Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic Governor, Says Trans Women Playing Sports Is “Deeply Unfair”
Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic Governor, Says Trans Women Playing Sports Is “Deeply Unfair”
Meanwhile, Maine governor Janet Mills is defying President Trump’s executive order.
You're viewing a single thread.
Sports are games.
Games are supposed to be inclusive and fun.
Society taking games deathly serious (and equivocating it with academic merit, aka serious pursuits) is the problem.
People rioting and murdering if the game didn't work out for their team is the problem. Putting billion dollar stakes on games is the problem.
Trans people or any people wanting to play games with their friends should be what society fosters and nurtures as the entire fucking point of society's existence. Something something... planting trees something something knowing they'll never sit under...
Nope? let's bring on the climate change induced extinction then. If our values are hyper competitive, dog eat dog bullshit from labor to fucking games, we should go extinct.
Have you ever watched women’s sport vs. men’s..? Like cmon lmao.
Have you seen how big some NFL guys can get?? Imagine putting one of those guys in a women’s league? Put an NBA all-star in the women’s league? Imagine Mike Tyson in his prime fighting a woman. People would be hospitalized every minute
This crazy shit is what turned everyone off of Democrats this time around. All for like the maybe 10 trans athletes this would even apply to
Sports are a pathetic institution when they're more about competition than fun.
Life is competitive enough.
That’s your opinion, which I completely respect. But a lot of people make a living from sports and allow themselves to pull their families out of poverty because of it. Are you going to take that away from them because there’s a double digit number of trans people that this even applies to?
You sound like you don’t watch professional sports enough in a way to understand what I’m saying, which is fine but also why I’m trying to make this point
Games are supposed to be fair. Unless you're going to completely desegregate men and women's sports, there's a real biological argument to be made here. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
There is zero biological argument because you cannot make two categories based on sex which encompass everyone.
Example 1:
A cis woman with a genetic mutation which incrases her testosterone levels into the range of cis men. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 2:
A cis woman with XY gonadal dysgenesis. She has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome is mutated and doesn't function as it should which causes a "female" phenotype. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 3:
A trans woman in the 95th percentile of men with regards to physical strength. She is in the 10th percentile of women after transitioning. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 4:
A trans woman with Klinefelter syndrome and XXY genes. She has naturally very low levels of testosterone and she doesn't require testosterone blockers after transitioning and taking estrogen. Even before transitioning she had less muscle mass, weaker bones and wider hips than the average man as a result of her low testosterone. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 5:
An African woman who would be in the 1st percentile of man if she were one, both in terms of physical attributes (size, muscle mass, heart size) and competitive results. Some "scientists" argue her race makes her less of a woman and more of a man. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
There is zero risk of these people "replacing" cis women by the way. Yes, their performance may be greater than that of comparable cis women without any genetical mutations beyond a certajn point.
Yet risk is calculated as [severity] * [likelihood]. And due to the low likelihood stemming from their very low prevalence in the general population, there is no reason to ban them.
Women's sports is about representation of women. Trans women are part of that group, cis women with genetic mutations are part of that group, racial minorities are part of that group. You cannot exclude some women and claim this group is "fair" and representative.
Make a trans league if there’s really such a demand for it. Problem solved.
A separate but equal league? Sure sounds appealing to many to segregate trans people into their own categories.
May as well apply it to bathrooms as well while we're at it.
What, the same way biological males and females are “segregated” in sports?
May as well just make bathrooms with individual stalls/rooms. Then everyone will shut up about this stupid crap.
I don’t care what you got going on down there at the end of the day, but you’re on some crazy shit if you think it’s fair to make trans women that have gone through puberty compete against other women. It’s just simple biology, nothing evil about that.
Do you believe segregating a minority group making up 1-2% of the population will not have discriminatory effects? That there will be equal access to funding, scholarships, competition and sport leagues?
You can't seriously believe this. Isn't it plainly obvious that this would be an excuse to ban trans people from doing any sports? That any sports club will just argue there aren't enough trans people to allow them to be members?
And I'd seriously like to know how it is unfair for cis women to have to compete against trans women in chess. Right now trans women are barred from competing in any women's leagues regardless of when they started transitioning by the way.
How do trans people have any advantage in hundreds of other sports, from gymnastics to ballet to competitive diving - all of which have a more or less significant artistic element?
By the way, there are already discriminatory regulations barring certain cis women in the name of "fairness":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_regulations_in_women's_athletics
Also, what a coincidence:
At the 2020 Olympics a number of athletes, all from African countries, were withdrawn from their events because they did not meet the eligibility regulations.
Sure sucks for these Africans that they "randomly" happened to not meet these criteria. It couldn't possibly be that certain ethnicities are more or less likely to have certain genetics.
If there’s a demand for it it will happen. And chess isn’t a real sport lol It’s as much a sport as “competitive gaming”
In some sports there are weight classes, because being a certain weight gives you an inherent biological advantage on average over people of a different weight. The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.
Women’s sports vs Men’s sports is a similar idea. Separate people by some biological classification that’s often tied on average to an advantage at the sport, so that everybody has the chance to play against someone of a similar baseline.
That division doesn’t have to exclude trans people, but it does mean that a line gets drawn somewhere. And yes, that line might include some cis people with a genetic abnormality getting excluded as well, and some cis men with a genetic abnormality might be included.
If you want to draw the divisions by something like muscle mass or testosterone levels instead of trying to define sex and gender clearly enough for this purpose, that would probably be easier, although “low testosterone sports” doesn’t have the same marketability as “women’s sports” lol.
The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.
That's true. In professional boxing there are 18 weight classes from 46.3 kg (103 lb) to 101.6 kg (224 lb) plus the unlimited weight class. Only very few adults are excluded as the vast majority weighs more than the lower bound.
But with sex-based roles? Two don't really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn't even be a need for per-sport subclasses.
Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We're talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn't there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?
Imagine if in the early 1900's it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn't somewhere.
But with sex-based roles? Two don't really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn't even be a need for per-sport subclasses.
Sports is full of divisions. Division by age is the most common, followed by division by skill, and division by sex. Some sports use extra divisions by weight. Some find age/sex/skill to be enough. In some sports, especially at lower age or skill levels, co-ed is common (division by sex is not used). There are also divisions for people with physical disabilities, sometimes with tweaks to the rule to accommodate.
In all cases, the purpose of these divisions is to find a balance where everyone can get a fair matchup.
Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We're talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn't there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?
Absolutely 100%. I think everybody should be able to participate in sports, and I think that rules about sex divisions should be modified to account for trans people and people with gender-related disorders. I don’t think just letting people choose a division is fair though, there should be rules for consistency and fairness.
The border of the divisions is always at least somewhat contentious because people just before the cutoff have an advantage. Many high-level athletes have similar birth dates because they were born just before the age cutoff growing up. Being slightly older in the age divisions gives an advantage, and that leads to performing well, which leads to feedback loops such as coaches and parents and the kid noticing the good performance and focusing on the sport more. This ends up in more kids who were at the edge of their age range growing up becoming successful athletes as adults.
Also with weight-based divisions, it’s typical in higher skill levels to body-build to slightly above the cutoff and then avoid drinking water for a day to get slightly below the cutoff.
No line you draw will be perfect, but you do have to draw a line somewhere.
Imagine if in the early 1900's it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn't somewhere.
There are a some problems with this analogy. Scholarships are very different from competitions (although sports scholarships exist, which is a whole other topic to discuss…). Also the gender case is looking at the edge cases of an existing cutoff, which is not the case about left handed people, unless you want to hypothetically add they might have some relation to some other grouping.
I’ll offer some analogies that I think might be similar. What about someone with developmental issues who was held back in school? Would it be fair for the other kids if they get to play sports with the younger age group because of their mind? Would it fair for the kid who was held back to have to play in the older age group because of their body? What about someone who has a condition affecting their weight? Should that condition let them compete in a lower weight class? I’m not saying I have the answers to these scenarios, btw. I think a lot of it comes down to a case-by-case basis, and guidelines with leeway for exceptions are probably better than strict rules.
Women’s sports is about representation of women.
Maybe that's the crux of the issue. You guys keep seeing women's sports as some sort of symbolism or representation or statement. The majority of people see women's sports as being about sports. No agenda needed. No messaging. Just physical competition purely for the sake of it.
Yes, it is about sports - but only in addition to being about representation. This is the key distinguishing factor between women's sports and male/open category sports.
If it were purely and solely about sports then women's sports as a category wouldn't exist. Female athletes would get similar funding and opportunities as male athletes, both in competitive and casual events.
Just take a look at chess: Why is there a women's league? Answer: Because there are significant systemic barriers against women in chess. Without their own leagues, there would be no representation in the top level at all due to men dominating the rankings. Having women's chess tournaments is about representing women in chess.
But trans women are banned from ranked women's chess events. And to put the cherry on top, trans men are stripped of all their titles after transitioning.
Cruelty is the point of these decisions. Not "supporting women".
Oh, and one more thing:
No agenda needed
Totally. Zero agenda, zero ideology, zero DEI and zero wokeness. Traditional conservative women's sports events just like we always had and how God intended. Not even a strand of feminism to be found here, nope.
Calling chess a "sport" in the context of this discussion is such a reach I'm suspecting you might actually be Reed Richards in disguise.
Contemporary chess is an organized sport with structured international and national leagues, tournaments, and congresses.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
The only difference between chess and other sports is that one requires more physical prowess, the other more mental prowess.
Chess is an example of trans people being banned in sports for no reason other than them being trans.
Another example:
Trans women are now banned from US college gymnastics where they have zero competitive advantage as focus lies on artistic performance over strength.
Or another one:
UK Athletics bans trans women that have gone through male puberty at all levels of competition - be it local, regional or national. The NHS doesn't allow doctors to prescribe puberty blockers to children though.
focus lies on artistic performance over strength.
What the fuck hat did you pull this bullshit out of rofl
The NHS doesn’t allow doctors to prescribe puberty blockers
Irrelevant
Women's routines tend to be more artistic and dance-like, sometimes telling a story, whereas a priority for men's routines is to display strength. (The women's score also includes a spot for artistry on the balance beam.)
The men's and women's floor exercises are fundamentally similar, but the artistic performance aspect of the women's discipline is missing from the men's.
Not only that, but women's floor routines tend to include dance moves (often to music) in order to showcase their artistry, while men's floor routines are typically about showcasing strength.
Men’s events typically emphasize upper body strength and powerful acrobatics, while women’s events highlight balance, grace, and artistic expression.
I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, they are literally the first results on any search engine.
Isn't that common knowledge though?
Women's gymnastics: artistry > strength
Men's gymnastics: artistry < strength
Both still require a lot of artistry and strength respectively. They just have different priorities.
Also, thank you for ignoring 99% of my comment and nitpicking two lines. You argue like a politician.
I ignore the irrelevant bullshit because I think it would lower my IQ to stoop to the level of addressing it.
Both still require a lot of artistry and strength respectively.
That's my point.
Trans people or any people wanting to play games with their friends should be what society fosters and nurtures as the entire fucking point of society's existence. Something something... planting trees something something knowing they'll never sit under...
Coed teams exist. They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.
Maybe the solution is non-gendered weight classes for sports, or just more coed teams. Idk
Edit: yall will convince yourselves of anything lol. Really wild the dumb shit some people will say
What about trans women who transitioned before puberty? What about cis or intersex women with elevated levels of testosterone? What about sports where it has been shown that after a long enough period of medical transition trans people have no significant advantage over their cis counterparts?
You appeal to science yet fail to cite a single source, so let me do it for you:
They’re finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn’t go through puberty as a male.
Good news! Puberty blockers exist and have been studied and used for literal decades for other reasons.
That’s clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.
The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there's no more advantage.
In fact, women who haven't transitioned often have an advantage because their testosterone levels can be higher than women who have transitioned.
And that's the crux of the issue: human variation.
The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there’s no more advantage.
Would you be opposed to a requirement that trans women wanting to compete in women's leagues undergo 3 years of hormone therapy before being allowed to play?
I think most trans people would agree that's reasonable, but at that point, you also have to talk about the bans on transition for minors, which would affect a minors ability to have that time frame met, and then their ability to play.
True, and that's a thorny problem but one that has to be addressed eventually.
Puberty blockers exist and have been studied and used for literal decades for other reasons.
In the case of a trans woman having not went through puberty as a male then yeah true enough as far as I know.
The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there's no more advantage.
Are you sure about that? Because I looked it up and (after a few instances of "we have no idea but maybe not") I found this. I'll also admit that I only read the conclusion so I can't make any guarantees for the quality of the paper.
In fact, women who haven't transitioned often have an advantage because their testosterone levels can be higher than women who have transitioned.
Yeah that's the thing: Testosterone is only one part of athletic ability. The paper lists some parameters that are either not affected or affected but not reduced to within the average range of cis women, but the obvious example would be height.
The paper does what all transphobes, and coincidentally most sexists, do when this subject comes up:
Pretends that the average woman has a shot at high level athletics even at just the college level.
If there's scholarships on the line, the people getting them are going to have certain natural advantages on top of busting their asses for years at the sport.
To quote an old Utah Jazz coach:
You can't coach height
So when you compare the average 22 year old woman to an elite college athlete, you're gonna a very large gap. Just like comparing an average 22 year old guy to whoever just won the Heisman trophy.
The difference is larger in women. Because the average guy is more likely to have played sports growing up, and those gains in coordination when you g last for life.
And that's not even it.
There are just soooooooooo many reasons why this who thing is overblown fearmongering designed to get idiots mad at a very small very vulnerable group.
Of all the things to be mad about right now, your mad at tops, absolutely tops, double digit young non-paid athletes.
Just fucking why?
If it's not transphobia, what other reason do you care to still be going thru this thread desperately trying to have the same argument?
If it's not transphobia, what other reason do you care to still be going thru this thread desperately trying to have the same argument?
Well I care about the truth for its own sake, but you can also call it pedantry. I recognize that this is culture war bullshit by conservatives meant to demonize trans people for what's mostly a non-issue, but setting aside conservatives being conservatives it is a debate worth having. And I have nothing better to do, that helps too.
Ah, yes, let’s make laws specifically banning 2-5 children from ever having fun.
Like… what the fuck is wrong with you that you think a law targeting under 10 people in the entirety of the US is justified and not literally just bullying those kids on a national level to hope they fucking commit suicide? A law to tell 5 kids, specifically, that fuck them and they’re not allowed to have fun is god damn crazy.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006
They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.
That would be an argument worth discussing if the Nazis weren't also trying to ban puberty blockers and frothing at the mouth claiming the trans agenda is coming for their kids. But no, right now, that's a garbage bad faith argument, because it already has an obvious answer. That's how they poison the discussion.
Gavin Newsom is not a Nazi.
If he's capitulating to Nazis, that makes him complicit. Sorry if he had other good qualities, but he's bending the knee.
He's not capitulating. His position is supported by the vast majority. It's likely what he actually believes.
Please tell me what these "issues" are, with peer reviewed scientific sources. There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT. Furthermore, the same people touting trans kids for their supposed "advantages" are the same people forcing them to develop those "advantages" by restricting their access to healthcare before puberty begins.
The cruelty is the point.
There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT.
Uh... Palm size? Heart and lung size? Height? Don't get me wrong I recognize this for the culture war bullshit it is, but there is some truth to this that needs to be addressed.
Edit: I only read the conclusion (and wouldn't be able to tell if the methodology is flawed anyway) but I found this.
So shouldn't we eliminate all players who may have physical advantages? What about a woman from birth who grows to 6'5"? Seems like that'd be an unfair advantage when playing against other women who may be only 5'10".
I mean by your logic we should just eliminate women's leagues entirely and make everything coed.
That's not my logic, that's your logic. Some people are born with genetic traits that make them good at certain sports, and that's always been the case. Your argument is that it's unfair if people have advantages and should be banned, so why not take it all the way instead of nitpicking here and there?
Because that's stupid? Why SHOULD we "take it all the way"?
Because you're stopping at an arbitrary point to give in to bigots.
That's not at all why we stop there. We stop there because it's been an effective way to organize sports for 10,000 years.
Athletes have always leveraged unfair advantages in sports. There’s a reason there’s super tall players in basketball and short ones in gymnastics. May be they should enforce that average height of teams must match global averages. Countries with fewer resources just can’t support athletes in many sports so why not make that more fair?
There’s research showing that some women athletes (i.e., born with female reproductive organs) have higher testosterone levels than many men, and even some male athletes. So why are they allowed to compete in women sports instead of men?
There’s a lot of ways to make sports more fair. Banning transgender people without fair science based facts is not one of them and is plain bigotry. It’s like saying an athlete on anti-depressants should be banned because they are happier and more motivated so have an unfair advantage.