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  Next
 
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
warladytigers



Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Posts: 41



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/21 12:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Agree.


Michael



Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 477



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/21 2:30 pm    ::: Re: NCAA May Pull Events From States That Target Trans Athle Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Quote:
The NCAA has had a transgender inclusion policy since 2011 and requires states that host championships to provide an environment that is “safe, healthy and free of discrimination.”


https://www.wthr.com/article/sports/ncaa-releases-statement-on-states-targeting-transgender-athletes/527-04cf7abb-1886-449f-a914-e06b3ec7f784


So, when is the NCAA going to quit discriminating against trans athletes? Pretty big case of massive hypocracy here...... And I am sensing some pretty huge lawsuits coming if the NCAA keeps saying do what I say not what I do.....



_________________
Michael
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1245
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/21 2:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Treatments won't ever solve the issue - homo sapiens born via DNA determination usually do not get treatments in early birth. Their bodies and tissues will grown ad develop dependent on their DNA, until treatments are used that merely stunt such growth, but never fully change.

Bone structures, tendon and ligament densities, muscle-group densities won't ever change. Only the hormonal generation will be affected by the treatments, but the physical bodies of a transgender female will always be biologically male - bigger, wider, stronger, and more structurally supportive of extensive exercise and exertion that comes with physically competitive sports.

And these will be athletes, right? They can take shots/treatments that curb their hormonal ability to generate muscle-mass, at the same time they train and work out building and developing their muscle-mass?? How will that work??


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10980



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/21 9:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My understanding is that males who transition to female with retain muscle mass and strength that comes with being born male. Some of that mass and strength will be lost due to hormone treatments but there still will be a residual advantage. (Renee Richards, the tennis player from back in the day, had such an advantage.)

Again, I think the number of trans people who might do this is pretty small, but then again, a college scholarship is worth about $250,000, so there is a powerful incentive in place.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/21 12:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Treatments won't ever solve the issue - homo sapiens born via DNA determination usually do not get treatments in early birth. Their bodies and tissues will grown ad develop dependent on their DNA, until treatments are used that merely stunt such growth, but never fully change.

Bone structures, tendon and ligament densities, muscle-group densities won't ever change. Only the hormonal generation will be affected by the treatments, but the physical bodies of a transgender female will always be biologically male - bigger, wider, stronger, and more structurally supportive of extensive exercise and exertion that comes with physically competitive sports.

And these will be athletes, right? They can take shots/treatments that curb their hormonal ability to generate muscle-mass, at the same time they train and work out building and developing their muscle-mass?? How will that work??


I'm not sure how an organization sanctions the use of differing types of drugs to change someone physically in one instance and bans them in another. Do we tell someone born with physical traits that prevent them from gaining mass that is required to play football that they can take medications to increase their body mass? No, we don't.

Then why is it ok to tell someone born male that they can take medications to change their bodies in order to play female sports? It is, in my opinion, very complicated. We can all admit that playing NCAA sports is not something that everyone has the equal ability to do. Some people are more athletic than others. Fair or not, that is life.


summertime blues



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/21 12:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think most of you are way off the mark here. You are concentrating on what you call people who are born male playing female sports" and citing a tiny, tiny number of cases.

Renee Richards did not "change her body" and take medications "in order to play female sports". Renee Richards transitioned male>female because she had felt for her entire life, or at least for as long as she was able to articulate her feelings, that she was born into the wrong body. She just happened to be a pretty good tennis player. But after she transitioned, which was in adulthood, not in her teens, she had the surgeries (multiple) and took the medications. She did lose some muscle mass and was never as strong as she had been and didn't win nearly as much.

In the case of younger trans people, most of them have not yet had the surgeries because doctors will not perform them until a person has reached the age of majority. However, these kids have felt since they were quite young, some as young as 2-4 years old, that they were born into the wrong body, referring to themselves by pronouns of the opposite gender and insisting on being dressed as the opposite gender. Most of their parents, not all, have tried to be neutral about it while supporting the child's feelings. It must be very difficult for them. Many of the kids take puberty blockers while they and their families come to terms with the decisions they have to make about transitioning. A tiny minority of these kids plays sports--a very small minority. Some of this tiny minority are trans females playing girls' sports; others are trans males playing boys' sports (yes, there are some!). But the animus in all the anti-trans laws seems to be agains the trans females.

And then there are those who are born intersex, like Caster Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name I think is Chandee Dutt (she has since retired but is training other sprinters). What of them, when they have lived their entire lives as women?

As for the comment about drugs changing a person physically in one instance and banning them in another, those are two different instances, PEDs and gender balancing are apples and oranges and you need to understand the subject.

In sum, sex is what you are biologically born as, but only sort of because of those who are literally born both (intersex). Gender is something different and is in the brain. One can be male, female, or nonbinary.



_________________
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
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1245
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/22/21 5:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
I think most of you are way off the mark here. You are concentrating on what you call people who are born male playing female sports" and citing a tiny, tiny number of cases.

Renee Richards did not "change her body" and take medications "in order to play female sports". Renee Richards transitioned male>female because she had felt for her entire life, or at least for as long as she was able to articulate her feelings, that she was born into the wrong body. She just happened to be a pretty good tennis player. But after she transitioned, which was in adulthood, not in her teens, she had the surgeries (multiple) and took the medications. She did lose some muscle mass and was never as strong as she had been and didn't win nearly as much.

In the case of younger trans people, most of them have not yet had the surgeries because doctors will not perform them until a person has reached the age of majority. However, these kids have felt since they were quite young, some as young as 2-4 years old, that they were born into the wrong body, referring to themselves by pronouns of the opposite gender and insisting on being dressed as the opposite gender. Most of their parents, not all, have tried to be neutral about it while supporting the child's feelings. It must be very difficult for them. Many of the kids take puberty blockers while they and their families come to terms with the decisions they have to make about transitioning. A tiny minority of these kids plays sports--a very small minority. Some of this tiny minority are trans females playing girls' sports; others are trans males playing boys' sports (yes, there are some!). But the animus in all the anti-trans laws seems to be agains the trans females.

And then there are those who are born intersex, like Caster Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name I think is Chandee Dutt (she has since retired but is training other sprinters). What of them, when they have lived their entire lives as women?

As for the comment about drugs changing a person physically in one instance and banning them in another, those are two different instances, PEDs and gender balancing are apples and oranges and you need to understand the subject.

In sum, sex is what you are biologically born as, but only sort of because of those who are literally born both (intersex). Gender is something different and is in the brain. One can be male, female, or nonbinary.


I will try to clarify the part of your post that I bolded: Richard Raskind was an exceptional athlete in his earlier years as a male. This was however at the regional levels involving high school and college. While he competed at the highest levels on a local regional level (out of collegiate competition) it's hard to say that he performed well professionally as tennis was mostly still amateur level during those years, even for professionals. But Raskind has NO national ranking as a male tennis player, and participated in NO major tennis tournaments as a male player.

When Raskind changed to Renee Richards and chose to compete at the then professional level as a female in the late 1970s, she only competed for 4 years from 1977-1981, and was already well into her 40s which was well past the average age of retirement for top professional female tennis players. Even still Richards reached into the top 20s in the rankings for Professional women tennis, and reached the finals of the US Open Doubles in her very first appearance in the tournament: she and her partner Betty Ann Grubb Stuart - a journeyman player who has one career doubles title and no singles titles - lost a close match in the finals to all-time great doubles players Martina Navratilova and Betty Stove. This, from a person (male OR female) who did not spend much of her adult life training and playing on a regular basis like all other male and female professional tennis players of the era.


But let's take Renee Richards' own words on this debate:

Quote:
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."


summertime blues



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/22/21 7:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There was an excellent article in the Washington Post on this subject earlier today. Unfortunately, when I went looking for the link, I could no longer find it, and I searched the site pretty exhaustively. It was an FAQ/essay kind of thing. If anyone else can find it, please post the link, because I surely cannot.



_________________
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
summertime blues



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/21 2:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here is the column I was referencing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/04/22/transgender-child-sports-treatments/



_________________
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
PG4ever



Joined: 14 May 2020
Posts: 97



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/21 2:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
I think most of you are way off the mark here. You are concentrating on what you call people who are born male playing female sports" and citing a tiny, tiny number of cases.

Renee Richards did not "change her body" and take medications "in order to play female sports". Renee Richards transitioned male>female because she had felt for her entire life, or at least for as long as she was able to articulate her feelings, that she was born into the wrong body. She just happened to be a pretty good tennis player. But after she transitioned, which was in adulthood, not in her teens, she had the surgeries (multiple) and took the medications. She did lose some muscle mass and was never as strong as she had been and didn't win nearly as much.

In the case of younger trans people, most of them have not yet had the surgeries because doctors will not perform them until a person has reached the age of majority. However, these kids have felt since they were quite young, some as young as 2-4 years old, that they were born into the wrong body, referring to themselves by pronouns of the opposite gender and insisting on being dressed as the opposite gender. Most of their parents, not all, have tried to be neutral about it while supporting the child's feelings. It must be very difficult for them. Many of the kids take puberty blockers while they and their families come to terms with the decisions they have to make about transitioning. A tiny minority of these kids plays sports--a very small minority. Some of this tiny minority are trans females playing girls' sports; others are trans males playing boys' sports (yes, there are some!). But the animus in all the anti-trans laws seems to be agains the trans females.

And then there are those who are born intersex, like Caster Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name I think is Chandee Dutt (she has since retired but is training other sprinters). What of them, when they have lived their entire lives as women?

As for the comment about drugs changing a person physically in one instance and banning them in another, those are two different instances, PEDs and gender balancing are apples and oranges and you need to understand the subject.

In sum, sex is what you are biologically born as, but only sort of because of those who are literally born both (intersex). Gender is something different and is in the brain. One can be male, female, or nonbinary.


I will try to clarify the part of your post that I bolded: Richard Raskind was an exceptional athlete in his earlier years as a male. This was however at the regional levels involving high school and college. While he competed at the highest levels on a local regional level (out of collegiate competition) it's hard to say that he performed well professionally as tennis was mostly still amateur level during those years, even for professionals. But Raskind has NO national ranking as a male tennis player, and participated in NO major tennis tournaments as a male player.

When Raskind changed to Renee Richards and chose to compete at the then professional level as a female in the late 1970s, she only competed for 4 years from 1977-1981, and was already well into her 40s which was well past the average age of retirement for top professional female tennis players. Even still Richards reached into the top 20s in the rankings for Professional women tennis, and reached the finals of the US Open Doubles in her very first appearance in the tournament: she and her partner Betty Ann Grubb Stuart - a journeyman player who has one career doubles title and no singles titles - lost a close match in the finals to all-time great doubles players Martina Navratilova and Betty Stove. This, from a person (male OR female) who did not spend much of her adult life training and playing on a regular basis like all other male and female professional tennis players of the era.


But let's take Renee Richards' own words on this debate:

Quote:
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."


Here's a larger excerpt from the article you quoted at the end there. Despite all this, Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy."

As I've said before I don't think there's one answer for every athlete, every age, every sport. Social inclusion is easy but athletlics is complicated.


PG4ever



Joined: 14 May 2020
Posts: 97



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/21 2:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
summertime blues wrote:
I think most of you are way off the mark here. You are concentrating on what you call people who are born male playing female sports" and citing a tiny, tiny number of cases.

Renee Richards did not "change her body" and take medications "in order to play female sports". Renee Richards transitioned male>female because she had felt for her entire life, or at least for as long as she was able to articulate her feelings, that she was born into the wrong body. She just happened to be a pretty good tennis player. But after she transitioned, which was in adulthood, not in her teens, she had the surgeries (multiple) and took the medications. She did lose some muscle mass and was never as strong as she had been and didn't win nearly as much.

In the case of younger trans people, most of them have not yet had the surgeries because doctors will not perform them until a person has reached the age of majority. However, these kids have felt since they were quite young, some as young as 2-4 years old, that they were born into the wrong body, referring to themselves by pronouns of the opposite gender and insisting on being dressed as the opposite gender. Most of their parents, not all, have tried to be neutral about it while supporting the child's feelings. It must be very difficult for them. Many of the kids take puberty blockers while they and their families come to terms with the decisions they have to make about transitioning. A tiny minority of these kids plays sports--a very small minority. Some of this tiny minority are trans females playing girls' sports; others are trans males playing boys' sports (yes, there are some!). But the animus in all the anti-trans laws seems to be agains the trans females.

And then there are those who are born intersex, like Caster Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name I think is Chandee Dutt (she has since retired but is training other sprinters). What of them, when they have lived their entire lives as women?

As for the comment about drugs changing a person physically in one instance and banning them in another, those are two different instances, PEDs and gender balancing are apples and oranges and you need to understand the subject.

In sum, sex is what you are biologically born as, but only sort of because of those who are literally born both (intersex). Gender is something different and is in the brain. One can be male, female, or nonbinary.


I will try to clarify the part of your post that I bolded: Richard Raskind was an exceptional athlete in his earlier years as a male. This was however at the regional levels involving high school and college. While he competed at the highest levels on a local regional level (out of collegiate competition) it's hard to say that he performed well professionally as tennis was mostly still amateur level during those years, even for professionals. But Raskind has NO national ranking as a male tennis player, and participated in NO major tennis tournaments as a male player.

When Raskind changed to Renee Richards and chose to compete at the then professional level as a female in the late 1970s, she only competed for 4 years from 1977-1981, and was already well into her 40s which was well past the average age of retirement for top professional female tennis players. Even still Richards reached into the top 20s in the rankings for Professional women tennis, and reached the finals of the US Open Doubles in her very first appearance in the tournament: she and her partner Betty Ann Grubb Stuart - a journeyman player who has one career doubles title and no singles titles - lost a close match in the finals to all-time great doubles players Martina Navratilova and Betty Stove. This, from a person (male OR female) who did not spend much of her adult life training and playing on a regular basis like all other male and female professional tennis players of the era.


But let's take Renee Richards' own words on this debate:

Quote:
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."


Here's a larger excerpt from the article you quoted at the end there. Despite all this, Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy."

As I've said before I don't think there's one answer for every athlete, every age, every sport. Social inclusion is easy but athletics is complicated.


blue crabs & basketba



Joined: 15 Apr 2021
Posts: 12
Location: the place w/the great flag


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/21 2:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
I think most of you are way off the mark here. You are concentrating on what you call people who are born male playing female sports" and citing a tiny, tiny number of cases.

Renee Richards did not "change her body" and take medications "in order to play female sports". Renee Richards transitioned male>female because she had felt for her entire life, or at least for as long as she was able to articulate her feelings, that she was born into the wrong body. She just happened to be a pretty good tennis player. But after she transitioned, which was in adulthood, not in her teens, she had the surgeries (multiple) and took the medications. She did lose some muscle mass and was never as strong as she had been and didn't win nearly as much.

In the case of younger trans people, most of them have not yet had the surgeries because doctors will not perform them until a person has reached the age of majority. However, these kids have felt since they were quite young, some as young as 2-4 years old, that they were born into the wrong body, referring to themselves by pronouns of the opposite gender and insisting on being dressed as the opposite gender. Most of their parents, not all, have tried to be neutral about it while supporting the child's feelings. It must be very difficult for them. Many of the kids take puberty blockers while they and their families come to terms with the decisions they have to make about transitioning. A tiny minority of these kids plays sports--a very small minority. Some of this tiny minority are trans females playing girls' sports; others are trans males playing boys' sports (yes, there are some!). But the animus in all the anti-trans laws seems to be agains the trans females.

And then there are those who are born intersex, like Caster Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name I think is Chandee Dutt (she has since retired but is training other sprinters). What of them, when they have lived their entire lives as women?

As for the comment about drugs changing a person physically in one instance and banning them in another, those are two different instances, PEDs and gender balancing are apples and oranges and you need to understand the subject.

In sum, sex is what you are biologically born as, but only sort of because of those who are literally born both (intersex). Gender is something different and is in the brain. One can be male, female, or nonbinary.



Thanks for providing such useful commentary, summertime blues. I could say a lot on this topic, as a gender nonconforming person married to a trans person, but I have grown weary of debating the right of people on the trans spectrum to exist. As for losing out on athletic scholarships, why is it OK for trans athletes to lose out on scholarships??

Plus, as we know with lesbians in college basketball, there will be college coaches who won't even consider offering scholarships to trans women because, unlike lesbians, if they are an out trans young woman they can't hide in a closet for 4/5 years while playing.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 6568



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/21 7:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just the NCAA doing what they do best. Saying one thing and then doing the opposite!😒😒😒😒😒

Quote:
The NCAA named Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee as host schools for softball regionals on Sunday, bringing its postseason tournament to three states that have passed laws requiring athletes to compete in interscholastic sports according to their sex at birth.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/softball/2021/05/16/softball-teams-in-states-with-transgender-bans-get-regionals/116269708/



_________________
"The biggest antidote to his poison is the vote.” — Nancy Pelosi

"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 2485



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/21 9:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Some of these stories aren't entirely truthful either. Transgender athletes aren't being "banned from competing in interscholastic sports". They're being required to compete in a gender class that they don't feel they should compete in. The NCAA spins things one way, the media the other way.


Howee



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/21 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
My understanding is that males who transition to female with retain muscle mass and strength that comes with being born male. Some of that mass and strength will be lost due to hormone treatments but there still will be a residual advantage. (Renee Richards, the tennis player from back in the day, had such an advantage.)


Meh. Not so much. The closest thing to a *big win* was losing in a close doubles final at the US Open, vs. Betty Stove/Martina Navratilova. Now, at that point, she was playing at a more advanced age than her competitors. She has opined that, if she'd begun transitioning sooner, she'd have been unbeatable. Maybe.

*Oops....I posted this before I read the other postings in response to Clay. Not trying to 'pile on' here, Clay. Laughing



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


Last edited by Howee on 05/17/21 9:03 pm; edited 2 times in total
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/21 12:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
Some of these stories aren't entirely truthful either. Transgender athletes aren't being "banned from competing in interscholastic sports". They're being required to compete in a gender class that they don't feel they should compete in. The NCAA spins things one way, the media the other way.


I agree. Not being allowed to compete and being told that you must compete in the class according to your gender at birth are important distinctions. Many people want to interject fairness into the debate. Sports competition, in terms of participation, has never been about fairness. It isn't fair that I wasn't destined to be 6'5" and built like a linebacker, but it is what it is.


Howee



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/17/21 9:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
I respect the reasonably respectful way it is being discussed in this forum; it is a subject not fully conducive to intelligent discussion among quasi-random people in an Internet forum.

I get your point here, but....hey! This is REBKELLS -- full of erudite people of great perspicacity! Razz Cool

purduefanatic wrote:
I don't know...are 5 or 6 year olds really able to make a decision like that? I support her and her family and treat him just like a boy with no thought so don't think I'm anti-trans or whatever. It's just a unique situation.

I take this question as presented in good faith, and it's probably a question that MOST humans struggle with as these concerns arise. It's certainly germane to this debate: How/When/Who gets to decide "gender".

I can personally testify to the fact that I knew -- unequivocally -- that I was gay by the age of 7; at that age, it wasn't about sexual activity, but it was about perceiving things from a female (?) perspective, including an attraction to males.

I had 3 older brothers who (kinda) beat the *girly* out of me, and I eventually became better at sports than they did. Razz I happily present as male, but I am attracted to men. That's just one KIND of "gay" among MANY variations on that theme. It took me many years of living in the gay subculture to realize that NOT all of us develop our sexuality and/or gender identity in the same ways.

My point is simple: People who find this whole trans thing alarming often have NO idea of how widely diverse humans can be in this regard. Yep, little kids CAN identify at young ages. And it IS typically a very fluid, dynamic thing.

All that said, I can't think of a simple, "One Size Fits All" formula to deal fairly with all the parties....WAY too many layers for that! I do feel a great deal of empathy with kids like the runners in CT.



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



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 6568



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/18/21 8:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Opinion piece from Nancy Armor.

Quote:
The lawmakers behind these bills claim they’re trying to “protect” girls and young women, ensuring they won’t lose their opportunities to compete. But the number of transgender athletes is miniscule, and there is no evidence they’re taking over women’s sports.

(There are actual threats to women’s sports, like when the women’s golf regional in Baton Rouge was abruptly canceled last week without a single shot being hit. Not that you’ll hear any squawking about that by all those who profess to be soooo concerned about women losing their ability to compete.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2021/05/18/ncaa-caves-instead-taking-stand-against-anti-transgender-laws/5139338001/



_________________
"The biggest antidote to his poison is the vote.” — Nancy Pelosi

"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10980



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/18/21 9:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As I've said before, this is just a cultural flashpoint conservatives can use to fire up the base ... its actual impact is very small.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 973
Location: midwest/indiana/iowa


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/18/21 3:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Opinion piece from Nancy Armor.

Quote:
The lawmakers behind these bills claim they’re trying to “protect” girls and young women, ensuring they won’t lose their opportunities to compete. But the number of transgender athletes is miniscule, and there is no evidence they’re taking over women’s sports.

(There are actual threats to women’s sports, like when the women’s golf regional in Baton Rouge was abruptly canceled last week without a single shot being hit. Not that you’ll hear any squawking about that by all those who profess to be soooo concerned about women losing their ability to compete.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2021/05/18/ncaa-caves-instead-taking-stand-against-anti-transgender-laws/5139338001/


The part you bolded is such a good point.

ClayK wrote:
As I've said before, this is just a cultural flashpoint conservatives can use to fire up the base ... its actual impact is very small.


I agree with your overall point. But while its impact on the sport itself is very small, its impact on trans people -- whether they are in athletics or not -- is significant. It's important to distinguish between the two. Constantly subjecting an entire community to scape-goating and fear-mongering has lasting, harmful, and very real effects on peoples' daily lives.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10980



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/18/21 5:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Excellent point -- the impact on sports in general is small, but on that group, very large.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Howee



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/21 8:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Apparently, it's still far from over..

Quote:
"Only a month ago, you declared the NCAA 'supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports' and that '[t]his commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition.' This statement is in stark contrast to the decision to host championship games in states with transgender athlete bans."



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



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1399



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/21 2:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Apparently NCAA more bluff than bite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/06/03/ncaa-championships-transgender-athlete-bills/

Quote:
But weeks later, the NCAA awarded regional championships in softball to three states that had passed their own bans on transgender children’s participation in sports. A few Oklahoma Republicans began immediately to revive efforts to pass the bill, arguing that the NCAA had reversed its position, according to a person familiar with the situation in the Senate. The message was clear in some state Republicans’ offices, that person said: The NCAA had been bluffing...


mercfan



Joined: 08 May 2013
Posts: 1133



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/21 7:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1245
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 5:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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....


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  Next
Page 2 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