Interesting responses by Mulkey, Staley, Morris & others:

https://andscape.com/features/how-will-transgender-athletes-be-accommodated-by-title-ix-and-college-basketball/

I half expect the Lefty snowflakes to whine about the politics, although this is directly about WBB & a question that Final Four coaches & players were asked. Alexis Morris said it best:

"A woman can never compete with a man. It's just not how God designed it."

historian said:

---

Interesting responses by Mulkey, Staley, Morris & others:

https://andscape.com/features/how-will-transgender-athletes-be-accommodated-by-title-ix-and-college-basketball/

I half expect the Lefty snowflakes to whine about the politics, although this is directly about WBB & a question that Final Four coaches & players were asked. Alexis Morris said it best:

"A woman can never compete with a man. It's just not how God designed it."

---

And the response by Morris is the only appropriate response.

I think the comment by Kenny Brooks carries some weight as well-- "Obviously, society is still trying to navigate everything, we're part of society, so we'll still navigate."

We will figure this out. We usually do.

Is it possible that those of us who are Lefty Snowflakes look back in 50 years and say "Wow, we were completely wrong about pushing for trans women to compete in women's sports"? Sure. There is a better than zero chance that will occur.

But I can't think of a single social challenge in our country where one group of people have fought for full inclusion in our cultural institutions (including sports), where we've looked back and said, "Yeah, it was a good idea for us to exclude them."

This may be the one issue that becomes the exception.
But I know which side has the better odds.

BUBBFAN said:

---

historian said:

---

Interesting responses by Mulkey, Staley, Morris & others:

https://andscape.com/features/how-will-transgender-athletes-be-accommodated-by-title-ix-and-college-basketball/

I half expect the Lefty snowflakes to whine about the politics, although this is directly about WBB & a question that Final Four coaches & players were asked. Alexis Morris said it best:

"A woman can never compete with a man. It's just not how God designed it."

---

And the response by Morris is the only appropriate response.

---

True, and people that believe in God understand that. Unfortunately, by and large the people pushing this nonsense don't believe in God.

Doubt we'll ever see a man in the WNBA, although I do see a woman possibly getting a 10 day contract of sorts in the NBA later on down the road.

Women can compete in a blacktop game against men, but full on NBA type games is a hell no.

I think it is a mistake to frame the question as "inclusion vs. exclusion," at least, unless anyone wants to advocate for true unlimited inclusion, which I have yet to see anyone seriously support.

I say this because our starting point is inherently one of exclusion. The moment you say the phrase "women's sports" or "women's basketball," you've excluded roughly half the population. In truth, it is even more exclusive than that, because we generally divide into age categories as well. Now, the true unlimited inclusive approach would be to nix the concept entirely, and have fully mixed sports. All sexes and genders get their shot, may the best athlete win. If you advocate that, it's another discussion, but as I said, I've never seen that advocated by anyone on either side.

So if we start from an acceptance that there will be exclusion, then the framing should be what is the appropriate basis for exclusion. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I do accept the proposition that sex and gender are two different things with different meanings. So when I break those two concepts apart and ask the question about exclusion, I find clarity. I can think of good and logical reasons why you would divide sports on the basis of sex. But, based on the accepted definitions of gender and gender identity, I cannot think of a logical reason why you would divide sports along those lines. To me, the latter is akin to trying to divide sports between those who are analytical versus those who are more impulsive, or between introverts and extroverts, or so-called right-brain versus left-brain.

BaylorBears_254 said:

---

Doubt we'll ever see a man in the WNBA, although I do see a woman possibly getting a 10 day contract of sorts in the NBA later on down the road.

Women can compete in a blacktop game against men, but full on NBA type games is a hell no.

---

Don't forget all the buzz and publicity stunt when Annika Sorenstam played in the Colonial back in 2003....and missed the cut by 4 strokes (shot 5 over on the first two rounds, which was better than 11 of the 110 men who entered, but the ultimate winner finished 19 under). And of course, her scorecard for her first round 71 (but not the one from her second round 74) is enshrined in the World Golf Hall of Fame to celebrate her "courage."

TMK, no other LPGA player has tried it since.

Bone Squad said:

---

I think it is a mistake to frame the question as "inclusion vs. exclusion," at least, unless anyone wants to advocate for true unlimited inclusion, which I have yet to see anyone seriously support.

I say this because our starting point is inherently one of exclusion. The moment you say the phrase "women's sports" or "women's basketball," you've excluded roughly half the population. In truth, it is even more exclusive than that, because we generally divide into age categories as well. Now, the true unlimited inclusive approach would be to nix the concept entirely, and have fully mixed sports. All sexes and genders get their shot, may the best athlete win. If you advocate that, it's another discussion, but as I said, I've never seen that advocated by anyone on either side.

So if we start from an acceptance that there will be exclusion, then the framing should be what is the appropriate basis for exclusion. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I do accept the proposition that sex and gender are two different things with different meanings. So when I break those two concepts apart and ask the question about exclusion, I find clarity. I can think of good and logical reasons why you would divide sports on the basis of sex. But, based on the accepted definitions of gender and gender identity, I cannot think of a logical reason why you would divide sports along those lines. To me, the latter is akin to trying to divide sports between those who are analytical versus those who are more impulsive, or between introverts and extroverts, or so-called right-brain versus left-brain.

---

Who's accepted definition?

For purposes of the discussion, I acquiesce to the definitions generally put forward by those who advocate in favor of trans women being permitted to compete against biological women. I need not get bogged down in side arguments over those, because if I give the most charitable understanding to that side's point of view, I still reach a different conclusion they do on the ultimate issue, due to the fact that I cannot give a sensible defense of dividing sports on the basis of gender/identity.

Bone Squad said:

---

I think it is a mistake to frame the question as "inclusion vs. exclusion," at least, unless anyone wants to advocate for true unlimited inclusion, which I have yet to see anyone seriously support.

I say this because our starting point is inherently one of exclusion. The moment you say the phrase "women's sports" or "women's basketball," you've excluded roughly half the population. In truth, it is even more exclusive than that, because we generally divide into age categories as well. Now, the true unlimited inclusive approach would be to nix the concept entirely, and have fully mixed sports. All sexes and genders get their shot, may the best athlete win. If you advocate that, it's another discussion, but as I said, I've never seen that advocated by anyone on either side.

So if we start from an acceptance that there will be exclusion, then the framing should be what is the appropriate basis for exclusion. I know not everyone will agree with this, but I do accept the proposition that sex and gender are two different things with different meanings. So when I break those two concepts apart and ask the question about exclusion, I find clarity. I can think of good and logical reasons why you would divide sports on the basis of sex. But, based on the accepted definitions of gender and gender identity, I cannot think of a logical reason why you would divide sports along those lines. To me, the latter is akin to trying to divide sports between those who are analytical versus those who are more impulsive, or between introverts and extroverts, or so-called right-brain versus left-brain.

---

I suspect you and I may come to some different conclusions to this, but I do appreciate your line of thinking.

I don't like the idea of a separate league for transgender athletes (and find it EXTREMELY problematic that Mulkey used the example she did to advocate for this), but I DO see a future where the lines we draw for amateur athletics will not be based on sex or gender, but on ability and physicality.

I use this example often-- When I was a kid, my dad took me to see the Texas state high school basketball tournament where I saw a player by the name of Shaquille O'Neal absolutely dominate. He towered over everyone and the chasm between his abilities and the next best player's ability on the other teams were so large that it wasn't fair. He was not created by God the way those other kids were created by God. He was different. By that point he was already six foot ten, which is not as out of the ordinary now as it was then. I could have just been a kid and oblivious to all the chatter, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that his advantage over the rest of the teams he played against that year violated any notion of "fairness".

(Edit: I would also add here that Michael Phelps provides a similar conundrum. Watch any of those sports science shows that talks about how the way his body is made up and there is no other conclusion to draw other than that he had an unfair advantage over everyone he ever competed with.)

The fact is that even with a greater acceptance of trans individuals in our culture, the amount of trans people in the world is so small, and the amount of hoops trans women have to jump through to compete in women's sports is so rigorous, that the amount of people we are talking about is likely statistically less than the amount of cisgender males who have a physical advantage over other cisgender males similar to the one Shaq had as a high school senior.

Seems the argument for allowing trans participation is framed around inclusion v exclusion. The argument for not allowing trans participation is framed around competitive fairness and safety. People tend to talk around each other on this issue, because they aren't really talking at the same level.

ctxbear, you point out that rarely has it been a good idea to exclude people from cultural institutions, and that's a fair argument if the issue is viewed through the lens of inclusion v exclusion. You're right.

But if viewed through the lens of competitive fairness and safety, there is a long list of rules which have been adopted internationally by sports at every level. For example, just off the top of my head:

• Youth sports have age limits, weight limits, and geographic limits (i.e. districts).
• Boxing and wrestling and weightlifting have weight classes.
• High school and college sports only allow 4 years of eligibiility.
• Performance enhancing drugs are illegal in Olympic and most every professional sport.
• Professional athletes are not allowed to compete at an amateur level.
• Division 1 college sports never schedule games with Junior College teams.
• Pro sports usually have drafts, and many have salary caps.
• Baseball and golf have rules surrounding the construction of bats and clubs and balls and gloves.

The common thread for all of these rules is competitive fairness and safety, and I'm sure there are many other examples. Also note the people arguing against trans participation are almost always arguing against males competing with females; there's not much objection of females competing with males. More power to them, because that doesn't violate the primary argument of competitive fairness and safety, due to the biological differences. If viewed through the lens of competitive fairness and safety, especially for someone with experience playing or coaching in competitive sports, excluding trans participation is merely another rule added to the list above, and is perfectly congruent with the rules we've all followed all of our sports lives.

Polarbear said:

---

Seems the argument for allowing trans participation is framed around inclusion v exclusion. The argument for not allowing trans participation is framed around competitive fairness and safety. People tend to talk around each other on this issue, because they aren't really talking at the same level.

ctxbear, you point out that rarely has it been a good idea to exclude people from cultural institutions, and that's a fair argument if the issue is viewed through the lens of inclusion v exclusion. You're right.

But if viewed through the lens of competitive fairness and safety, there is a long list of rules which have been adopted internationally by sports at every level. For example, just off the top of my head:

• Youth sports have age limits, weight limits, and geographic limits (i.e. districts).
• Boxing and wrestling and weightlifting have weight classes.
• High school and college sports only allow 4 years of eligibiility.
• Performance enhancing drugs are illegal in Olympic and most every professional sport.
• Professional athletes are not allowed to compete at an amateur level.
• Division 1 college sports never schedule games with Junior College teams.
• Pro sports usually have drafts, and many have salary caps.
• Baseball and golf have rules surrounding the construction of bats and clubs and balls and gloves.

The common thread for all of these rules is competitive fairness and safety, and I'm sure there are many other examples. Also note the people arguing against trans participation are almost always arguing against males competing with females; there's not much objection of females competing with males. More power to them, because that doesn't violate the primary argument of competitive fairness and safety, due to the biological differences. If viewed through the lens of competitive fairness and safety, especially for someone with experience playing or coaching in competitive sports, excluding trans participation is merely another rule added to the list above, and is perfectly congruent with the rules we've all followed all of our sports lives.

---

I appreciate your naming that we tend to talk past each other because of how we each frame the conversation. I agree with that.

But I think there's a third (and probably many more) framing, and that is this: When we make the divisions of who is included/excluded about men and women, are we making them around biology, i.e. which chromosomes a competitor has, or gender, which is different? (I understand this is the rub and not everyone agrees that gender is a social construct, but rather that there is a 1:1 connection between chromosomes and gender.) To put it more simply, I am part of the populace that believes trans men are men and that trans women are women.

The vast majority of trans women, when they are legally able, make medical/pharmaceutical decisions that bring their bodies closer in alignment with cis women. Does it make them perfectly align? No. But here's the complication with that-- There are many CISgendered women whose bodies are closer in alignment to biological males because of higher than normal levels of naturally occurring testosterone. I'm thinking of Caster Semenya, other female runners, and even at least another case that hits closer to home for Baylor fans.

My point is this: There are so many variations to how our bodies are composed even WITHIN biological/gender categories (and I haven't even brought the notion of intersex into the mix) that make it a far more complicated conversation than simply "Women and men are built differently, should be in different leagues, end of story."

I think ctxbear raises a fair point in saying that even with a strict sex based division, there will be outliers. The obvious examples are the Shaqs and Griners of the world who are noticeably physically larger than their peers. But there would be more subtle characteristics too. Disproportionately larger hands allow you to do more with a basketball than smaller ones. Better peripheral vision will help you make assists or maybe see a screen coming sooner.

I differ in my willingness to use the outliers to justify making a change in the "default" rules of how we decide eligibility. In a society of any substantial size, you have to make the rules based on the way scenarios play out the majority of the time, taking some averages into account. For instance, I'm sure there are a few 12 year olds that would be excellent drivers, but that would not justify changing the law to across the board lower the driving age from 16 to 12. Or maybe someone who has practiced martial arts for 20 years has a much better reaction time than most people do, and as a result, could handle a higher blood-alcohol concentration before they become dangerous on the road. But I wouldn't want to elevate the legal driving limit for everyone to match what that one guy can do. We have to deal some imperfections around the fringes with every rule because we can't craft one that is uniquely tailored in how it applies to hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe there could a future where the concept of a "physicality" test could objectively divide sports without reference to sex or gender. I don't know that I would totally oppose that in theory, but I do think it would effectively make all but the highest category division irrelevant. In much the same way that I don't take the time to watch Division II college sports or minor leagues, I think all but the most die-hard fans of a sport would choose to watch "the good ones" and competely and ignore all lower category divisions.

whitetrash said:

---

BaylorBears_254 said:

---

Doubt we'll ever see a man in the WNBA, although I do see a woman possibly getting a 10 day contract of sorts in the NBA later on down the road.

Women can compete in a blacktop game against men, but full on NBA type games is a hell no.

---

TMK, no other LPGA player has tried it since.

---

Michelle Wie played in 8 PGA Tour events from 2004 to 2008, and Brittany Lincicome played in one in 2018.

FYI, Annika at Colonial in 2003 - lead the field in driving accuracy the 1st round and was top 20 in GIR; she was actually competitive that day.

whitetrash said:

---

BaylorBears_254 said:

---

Doubt we'll ever see a man in the WNBA, although I do see a woman possibly getting a 10 day contract of sorts in the NBA later on down the road.

Women can compete in a blacktop game against men, but full on NBA type games is a hell no.

---

Don't forget all the buzz and publicity stunt when Annika Sorenstam played in the Colonial back in 2003....and missed the cut by 4 strokes (shot 5 over on the first two rounds, which was better than 11 of the 110 men who entered, but the ultimate winner finished 19 under). And of course, her scorecard for her first round 71 (but not the one from her second round 74) is enshrined in the World Golf Hall of Fame to celebrate her "courage."

TMK, no other LPGA player has tried it since.

---

Honestly, not to come across bad, but I could see a woman competing against men in Golf before I can see a woman competing against men in other sports.

I'm not gonna get deep in the weeds of biology and testosterone. It's not my expertise, and it wouldn't be a productive conversation on this board. I'm also staying away from the question of "is a trans woman a woman?", because it could send the conversation off the rails.

I also acknowledge that this topic is complicated by exceptions (extraordinary athletes, below average athletes, hermaphrodites, etc). Life is complicated.

I'll stay with what I know, and I'll use the lens of competitive fairness and safety.

Prior to trans athletes being allowed to compete, it was easy to look at the record book in objectively measurable sports and compare differences. For example, times in track and field and cycling and swimming, pounds in weightlifting, hitting speed in tennis, driving distance in golf, etc. There is a vast difference in the measured performance of men v women, both in average performance and in comparison of the elites in each sport. Notably, that difference in measurable performance is universal across every sport, without exception.

Now that trans athletes are allowed to compete (allowing there are exceptions), we're seeing trans females dominating competitions in many different sports. It's happening in track and field, weightlifting, cycling, swimming, etc. Trans females are frequently winning competitions, and often shattering records along the way. That's violating the concept of competitive fairness. If it were true that blockers/drugs etc were eliminating the muscle mass/bone density biological advantages, we would not see so many dominating, record shattering performances.

As for safety, I haven't done a lot of research so only have a couple of examples; I'm sure there are more. I know about MMA fighter Fallon Fox fracturing the skull of a competitor. I've seen video of the North Carolina HS volleyball player who gave a competitor a concussion with a spike that hit her in the face. I know that there's a trend in international rugby to ban trans women from competing because there have been so many injuries, and many of the biological women are refusing to play to protect their own safety. Again, if blockers/drugs etc truly were eliminating the biological advantages, we wouldn't have examples of serious injuries and competitors being put at risk just by competing.

It's really is simple

Let the chromosomes decide

XY compete against XY
XX compete against XX

See that is simple. Has worked for decades

And oddly enough many lesbians agree including Martina N, as do Many trans folks, including C Jenner.

All the other talk is nonsense. Boundaries are boundaries. You can't use enough academic jargon to blurr the realities of science.

Scientific categories according to many biologist cannot be ignored or denied based on social or political agendas. There are people who truly identify as a horse. Would any of you advocate their being permitted to run in the Kentucky derby? Same asinine logic.

What if an 18 year old girl wants to compete in 4th grade girls basketball? After all, age is truly just a state of mind, and the calendar is a human construct.

fredbear said:

---

It's really is simple

Let the chromosomes decide

XY compete against XY
XX compete against XX

See that is simple. Has worked for decades

And oddly enough many lesbians agree including Martina N, as do Many trans folks, including C Jenner.

All the other talk is nonsense. Boundaries are boundaries. You can't use enough academic jargon to blurr the realities of science.

Scientific categories according to many biologist cannot be ignored or denied based on social or political agendas. There are people who truly identify as a horse. Would any of you advocate their being permitted to run in the Kentucky derby? Same asinine logic.

What if an 18 year old girl wants to compete in 4th grade girls basketball? After all, age is truly just a state of mind, and the calendar is a human construct.

---

It really is that simple. Oh, but brother, are we living in an insane world.

Put them in their own category. Simple.

One category or 2?

If you do only one, you will have trans girls vs. trans boys, and, therefore, you have mixed your chromosomes again . And one will have an unfair advantage.

And are tax payers expected to fund all these new programs and coaches salaries? We pay taxes because of another's gender dysphoria?

I'd just leave it like it is, boys vs. boys, girls vs. girls. And, of course, one is not forced to compete.

I am amazed at how women's rights are being trampled by this idea. Women fought long and hard to get a vote in this country but have lost it again. Morris spoke the truth. The trans simmer was so so as a male, so he calls himself a woman and becomes a super star? Why do we refuse to seriously hear the voices of the female swimmers? They are speaking out, but being marginalized

Bone Squad said:

---

For purposes of the discussion, I acquiesce to the definitions generally put forward by those who advocate in favor of trans men being permitted to compete against biological women. I need not get bogged down in side arguments over those, because if I give the most charitable understanding to that side's point of view, I still reach a different conclusion they do on the ultimate issue, due to the fact that I cannot give a sensible defense of dividing sports on the basis of gender/identity.

---

It's usually trans women (meaning fake women) competing against biological women. I've never heard of a trans man trying to compete there because they are actually women: it's a competition between people of the same sex. The problem with the issue is that the trans people are denying reality & expect everyone else to support their lies to the point of getting angry, even deranged. Last week, one seriously disturbed young woman murdered 6 innocent people including young children because she was so angry.

It's mentally unbalanced for trans women and dangerous for women competing against male cheaters. Men & women are different. That's an obvious scientific fact. It's literally in every cell of everyone's body (chromosomes). Those who deny that reality exclude themselves from the debate.

Here is an example from a few years ago that dramatically illustrated the point:

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

Doesn't take much thought to know that biological males competing with biological females in the majority of sports is unfair. Girls train for years and years, only to be beaten by a man who wants to be a woman. The arguments for including them in female sports are shallow, not well thought out and only make "sense" if your religion is progressivism and your basis of truth is found only in emotion. You can tell if you're dealing with a progressive zealot by where they fall on this issue.

It's wrong. And it's grossly unfair to biological women. That is reality. No one can deny that, yet we know that most vocal feminists are progressive zealots and they don't have the courage to speak out against this. That's the real bottom line.

Tennis player Martina Navratilova speaks against it.

Bone Squad said:

---

I think ctxbear raises a fair point in saying that even with a strict sex based division, there will be outliers. The obvious examples are the Shaqs and Griners of the world who are noticeably physically larger than their peers. But there would be more subtle characteristics too. Disproportionately larger hands allow you to do more with a basketball than smaller ones. Better peripheral vision will help you make assists or maybe see a screen coming sooner.

I differ in my willingness to use the outliers to justify making a change in the "default" rules of how we decide eligibility. In a society of any substantial size, you have to make the rules based on the way scenarios play out the majority of the time, taking some averages into account. For instance, I'm sure there are a few 12 year olds that would be excellent drivers, but that would not justify changing the law to across the board lower the driving age from 16 to 12. Or maybe someone who has practiced martial arts for 20 years has a much better reaction time than most people do, and as a result, could handle a higher blood-alcohol concentration before they become dangerous on the road. But I wouldn't want to elevate the legal driving limit for everyone to match what that one guy can do. We have to deal some imperfections around the fringes with every rule because we can't craft one that is uniquely tailored in how it applies to hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe there could a future where the concept of a "physicality" test could objectively divide sports without reference to sex or gender. I don't know that I would totally oppose that in theory, but I do think it would effectively make all but the highest category division irrelevant. In much the same way that I don't take the time to watch Division II college sports or minor leagues, I think all but the most die-hard fans of a sport would choose to watch "the good ones" and competely and ignore all lower category divisions.

---

I don't understand the logic of using anecdotes like Shaq and Griner to describe a spectrum of capability but then say that the anecdote of the martial arts guys doesn't work. These two arguments contradict each other.

I think what you are showing is that anecdotes cannot be the basis of an argument which pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument.

ctxbear said:

---

I think the comment by Kenny Brooks carries some weight as well-- "Obviously, society is still trying to navigate everything, we're part of society, so we'll still navigate."

We will figure this out. We usually do.

Is it possible that those of us who are Lefty Snowflakes look back in 50 years and say "Wow, we were completely wrong about pushing for trans women to compete in women's sports"? Sure. There is a better than zero chance that will occur.

But I can't think of a single social challenge in our country where one group of people have fought for full inclusion in our cultural institutions (including sports), where we've looked back and said, "Yeah, it was a good idea for us to exclude them."

This may be the one issue that becomes the exception.
But I know which side has the better odds.

---

Here's one: slave owners. Excluding them was a good thing, since their presece in commerce harmed other human beings. Similarly, including biological men in women's sports harms other human beings, biological women. So, excluding trans women in women's sports is a boom for female freedom. Because men and women are different, accommodatig those differences as best we can, advances human flourishing. Of course, as to ordinary civil rights in housing, employment, etc., trans peole should have the full panoply of rights.

historian said:

---

Bone Squad said:

---

For purposes of the discussion, I acquiesce to the definitions generally put forward by those who advocate in favor of trans men being permitted to compete against biological women. I need not get bogged down in side arguments over those, because if I give the most charitable understanding to that side's point of view, I still reach a different conclusion they do on the ultimate issue, due to the fact that I cannot give a sensible defense of dividing sports on the basis of gender/identity.

---

It's usually trans women (meaning fake women) competing against biological women. I've never heard of a trans man trying to compete there because they are actually women: it's a competition between people of the same sex...

---

I meant to say trans women in my original post. My mistake.

Edmond Bear said:

---

Bone Squad said:

---

I think ctxbear raises a fair point in saying that even with a strict sex based division, there will be outliers. The obvious examples are the Shaqs and Griners of the world who are noticeably physically larger than their peers. But there would be more subtle characteristics too. Disproportionately larger hands allow you to do more with a basketball than smaller ones. Better peripheral vision will help you make assists or maybe see a screen coming sooner.

I differ in my willingness to use the outliers to justify making a change in the "default" rules of how we decide eligibility. In a society of any substantial size, you have to make the rules based on the way scenarios play out the majority of the time, taking some averages into account. For instance, I'm sure there are a few 12 year olds that would be excellent drivers, but that would not justify changing the law to across the board lower the driving age from 16 to 12. Or maybe someone who has practiced martial arts for 20 years has a much better reaction time than most people do, and as a result, could handle a higher blood-alcohol concentration before they become dangerous on the road. But I wouldn't want to elevate the legal driving limit for everyone to match what that one guy can do. We have to deal some imperfections around the fringes with every rule because we can't craft one that is uniquely tailored in how it applies to hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe there could a future where the concept of a "physicality" test could objectively divide sports without reference to sex or gender. I don't know that I would totally oppose that in theory, but I do think it would effectively make all but the highest category division irrelevant. In much the same way that I don't take the time to watch Division II college sports or minor leagues, I think all but the most die-hard fans of a sport would choose to watch "the good ones" and competely and ignore all lower category divisions.

---

I don't understand the logic of using anecdotes like Shaq and Griner to describe a spectrum of capability but then say that the anecdote of the martial arts guys doesn't work. These two arguments contradict each other.

I think what you are showing is that anecdotes cannot be the basis of an argument which pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument.

---

It sounds like you're misinterpreting my argument. The point I made was that rules should be, and generally are, constructed based on common experience, not on the rare outlier.

I thought was the case

historian said:

---

Interesting responses by Mulkey, Staley, Morris & others:

https://andscape.com/features/how-will-transgender-athletes-be-accommodated-by-title-ix-and-college-basketball/

I half expect the Lefty snowflakes to whine about the politics, although this is directly about WBB & a question that Final Four coaches & players were asked. Alexis Morris said it best:

"A woman can never compete with a man. It's just not how God designed it."

---

I saw an interview with Morris on a different subject. I really like her, has a solid head on her shoulders.

I had a customer who lived and breathed by Texas Tech womens basketball. He informed me the Tech women would beat the Tech men. He asked me my opinion?

I told him the guys would destroy the girls. No competition at all.

He looked at me like I just ran over his dog.

BUBBFAN said:

---

fredbear said:

---

It's really is simple

Let the chromosomes decide

XY compete against XY
XX compete against XX

See that is simple. Has worked for decades

And oddly enough many lesbians agree including Martina N, as do Many trans folks, including C Jenner.

All the other talk is nonsense. Boundaries are boundaries. You can't use enough academic jargon to blurr the realities of science.

Scientific categories according to many biologist cannot be ignored or denied based on social or political agendas. There are people who truly identify as a horse. Would any of you advocate their being permitted to run in the Kentucky derby? Same asinine logic.

What if an 18 year old girl wants to compete in 4th grade girls basketball? After all, age is truly just a state of mind, and the calendar is a human construct.

---

It really is that simple. Oh, but brother, are we living in an insane world.

---

It really is this simple. Chilton in 1992 or 1993 or whatever year ran a 41.7 4X100 at state, had earlier run a 41.2. This a school with 120 kids at the time.

They would have won the women's Olympic 4X100 if allowed to enter, against NATIONS some with 100's of millions of people.

It is about the chromosomes.

You just can't reason with those that argue for biological males/trans competing with biological females. They absolutely know that it's grossly unfair, cruel to biological females, and clearly unsportsmanlike. It does not matter to them, progressivism is their religion. They will only change their minds when the TV tells them to. That or they'll have a daughter train for 10-15 years that gets beat out of the podium by biological males pretending to be women.

Edmond Bear said:

---

Bone Squad said:

---

I think ctxbear raises a fair point in saying that even with a strict sex based division, there will be outliers. The obvious examples are the Shaqs and Griners of the world who are noticeably physically larger than their peers. But there would be more subtle characteristics too. Disproportionately larger hands allow you to do more with a basketball than smaller ones. Better peripheral vision will help you make assists or maybe see a screen coming sooner.

I differ in my willingness to use the outliers to justify making a change in the "default" rules of how we decide eligibility. In a society of any substantial size, you have to make the rules based on the way scenarios play out the majority of the time, taking some averages into account. For instance, I'm sure there are a few 12 year olds that would be excellent drivers, but that would not justify changing the law to across the board lower the driving age from 16 to 12. Or maybe someone who has practiced martial arts for 20 years has a much better reaction time than most people do, and as a result, could handle a higher blood-alcohol concentration before they become dangerous on the road. But I wouldn't want to elevate the legal driving limit for everyone to match what that one guy can do. We have to deal some imperfections around the fringes with every rule because we can't craft one that is uniquely tailored in how it applies to hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe there could a future where the concept of a "physicality" test could objectively divide sports without reference to sex or gender. I don't know that I would totally oppose that in theory, but I do think it would effectively make all but the highest category division irrelevant. In much the same way that I don't take the time to watch Division II college sports or minor leagues, I think all but the most die-hard fans of a sport would choose to watch "the good ones" and competely and ignore all lower category divisions.

---

I don't understand the logic of using anecdotes like Shaq and Griner to describe a spectrum of capability but then say that the anecdote of the martial arts guys doesn't work. These two arguments contradict each other.

I think what you are showing is that anecdotes cannot be the basis of an argument which pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument.

---

I was at the state championship game where Cole beat Clarksville 66-60. Shaq had 19 points and 26 rebounds in a dominant display. His opposition from Clarksville had 29 points and 9 rebounds in a great game himself. There is no woman in the world that could have that game against him. Much less a HS girl. But, a really athletic kid from Clarksville held his own.

My goodness this is such a bigoted anti-trans thread. This is the latest wedge issue being pushed by leaders on the right to get everyone riled up. Same as the pseudo-issue of drag queens at brunch. It's all just part of a continuing and growing backlash being waged by the right against the rights of LGBTQ people. My guess is MOST people on this board are straight men who are very uneducated on the entire subject to begin with. Trans people are about 1 percent of the population. The number participating in athletics is even smaller. This is not some major crisis against cis-gender athletes. Some of you really must believe men are becoming women so as to gain an unfair advantage against women to win in sports. You probably also believe they are becoming women to commit sex crimes in the female bathroom, too huh? This is so ludicrous its laughable. Trans women are not men they are women. Trans men are not women, they are men. That is how being trans and accepting trans people in society works. There is a far greater threat and risk to trans-gender athletes than there ever will be against cis-gender athletes. Yes, it's really that simple.

...and some people watch Cartoon Network for the great documentaries.

BleedGreen&Gold said:

---

My goodness this is such a bigoted anti-trans thread. This is the latest wedge issue being pushed by leaders on the right to get everyone riled up. Same as the pseudo-issue of drag queens at brunch. It's all just part of a continuing and growing backlash being waged by the right against the rights of LGBTQ people. My guess is MOST people on this board are straight men who are very uneducated on the entire subject to begin with. Trans people are about 1 percent of the population. The number participating in athletics is even smaller. This is not some major crisis against cis-gender athletes. Some of you really must believe men are becoming women so as to gain an unfair advantage against women to win in sports. You probably also believe they are becoming women to commit sex crimes in the female bathroom, too huh? This is so ludicrous its laughable. Trans women are not men they are women. Trans men are not women, they are men. That is how being trans and accepting trans people in society works. There is a far greater threat and risk to trans-gender athletes than there ever will be against cis-gender athletes. Yes, it's really that simple.

---

You are pretty much proving Tinfoil's post a few above yours. What you claim is settled is in no way settled.

And, why do the rights of trans women supersede the rights of actual women who are opposed to competing with trans women in their sport?