And the major surgery to reassign genitals and all those other cosmetic surgeries and hormones don’t have major problems?
Everything in moderation, a modest amount of PEDs given to a high school athlete can’t be any riskier than the medical work on a transsexual.
Perhaps I did exaggerate, enough PEDs to be 7 feet tall and built like Arnold is obviously not a modest amount.
My point is that for the scrawnier kids in PE class who can never hope to play on the football team (at least in first string), it generally isn’t their fault. Their genetics aren’t made for shoving each other around and fighting over an inflatable ball. So why do transsexuals get special treatment and attention? For every one of them, there’s 20 scrawny kids who never have a chance. If it’s not cheating to help transsexuals “normal” muscle mass through hormones, why can’t the scrawny kids be given enough PEDs so they too can be built like the big kids?
You’re assuming that being a transitioned transgender athlete would actually be some sort of advantage, at least for a MtF - so far, the real world has not provided supporting evidence.
In cases of intersex athletes it’s a mixed bag - there are conditions that result in women with higher than normal androgens being produced by their own bodies which may in fact give them an advantage over normal women. On the other hand, people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) are probably at a disadvantage despite their Y chromosome and normal male levels of androgens because (as the disorder’s name implies) their bodies don’t react to androgens. In fact, they can’t cheat - even if you pumped them full of androgens it would have no effect as their bodies simply don’t react to the chemicals, wither naturally produced or artificial. They’re at a disadvantage compared to even normal women, even if they tend to be taller than average, which would otherwise be an advantage in many sports.
As a FtM athlete is not permitted more than normal male levels of testosterone they would not be at some freakish advantage over cismen.
You comments about the football team are no different than complaints that the naturally short guy can’t play on the basketball team against the taller than average athletes. Yes, there’s some unfairness. But the short guy is not bared from ALL male sports, and in fact an average sized basketball player is welcome to go up against the tall guys - there are even a few of them playing professionally. Athletic achievement is not all about the genes, there’s also motivation and willingness to develop skills.
No, I’m assuming one thing - drugs like PEDs that allow someone to overcome their genetic destiny is cheating by the fundamental rules of sports. End of story, it’s cheating. No matter what. Whether it’s because someone was unfairly born the wrong gender, or unfairly made too small to be competitive, it’s considered cheating to overcome it with PEDs.
Most people, including the ones in this thread, consider it cheating. And no doubt the exact rules of sport will be adjusted to ban athletes who receive supplemental PEDs soon enough, regardless of the reason.
I personally agree it’s unfair that sports essentially are a contest where among those lucky enough to be born with the right genes, who works the hardest? But that’s just what it is.
Some sports have weight limits to try to give different body types niches to compete. Just like many sports segregate based on gender. Maybe more categories could be added?
Why? Una and Broomstick have nailed it. The kid is a teenage boy. His endocrine levels are managed to match normal male development and his physiology gives him no competitive advantage over other boys. TPTB in my glorious home state simply refuse to believe in his existence and insist that he compete as a girl. Without that flawed premise he just another guy and probably fighting his way through the bottom half of the standings.
Except, as has been pointed out multiple times in this and other threads, the governing agencies for sports and doping don’t agree with you. They have explicitly stated that taking drugs for transitioning does not constitute cheating and they’ve given their reasons why with data to support it. It’s doesn’t give an advantage.
Simply stating that it’s cheating without data to back up your assertion or explain why the governing bodies came to a different conclusion is not very convincing.
If anything, the trend has been in the opposite direction, especially at the highest level of competition. Hence the existence of therapeutic exemptions for athletes with a medical condition. The higher the level of competition the greater the scrutiny of the athlete and their medication use. As we have seen with several athletes in recent years, there are limits to those exemptions and they can be suspended/banned even when certain medications are given for legitimate medical reasons and may have to choose different medications to treat their conditions in order to keep competing.
Likewise, there was the whole to-do about Oscar Pistorious’s prosthetic legs and whether or not a particular model gave him an unfair advantage over runners with wholly organic legs.
There have been controversies over swimsuits as well, with some modern designs allegedly giving athletes an unfair advantage over swimmers who couldn’t obtain those high-tech designs.
What does or does not makes for an unfair advantage is not limited to just pharmaceuticals and is not always as clear-cut as the situation initially appears to be. But in all of the above cases the athletes were not summarily banned but rather the problem was worked through to find a solution allowing for as fair a competition as possible.
I think you’re giving too much weight to genes and not enough to efforts and drive of the person involved.
There’s also the matter that there is no one sets of genes suitable for all sports - height is an advantage in basketball, but gymnastics favors the short. Weight lifters need bulk and burst strength, long distance runners need leanness and slow-twitch muscle fibers. In some sports a physical disability is disqualifying, in others it may not be an issue (there has been more than one baseball player missing a hand who has played in the professional leagues, for example)
The upshot is that while a competitor may not have the genetic endowment for a particular sport, there is usually a sport where they can compete. Genes alone do not make a champion.
The problem is not that an athlete has medical help for whatever condition they suffer from. Various athletes are doing that as permitted by the official organizations. Seriously, what is not to understand about that reality-based fact?
The wrong here was done to first the girls who had to compete against this boy—that was unfair to all the Texas girls in the sport, who collectively and individually could have achieved more if a boy hadn’t been shoved into their midst. Secondly to the boy himself, whose wins are totally hollow because he only competed against girls, and who suffered the indignity of being publicly misgendered.
But isn’t that he point of this thread? Despite being transgendered he was classified as a woman for the purposes of wrestling. Put the deliberate misgendering where it belongs - on the Texas High School Atletics Commission (or whatever it’s called) If he were as a man in the eyes of Texas, then why didn’t he wrestle men? Of course the question is that if the state considered him a woman why was he allowed to take PEDs?
That the regulatory board for high school wrestling in Texas misgendered him and forced him to wrestle the girls doesn’t justify his being misgendered in this thread (which has happened multiple times).