And don’t obscure it with linguistic gymnastics.
Exactly. We need to call the problem what it is–transphobic segregation and oppression–and not obscure it with any sort of equivocative measures that act like the problem is anywhere other than in the hearts and actions of those people promoting transphobia and oppression.
Too many variables
The answer to the OP is - sometimes
-
Using sports as play to normalize the social experiences of prepubescence trans-children makes sense. Trans children have enough problems without adding to them.
-
At the high school level and above, competitive sports is not play. The goal is to identify and differentiate based on physical differences. Because of physical differences and hormone use, separate categories would provide uncontested opportunities for trans-competitors.
-
The gorilla in the room is the physical male who identifies as female. That is a life style choice. Whatever it’s issues they are different than those of people who have to overcome physical sexual ambiguity.
Not “any other”, but “any”, as what was happening there was clearly not “dominating” by any stretch, if you read anything more current about the case:
two days after the Connecticut lawsuit was filed by the cisgender girls’ families, one of those girls beat one of the transgender girls named in the lawsuit in a Connecticut state championship…
Would those be the kind of linguistic gymnastics where one pretends not knowing what “trans” means, despite having been given a good definition in a previous thread dedicated to that very question?
Or some other linguistic gymnastics?
Well there you go.
~Max
I don’t see this as necessary showing that the situation is fair in an objective sense. The fact is that the trans athlete was able to be at the top of the field due to her XY genetics giving her a huge advantage that only the top XX girls can reach with extensive training. The trans girl athlete can get to the top much easier than cisgirls can, and she can achieve a level that the cisgirls cannot achieve no matter how hard they train. But we don’t really worry about this currently because it’s relatively rare. Statistically, it’s like having FloJo in your school district. Since it’s so rare, overall it doesn’t really change a whole lot. But the fact still is that the trans girl athlete is significantly better for the same reason that caused a separate girls division to be created in the first place: Having genetically XY and XX athletes compete together will generally have the XY athletes beating the XX athletes. And that’s what is happening in that situation above.
For whatever reason we justified a boy-girl split of sport divisions, we may need to eventually split girls into an XX and XY division. If trans athletes start being a larger part of the girls sports, then it’s very likely that they will be at the top just as if boys were competing in the girls sports. If a HS didn’t have funding for a JV boys track team and put the JV boys on the girls track team, it would be no surprise that the top finishers in the girls track events would be those same JV boys. It doesn’t seem like the unfairness of that goes away if the JV boys identify as girls. As long as this is relatively rare, then it’s not too unbalancing. But if trans girl athletes become more common, then we will likely have to re-evaluate even if cisgirls sometimes beat trans girls.
Did the trans girl not have extensive training? Do the top cis girls not have genetic advantages over the non-top cis girls?
We may. Or we may not. The societal bullshit that comes with being an out trans youth may suffice to more than compensate for whatever advantages the extra testosterone brings.
The point being, let’s not burn that bridge before we come to it.
I’m saying it’s the same difference between boy and girl competitors that created the split of boys and girls sport in the first place. I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that all those athletic differences simply go away if it’s trans girls competing with cisgirls. Certainly some cisgirls are born athletically lucky and some girls can afford more training, but objectively boys will be better athletes than girls and those differences can still exist with trans girls and cisgirls.
I agree with this and it’s why I don’t think we should worry about it right now. It’s so rare that it doesn’t really justify having all kinds of hoops, rules, and regulations get in the way of a handful of kids trying to come to terms with who they are. But if the coming years of trans acceptance brings lots of trans girl athletes, then there likely would need to be some kind of division.
I feel like you’re responding to a bunch of stuff that I neither said nor believe. The question is whether trans girls will necessarily dominate. The evidence from this one case is that they won’t. There’s no evidence that they will. Sure, lots of testosterone is helpful for athletics. But this case shows it’s not the only thing. There’s no particular evidence that the trans girls in this case didn’t train or anything else you brought up.
Bringing up “disingenuous” is a frankly bizarre distraction.
If a boy was competing in the girls track event and was 1st (or 2nd) all the time, we would think that’s unfair. The reason we think that’s unfair is because the genetic benefits the boy has means he can compete at a much higher level than the girls. Those same benefits exist if it’s a trans girl. I’m saying it’s disingenuous to say that boys competing against girls is unfair but trans girls competing against cisgirls is no big deal. The same differences that make boys more athletic than girls exist with trans girls as well.
I do think it counts as dominating if the trans girls are typically in the top spots of the finishers. It doesn’t mean that they greatly out compete the rest of the field. But if they are typically in the top few spots, then they are dominating the sport. If they can only be beat by the top 1 or 2 cisgirls in the district, then they are at the very top of ability.
Athletically I do think it’s unfair if trans girls compete against cisgirls in the same way I think it’s unfair if boys compete against girls, but overall I think it’s no big deal because it’s relatively rare. Even if the tiny number of trans athletes are better than their cisgirl teammates, oh well. There are so few that it doesn’t make a huge difference to the overall competitive landscape.
Really?. Now that you have proven that training and dedication have no bearing on the subject, I guess this conversation is over.
Warning for Crane: After much consideration and conversation we need to issue you a warning.
Any one of these by itself and we would have just given a modnote at most. But together is too much considering the clear message at the top of the thread and the recent warning on this same subject.
Not great terminology but this part was fairly minor.
Very dismissive and thus very insulting.
“it’s”? really? Try Theirs in the future please. Never “it’s” to describe people. Hers would have been fine and his only minor, but “it’s”, is far too much.
With these two recent warnings on the same issue, I would like to suggest that maybe you stay out of posting on transgender issues. I note you haven’t had any other warnings and now 2 in short order.
The goalposts are so unclear. Set some numbers to when you think it’d be a problem, and explain how that’s different from folks with other amazing advantages that affect their athleticism. Otherwise this looks like special pleading.
Is it similarly a problem if the top competitors in a sport all have expensive trainers, for example? Should we separate leagues by those who can afford such trainers, and those who cannot?
Nope. I’m advocating people participate in leagues they can compete in. If they continue to win they get bumped up. If they continue to lose they get bumped down.
The statistical difference in ability between XX and XY athletes is what I’m considering. Consider a track event where the time of the winning XX athlete is 2:00. That XX athlete is going to be in the top 1% of all XX athletes in the district. But there might be 25% or 50% of XY athletes which can do that same event in 2:00. A trans girl is going to have that statistical benefit. In terms of genetic ability, she may be just average or above average for an XY athlete. But she’s competing against XX athletes where only the top 1% can beat her. That’s where I see it as being unfair. The XX athlete who can finish in 2:00 is going to be rare, but there’s loads of XY athletes who can do it in 2:00 or even much faster. I don’t see that statistical difference changing simply because of a person’s gender identity.
And with regards to training, of course all athletes will have to train regardless of their genetics or gender identity. But there’s no amount of training which will allow a XX athlete to complete at a level comparable to a top XY athlete. Even if they train the same amount, the XY athlete is typically going to outperform the XX athlete. There’s virtually no amount of training or genetic difference in XX people that can allow them to athletically compete with the top XY athletes.
But just to reiterate, I don’t think that this means trans girls can’t compete in girls sports. Since trans girl participation is relatively rare, the statistical difference isn’t overall unbalancing to the sport.
This seems like the key thing. There aren’t very many trans girls. A lot of them aren’t even athletic. So there will be a couple of kids who have a lot of other stuff going against them, but they can compete well in sports. Not so well that they overwhelm the field (the kid who got sued lost to a cis girl, for instance) but well enough that they are more likely to have a shot at being in the top ranks than most other girls. Is that really a terrible thing? It sounds to me like it might be a good thing overall.
If there were a ton of transgirls, and they overwhelmed the field so the cis girls couldn’t even compete, that would be a bad thing. But a lot of states have let trans girls play on the girls’ teams, and it hasn’t been a problem. There is still decent competition. There are still cis girls competing and winning.
I feel like a lot of people are buying trouble.
Notice how this works:
We both agree that extra testosterone is an advantage in sports. We both agree that extra private training is an advantage in sports. Right?
You say, again:
That’s comparing SAME private training to EXTRA testosterone. Well, sure. If only one athlete gets an advantage, only one athlete has an advantage. That’s not even an argument.
But what if we have two athletes with the same testosterone levels, but one has access to significantly better private training–which one is likelier to be a top athlete? How significant is that difference?
AFAICT, the financial difference is also a huge difference. Singling out testosterone as requiring league segregation, without singling out financial differences, seems like special pleading to me.
That said, if you agree that it’s not actually a real problem in the world, we’re in agreement on the significant aspects 
I’m not sure I understand your point with regards to trans girls playing with cis girls. I know that some XX athletes can beat some XY athletes, but I know from experience that sometimes XX athletes who train twice as much as XY athletes will still get beat by the XY athletes. I know this from swimming. The top swimmers will do two practices a day–one with the HS in the morning and one with their club in the evening. But some swimmers only do the one HS practice (mostly the non-competitive ones). There are lots of boys who are non-competitive in boy events who only do one practice who can easily beat the top girls who do two practices a day. So even with half the training, some unremarkable XY swimmers can beat top XX swimmers. Those XX swimmers may be doing 2 practices a day for months trying to shave a tenth or two off their time. There’s no amount of training or coaching money that a top XX swimmer can do to cut off the half or full second the XY swimmer will beat them by. If the XY swimmer was in an XX event, they would easily win 1st and the XX swimmers would be giving it everything they had to come in a distant 2nd.
Certainly training time and quality produce results no matter what. Two XX athletes who train different amounts or with different techniques will get different improvements. But there’s no amount of training or technique which will elevate an XX player to the XY level in a meaningful way.
But like I said before, this isn’t necessarily a prohibitive difference since there are so few trans girl athletes. There’s always a better swimmer out there no matter the genetics. We’ve had XX athletes who have times which qualify for the national and Olympic qualifying meets move to the district and suddenly all the other XX athletes are competing for 2nd place. That’s just the way it goes.
Is there any amount of testosterone that will elevate an untrained player to the elite training level in a meaningful way?
I don’t know how else to put this. Testosterone is one type of advantage. Elite training is another type of advantage.