I’m against this but I think it will ultimately be self-correcting. If women’s sports become dominated by biological men there will be a backlash. From what I’ve seen of Biden he seems easily swayed by whatever way the left is leaning.
I don’t see any evidence to support the OP’s assertion about the policy. “No discrimination” does not necessarily mean “biological males can play women’s sports”. There are already plenty of rules that don’t qualify as “discrimination” under the law for playing sports – rules about hormone levels or other physical requirements may not necessarily be discriminatory.
Worthwhile read but note this article is almost two years old.
From what I can tell, the entire premise of this thread is false. If a transgender woman sues under this executive order to play for the women’s curling team, or whatever, then this conversation might make sense. As of now, I see zero evidence that schools will be forced to allow transwomen to compete with ciswomen in college sports.
OP, can you provide a cite that any respectable lawyer or news outlet is interpreting the EO that way?
The whole thread and this post in general are trolling. You have not demonstrated that this XO would support what you said. This calls for an official warning.
I’m a Title IX lawyer. DemonTree’s reading is the correct one, and I’m a bit baffled by the hostility to his interpretation of what seems like a fairly straightforward issue.
Congress and the courts can always weigh in and change how this is actually enacted, and maybe there’s some quibble to be had about the language the OP used to describe the issue, but it seems quite clear what the executive order is intended to communicate. I don’t understand why the plain meaning isn’t something everyone agrees on.
edit: holy shit, this place has lost its marbles
That’s not what, even in @DemonTree’s knee-jerk interpretation, this does.
It’s a slippery slope type argument. If you let people decide what gender they are, and require people to treat self described women as women, then men will falsely claim to be women for prurient or societal advantage purposes.
I’m prejudiced — my first instinct is to smack people arguing on both sides of the issue with a rolled-up copy of Sports Illustrated.
My personal lack of interest in sports plays a huge role here, and that’s a definite bias: I have a hard time thinking that freaking SPORTS is worth fighting over one way or the other.
Okay, okay… if you were born with a male physiology, and you come to realize that your life will be far better and your public self far more in keeping with who you actually are if you transition, you are by definition doing so despite the historical and cultural oppression of female people. The form that this oppression took until the 1970s did heavily involve barriers to female people participating in sports. That is less so now, by a considerable margin, but it’s something that female athletes alive today had to cope with.
Suppose it were put to you like this: you don’t have the option of going back in time and starting over with XX chromosomes and a body that was female from the start. But you can transition within the limitations of what medical science can do, if you so choose, or you can choose not to transition medically but transition socially and present as a woman, within the limitations of what non-medical choices of presentation can avail you. Or you can remain male and present socially as a person whose self is a woman but whose body since birth is one of male physiology, and try to get peopel to accept your self in the body to which you were born. If you don’t transition medically you can compete in sports as a male person. If you do transition you won’t be embraced and accepted as a female athlete so that’s a price tag you’d have to pay if you go that route.
I’m not saying it is FAIR to pose the question that way. It isn’t fair to you. Life hasn’t been fair to you so far though. Suppose those are your choices, do you still prefer to transition, all things considered?
So, on to fairness. The female-born athletes feel that transgender women would have an unfair advantage. They’d be taller, heavier-boned, more strongly muscled. Some of them don’t want you there. They say that you being there would be unfair to them. So you don’t have a monopoly on what is and isn’t fair, it’s not as simple as “trans women are women, hence anywhere in human life that something is ‘of or for women’, you have to let us in”.
If it fair for the no-more-than-a-handful of transgender women atheletes to be barred from women’s competitive sports because of this assumed physiological advantage? Is the yelling from the other side really about female athletes and what’s fair to them, or is it just hostile transphobia? Some of it is absolutely just hostile transphobia. That doesn’t quite entirely negate their point though.
Sometimes sports is unfair. Boxing has weight divisions but football doesn’t. Unfair to the smaller and more lightweight people who might enjoy expressing their skills in the sport. You might consider the boxing way of handing it to be more fair. Well, the larger and heavier boxer is barred from participating in the flyweight division. They say “Go box against someone in your own category”. Well, back to your situation, transgender woman athlete. Why don’t you compete against male athletes? Doing so doesn’t make you male. It makes you a person competing against people against whom your body has no unfair advantage. It is true that your body will have a disadvantage in competing against them.
I don’t know. It’s a mess. But can’t you find something more important in life than sports? You got to transition and fit in. Seems like there’s more important stuff to make your own personal cause about.
Right. I see nothing in the actual Executive Order that “forces schools to allow biological males” to “play on whatever team they identify as, regardless of biology or hormone status” as of today.
ISTM though one part of the document that outlines general administration policy makes ONE reference to Title IX among a list of several different laws on which they’ll seek to follow the Bostock decision, the other part where it actually orders government officials to do something specific is about agencies reviewing their Title VII policies and procedures.
Maybe nobody on either side of the argument should set their hair on fire just yet until we say what recommendations come out of that review.
ETA: OK, @Jimmy_Chitwood, do you feel like walking us through how does it do that, what we are missing? And is it absolutely automatically so or would it have to depend on what the agency reviews come up with?
Even in that case, it would still not be men competing in those sports.
It’s an edge case that can be used to try to discredit the entire trans movement. In the world of black and white, where no form of reasonable judgement or sense can be applied, it seems to prove a point that is irrelevant, unless then generalized and extrapolated to cover anything and everything else.
OK, can you provide some cites that this EO will be interpreted to allow any transwoman to compete with any ciswoman? It seems like this would be a much bigger deal if it were that obvious, and, so far, it’s not showing up, say, in the NY Times.
ETA: I just did a Google search for “does biden’s executive order force schools to allow transwomen to compete” and nothing at all is coming up about sports competitions. Zero, zilch. If this is as obvious as you say, then surely, the NCAA would be worried about, say, women’s basketball.
Let’s see a cite that “transgender students must now be allowed to play on whatever team they identify as, regardless of biology or hormone status”, since the XO doesn’t remotely say this.
BTW, I found a cite from The Federalist, but I’m not posting it here because it’s probably bullshit. They’ve become (or have always been?) right-wing hacks.
If they were falsely claiming to be women, then it would be men competing. The slippery slope says that men will check off the woman box to get some easy medals (or look at undressed ladies) without feeling in any way that they actually identify as women.
On the sports side, I feel like the restricted category should be “XX chromosome no hormonal treatments” rather than “women”. I say this because I feel that 500 enthusiastic transgendered XY athletes could dominate a sport with 1,000,000 enthusiastic XX athletes.
And how often has that happened in the real world?
It doesnt meant that. I suppose it could, after some court battles.
What it does mean is that if you identify as female, you can play with the women, if you identify as male, with the guys. Sounds fair to me. Do you have issues with trans rights?
I was in HS Band and College sports, and I dont know of a single jock that would ever, not in a million zillion years, “identity” as a “girl”.
Now, if this becomes a issue, we can talk about it then. Same with restrooms.
It hasn’t, and likely won’t, but it’s the core of that particular argument.
I am pretty sure you are being sarcastic. But sure, that could happen.
However, the number of transpeople beat up by guys in the mens room so far is about 1000-0.
So, if “men will falsely claim to be women for prurient or societal purposes” then we can cross that so far imaginary bridge when we come to it.
I think this is O/T for this thread, but since you brought it up, I guess you’re saying that anyone who wants to compete with women would have to get a DNA test? Just starting at the college level, or high school, or would that start with rec softball or what?
Otherwise, I don’t know how you screen out women affected by AIS.