My position is to let the individual sports review the current science and involve all the groups in order to balance the three critical considerations of Inclusion, fairness and safety.
The output of that may be, in some cases, that full inclusion is indeed the right way to go. I have no problem with that.
A trans athlete that was on the 50% performance percentile for males, without any medical intervention, would have a massive advantage over the 50% percentile performances in female sport.
…so there really isn’t anything to argue about then anymore. As I argued earlier. Leave it to the sport bodies, and the rest of us can focus on stopping the steady erosion of transgender rights around the globe.
…fortunately: we are leaving it for the sports bodies now, and most of them are doing a reasonable job of balancing inclusion with other concerns.
They are, there are different approaches and different outcomes.
That is not the argument that the ACLU article makes though.
No, it’s not. Did you read the article, or just assume you knew what it said without doing so?
Speicifically, it seems as though you either missed or are ignoring this part
So, we are talking about someone who meets NCAA standards, not whatever it is that you have chosen to talk about instead.
I’d like you to stop making things up that others have said, and start responding to the things that actually were said. It’s pointless to defend the strawmen that you have chosen to create.
See, once again, you are choosing to respond to things that only exist in your mind, not actually what people have said. I did not say that you were a transphobe, I said that you are putting in a whole lot of effort on their behalf.
No, I have not, I do not think that I should go through each and every sport and determine what eligibility should look like for your personal satisfaction.
Tell you what, you choose a sport, you look up the NCAA guidelines for trans athletes in that sport, and you tell me what you disagree with.
Yes, and persimmons are different from hot dogs. Your point?
I doubt that repeating what I have already said will help you to read it.
If we are talking about WWII, and you constantly bring up that Germany was actually in the right for their actions because the settlement was unfair, then people may start to wonder why you have such strong leanings.
You used Urban Dictionary as a cite? 
But, even using your “cite” that’s not the only definition, and even using the definition you chose to use, it doesn’t back up @TriPolar’s assertion that you are trying to defend.
It is true that I don’t care about sports more than I care about people, and any derisiveness I have towards them is specifically over the hypercompetitiveness that leads to unhealthy lives in the athletes, and also leads to stupid discussions like this one, where the idea that competitiveness should be held in higher regard than human rights seems like a valid argument to some people for some reason.
Exactly! The people who outed Jews to the Nazis aren’t to be celebrated for their truthfulness. We aren’t quite in Nazi territory here, but the bigots pushing this narrative will absolutely harm young trans people if they get their way.
You are also not actually required to argue in the bigots favor because it’s “true”. The Gestapo isn’t standing at your door, you are free to walk away from this mess, or just take the equally truthful stance that bigots are pushing this messaging, and you won’t support it.
…that’s because the purpose of the ACLU article was to debunk myths about trans people in an effort to make trans peoples lives just a little less miserable.
Spoken like someone who has never been asked “Does this make my bum look big?”
I have read of many ciswomen who’ve been beaten by a transwoman. Have we ever heard of a woman whose transitioned into male and beaten any male atheletes?
I’ve been married for 28 years, My wife asks that question and expects an honest reply.
You keep saying that, all the while ignoring the common thread that links the four sections, ignoring even the introductory paragraphs of the article that sets the context.
No-one is arguing in the bigots favour. I don’t know where you get that from.
If told yes, I would be flattered, myself.
…you literally just said this:
As if that matters to anything. Yep, the ACLU article didn’t make an argument that it had no intention of making . Thanks for sharing that? But the fact that the ACLU article didn’t say the things that you wanted to say doesn’t change anything that I said. The world was a very different place two years ago (when that article was written) to where it is now. In fact things are very different now to what they were six months ago. We don’t need to rehash the very same debate we were having two years ago. Not when even the ability to transition is on the table.
Bullshit, yes you did. You even used a term for a generic sport. If you want an answer from me on how I would react (or how I think a person in that situation should) then more information is needed and it is not for me to supply it.
The point was a direct and clear response to you asking…
I’m not aware that you have already said anything about why hormone treatment is necessary. You may have, I can’t find it and that could easily be my fault but if you have already said I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t simply quote it for me or point me in that direction. Your choice of course
I agree, but in my example I was talking about specifically condemning the actions taken, so absolutely not the same thing at all.
I don’t understand the point you are making.
You were saying, I believe, that the ACLU article was only talking about transgender myths.
I disagree, the article is prefixed with, and carries a core of, a call for inclusion.
That, to me is the purpose of the article.
When I say that “that is not the argument the ACLU makes” I’m talking about the fact that it is not seeking to balance inclusion with other considerations (and an expansion of the quote you’ve chosen will show exactly that)
I’m left uncertain as to exactly what clarification you need.
…then you would be mistaken.
I understand completely what you meant.
The fact that the article didn’t make the argument that you wanted it to do has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said.
you said
Do you think the article is primarily about inclusion in sport, or just the debunking of certain “myths”?
If I’m wrong and the above is actually not what you think (or is perhaps an incomplete representation) then I’d welcome any clarification.
…do you see the word “only” in the words of mine that you chose to quote?
And again, this particular part of the quote isn’t relevant. Its this part:
The argument that the ACLU makes in the article is utterly irrelevant to anything else said in the quoted exchange.