only egregious if transwomen have an unfair advantage on a particular schedule? It's ok the rest of the time?

Not at all. But you said that

the transwomen are obliterating female-born women regularly

So I figured it'd be easy to do. I would say beyond six times a year would be very irregular, if it happened at all. What sort of schedule would you like, and how many "obliterations"? Is one transwoman, say, winning gold once every decade a "regular obliteration", to your mind?

Basically, I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claim, that transwomen are both "obliterating" ciswomen, and that they're doing it "regularly". Can you do this?

Exactly

No, you said "male and female". this is different from "men and women", which have always been the sports categories.

trans women and women are not equal on a physiological level

No-one is equal on a physiological level.

then those who make life choices that disadvantage themselves must compete with those whom their choices have disadvantaged themselves against.

So, you think transmen should compete with men, which is what transmen want (good! I agree!) but transwomen should compete with men, which they don't want to do? Why should everyone compete with men? Unless you're advocating for total unisex sports participation, of course, which I don't think is right, but you could probably persuade me.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Let's look at it a different way. Trans women are born male. They make a transition to female. This decision is entirely within their right, and they should be supported in it. However, a result of this decision is that they now need to transition to a new category in sport. This can only be considered fair if they do not bring any advantage along with them. They must be competing on an even physiological level with female-born females, who are in their category through right of birth, in order for it to be fair for them to compete as females.

I am open to the idea that there may be no physiological advantage for trans-women in female sports. But, males are at a physiological advantage over women, and transwomen are born male, so in order to now compete in the category over whom they previously had a physiological advantage, they need to show that they don't have any physiological advantage.

I don't even necessarily think that this has to happen on a gender-wide scale. For example, maybe it doesn't even need to be shown that transwomen as a whole are not advantaged over female-born women, but it must be shown for each individual athlete at least. After all, they are transitioning gender categories, which humanity decided a long time ago was required for women to have sport in which to compete, so the onus on them before competing is to show that they are not advantaged by having been born and lived a period of their life as males.

Stating the obvious. Gee thanks.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Can’t transgender athletes just compete with each other?

The T 100/200/400. The T pole vault? Shot Putt etc.

I don’t see an issue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am open to the idea that there may be no physiological advantage for trans-women in female sports.

Thank you.

But, males are at a physiological advantage over women, and transwomen are born male, so in order to now compete in the category over whom they previously had a physiological advantage, they need to show that they don't have any physiological advantage.

This already happens. Many sporting organisations, including the Olympics, have specific regulations about the stage in transition you must be in.

The problem, of course, is that some people, like Caster Semenya, are ciswomen who, through birth, have elevated levels of testosterone. She does not take medication, she has not had surgery, and she was born as and has lived her life as a woman. But setting rules on testosterone levels means that she can be disqualified from women's sports.

So why not just let transwomen compete in the right category?

I don't even necessarily think that this has to happen on a gender-wide scale. For example, maybe it doesn't even need to be shown that transwomen as a whole are not advantaged over female-born women, but it must be shown for each individual athlete at least. 

This already happens in lots of sports, like boxing.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Any evidence of this?

The onus on me isn't to prove that transwomen are at a physiological advantage. We already know they were born with one. As such the onus is on transwomen to show they are not at a physiological advantage to female born women.

Basically, I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claim, that transwomen are both "obliterating" ciswomen, and that they're doing it "regularly". Can you do this?

I can come up with a few. Then you can come up with some examples where trans women lost. It turns into a discussion of anecdotes, which does nothing.

This is why I'm not getting pulled into a battle of the anecdotes, but rather trying to have a discussion based on logic, rather than anecdotes.

So, you think transmen should compete with men, which is what transmen want

I think that having been born at a physiological disadvantage, they should be able to compete with male born men - if they can show that the hormones they are taking don't put them at a physiological advantage over the men they are competing against, unless those male born men are also allowed to take the same hormones. I think this is the only way the playing field could be considered even, unless taking the hormones doesn't put transmen at an advantage over the male born men. I definitely don't think it's fair for trans men to be competing with female born women, as the hormones they are taking put them at an unfair advantage over the women they would be competing against.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This already happens. Many sporting organisations, including the Olympics, have specific regulations about the stage in transition you must be in.

Society is still figuring out how these rules should work. Having the ability to take hormones to change one's gender is a new thing in human history.

The problem, of course, is that some people, like Caster Semenya, are ciswomen who, through birth, have elevated levels of testosterone. She does not take medication, she has not had surgery, and she was born as and has lived her life as a woman. But setting rules on testosterone levels means that she can be disqualified from women's sports.

The difference is, Caster Semenya, was born a woman, and has not made decisions that give her an unfair advantage. Caster Semenya is a female born woman, competing against female born women.

So why not just let transwomen compete in the right category?

When they prove they don't carry over an advantage from having been born male, then I agree, why not.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The onus on me isn't to prove that transwomen are at a physiological advantage.

It is when you're making that claim.

We already know they were born with one.

When you transition, your body is no longer the same - and when your body changes, you lose those advantages. I don't know how to say this more plainly. The world's best long-jumper would no longer he the best if they lost their legs.

As such the onus is on transwomen to show they are not at a physiological advantage to female born women.

You are the one making claims. Support them, please.

I can come up with a few. Then you can come up with some examples where trans women lost. It turns into a discussion of anecdotes, which does nothing. This is why I'm not getting pulled into a battle of the anecdotes, but rather trying to have a discussion based on logic, rather than anecdotes.

No, it's not an "anecdote". I'm asking for evidence. If I said, "Joe Biden punches a puppy on TV every day", you would expect me to give proof. If I said, "well, I can, but I won't, and you're just gonna post videos where he doesn’t punch puppies”, you’d think I was being absurd. And rightfully so.

Now, I might dispute your definitions of “regular” and “obliterated”, of course. If you said a transwoman broke a record by 0.003 seconds in 1987 and then a different transwoman broke a record in a different sport by 0.04 second in 2014, I’d say these are neither are obliterations nor frequent.

Your “logic” argument sounds less like, “present evidence, then come to conclusions”, which what logic is. It’s more like, “I believe something, which means we will assume it is true, and I don’t need to provide evidence.

Your claim was that ciswomen were being "regularly" "obliterated". If you can provide evidence of this, I would have no choice but to concede your point. The fact that many transwomen lose in sports would not invalidate your claim. So please, please support your assertion.

I think that

You might think it. Can you prove it?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The difference is, Caster Semenya, was born a woman, and has not made decisions that give her an unfair advantage. Caster Semenya is a female born woman, competing against female born women.

The World Athletics Association says she can't. Because of who she is. Because of transpanic (and likely not a little racism - not that I'm accusing you of these, I hasten to add).

Society is still figuring out how these rules should work. Having the ability to take hormones to change one's gender is a new thing in human history.

It has existed since 1942. How much longer do you want?

When they prove they don't carry over an advantage from having been born male, then I agree, why not.

Why stop there? Why not ban anyone who has any advantage? Have better metabolism? Are six hours younger? Decided to work out on a day your opponent didn't? All unfair advantages - and that last one was a choice. Why not discriminate based on these?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The onus on me isn't to prove that transwomen are at a physiological advantage.

It is when you're making that claim.

No it's not. They were born with a physical advantage, therefore the onus is on them to show they don't maintain it.

When you transition, your body is no longer the same - and when your body changes, you lose those advantages. I don't know how to say this more plainly.

You don't need to say it more plainly. You just need to prove it. Claiming that the advantage of having been born male doesn't carry over when transitioning isn't proof. It's a hypothesis. The next step is to do gather information to test that hypothesis. Then, using that information, a conclusion is made that either confirms or denies that hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis, tests, and conclusion are passed on to others. If they are found to be reproduced, something is taken as fact.

You've jumped from hypothesis to fact, without showing any of the steps in between.

If the middle can be filled in, where scientific studies show that no advantage is retained when transition, or can show a method by which to determine for individuals whether or not they retain an advantage, then trans women should be allowed to compete with female born women in sport.

But until we have something scientific, rather than just hypothesis laid out as fact, you will not find that society is going to support trans women competing in female sport.

No, it's not an "anecdote". I'm asking for evidence.

Nevertheless, the onus is on trans females to show they don't retain an advantage. See the above.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The World Athletics Association says she can't. Because of who she is.

I just looked into it a little more. I'm not sure if I agree with their decision.

I'll say this much though, it's a nuanced topic, not a black and white topic where one situation covers every situation. Caster Semenya's situation is relevant to that situation, as Caster Semenya is not a trans woman, and has not made decisions that placed her at an advantage over other women. The same cannot be said for trans women, and that's why these situations, while in the same spectrum of conversation, are not blanket situations where the decision of one should result in the decision of the other.

It has existed since 1942. How much longer do you want?

80 years out of tens of thousands of years of humanity, and a few thousand years of sport. It hasn't been long at all.

And it's not a matter of time anyways. I'm fine if transwomen compete in sport tomorrow, if they can show that they haven't carried an advantage over from being born male.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Never thought I'd agree with anything coming out of Mississippi but they got this one right. Kudos to them.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

therefore the onus is on them to show they don't maintain it.

You are asking people to prove a negative. You know this is impossible, and illogical. You made the claim that transwomen shouldn’t be allowed in women’s sports because they are “regularly obliterating” ciswomen. Can you substantiate this with evidence? If not, what reason do you have to believe it is happening, other than your feelings?

You've jumped from hypothesis to fact, without showing any of the steps in between.

I have said that there is no evidence that letting transpeople compete in their correct sporting gender harms cos athletes. You said that there is, and I practically begged you to provide it, and you refused. I think it is because you said something you thought and felt was true, and so didn’t check to see if it was first.

I have shown, in the case of Mack Riggs, that there is harm in not allowing transpeople to compete in their correct gender.

You are asking a class of people to prove a negative because you don’t have the evidence you thought existed. I have read your posts on other subjects, and I know you are better than this.

I just looked into it a little more. I'm not sure if I agree with their decision.

You’re right not to, because it was unjust. You don’t have to be trans to suffer transphobia - this happens to butch women all the time. Only equality will stop it, and that cannot be achieved by putting off until later what we can change for the better today.

80 years out of tens of thousands of years of humanity, and a few thousand years of sport. It hasn't been long at all.

Am I to assume you favor banning any running shoes developed any later than 1942? The same dangers apply there, surely. How do we know that modern running shoes designed for athletes aren’t dangerous? Can you prove they’re not?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You are asking people to prove a negative.

I'm asking them to prove that the advantage they were born with is not carried over as an unfair advantage, due to the decisions in their life.

You know this is impossible

If it's impossible to prove, then your claims that no advantage exists are impossible to prove. If you cannot prove that the advantage humanity as agree exists (males are stronger than female at sport) does not exist anymore, then it's not fair to let trans women compete with women.

I'm not saying they should not be allowed to compete at all. Just not in the category in which they were born with an unfair advantage.

and illogical.

I've repeatedly laid out my logic above. You don't like it, but that doesn't make it any less logical.

You made the claim that transwomen shouldn’t be allowed in women’s sports because they are “regularly obliterating” ciswomen. Can you substantiate this with evidence?

No I can't. You have made the claim that trans women have no advantage over female-born women. Can YOU substantiate this with evidence?

If not, what reason do you have to believe it is happening, other than your feelings?

If not, then what reason do you have to believe that they don't have an advantage in spite of having been born with one, other than your feelings?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You’re right not to, because it was unjust. You don’t have to be trans to suffer transphobia

Caster Semenya is not trans, so your relation to trans issues is irrelevant.

Am I to assume you favor banning any running shoes developed any later than 1942?

Any athlete can wear running shoes. Female born athletes were not born with male hormones. It's a false equivalency.

The same dangers apply there, surely.

Nope. False equivalency.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Unfair.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I would have thought the Southern juntas would be too busy keeping people of color down, and/or allegedly engage in inappropriate behaviour with minors...

I think you are sadly watching too many movies

but no, got to go and make life miserable for yet more folk.

I think it's the absolute right thing to do.

People will be bullied, attacked and even worse over this.

They shouldn't, that would be wrong, but if they do, the media and the woke elite in Washington were the ones that started the ball rolling on this. Transgenders should not be on any team with any biological women-period. This is just so infuriating, if they want to create a transgender team only, I wouldn't mind and probably would even support it, but to put a transgender or biologically born male in with women and to allow them to compete in International sport events is unfair on every level to biological women.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Caster Semenya is not trans, so your relation to trans issues is irrelevant.

Read what I wrote again. Carefully.

Any athlete can wear running shoes. Female born athletes were not born with male hormones. It's a false equivalency.

Im not asking what people can do. I’m asking if you can prove that modern running shoes aren’t dangerous. This is, of course, a stupid question, because there’s no way you can prove they’re not dangerous. You can say, “sure, they’re not dangerous. Athletes have been using them for years, and there’s been no harm so far, so why would we think they’re dangerous?”

And I could say, “so far.”

And you could say, “look dude, if you think these shoes are bad, you have to prove they are, not imagine that maybe they are or might be at some arbitrary point in the future.”

Do you get what I’m saying, now?

You are a nice and good poster, even if I sometimes disagree with you. I think you’re cool. But you are letting yourself be guided on this by your feelings, not the facts, and calling it logic. Just take a step back for a second.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

We can keep going in circles. But I’m not going to. I’ll summarize my opinion:

Trans women are asking to participate in a category other than the one the are born to. This difference in category was created in recognition that without a differentiation, there would be no women in sport. The advantage men are born with is too great for women to evenly compete.

As such, the onus is on those making the transition to the category over which they were born with an unfair advantage, to prove that they do not maintain that advantage. If they are unable to prove that the unfair advantage they were born with has been negated, the it’s unfair to let them compete against those over whom they have the unfair advantage.

I’ve read your arguments and nothing you’ve posted solves the issues outlined above, so until some way is created that alleviates the above concerns, I stand with not letting trans women compete in women’s sport.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As such, the onus is on those making the transition to the category over which they were born with an unfair advantage, to prove that they do not maintain that advantage. If they are unable to prove that the unfair advantage they were born with has been negated, the it’s unfair to let them compete against those over whom they have the unfair advantage.

This is just “prove a negative” again. It always comes down to this. You have dropped off time and again when o asked for evidence. When asked to engage with similes, you demurred. When faced with the obvious facts of the matter, you insisted on relying on your feelings on the matter instead, without explaining why at any time.

I don’t know why you refuse to deal in evidence. I don’t know why you insist on being guided by your feelings. I don’t know why you said you had evidence to prove an extraordinary claim that you obviously do not.

I agree with you entirely on one thing. We will be talking in circles, because you refuse to be straight with me.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Lazarus Knows

Do you believe gender is a social construct?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OWH wrote that laws should be designed narrowly to stop the "bad [person]" otherwise the law will eventually fail by being overbroad or not broad enough. I don't see the bad [person] this law is trying to address.

For those not in the know, OWH is Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He sat on SCOTUS for 30 years and is one of the most respected legal minds from the US.

The bad person this law is trying to address are the male to female transgender athletes who dominate female sports because biological males and females are different. They aren’t bad in the sense of being malicious, they are bad in the sense they dominate biological females.

Don't you think parents would pull their children out of a sport if they learned that a trans-female wanted to compete? So, it will not be a widespread problem.

I think parents don’t want to be put in the position of having to pull their children from a sport because biological males decide to become women and then dominate the sport.

I’m all for people doing what they want as long as it’s not causing harm to others. Here, biological females are being harmed because they are being forced to compete with biological males. No amount of hormones can completely wipe out the physiological differences between the biological sexes.

It is odd to me that we are expected to accept transsexual people but trans-race people are not accepted at all. Rachel Dolezal is the perfect example of this. She felt black inside, so started emulating black women. When it was found out she was biologically white, organic fertilizer hit the fan.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do you believe gender is a social construct?

Yes.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

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

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

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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

Finally, some evidence! I note that the study does not say that trans athletes should not take part in Olympic sports, merely asking for an extension of the transition process by a single year. Perhaps they’re right - as it says, it suggests, not proves. I also note that the author of the study specifically states that their findings should not be applied to sports in school - which since Mississippi does not have federal powers, is more of less the extent of what they can do.

I disagree with P Smith, based on their earlier post. But I want to thank them for engaging on an evidence-based basis.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

... to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

NOT to ban transgender athletes from sports.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Lazarus Knows

Do you believe there are more than 2 genders, possibly infinite genders existing on a spectrum?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Good! Enough of this crap already!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I disagree with P Smith, based on their earlier post. But I want to thank them for engaging on an evidence-based basis.

I’m a he, and appreciate your desire to stick to evidence. That said, logic is just as important as evidence.

These boards are fascinating as I can see where I agree and disagree with others. I mostly agree with your posts, but not here. This is what makes life interesting. Imagine how boring it would be if we all agreed all the time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@P.Smith

Maybe longer. This from the impeccably anti-transphobic Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Transgender athletes are having a moment. At all levels of sport, they’re stepping onto the podium and into the headlines. New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard won two gold medals at the Pacific Games, and college senior CeCé Telfer became the NCAA Division II national champion in the 400-meter run. Another senior, June Eastwood, has been instrumental to her cross-country team’s success. At the high school level, Terry Miller won the girls’ 200-meter dash at Connecticut’s state open championship track meet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/amp

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Maybe longer.

What is longer? Sorry, I’m not quite flowing.

This from the impeccably anti-transphobic Guardian: 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is based on the same study I linked to.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@P. Smith

Sorry if we have crossed wires here. The article I linked to said there was still an advantage two years after transitioning. The excerpt you pasted mentioned advantage after one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jimizo: Got it. I’ll re-read both more closely. Thanks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That said, logic is just as important as evidence.

Logic is subservient to evidence. If I craft a logical argument that the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it make it true?

Transgender athletes are having a moment. At all levels of sport, they’re stepping onto the podium and into the headlines. New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard won two gold medals at the Pacific Games, and college senior CeCé Telfer became the NCAA Division II national champion in the 400-meter run. Another senior, June Eastwood, has been instrumental to her cross-country team’s success. At the high school level, Terry Miller won the girls’ 200-meter dash at Connecticut’s state open championship track meet.

So, three transwomen, and one transman, not breaking world records, are proof that transwomen should not be allowed to compete in the gender that is correct?

This from the impeccably anti-transphobic Guardian

The Guardian (at least the U.K. edition) is known for its transphobia. That’s why their US office wrote an open letter against them.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The Guardian (at least the U.K. edition) is known for its transphobia. That’s why their US office wrote an open letter against them

Why transphobic and are they now being pushed to bow down to the identity politics mafia?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The Guardian (at least the U.K. edition) is known for its transphobia

Can you link to a transphobic article in the Guardian?

I prefer to read things for myself and make judgements based on that rather judging on the merits of an open letter.

Thanks in advance.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Make a list, ladies and gentlemen. Note the names who are on record as wanting to destroy female sport in the name of "political correctness".

It is a list of very cowed, very scared little people who hope the crocodile - as Sir Winston famously said - eats them last.

This is what awaits your daughters.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2012/12/04/college-basketball-transgender-player-gabrielle-ludwig-robert-ludwig-mission-college/1744703/

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Mississippi athletes would have to compete against everyone that the NCAA, US Olympics, pro sports, etc. deem eligible anyway

They can't hide from it

1 ( +1 / -0 )

IF you can join them HAVE YOUR OWN LEAGUE!! There are many trannies out there that want to play sports its simple compete against each other, support each other. The Olympics for example have the "SPECIAL OLYMPICS and there is a reason behind it. The logic is the same use that already proven blue print! If you are gay and you want to participate in a sport don't complain that you are being discriminated against form your own league, I am sure you will have many fans. Every city or country now has a "GAY PRIDE PARADE" so having support shouldn't be a problem!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Women have the right in the US to compete against their peers, without any extra, biological help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX Title-9 says that a proportional amount of money must be spent on girls sports in a school/university. Title-9 was/is a good law. Females do sports 9x more now. Sports participation brings all sorts of great outcomes for all people.

In general, men compete against men and women against women. There are practical and safety reasons for this. Some sports have famously become co-ed in some way, like wrestling and football when a girl wanted to play. Last fall, the first female played in a college football game - she was a kicker. The other team kickers were all out for COVID. She normally played on the women's soccer team for the school, so her eligibility was known.

I don't know any easy answer that is fair for everyone involved. I'd suspect that the only sports-fair solution would be to have trans-women try out for the men's team, if they have one. There simply aren't enough trans-people to have their own league and it could be dangerous for non-trans-women to compete on the same field larger, heavier, stronger, trans-women. Not the ideal solution. I'm not sure I even know what the ideal solution would be that doesn't upset someone directly involved.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Female divisions of sports are created obviously for females only.

A weak or weakened male is not reason to be accepted to compete in the female divisions.

If we want male and female to compete together then make mixed teams/divisions like in some sports, as prescribed in the bill

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I prefer to read things for myself and make judgements based on that rather judging on the merits of an open letter.

So you’re saying you want to read the work of Guardian journalists... but refuse to read the work of Guardian journalists? Hm. Why not read the well written work of the Guardian’s US staff?

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This is just “prove a negative” again. It always comes down to this.

Yup. Because they are coming from an unfair advantage to compete against the disadvantaged. Unless they can prove they are not still unfairly advantaged, it’s not fair to have them competing against the disadvantaged. It’s not going to be fair to one group or the other. But one group was born that way, and the other group chose to be that way. Therefore the priority must go to those born the way they are.

Which is why I’m a proponent of a trans league. Or allowing trans people to compete with/as men.

Life doesn’t always have clean answers. Yours creates a lot of dirt though.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Can anyone explain why it is a good idea to have males compete in female sports?

Giving them a different label does not put them on the same competitive level as females.

This is precisely the type of divisive policy the commies (Democrats and their America media hacks) are using to weaken America from within.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is precisely the type of divisive policy the commies (Democrats and their America media hacks) are using to weaken America from within.

Yeah, and divisive comments like that don't chip away at it, right? Nothing like demonizing 81 million people who just voted Democrat (more than voted for the other team, by millions) to halt the "[weakening] of America from within", right?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Can anyone explain why it is a good idea to have males compete in female sports?

It’s absolutely not.

Giving them a different label does not put them on the same competitive level as females.

In a normal rational and logical world that would make sense, but this doesn’t so....

This is precisely the type of divisive policy the commies (Democrats and their America media hacks) are using to weaken America from within.

Precisely.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Finally! It's great to hear something good after so much discouraging news for such a long time. Thank you Mississippi for showing sanity in the United States. Let us hope the rest of the country can show the same courage and stand up to the constant bullying from the irritating few. Political correctness needs some much needed correcting and brought under control. It's unbelievable that the portion of the equality act that is so unfair to female sports had been passed and any resistance to it is met with immediate court challenge threats. Let us hope the court system do not spend time on such irrational and illogical challenges and we hear more good news in the future.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Funny that it took past comment 100 for someone to mention Title IX. If there were no differences in boys/girls/men/women, and we're all the same, then why have any separate sports leagues? They exist because there is a physiological difference between the two. This is why they are separate. And if you're born with a boy's plumbing, you, metabolically, are a boy. So your bone density and muscle mass will be that of a boy.

Ok, let me phrase it like this: If your daughter (born, raised, no doubt is a girl) is competing in sports and is really good, would it be fair for her to lose out on college scholarship because she could not beat the transgirl that is in the competition? That is unfair, and this is a slippery slope that will deny biological girls scholarships because they were beaten by a competitor with a large advantage.

https://www.altoonamirror.com/sports/2020/05/transgender-lawsuit-on-track-in-spotlight/

https://www.metroweekly.com/2020/02/three-female-athletes-sue-connecticut-over-policy-allowing-transgender-women-to-compete-in-sports/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Funny that it took past comment 100 for someone to mention Title IX. If there were no differences in boys/girls/men/women, and we're all the same, then why have any separate sports leagues?

Umm...

StrangerlandMar. 12 04:22 pm JST

There's a reason why we separate female and male sports. If we didn't, there would be no female in sport.

StrangerlandMar. 12 05:10 pm JST

A physical meritocracy does not take into consideration human ideology.

This is why the two traditional category of sport - men's and women's

StrangerlandMar. 12 05:20 pm JST

humanity decided a long time ago was required for women to have sport in which to compete

StrangerlandMar. 12 07:40 pm JST

This difference in category was created in recognition that without a differentiation, there would be no women in sport. The advantage men are born with is too great for women to evenly compete.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites