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.
I prefer to base my policy preferences on the real world, not what would happen in Conservative Fantasy Land.
One problem is that the division of sports into men/women was designed around the genetic differences of the athletes, not gender identity. Forever, the term women was virtually synonymous with genetically XX people. Now that women is being used for both genetically XX people and for people who identify as women, it’s important to look back at the places where woman is used for descriptive purposes and understand if it was meant for genetic, gender, or both definitions. For example:
- Women’s Hats: 90% gender (style) / 10% genetics (based on smaller head size)
- Women’s clothing: 50% gender (style) / 50% genetics (based on body shape)
- Women’s health: 10% gender (focused on gender preferences) / 90% genetics (health aspects of genetic XX uniqueness)
Just opening up sports to gender identity means that there will be participants who have very little genetic similarity to the other participants. A sincere transwoman can be completely 100% masculine in every way. If such a transwoman participates in women’s sports, it will be no different from a man participating.
We have to realize that when considering this issue, it’s archaic to assume that a person will gender conform to their gender identity. Gender is a state of mind, not a state of body. The only thing you can say definitely about a transwoman is she identifies as a woman. That does not confer anything about the way she dresses, acts, modifies her body, etc. Certainly many transwomen do gender conform, but that is by their choice. But for a matter like sports, we have to consider the issue where sincere transwomen may be essentially 100% male in all aspects other than their personal gender identity. I don’t think transwomen should be locked out of women’s sports, but I think we need to be realistic about the situation and say that just identifying as a gender is not sufficient to participate in athletics for that gender. There should be additional qualifications which reflect that the sport is based around athletes with certain genetic qualities rather than solely a gender identity.
That’s all interesting, but is that what Biden’s EO does?
First, let me say I am completely on board with trans rights with the acknowledgement that this topic–while basically an edge case–is a hard one to solve.
In Massachusetts there have been a number of boys playing in girls field hockey teams, to the point where the dominant teams usually have at least one boy. The situations are a bit different but it’s proof that there are enough boys who are willing to take advantage of the situation to cause issues.
Reading that article, are they trans…? Or does the state just require the team to be mixed gender?
The article refers to them as “boys” and I see nothing about trans people in that article.
Eta: my point is, there is a big difference between “boy wants to play on girls’ team which allows boys” and “boy pretends to be trans to play on girls’ team that does not allow boys”.
I thought this thread was to discuss Biden’s EO and whether he has singlehandedly destroyed women’s college sports. If it’s just another thread about transwomen in sports, I think that has already been done to death.
No, so far it hasnt been a problem, and I dont think it will be. Now if it does become a problem we can cross that bridge that hasnt even been built yet.
Just like people can self identity as whatever race they choose and that hasnt become a significant issue. (Yes, there is a definition for being a legal member of a recognized tribe, other that that, pick your choice).
So people are constructing imaginary bridges out of slippery slopes. And then, due to these possible, maybe, hasnt happened so far imaginary issues- denying very real people very real rights.
Look, I dont care what bathroom you pick, but dont make a mess, put the seat up if you stand, and wash your damn hands.
I dont care what team you wanna play on, just play fair.
“there’s just one boy playing field hockey in Massachusetts for every 219 girls.” and there are no boys teams in that sport.
So I dont give a rats ass.
They are not trans, which is why I said the situation was a bit different. However, it proves that some boys are not afraid of being labeled a girl if it allows them to compete. Without some kind of restriction, allowing anyone to compete based on their declared gender will likely lead to domination by XY athletes.
Is this what Biden’s EO does? Do you happen to have a cite to that effect?
See my edit. These boys are playing a sport that has no boy’s team, but where the girl’s team allows boys. There is an enormous difference between that, and pretending to be trans in order to play on a team that doesn’t allow boys.
I don’t, but that’s not my argument. People who know better than me can resolve that. I’m strictly responding to the point that boys/men won’t be willing to take advantage of a ruling that allows them to play as female.
Teams with boys do much better in state playoffs. You can at least understand why some people care?
OK. I think that’s not really relevant to this thread, and risks hopelessly hijacking this thread into the much, much broader discussion of how transwomen should be treated for women’s sports. We’ve had multiple giant threads on that subject.
This one starts with the claim that Biden will be forcing college programs to allow transwomen to compete with ciswomen. Neither the OP nor @Jimmy_Chitwood have brought a cite to that effect. If it’s not the case that Biden’s EO has done that, then this thread should probably be closed.
ETA: That was in reply to your reply to me.
And yet, 1 in 219 players are boys. And this is when they don’t even have to pretend to be trans to do so!