But by what criteria would the judgement be made on that? Does it have no relevance to biological sex?
For instance, someone who was born male, went through puberty, retains all male physiological traits and has had no medical intervention should be free to play female sport unless…? what?
Says you. I’m unconvinced. AFAICT, this is already how it’s done in many schools and leagues.
Is this person a trans girl or woman? If not, they don’t get to play women’s or girl’s sports (I’m unaware of any category of sports called “female sport”). If they are a trans girl or woman, then they should be allowed to play unless the individual involved would endanger fair competition or player safety.
Please provide the definition of trans girl or woman.
This is not how competitive sports work in the USA at any level. People will put pressure on the rules at any level. Politics dictate that there be few if any requirements on “declaring as a trans girl/woman.” Nobody wants to hurt feelings, so there are going to be no questions asked when a person decides to try out for the girls team. Which is going to include pranksters and misogynists when you try to implement your soft fuzzy guidelines.
A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
And I’ve been playing and coaching sports at an amateur level for over 35 years. There will certainly be controversy, pressure, disagreement, etc., in addition to attempts to take advantage of the rules, no matter what the rules are. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be accommodating to trans athletes – we should. That this will anger some people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do this. That some might try to take advantage of this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do this. We should do the right thing – accommodate trans athletes except in those circumstances that could harm player safety or fair competition – period. When difficult circumstances come up, we can deal with them individually.
What circumstances would you consider as harming fair competition? What if it turns out that trans girls win every competition in which they compete on the girls team? I don’t know that they would, but if it turns out to be the case that they do, I would consider that unfair.
I haven’t I thought this idea through fully, but just brainstorming:
What if we leave it up to the specific cis girls on the actual team the trans girl wants to join? If they say it’s okay it’s okay, if they say it would be unfair then no.
Is that workable at all?
They don’t – we already know this. There are enough trans girls playing sports that don’t dominate every game and team and competition that we have the answer to this question.
Cite.
Here are a few examples:
Just one example would eliminate the hypothetical presented, which is why it was so silly. All I needed to demonstrate is a single trans woman athlete who doesn’t dominate their sport.
Because it’s not actually relevant to this conversation, maybe?
All of those cases are specifically cases where hormone therapy is taking place. Using those to argue “we don’t need to define what a trans girl is” is counterfactual.
I don’t understand your point.
@iiandyiiii Do we define trans girls as only those who are taking hormone therapy or who have had sexual reassignment surgery?
The drop in performance noted in your article is a direct result of these actions, not of genuinely identifying as a woman. It is clear in the article that if these athletes genuinely identified as a woman, but chose to avoid hormones/surgery, their athletic performance today would be vastly superior.
For purposes of athletic competition as a girl, I would require trans girls to be undergoing hormone therapy to transition, since according to the article their bio male characteristics are inhibited. I would not allow trans girls not undergoing hormone therapy to compete with cis girls, since they retain the muscle mass advantages of bio males.
I would be a star in competing in a women’s league. I’m sure I could do it without hurting the women. But I’d still be a star, as would any number of average male athletes. No real point in having the competition.
So trans women do actually need to be undergoing hormone therapy to enter into a girl’s or women’s athletic competition.
Many sports leagues have similar requirements. Others have no such therapy requirements but test for hormone levels. I haven’t posted anything in opposition to utilizing these kinds of requirements in some circumstances.
If by trans you mean a male who identifies as a woman then yes, they are trans.
Would a reasonable example of that be a transwoman rugby player who retains all their male traits, has been through puberty, has had no medical interventions and who is much bigger, faster and stronger than their team-mates and who risks causing excess harm in collisions?
Would that be a case for intervening to ensure fairness and safety?
I have to interrupt and say that:
damn discord, I tried to identify the rest with the first two statements, but it won’t let me. Maybe this block of text will force it to do so.
Trans women are people who were assigned male at birth and who later identify as female. Some of them do have bodies that appear to be totally normal male bodies. But some don’t. Some were sexually ambiguous at birth, but the doctors and family decided they were male. Some appeared to be sexually ordinary males at birth but had other female characteristics that weren’t immediately obvious. Almost all trans women believe their brains were feminine, and not masculine, at birth. And yes, the brain, like the rest of the body, is influenced by the hormones it is exposed to, both prenatally (including both hormones created by the fetus and by the mother) and post-natally.
I think it should be obvious that the casual dismissal of trans woman as “males” is belittling to their experience, but maybe it’s worth saying that explicitly.
Anyway, I hope we can have a civil discussion about whether trans girls have an advantage at sports, and if so, how to react to that, without insulting all trans people.
Are you just clarifying that instead of “male” he should have said “assigned male at birth”? Or is there something else from what you quoted that was offensive?
I’m asking because nothing struck me as offensive about what he wrote when I first read it, and I’m open to learn. If “assigned male at birth” is the inoffensive term, works for me. I’m just kind of ignorant on terminology.
Yes, assigned male at birth would have been fine. Thanks, I hope not to be confusing.