Warning for Eyebrows_0f_Doom. How is this on subject? I hid the posts and corrected a mistake and you thought your post was appropriate?
Generally a very bad idea.
In case it’s not clear:
The posts that are spoilered and say “off topic” were deemed by the moderators to be off-topic for this thread. A thread that was noted at the start as something that we wanted to stay pretty tightly on-topic. And the topic is non-binary competitors in the women’s division, not transwomen athletes.
The moderation staff requests that you not respond to those spoilered posts.
Responding to them is considered to be continuing a hijack.
Simple: they identify as non binary, boot them off the team.
Care to expand on your position? Why do you feel that way?
If we accept that non binary people exist, they clearly don’t belong on either a men’s team or a women’s team. It would be the same as an American athlete moving abroad and taking citizenship, they shouldn’t compete for Team USA
Perhaps they’ll add non binary teams to the Olympics in ten future.
First, I think the Olympics are a private organization that can pretty much do what they want. I may disagree with their policies, but within very broad parameters I think they should be allowed to make whatever decisions they think will work for them. This makes them unlike, for example, a publicly funded school.
Second, my sense is that the Olympics polices the hormones of players more than their gender identity. Don’t transwomen need to be on female hormones for some period of time before they can compete in the female division? If this athlete has typically female hormone levels, it seems reasonable for them to compete in the female division.
The point of women’s sports competitions is that male physiology is athleticly superior to female physiology, both on average, and in terms of peak performance at the extreme end of the bell curve. Top physiologically female athletes have zero chance to beat the top physiologically male athletes in most sports. Obviously this isn’t true at lower levels of competition, but the Olympics is elite competition.
Quinn is physiologically female, and their gender identification as non-binary provides no athletic advantage, and therefore it’s fine for them to compete on the women’s team.
Trans women sometimes do have some athletic advantage from growing up physiologically male, and I have no idea how to resolve that conundrum. This case, however, seems to pose no issues whatsoever.
This is exactly correct.
The question boils down to “What is the purpose of Women’s sport?”. Clearly (to me, at least) it is to provide a venue in which individuals can compete with other individuals with similar physiology. Genetic males (particularly those that have gone through puberty as males) have physiological advantages that make competition unfair.
With respect to Quinn, they have no physiological advantage over other competitors in their category, so they are eligible to compete.
The fact that gender identity gets mixed up in this debate just causes confusion.
I am a father of a gender fluid non-bianary child that was female at birth. I’m also father of a son that was assigned female at birth and is undergoing hormone therapy.
It’s clear as mud in IMHO.
@Velocity Give you the benefit of the doubt, and share this: my LIMITED understanding is that those who identify as gender fluid non-bianary typically do NOT undergo hormone therapy or surgery. For example, they may undergo a lot of voice training in order to sound “male” or “female” but are not taking hormones to alter their voice. If my understanding is correct, then physiologically assigned female and birth and becoming gender fluid non-bianary are still physiologically female. It’s the psychology and self-awareness that are different. Therefore, there is no contradiction of an assigned female at birth and now identifying as gender fluid non bianary competing on a woman’s team. No gotcha, ya. YMMV
Some people say sex refers to biology, gender refers to role or socialization, and gender identity refers to a psychological view of how one feels.
While sensitive to the differences and human rights, they are more controversial in sport since there also needs to be fairness.
This is not an issue here. There is no physical advantage gained. I don’t have a problem with playing and do not think many others do either.
Actually, this really clears it up for me, and I agree with you. It reminds me of Caster Semenya, who as far as I know was assigned female at birth, has a female gender identity, and was still barred from some women’s events due to high testosterone levels. Leaving aside (for the the purposes of this thread) any questions about her genetics or whatever, it was her hormone levels that got her barred.
Thinking about this in terms of hormone levels instead of identity (which others have also mentioned…thanks!) convinces me that Quinn deserves to stay on the women’s team, not that they need my permission.
I really appreciate all the discussion here. It helped straighten things out in my head.
Irrelevant. It’s like if they changed their name to Norris Nulty or Cassius Clay. It has no bearing on the game.
Unlike the Hubbard case, where there is indeed a reasonable argument to be made for unfairness.
I disagree completely. I think sports team divisions should be based on factors relevant to physical ability, which would include things like hormone levels, but not how someone identifies. So I have no objection to a non-binary person with female biology, or even a trans man who has not taken testosterone, playing on a nominally women’s team.
Let’s stick to non-binary people playing in women’s Olympic teams in this thread, and not rehash the debate about trans people in sports in general. No warning, just guidance.
Actually, I think the OP’s question has been answered, and there’s not a lot more that can be said within the rather narrow restrictions of this thread, so I’m going to close it.