RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

NCAA May Pull Events From States That Target Trans Athletes
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6887
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 11:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
mercfan wrote:
elsie wrote:
now this is a conundrum....

do we just tell our little girls not to expect excelling at sports or trying for a college scholarship because no way in hell are they going to beat out most bio males....males with male dna, which can not be changed, and high levels of testosterone as well , despite "treatments"....

how many female track stars will not be getting scholarships now....

why aren't women standing up for girls and other women?

do we watch womens sports because they play like men?.....not me....otherwise just watch the men, period....

wake up folks....this trend will destroy our young girls and womens chances.....it is about scholarship/prestige/respect/ self esteem and MONEY....


Big Yikes.

Try to have more empathy and understand that the MOST important thing at stake here is the CHILD who is told they do not get to have an opportunity to play. A trans child playing does not take opportunity away from a young girl. Even attempting to argue that is misogynistic as best.



An even BIGGER Yikes.

I am trying as hard as I can to discern the word.....




opportunity



In the post that you quoted. I am having a difficult time finding it. Please refer me to where it may be located.


In BOTH cases. What CHILD is being told they are NOT going to get "an opportunity to play"?? This goes back to the above clarification of "banning" versus being forced to compete within certain categorical structures. Is THAT not also "opportunity", nonetheless???

So is it "opportunity" to compete at all, that is the question here?? Or is it the equitable opportunity to SUCCESSFULLY compete at the highest levels? Forcing some into structures of competition based upon REAL PHYSICAL/BIOLOGICAL conditions is the same as telling a CHILD "they do not get to have an opportunity to play"??? Please explain....


I don't like this issue and don't really want to discuss it. However, I do like to clarify things, so I'd just like to point out to Conway that he is using facts and logic on an issue that is about mental feelings.

The issue isn't the factual one that trans athletes do have the full opportunity to compete against athletes that have the same biological sex listed on their birth certificates. The issue isn't the factual one that trans females with male DNA and male hormones have an arguably unfair physical advantage over normal females. Or the fact that trans females might win races and scholarships to the detriment of normal females.

No -- the issue is that trans athletes might "feel bad" if they can't compete in the sexual sports division that they mentally identify with. This is a social policy and legal dispute about whether, in sports (and bathrooms), mental feelings should trump biological facts or vice versa.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/07/21 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

I don't like this issue and don't really want to discuss it. However, I do like to clarify things, so I'd just like to point out to Conway that he is using facts and logic on an issue that is about mental feelings.


Yeah. You're probably better off NOT discussing it. "Cluelessness" is not a good foundation for analysis of something beyond you.

GlennMacGrady wrote:
No -- the issue is that trans athletes might "feel bad" if they can't compete in the sexual sports division that they mentally identify with. This is a social policy and legal dispute about whether, in sports (and bathrooms), mental feelings should trump biological facts or vice versa.

That's a bit like saying your "feelings" don't matter, even though you might "feel bad" if your local police rounded you up on fake charges, and kept you in prison 8 days with no legal counsel, etc. I daresay you might want to invoke your "rights", no? It's not about how you FEEL, mentally and emotionally, but what your "rights" are. Trans kids have the same inalienable "rights" to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness as you or I do.

Society needs to get over itself on this gender bias, in so many regards; binary gender paradigms can be helpfull, but there ARE times it's not NECESSARY. I still think about why, for example, are Olympic Archers or Riflery competitors separated by gender. Could a trans archer compete with their chosen gender? It's just not easily resolved by invoking "biological gender".



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6379
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/07/21 7:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:

I don't like this issue and don't really want to discuss it. However, I do like to clarify things, so I'd just like to point out to Conway that he is using facts and logic on an issue that is about mental feelings.


Yeah. You're probably better off NOT discussing it. "Cluelessness" is not a good foundation for analysis of something beyond you.

GlennMacGrady wrote:
No -- the issue is that trans athletes might "feel bad" if they can't compete in the sexual sports division that they mentally identify with. This is a social policy and legal dispute about whether, in sports (and bathrooms), mental feelings should trump biological facts or vice versa.

That's a bit like saying your "feelings" don't matter, even though you might "feel bad" if your local police rounded you up on fake charges, and kept you in prison 8 days with no legal counsel, etc. I daresay you might want to invoke your "rights", no? It's not about how you FEEL, mentally and emotionally, but what your "rights" are. Trans kids have the same inalienable "rights" to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness as you or I do.

Society needs to get over itself on this gender bias, in so many regards; binary gender paradigms can be helpfull, but there ARE times it's not NECESSARY. I still think about why, for example, are Olympic Archers or Riflery competitors separated by gender. Could a trans archer compete with their chosen gender? It's just not easily resolved by invoking "biological gender".


___________x

Because what about the intersex people like Caster Semenya and Chandee Dutt, to name just two? ( And having done a spell in neonatal I can tell you it’s not THAT uncommon) Not to mention non-binary people. It ain’t all that simple!



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 769
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/08/21 8:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What a topic...

I'm generally supportive of humans who seek their "proper" gender. I wish them well and hope they achieve contentment in that incredible pursuit.

I'm uncomfortable with the advantage some may have in athletics. I don't think said advantage should be leveraged toward success in gov't-sponsored/Title IX situations.

So, while I support Robert along his journey to become Roberta, I don't support his/her "right" to freely participate in female sports.

Sadly, as far as I can tell, there will always be a "victim" in this situation- either a born female or a trans female won't get to "make the team", as it were. With that in mind, I side w/ the born female.




Last edited by huskiemaniac on 06/08/21 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2656
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/08/21 9:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

huskiemaniac wrote:
What a topic...

I'm generally supportive of humans who seek their "proper" gender. I wish them well and hope they achieve contentment in that incredible pursuit.

I'm uncomfortable with the advantage some may have in athletics. I don't think said advantage should be leveraged toward success in gov't-sponsored/Title IX situations.

So, while I support Robert along his journey to become Roberta, I don't support his/her "right" to freely participate in female sports.

Sadly, as far as I can tell, there will always be a "victim" in this situation- either a born female or a trans female won't get to "make the team", as it were. With that in mind, I side the born female.


Thank you. I couldn't seem to find the words but you pretty much summed up about where I find myself as well. There is so much to this topic.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/08/21 3:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
Our race is not divided by race, color, gender, or religion.
Our race is divided into wise people and fools.
And fools divide themselves by race color, gender, or religion.

(Nelson Mandela)


None of us here are 'fools' if we still choose to process this confusing dilemma in more traditional ways. ('cept maaaybe huskiemaniac Razz kiddinggg) But I think it behooves us to reconsider some of our "old" paradigms to accommodate something which is quite real, albeit foreign to most of us. Never easy.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 06/08/21 3:50 pm; edited 2 times in total
CalwbbFan



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1399



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/08/21 3:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

States targeting trans athletes are not passing laws to protect women and girls in sports. They’re using them as mean-spirited cudgels to score political points by ginning up outrage against trans human beings. I have to laugh out loud when this hateful legislation is titled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.” Since when have these same politicians given a damn about the rights (and well-being) of women and girls in sports (or anything else)?


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10975



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 9:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It seems to me this is one of those no-solution dilemmas (like immigration ...)

On the one hand, at the high school level, a boy who identifies female and has not yet started treatment, or has and still retains significant physical advantages (height, muscle mass), is going to very tough for a girl to compete with.

It is unfair to the girl to lose, say, the 100-yard dash in that situation because the playing field is not level. (Granted the playing field is never level, because there is such a thing as talent ...) And imagine a 6-6 boy beginning treatment playing basketball as a girl.

On the other hand, the trans athlete also deserves respect and the opportunity to compete. Competing as a boy after treatment has begun is also unfair.

Don't see an easy way out of this one ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6379
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 2:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What a lot of you are missing is that many/most trans teens have been taking puberty blockers so they are likely to be smaller and lighter than their cohorts of the same age. Once they reach the age of 15 or so they may elect to start hormone therapy IF they are able to find a doctor who will prescribe it. So they are NOT going to be the threat you are claiming. You should really listen to Chris Hayes' podcast for the week of May 24 in which he interviews the founder of QueerMed and they discuss the topic of trans teens. Perhaps then some of you would gain some kind of understanding of the situation.

As CalwbbFan says, the states targeting trans athletes (and trans children in general, I could add) are not passing laws to protect women and girls in sports. They're using them as mean-spirited cudgels to score political points by ginning up outrage against trans human beings.

Y'all, biological SEX is physical and what your genitalia may or may not say you are. GENDER is a whole lot more complicated and is in the brain. And even with biological SEX, it's not always clear.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2485



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
What a lot of you are missing is that many/most trans teens have been taking puberty blockers so they are likely to be smaller and lighter than their cohorts of the same age. Once they reach the age of 15 or so they may elect to start hormone therapy IF they are able to find a doctor who will prescribe it. So they are NOT going to be the threat you are claiming. You should really listen to Chris Hayes' podcast for the week of May 24 in which he interviews the founder of QueerMed and they discuss the topic of trans teens. Perhaps then some of you would gain some kind of understanding of the situation.

As CalwbbFan says, the states targeting trans athletes (and trans children in general, I could add) are not passing laws to protect women and girls in sports. They're using them as mean-spirited cudgels to score political points by ginning up outrage against trans human beings.

Y'all, biological SEX is physical and what your genitalia may or may not say you are. GENDER is a whole lot more complicated and is in the brain. And even with biological SEX, it's not always clear.


Then the question becomes whether athletic competitions are or should be based on biological sex or on gender.

To digress somewhat, we've been talking about this issue mostly in terms of school sports. There's an ongoing controversy about a transgender Olympic athlete right now, and I think any policy needs to account for the whole spectrum of competition. She will apparently be the first transgender to compete in the Olympics.

Laurel Hubbard is a 43 y.o. transgender weightlifter who transitioned from male to female 8 years ago. She competed previously as a male weightlifter but not at the international level. Since transitioning, she has won a number of medals at various international competitions in the women's events. She's guaranteed a spot on the NZ team due to some rule related to COVID-cancelled qualifying events which I don't pretend to understand.

Issues that have arisen include racism, because she beat a Samoan for the gold at the Pacific games, backlash from other Olympic weightlifters, and additional weightlifters who've said they've been prohibited from commenting on the issue. There are a lot of articles out there about this, and one fairly common opinion is that "she got a huge biological head start on weightlifting" and "this is not the type of situation that transgender inclusion should be focused on."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/05/trans-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1108392/big-read-laurel-hubbard


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 5:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
There are a lot of articles out there about this, and one fairly common opinion is that "she got a huge biological head start on weightlifting"

I'd think that 'head start' is undeniable: does this lead to banning trans athletes who did not change over before puberty?
This quote was puzzling, but only because of the 'numbers' thing:
Quote:
Hubbard had feared her career was over after sustaining an elbow injury at the Commonwealth Games in 2018 only to come back to near her best a year later. She is now 16th in the world rankings*, but at least six of those above her will be absent because of IWF rules that limit nations to only one athlete per category, and she is certain to get the second Oceania spot behind Feagaiga Stowers of Samoa.


"Oceania" is not a nation. Shocked

(*Also of note: ranking only 16th in the world implies she's not exactly knockin' down all the competition with one hand tied behind her. But I have no doubt #17, #18, etc., might be dismayed)



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6379
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 6:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And transitioning in adulthood is a whole other ballgame (so to speak). I assumed we were talking here about young people who are transitioning in their teens or earlier. Could we at least try to stay on topic?



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2485



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 6:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
There are a lot of articles out there about this, and one fairly common opinion is that "she got a huge biological head start on weightlifting"

I'd think that 'head start' is undeniable: does this lead to banning trans athletes who did not change over before puberty?
This quote was puzzling, but only because of the 'numbers' thing:
Quote:
Hubbard had feared her career was over after sustaining an elbow injury at the Commonwealth Games in 2018 only to come back to near her best a year later. She is now 16th in the world rankings*, but at least six of those above her will be absent because of IWF rules that limit nations to only one athlete per category, and she is certain to get the second Oceania spot behind Feagaiga Stowers of Samoa.


"Oceania" is not a nation. Shocked

(*Also of note: ranking only 16th in the world implies she's not exactly knockin' down all the competition with one hand tied behind her. But I have no doubt #17, #18, etc., might be dismayed)


The International Weightlifting Federation apparently controls the rules regarding Olympic athletes quotas...3-4 per country, but only 1 per country per event. So if the top six weightlifters in a single event are all from Germany, too bad, only one of them gets to compete in that event.
https://www.iwf.net/

"The Oceania National Olympic Committees (ONOC) is one of five Continental Olympic bodies that look after the interests of 17 member nations from the Pacific Region including Australia and New Zealand."
I think the ONOC qualifies athletes from the collective pool of small countries (not sure about Australia).


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 4834
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/21 10:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This subject is really rather basic, even if the solution is not. First and foremost sports are a competition. The entire basis for girl's or women's sports is to create a class of people that could not generally compete against all people but that are able to compete against a concrete subset of all people. In many sports there are age breakdowns that try to create a class of people that can compete amongst themselves and yet still be able to rise to the top level of that subset. Several sports (e.g., weightlifting, combat sports) have weight limits. There are many amateur leagues in basketball that have height limits. And in some sports there are classifications (Tennis holds tournaments in A, B, C and D ratings) to ensure that competitions are COMPETITIVE. There are even classifications for people with disabilities (Special Olympics)

So the issue of creating a concrete subset of people who qualify is at the heart of almost all competitions. NCAA sports are only open to athletes who attend an NCAA school. There is certainly no inherent right for anyone to compete in a particular category if they don't qualify. There are non-discrimination laws that generally hold public institutions must make activities available to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

From my standpoint I believe that the classification of "female" should be rather narrow. I don't see requiring at least one year of hormone therapy to be able to qualify as unreasonable. Cece Telfer, who became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Championship (the 400 meter hurdles for Division II) had previously competed on the men's track team at Franklin Pierce. She was able to compete as a man; she was able to win as a woman.
Obviously the problem is that the category of transgender is too narrow to have a meaningful championship in all sports at all levels. And I think that in most circumstances allowing girls to compete in their chosen gender at least through high school, but when it comes to championships it is understandable that other competitors will feel slighted.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10975



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/10/21 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
This subject is really rather basic, even if the solution is not. First and foremost sports are a competition. The entire basis for girl's or women's sports is to create a class of people that could not generally compete against all people but that are able to compete against a concrete subset of all people. In many sports there are age breakdowns that try to create a class of people that can compete amongst themselves and yet still be able to rise to the top level of that subset. Several sports (e.g., weightlifting, combat sports) have weight limits. There are many amateur leagues in basketball that have height limits. And in some sports there are classifications (Tennis holds tournaments in A, B, C and D ratings) to ensure that competitions are COMPETITIVE. There are even classifications for people with disabilities (Special Olympics)

So the issue of creating a concrete subset of people who qualify is at the heart of almost all competitions. NCAA sports are only open to athletes who attend an NCAA school. There is certainly no inherent right for anyone to compete in a particular category if they don't qualify. There are non-discrimination laws that generally hold public institutions must make activities available to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

From my standpoint I believe that the classification of "female" should be rather narrow. I don't see requiring at least one year of hormone therapy to be able to qualify as unreasonable. Cece Telfer, who became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Championship (the 400 meter hurdles for Division II) had previously competed on the men's track team at Franklin Pierce. She was able to compete as a man; she was able to win as a woman.
Obviously the problem is that the category of transgender is too narrow to have a meaningful championship in all sports at all levels. And I think that in most circumstances allowing girls to compete in their chosen gender at least through high school, but when it comes to championships it is understandable that other competitors will feel slighted.


X_____________



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2656
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/10/21 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
This subject is really rather basic, even if the solution is not. First and foremost sports are a competition. The entire basis for girl's or women's sports is to create a class of people that could not generally compete against all people but that are able to compete against a concrete subset of all people. In many sports there are age breakdowns that try to create a class of people that can compete amongst themselves and yet still be able to rise to the top level of that subset. Several sports (e.g., weightlifting, combat sports) have weight limits. There are many amateur leagues in basketball that have height limits. And in some sports there are classifications (Tennis holds tournaments in A, B, C and D ratings) to ensure that competitions are COMPETITIVE. There are even classifications for people with disabilities (Special Olympics)

So the issue of creating a concrete subset of people who qualify is at the heart of almost all competitions. NCAA sports are only open to athletes who attend an NCAA school. There is certainly no inherent right for anyone to compete in a particular category if they don't qualify. There are non-discrimination laws that generally hold public institutions must make activities available to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

From my standpoint I believe that the classification of "female" should be rather narrow. I don't see requiring at least one year of hormone therapy to be able to qualify as unreasonable. Cece Telfer, who became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Championship (the 400 meter hurdles for Division II) had previously competed on the men's track team at Franklin Pierce. She was able to compete as a man; she was able to win as a woman.
Obviously the problem is that the category of transgender is too narrow to have a meaningful championship in all sports at all levels. And I think that in most circumstances allowing girls to compete in their chosen gender at least through high school, but when it comes to championships it is understandable that other competitors will feel slighted.


X_____________


Same for me


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/10/21 2:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
From my standpoint I believe that the classification of "female" should be rather narrow. I don't see requiring at least one year of hormone therapy to be able to qualify as unreasonable. Cece Telfer, who became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Championship (the 400 meter hurdles for Division II) had previously competed on the men's track team at Franklin Pierce. She was able to compete as a man; she was able to win as a woman.

I'd say that's reasonable, even desirable....as long as kids can have access to the medical treatment to accommodate this. It's very reasonable to establish that the trans person is making this transition in earnest and has begun the necessary physiological changes. There are many parameters that need to be created in this situation, and it AIN'T gonna be easy.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2656
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/21 8:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
I'd say that's reasonable, even desirable....as long as kids can have access to the medical treatment to accommodate this.


Is this treatment something that we should expect insurance to pay for? I know people complain about their health insurance, but man, have you seen how much doctors and hospitals charge for a simple visit? I went for a follow-up after a physical and blood work, sat there for an hour, saw my doctor for at most 10 mins and the charge was $285. Seriously. I owed close to $100 of that. But honestly, why should an insurance company have to pay $285 for a 10 min doctor office visit that literally took no more than 10 mins of his day? No wonder our premiums are through the roof.

Anyway, sorry for the brief tangent. I don't know how insurance sees this situation, but I assume it would fall under the "optional" treatment categories similar to gastric band surgery unless the person's weight is considering a major medical condition.

Does this then also become a "have vs have not" issue as well?

I know, I have veered off the course and my apologies. These are related topics but not completely on the topic that is being discussed.


PG4ever



Joined: 14 May 2020
Posts: 97



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/21 8:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
What a lot of you are missing is that many/most trans teens have been taking puberty blockers so they are likely to be smaller and lighter than their cohorts of the same age. Once they reach the age of 15 or so they may elect to start hormone therapy IF they are able to find a doctor who will prescribe it. So they are NOT going to be the threat you are claiming. You should really listen to Chris Hayes' podcast for the week of May 24 in which he interviews the founder of QueerMed and they discuss the topic of trans teens. Perhaps then some of you would gain some kind of understanding of the situation.

As CalwbbFan says, the states targeting trans athletes (and trans children in general, I could add) are not passing laws to protect women and girls in sports. They're using them as mean-spirited cudgels to score political points by ginning up outrage against trans human beings.

Y'all, biological SEX is physical and what your genitalia may or may not say you are. GENDER is a whole lot more complicated and is in the brain. And even with biological SEX, it's not always clear.


I'm not challenging the substance of your argument but it's not the case that most trans teens take pubertal blockers. In the U.S., it's actually a small, but growing, number who choose or have access to blockers (and gender-related health care).


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2485



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/21 8:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
From my standpoint I believe that the classification of "female" should be rather narrow. I don't see requiring at least one year of hormone therapy to be able to qualify as unreasonable. Cece Telfer, who became the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA Championship (the 400 meter hurdles for Division II) had previously competed on the men's track team at Franklin Pierce. She was able to compete as a man; she was able to win as a woman.

I'd say that's reasonable, even desirable....as long as kids can have access to the medical treatment to accommodate this. It's very reasonable to establish that the trans person is making this transition in earnest and has begun the necessary physiological changes. There are many parameters that need to be created in this situation, and it AIN'T gonna be easy.


It seems fair to the trans person to compete in her new gender class when she's started the physiological transition, but it also seems fair, maybe even more so, to the existing athletes to not allow a trans to compete until she's finished the physiological transition.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/21 11:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

purduefanatic wrote:
Howee wrote:
I'd say that's reasonable, even desirable....as long as kids can have access to the medical treatment to accommodate this.


Is this treatment something that we should expect insurance to pay for? I know people complain about their health insurance, but man, have you seen how much doctors and hospitals charge for a simple visit? I went for a follow-up after a physical and blood work, sat there for an hour, saw my doctor for at most 10 mins and the charge was $285. Seriously. I owed close to $100 of that. But honestly, why should an insurance company have to pay $285 for a 10 min doctor office visit that literally took no more than 10 mins of his day? No wonder our premiums are through the roof.


My initial point was to highlight concern over the legality of doctors being able to prescribe and follow through on such kinds of treatment: are there states that are trying to BAN such treatment?

And yes, paying for it is a reality, too. Re: the insurance coverage, I have no clue. Certainly it must be deemed an elective surgery, and I don't know the ins and outs of that.

Regarding your recent bill/copayment, here's where single-payer, universal health care could be such a benefit: higher taxes, yes, but ZERO co-pays offset that, and even outpace the taxes paid otherwise. My recent heart cath bill was $94,000+; my portion: $109. In Canada or Japan, there'd be no such outrageous charges made AND I'd have a $0 copay. But ya....WAY off topic. Razz



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 477



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/21 2:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
purduefanatic wrote:
Howee wrote:
I'd say that's reasonable, even desirable....as long as kids can have access to the medical treatment to accommodate this.


Is this treatment something that we should expect insurance to pay for? I know people complain about their health insurance, but man, have you seen how much doctors and hospitals charge for a simple visit? I went for a follow-up after a physical and blood work, sat there for an hour, saw my doctor for at most 10 mins and the charge was $285. Seriously. I owed close to $100 of that. But honestly, why should an insurance company have to pay $285 for a 10 min doctor office visit that literally took no more than 10 mins of his day? No wonder our premiums are through the roof.


My initial point was to highlight concern over the legality of doctors being able to prescribe and follow through on such kinds of treatment: are there states that are trying to BAN such treatment?

And yes, paying for it is a reality, too. Re: the insurance coverage, I have no clue. Certainly it must be deemed an elective surgery, and I don't know the ins and outs of that.

Regarding your recent bill/copayment, here's where single-payer, universal health care could be such a benefit: higher taxes, yes, but ZERO co-pays offset that, and even outpace the taxes paid otherwise. My recent heart cath bill was $94,000+; my portion: $109. In Canada or Japan, there'd be no such outrageous charges made AND I'd have a $0 copay. But ya....WAY off topic. Razz


You have to be 17 to drive now in many states
You have to be 18 to vote and serve in the military
You have to be 21 to drink alcohol legally
usually you don't have access to a trust fund set up in your name until 25 or 26 because younger than that is not seen as mature enough to handle large amounts of money

BUT we are now suggesting 10-12 year olds are mature and knowledgeable enough to request drugs to inhibit their natural maturation and which will have long lasting and irreversible implications on their whole lives is a GOOD THING??????????????? Is this bizarro world here?



_________________
Michael
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13623
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/21 3:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
You have to be 17 to drive now in many states
You have to be 18 to vote and serve in the military
You have to be 21 to drink alcohol legally
usually you don't have access to a trust fund set up in your name until 25 or 26 because younger than that is not seen as mature enough to handle large amounts of money

BUT we are now suggesting 10-12 year olds are mature and knowledgeable enough to request drugs to inhibit their natural maturation and which will have long lasting and irreversible implications on their whole lives is a GOOD THING??????????????? Is this bizarro world here?

It's a Brave New One, at least. Cool

While I understand your "age" points, consider the differences: drinking, military service, driving....these are all either very skill-based or can impact others.

Being in the LGBTQ community myself, I have long believed that WE ARE BORN THIS WAY. Age Zero. Yes, NO child should go this route without considerable counseling and parental support. But make no mistake: little kids (and usually their parents, too) know this kind of thing about themselves at early ages. When exactly did YOU know you were all male? 5? 10? 15? Probably before 17 or 21, no? Transgendered people ought to be allowed to adjust their genders well before 21, or even 17, imo.

Also, consider what decisions are made for the NEWBORN: removal at birth of extra fingers/toes, or circumcision. Things that are anomalies of nature (or are VERY natural) are often changed in babies. This isn't "bizzarro". I believe that as society's paradigms shift, we'll get more comfortable with just how complex "gender" really is, regardless of what we feel at this moment in time.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
PG4ever



Joined: 14 May 2020
Posts: 97



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/21 5:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"Society needs to get over itself on this gender bias, in so many regards; binary gender paradigms can be helpfull, but there ARE times it's not NECESSARY. I still think about why, for example, are Olympic Archers or Riflery competitors separated by gender. Could a trans archer compete with their chosen gender? It's just not easily resolved by invoking "biological gender".[/quote]

This is a belated response because I missed the question about archery being separated by gender. It may seem like archery could be gender neutral but I looked it up and here's what I found. Men's average archery scores are higher than women's because men have more muscle mass and longer arms which leads to greater arrow speed. Greater arrow speed compensates for wind interference and mistakes made during shooting the arrow. So men would have an advantage based purely on physiological differences.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 6379
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/16/21 6:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Michael wrote:
You have to be 17 to drive now in many states
You have to be 18 to vote and serve in the military
You have to be 21 to drink alcohol legally
usually you don't have access to a trust fund set up in your name until 25 or 26 because younger than that is not seen as mature enough to handle large amounts of money

BUT we are now suggesting 10-12 year olds are mature and knowledgeable enough to request drugs to inhibit their natural maturation and which will have long lasting and irreversible implications on their whole lives is a GOOD THING??????????????? Is this bizarro world here?

It's a Brave New One, at least. Cool

While I understand your "age" points, consider the differences: drinking, military service, driving....these are all either very skill-based or can impact others.

Being in the LGBTQ community myself, I have long believed that WE ARE BORN THIS WAY. Age Zero. Yes, NO child should go this route without considerable counseling and parental support. But make no mistake: little kids (and usually their parents, too) know this kind of thing about themselves at early ages. When exactly did YOU know you were all male? 5? 10? 15? Probably before 17 or 21, no? Transgendered people ought to be allowed to adjust their genders well before 21, or even 17, imo.

Also, consider what decisions are made for the NEWBORN: removal at birth of extra fingers/toes, or circumcision. Things that are anomalies of nature (or are VERY natural) are often changed in babies. This isn't "bizzarro". I believe that as society's paradigms shift, we'll get more comfortable with just how complex "gender" really is, regardless of what we feel at this moment in time.


Not to mention, in this country at least, until recently, many intersex infants were assigned a gender at birth based on what they looked like in their outward genitalia, without even considering what was on the inside, let alone how their brains might develop. More and more parents are refusing this and letting the children develop in a more or less neutral gender until they are older and determine for themselves what gender they are.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin