Sure but I’m not sure why a “field of 100” is relevant, it isn’t as if competition is organised on the basis of a completely random selection.
Just taking the USA, and just taking one organisation, there are 700,000 members of the AAU. So even in that narrow space we are talking about potentially thousands of athletes, not a negligible number at all.
This is a commentary on sports culture in general. A lot of kids are excluded from the social aspects of sports through simple lack of ability. To the extent that it’s a non-competitive social event, of course trans kids should not be excluded, nor should fat kids, nor kids with poor coordination. But the fact is, once you get to the high school and college level, people care very much about who wins.
It ttranslates nicely to percentages, and unless you’re saying trans people are more likely than the general population to choose to compete in athletics, yes, we would expect to see the same ratio in a field of athletes as we do in the general population.
3 500. Not exactly overwhelming numbers, and I doubt it’s even anywhere near that with the current climate.
And any reduction of that exclusion should be encouraged.
Some people care. The motivations for social contact and fun don’t magically drop away for everyone else. What’s the good reason for ignoring them in favour of the pure competitives?
Again, this is a commentary on sports culture. The fact is that a lot of people care who wins. Including trans women who want to compete.
Of course trans women should not be excluded from anything non-competitive where any physiological advantage is irrelevant. This is a straw man and irrelevant to this discussion.
I don’t see how acknowledging sport is not just about competition, and excluding trans women from sport excludes them from the non-competitive benefits, is irrelevant to the discussion.
You’re complaining about sports culture being too much about winning. So schools should focus more on events that are inclusive and social, less about competition and about who wins. I agree with that. That’s good for all kids.
But that’s irrelevant to what’s being discussed here. We’re talking about events at a level where people do care very much who wins - including the trans women who want to have the right to compete.
There are plenty of people who participate in sports during high school , college and even later in life just for fun and social contact. But they generally don’t participate in the same events as the competitive people - the people who aren’t interested in competition aren’t going to end on on interscholastic or Olympic teams , which are really the only places I’ve heard about trans athletes being an issue. I mean I suppose there might be an “everybody plays” group somewhere that had strict gender separation rules and only allows people to play on the team that matches their birth certificate - but I doubt it , because an awful lot of those “everybody plays” groups are mixed-gender to begin with.
I was unaware we’re limiting the discussion of inclusion of trans women only to a specific subset of sports events. Certainly the ACLU article that the OP is based on seems to include the broader discussion, especially in regards to its fourth point which is just about participation and the benefits of it.
See the points made earlier about this just being the start of a broader movement.
What I can’t get over is the bizarre inconsistency of the following:
(1) Trans rights. What defines being a woman is gender identity. That is a state of mind, not a physical body. A woman many be born with any body. When a trans woman is ready, she may or may not choose to take steps to physically transition her body in accord with her identity.
(2) People with the gender identity “woman” never have significant physiological differences that can matter in sports.
I think claim (2) undermines (1), when (1) is what we’re trying to get people to accept and understand in about gender identity and what it means to be trans. The entire point in affirming trans rights is that a woman may have any type of body, and that gender identity does not map to the physical categories “men” and “women” in sport. Position (2) seems to me to be almost indistinguishable from the bigoted position that we oppose, that the body defines the identity.
As I said above, I think the fundamental problem here is treating the restricted sports category as an affirmation (or denial) of gender identity, when it’s not - it’s about purely physical characteristics. The problem is that the restricted category should not be called “women’s” sports.
You would indeed, most recent figures suggest 0.7% of 16-24 identify as trans. It is a high enough percentage to provide a population capable of skewing results (and given the increases in the young identifying as such I think the problematic cases seen so far have barely scratched the surface)
I think you perhaps underestimate just how big the discrepancy between the sexes can be when it comes to sporting performance. You wouldn’t need a particularly large number of trans women (that have undergone puberty and have little or no medical interventions) in order to find an athlete capable of winning at the highest level.
FWIW while in pop culture, high-end, competitive sports gets a lot of attention, most sports before the collegiate level actually are usually hurting for lack of participants, not excluding people based on ability. Even in the “premiere” competitive sports in HS outside of a few States like Texas, Florida etc with 4 A and 5A schools that have quasi-minor league programs, you often struggle to find kids for sports. In Virginia for example outside of high population school districts even plenty of the football teams are taking any kids who come out, because they simply don’t have enough people coming out for the sport.
I think I’ve made this argument in another thread–but I consider the importance of winning and losing in sports before college to be small enough that the restrictions on trans athletes participating in the division that aligns with their identified gender are unnecessary. I think when the Utah Governor commented on this, there were like 4 athletes in the entire state who fit this situation. When West Virginia’s Governor was asked about a trans athlete ban he backed, he couldn’t identify a single athlete in his State who it affected. Trans athletes are rare and likely to stay rare at the High School level, and the stakes just aren’t that important in terms of “performance” to justify excluding kids.
I do think at the NCAA and Olympic level it’s a different thing, and you have to spend a lot more time thinking about comparative competitive advantage and where to draw lines.
I would like to point out that this is not an all or nothing situation. It is not a matter of all trans-women having an unfair advantage, it is only a possibility with particular individuals with their own unique circumstances. The potential unfair advantage has to be identified and in some cases it may seem unfair to one particular trans-woman but far more fair to most other women.
This past track season, in California, 265 boys ran the 3200 faster than the girls national record (9:38). The fastest girl in California this year ran 9:50.
I saw that - did you read the next line of my post ? Regardless of whether it’s the start of a broader movement , “everybody plays” recreational groups that aren’t gender-separated to begin with aren’t going to suddenly restrict participation to one gender.
And now that you’ve sent me back to the ACLU article - that fourth point about participation and the benefits still seems to be about competitive events. The person quoted as saying " I just want to run" actually said (according to the link)
“I just want to run with other girls on the team,” said Lindsay Hecox , who moved to Idaho in the hopes of one day joining the track team and cross country teams at BSU.
So she doesn’t just want to run , she wanted to run on a particular college’s team - and college teams are by definition “competitive”. This might not be obvious so I’m going to explain - some colleges have intramural sports where all the participants attend the same institution and there are sign-ups rather than try-outs. But those teams aren’t referred to as the " Institution team" since every member of every team attends the same institution. The “institution team” is the one that competes against other institutions. It appears that the Idaho law might also apply to such intramural teams where there is a gender separation - but it would certainly not apply to any teams that are independent of any high school or college.
I just pulled up the records page of a random amateur athletics club near where I live and the under-17 men’s record would have won a gold medal at the last Olympics in the women’s race.
I remember reading Unbroken, the truly excellent biography about Louis Zamperini. According to the book (and my somewhat vague recollection), Zamperini was a phenomenal runner because his hips had an odd configuration that gave him a kind of rolling gait and extended his stride. I doubt anybody, then or now, would say this should have disqualified him from competing despite the advantage it gave him over other runners. In sports, we call these genetic aberrations “gifts” and celebrate them as components of what makes athletes great.
Most every high-level athlete is a genetic outlier in one way or another. NBA players, for example, have huge wingspans compared to normal humans. Nobody is saying, I don’t think, that we should exclude these players from competition because their physical presence on the court gives them an unfair advantage over us normies.
And make no mistake - every player who makes it to the NBA or NFL has spent a lifetime dominating their local leagues and clubs. Right now, there are moderately talented kids all across America who are playing in the shadows of the next crop of superstars. And to those kids, we say “tough shit, that’s how competition works.” We tell those kids to compete for fellowship and fun, and we pull the outliers aside and discuss how best to position them for entry into the hallowed halls of the athletic gentry.
There are mental outliers, too. There are athletes who just won’t quit, who have the capacity to push through pain and heartbreak in a way most humans can’t. There are athletes who are natural leaders and can rally teams to turn hopeless situations into unlikely victories. We don’t tell them that they need to tone themselves down or stop playing. Those are also gifts.
That’s the whole point of the professional sports pipeline, right? Starting in peewee and youth leagues, it slowly distills masses of humanity into a coalition of literal superhumans, and it does it by selecting for innate positive traits and then magnifying them until they become valuable commodities.
So I guess I’m just having trouble taking this one particular type of outlier - young people suffering from gender dysphoria - and saying that these outliers are different. They’re unfair advantages that rob ‘real’ women of their opportunities to compete. Why? What makes this one wedge of the gigantic genetic roulette wheel anathema to the ideals of competition?
Cis males are also excluded from these aspects if they don’t have the performance ability to make the boys’/mens’ team and there are tryouts.
But there’s this other team where he does have the performance ability to make the team. I don’t think we are going to require anything of the applicants to this other team down the road, because that could be exclusionary. So cis males will simply apply to be on this other team, and they will be accepted.
Because the far end of the range of genetic outlier is farther for males than females.
Men’s mile 3:43, women’s mile 4:11. Gender identity does not alter physical ability. A man who barely breaks 4:00 would put the mile record out of reach for decades, perhaps forever. And that holds for any athletic event.
Again, it’s obvious that if you follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you’re arguing for abolishing the restricted “women’s” class in sports altogether, and having everyone compete in a single class. Because you’re essentially claiming that the female genetic outliers can still beat the mediocre males.
If you support a “women’s” restricted class at all, you support restrictions. So we’re not debating a point of principle, we’re debating the details of exactly what those restrictions should be.
I suppose my logical processors are faulty, because I’m having trouble following my own reasoning to your conclusion.
I’m saying that athletic competition is 100% driven by genetic outliers and it’s silly to decide that only one of them ruins the integrity of sport.
What man?