The battle over trans athletes in American schools heats up

Watch
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by anarchism101)
No, that isn't the only reason. Tall guys have a huge physical advantage over short guys in basketball, yet we don't have separate competitions. Short slight guys who grew up in high-altitude areas have a huge advantage at distance running, but we don't have separate events for big bulky guys who grew up at sea level. Why not? Because we don't consider it socially important that those disadvantaged groups be represented and able to participate at a comparable level of prestige.
There are all sorts of separations, for example, there are piano competitions for professionals and separate for amateurs. There are olimpics for disabled, chess competitions for people with intellectual disability ICD-10 F70. In motorsports aside from separate classes depending on the engine capacity, weight, level of modifications, there are also different classes for professionals and amateurs, for new cars and old cars, for 'normal' drivers, and elderly drivers, and so on.
There surely could be basketball for short, but where big money is involved, everyone want to have the best players, so it goes on as it goes since the times people believed everyone should do what the person is the best suited to. In the first line of top sports, there is only one distinction; for men and women because this difference is very big, and is very easily checked.

Imho the fairest thing to do, would to make four separate classes, for biological men, biological women, trans men and trans women.
Although if some people are so concerned about social exclusion, I don't see why they don't demand Olipic and Paraolimpic games to be one event, and additional classes within the games, eg. ageing sportshumans class, and elderly class.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by PTMalewski)
There are all sorts of separations, for example, there are piano competitions for professionals and separate for amateurs. There are olimpics for disabled, chess competitions for people with intellectual disability ICD-10 F70. In motorsports aside from separate classes depending on the engine capacity, weight, level of modifications, there are also different classes for professionals and amateurs, for new cars and old cars, for 'normal' drivers, and elderly drivers, and so on.
There surely could be basketball for short, but where big money is involved, everyone want to have the best players
But that's a very different criteria - then you're adding the consideration of what is entertaining to spectators, rather than simply what is fair to the participants.

so it goes on as it goes since the times people believed everyone should do what the person is the best suited to. In the first line of top sports, there is only one distinction; for men and women because this difference is very big, and is very easily checked.
Not that easily checked, as it turns out. Professional sport has always struggled to establish a reliable and uncontroversial method of sex verification. Prior to WW2, the Olympics had virtually no checks at all - it just relied on good faith. In the 1950s they initially required all female athletes to parade nude in front of doctors. For obvious reasons, this was despised by the athletes, so in the 1960s they switched to chromosome testing. Over time, it was discovered that wasn't all that reliable either, and so in the late 1990s, they switched to testosterone limits. And it's still very controversial. But throughout all of this, the real issue has been neither men posing as women, nor trans women, but rather intersex women.

Imho the fairest thing to do, would to make four separate classes, for biological men, biological women, trans men and trans women.
That may be a possible solution if it can be shown there's a need for it, but at present there isn't one. There are relatively few trans women competing at high levels in women's sport, even when the rules permit them to do so. Trans women have been entitled to compete in women's events at the Olympics since 2004, but so far none have done so (at least as far as we know). Trans women have been eligible to compete in WTA tennis events ever since Renee Richards won her case in the late 1970s, but can you even name a trans woman tennis player other than Richards?
Last edited by anarchism101; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by anarchism101)
Trans women have hypothetically been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004, as long as they meet the same testosterone conditions as their cis competitors. Yet far from trans athletes dominating women's events, we're still to see any compete at the Olympic level, at least openly. There was a brief suggestion about Team GB possibly including a couple of trans women in 2016, but to my knowledge their identities were never revealed, so either they weren't picked at all or went largely unnoticed in the games. The far bigger gender-related controversy in professional athletics has been over intersex athletes.

And the original topic of this thread is of course not about something even close to Olympic level.
It’s a bit of a strange system, if prohibiting participation due to gender isn’t fair how is it fair to prohibit participation based on testosterone levels? Some women will of course have unusually high levels.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Underscore__)
It’s a bit of a strange system, if prohibiting participation due to gender isn’t fair how is it fair to prohibit participation based on testosterone levels? Some women will of course have unusually high levels.
Well, in large part the latter system has been adopted because there isn't really a reliable way of measuring the former - despite having tried multiple methods. It's worth noting that the testosterone tests have also been controversial for reasons unrelated to sex verification or intersex or transgender athletes. It's perceived as an arbitrary cap on women's athletic capacity that does not have an equivalent in men's events.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by anarchism101)
But that's a very different criteria - then you're adding the consideration of what is entertaining to spectators, rather than simply what is fair to the participants.
On the contrary. Who would like to watch 90 years old drivers competing, except for a very, very few fans from the distant past, since they're much slower and less spectacular at driving? Chess players doing stupid moves, or listen to bad piano players?
The classes are made for fairness and to give competitors equal chances. A 90 year old retired rally driver is probably still better normal drivers who never entered motosport, but stands no chance against young professionals. Poor reflex, different cars, weaker body. Same with everything else. A moron (an obsolete medical term), has not a chance against against a pro player without deficiencies. An amateur piano player can't play as well as a professional. A short good basketball player can't play as well as a tall good player. The classes are made to allow people to compete on equal terms, but the more deficient the class, the less spectacular it is.


(Original post by anarchism101)
Not that easily checked, as it turns out.
Do me a favor. From biological perspective it's plain and easy. Either you have female or male muscular structure. It doesn't matter if you look like a male or female or how much testosterone have you got at the moment when you are tested. A normal male can have very low testosterone level for natural reasons but he's still going to be stronger than a female who's lived a similar lifestyle.

(Original post by anarchism101)
Professional sport has always struggled to establish a reliable and uncontroversial method of sex verification. Prior to WW2, the Olympics had virtually no checks at all - it just relied on good faith.
So in that term those times were better. You could count on people's honor and sense of justice.

(Original post by anarchism101)
And it's still very controversial. But throughout all of this, the real issue has been neither men posing as women, nor trans women, but rather intersex women.
If something isn't controvesial, it means it has no stance.
The problem is plain and easy. Make some basic classes easy to distinquish, and let the not considered advantages to be counted as a talent.

(Original post by anarchism101)
That may be a possible solution if it can be shown there's a need for it, but at present there isn't one. There are relatively few trans women competing at high levels in women's sport, even when the rules permit them to do so. Trans women have been entitled to compete in women's events at the Olympics since 2004, but so far none have done so (at least as far as we know). Trans women have been eligible to compete in WTA tennis events ever since Renee Richards won her case in the late 1970s, but can you even name a trans woman tennis player other than Richards?
1. If your engine is just slightly bigger than the class alows, you're excluded from the race, because you're not playing fair. Not a single competitor with unfair advantage should be allowed. Sport is about how far you can get with your wisdom and determination, not what doping drugs did you buy, how you could earn for changing class although you have something that shouldn't be in it.
2. Just leave it as it is, and wait two or three decades. You're do damage to trans people, instead of a favor.
Last edited by PTMalewski; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
Once again worth reiterating the absurd delusion of "biological fairness" in competitive sport. Nicely highlighted by the tortured justifications for it above.
Last edited by Ascend; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Ascend)
Once again worth reiterating the absurd delusion of "biological fairness" in competitive sport. Nicely highlighted by the tortured justifications for it above.
I’ve already explained at more length above but to summarise, the gap between the genetic freak kind of male athletes and the average male athlete is nothing compared to the gap between the average male athletes and very best female athletes. Furthermore those freak athletes are once in a lifetime for their sport and aren’t fair comparators. You can’t simply dismiss that as a ‘tortured justification’
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (79)
21.7%
No (285)
78.3%

Watched Threads

View All