I recall making basically the same observation.
This is worth repeating here because this is precisely what I’ve been trying to get across from the start.
For the purpose of this specific discussion we can’t just lump all transgirls in together as being of equal potential concern. They aren’t.
We know this isn’t the case because “transgirls” covers all the scenarios given above and each of those will vary the degree to which an “advantage” (the point under discussion) is retained. We know this because studies such as those reference by the UK sports council report are pretty much unanimous on that.
So, attempting to force the use of “transgirls” or AMAB in preference over “biologically male”, “physiologically male” or even “male” (where that is clearly defined as meaning a medically unaltered male body) is ridiculous because for the purpose of some valid discussions in this thread, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL TRANSGIRLS OR ALL AMAB PEOPLE.
Sorry about the CAPS but that needs to be stressed as strongly as possible.
No-one is trying to misgender here (because sex does not equal gender for the purpose of this discussion) but some people are seriously trying explore what it would mean for someone who is unambiguously male (in terms of biology) and unaltered in any way, to play against biological females.
And why? because the suggestion to let all transgirls play on the team of their choice will necessarily lead to that happening but not all variations of transgirls present a potential issue to the same degree.
We therefore have to be grown up about naming the source of such variations.
I may be offended by a person in the street calling me fat but there are situations where understanding my precise weight is necessary and helpful.
Looking at this now, the first response to the OP should have been “what sort of transgirl are we talking about here” and the thread could have been locked until agreement was reached.
I didn’t mean to sound like I was disagreeing with your post, I was trying to use it as a jumping off point to express why I don’t feel that women’s/girl’s sports are inferior to men’s/boy’s.
Children/teens are the ones playing and everyone is playing by the same rules. How then does making competitive fairness a priority make the experience worse for the kids playing? The more fair it is, the better/more fun it is for the people playing.
This is the third time that you’ve said this to me, but you’ve ignored both of my responses. So, I’ll say again, that if it’s monstrous when in reference to transgirls, it’s also monstrous when in reference to cisgirls.
How do you expand the total number of spaces on say, the basketball team? If you mean expand the total number of spaces by creating additional teams, I suggested exactly that earlier in the thread. An additional co-ed team would ease many of the concerns surrounding this issue.
Do you extend that courtesy to people who don’t agree with your assessment of offence? Would it surprise you to know that plenty of people who support transgender rights find the terms “AMAB” “AFAB” and the “cis” prefix to be offensive or distasteful?
You simply do not need the “most” qualifier in there. Because it is not even close. Take the top time in the women’s 100m for 2021 (10.55). In 2021 over 1000 men beat that time. For the 200m? over 1700 men, For the 400m? over 2000 men, For the 800m? over 4000 men.
All of those are conservative numbers because for sure any woman capable of running something approaching 10.55 is going to be channeled into that speciality, any man who can’t crack 10.1 may end up doing something else entirely.
Those are the real scale of the differences that can be brought about by male biology. Here is the site where you can get those figures.
For the purpose of this thread it also carries U18 times, (i.e. high school level) and though the data set is smaller, the same pattern emerges. Indeed, taking the best women’s times for 100/200/400 we can see that there are no males, zero males out of the hundreds on their list who fail to beat the best women’s time. And of course the same caveat applies regarding specialisation masking the true upper limit of the difference.
The disparity is so immense that I expect the conversation will need to be had at some point.
I didn’t take it that way but no matter. Agreement on everything would be tedious in the extreme.
Express your preference with pride, my preference is different but as long as neither of us is claiming any objective truth to it then who cares?
The reason the cisgirl didn’t make it onto the team the vast majority of the time is because she was going up against a male. It isn’t problematic if a cis-girl doesn’t make the team by losing to another cis-girl because she would be losing to a female. IMO, girl’s high-school sports should be biased towards females. The transgirl can play on the open team or a co-ed team if the teams are expanded to an Open team, Female team, and Co-ed team.
They won’t be kicked off of the girl’s team because of their gender identity, they would ideally be required to play on the team that corresponds to their sex. Their gender identity wouldn’t be a factor in what team they play on.
Males are not a previously ostracized minority group. Especially not with regards to sports.
That separate division already exists, we currently call it the the girl’s team, and will possibly rename it the female team.
I’m pretty that same sex marriage is off-topic, so I’ll only say that a homosexual couple getting married has no impact on a heterosexual marriage whereas transgirls on the girl’s high-school team does have an impact on cis-girls. The purpose of marriage equality in the eyes of the state/law is to provide married, same-sex couples the same legal and financial benefits of marriage that are present for a heterosexual couple.
Did your school teams only have one student per position, no substitutes or alternates?
I think it differs by sport, but in general alternates are on the team and there is a maximum number of alternates allowed. Are they not considered to be on the team where you are?
Yes, they are, that’s my point - the number of subs can just be increased, no need for entire new teams. That’s how you expand the total number of spaces on your basketball team.
“for the people playing” is kinda the key, if your method of fairness excludes people. If your method excludes people unless they deny their gender identity, it’s pretty clear how it “makes the experience worse.”
It’s a little unclear what to do with this, when you quote part of my response. We’ll try again:
-
There’s a case where a trans girl doesn’t make it on the team because the cis girl is better. There’s a similar case where a cis girl doesn’t make it on a team because a trans girl is better. There’s a similar case where the short or wimpy or poor girl doesn’t make it on the team because the tall or muscled or wealthy girl is better. In all these cases, the excluded kid may have a higher risk of suicide. You keep introducing these cases, but it’s foolish, because they’re not analogous to what I was talking about–and they’re all a zero sum game. If a kid is going to attempt suicide due directly or indirectly to not making it on the team, allowing trans girls to play for girls sports (instead of boys sports of the hypothetical open sports) won’t increase or decrease the number of kids at risk.
-
There’s a completely separate dynamic, whereby trans girls told they’re not girls are at higher risk of suicide. Telling them, “you can’t play on the girl’s team, but you can play on the team that girls don’t play on” plays right into that dynamic. There is no similar dynamic that works the other way: there’s no evidence whatsoever that cisgirls are at risk of suicide, not just from losing a spot on a team (which again is the zero-sum dynamic), but actually from having their gender identity rejected and undermined by playing alongside trans girls.
The creation of confusion between these points serves to obscure what a nasty attack this is on transgirls. I don’t know if that’s deliberate or not, but folks who don’t actually want transgirls to kill themselves ought to pay attention to disentangling those dynamics and not perpetrating such whataboutist equivocation.
In my elementary school we had a child who was unambiguously male, had completed male puberty, was twice the weight of most of his peers --all of whom were prepubescent children, and played with the other boys.
It was fine.
Why is everyone all up in arms about needing to draw the line between “boys” and “girls” so as to exclude anyone who has completed male puberty from the girls’team but no one cares at all that we have the same problem on all the age-segregated teams?
No segregation is perfect, no segregation can guarantee that outliers will not cause some issues in the pursuit of inclusion, fairness and safety.
Age is an (imperfect) measure by which to segregate
Weight can be an (imperfect) means by which to segregate
Biological sex can be an (imperfect) means by which to segregate
Gender can be an (even more imperfect) means by which to segregate
For any of the above, if you are going to have segregation at all then the lines have to be drawn in a way that people will accept as fair, they also have to policed.
The only method of segregation that is fully “fair” and transparent is that of ability. To move to such a system would also mean that top level women’s sport would cease to exist in a recognisable form.
Indeed. This is why it’s important to figure out the degree to which transgirls are outliers or a central issue.
Are ciskids at the far ends of physiological development more common than transkids? If so, these kids present a greater issue with fairness than transkids, and if we’re genuinely concerned with fairness, we should address them first.
If not, then we might start asking whether transkids actually compete in an “unfair” method.
Which would require a move to a purely ability based sporting set-up would it not?
Possibly so. There may be other setups, but I can’t think of them.
And that is a problem, it is a heck of a conundrum.
We either have “imperfect” segregation categories that require tough decisions and constant policing to ensure inclusion, safety and fairness, or “perfect” segregation categories which ensure that only men will play at the top levels. (which I guess would not be “perfect” in many people’s estimation).
And maybe it doesn’t matter at all. It doesn’t seem to in the world of the pre-pubescent, but it starts to matter much more in early high school ages and even more so later when careers, records and scholarships etc. start to really matter.
And maybe it doesn’t manifest in reality. The numbers of trans people remain so low and/or their physical advantages are all successfully blunted by surgery and treatments that it causes no complications.
For 19 states, it’s no “maybe”
This is a really critical point of course, but the more it comes up the more I wonder if the conclusion to draw isn’t that transgirls don’t have an advantage over cisgirls, but that transgirls just aren’t competing against cisgirls. There’s all the difference in the world between being legally permitted to do a thing, and actually doing it.
It’s not like we have a breakdown of high school athlete records with helpful asterisks beside the transgirls names (and would we even want that? The downsides are instantly evident.). The argument is:
- Given what we know about human biology, we’d expect transgirls to outcompete cisgirls in athletic competitions.
- We’ve allowed transgirls to compete with cisgirls for some time now.
- We aren’t seeing more than a couple of news stories about transgirls winning.
- Therefore fears about unfair competition are groundless and it’s all fine.
But the conclusion at 4) could equally well be any of
4a) Waiting for news stories isn’t exactly a rock solid methodology.
4b) Transgirls just aren’t into athletics.
4c) Transgirls are into athletics but social pressure and discrimination make them feel unsafe.
4d) Transgirls do compete against cisgirls but take great pains not to outcompete them for fear of drawing negative attention.
Two of which are really bad, but wouldn’t actually be all that surprising.
The missing words here being: “and therefore they don’t actually compete”.