Isn’t that the point though, that it affects the 99%?
If half are in each division, and if a few athletes out of 250,000 all perform in the top 1% or better because they switched to a protected division displacing 99%+ who don’t have arguable eligibility for that protected division…
I don’t know if that’s the statistic, but isn’t that the general concept? That it’s unfair to a huge number of other athletes that lose?
Are those fewer than 10 trans athletes competing in the NCAA performing in the top 1% or better? Should all trans athletes suffer because Riley Gaines tied for 5th place with a trans woman once?
Thanks, for any of this argument to hold any water it has to be demonstrated that trans athletes have any sort of advantage.
This is reminding me of something I just watched, the 30 for 30 about Oscar Pistorius. One of the paraathletes they interviewed commented on how welcoming and excited everyone was when Oscar started competing outside of the paraathletic events. It was only once he demonstrated that he could beat “able bodied” athletes that people started getting pissy. This guy also pointed out the disadvantages that running prosthetics introduce, but people only focus on the fact that the running prosthetics conserve momentum better than human ankles do.
At the end of the day, most every sport isn’t fair. You need time, money, luck, the right coaches, mentors, I could go on and on.
So true. Trans athletes are allowed to succeed, so it should not change anything even if they are, but broadly speaking, this is not what’s happening. The state of Georgia just banned trans women from women’s sports through high school, there are currently 0 known athletes who precipitated this ban. The Scottish FA just banned trans women from women’s leagues, this affects 1 woman playing recreationally. The women’s pro rugby union in the United States, WER, has (I’m pretty sure) only 1 trans woman athlete, her team is currently in last place and has yet to win a game.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. They come in all shapes and sizes and varieties and they deserve inclusion no matter their unique form.
Well, the answer is no, transgender athletes are not dominating competitions. Even if they were, trans athletes are allowed to succeed, but there’s no evidence to indicate that this is happening regardless.
I didn’t downvote your comment, but I don’t blame people for reading it as coming from a disingenuous place. Big “I’m just asking questions” vibes.
That makes the assumption that trans athletes consistently outperform cis athletes, which there isn’t evidence of. A trans person winning something does not mean all trans people will always have an advantage, which is the assumption conservatives make. What place does a trans person need to place for it to be okay? Are trans people ever allowed to win? Any time a trans person places above any cis person, it’s used as evidence of unfairness, even though that makes no sense.
As a German, I feel obliged to tell you, though, that yes, it does only concern 1%, or probably rather even 0.1%, of the population, because that is the fascist playbook. You pick out a minority and declare them the enemy, so you don’t have to solve real problems. Don’t get me wrong, there is a legitimate conflict here between the interests of cis women and trans women.
But it’s not nearly as relevant as the fascists make it out to be. And most situations can be resolved with nuance, which is something that fascists hate. For example, whether trans athletes are better at sports is only relevant when it’s about prize money. We don’t need to be bullying kids for wanting to belong into a friend group.
And you’ll find plenty trans athletes that are simply less athletic than their cis counterparts, too. I’ll gladly serve as living proof that folks with a penis in their pants can be less athletic than folks with a vagina. That’s where the real source of conflict comes from, that women’s sports is a pretty arbitrary line to draw for opening up a second league. I do think women’s sports still has merit, because again, nuance. But I really don’t think that it’s worth ruining the lives of trans women.
I too recommend John Oliver’s explanation, it really clearly shows how little those few trans people matter to sports in general and how much sports matters to those specific trans individuals.
There is a conflict here between the interests of SOME cis women and trans women. You only need look to women’s rugby or roller derby, 2 sports both very decidedly on one far end of the sports physicality spectrum, to see how little conflict is actually necessary.
Isn’t that the point though, that it affects the 99%?
If half are in each division, and if a few athletes out of 250,000 all perform in the top 1% or better because they switched to a protected division displacing 99%+ who don’t have arguable eligibility for that protected division…
I don’t know if that’s the statistic, but isn’t that the general concept? That it’s unfair to a huge number of other athletes that lose?
Are those fewer than 10 trans athletes competing in the NCAA performing in the top 1% or better? Should all trans athletes suffer because Riley Gaines tied for 5th place with a trans woman once?
Thanks, for any of this argument to hold any water it has to be demonstrated that trans athletes have any sort of advantage.
This is reminding me of something I just watched, the 30 for 30 about Oscar Pistorius. One of the paraathletes they interviewed commented on how welcoming and excited everyone was when Oscar started competing outside of the paraathletic events. It was only once he demonstrated that he could beat “able bodied” athletes that people started getting pissy. This guy also pointed out the disadvantages that running prosthetics introduce, but people only focus on the fact that the running prosthetics conserve momentum better than human ankles do.
At the end of the day, most every sport isn’t fair. You need time, money, luck, the right coaches, mentors, I could go on and on.
So true. Trans athletes are allowed to succeed, so it should not change anything even if they are, but broadly speaking, this is not what’s happening. The state of Georgia just banned trans women from women’s sports through high school, there are currently 0 known athletes who precipitated this ban. The Scottish FA just banned trans women from women’s leagues, this affects 1 woman playing recreationally. The women’s pro rugby union in the United States, WER, has (I’m pretty sure) only 1 trans woman athlete, her team is currently in last place and has yet to win a game.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. They come in all shapes and sizes and varieties and they deserve inclusion no matter their unique form.
That’s the question I posed even though 8 people currently are illiterate and downvoted
Well, the answer is no, transgender athletes are not dominating competitions. Even if they were, trans athletes are allowed to succeed, but there’s no evidence to indicate that this is happening regardless.
I didn’t downvote your comment, but I don’t blame people for reading it as coming from a disingenuous place. Big “I’m just asking questions” vibes.
That makes the assumption that trans athletes consistently outperform cis athletes, which there isn’t evidence of. A trans person winning something does not mean all trans people will always have an advantage, which is the assumption conservatives make. What place does a trans person need to place for it to be okay? Are trans people ever allowed to win? Any time a trans person places above any cis person, it’s used as evidence of unfairness, even though that makes no sense.
John Oliver did a piece on it a while ago, which gives a pretty good overview of the situation: https://tube.fede.re/videos/watch/16650f54-3c69-4d81-b7ae-17f0a3889dbd
As a German, I feel obliged to tell you, though, that yes, it does only concern 1%, or probably rather even 0.1%, of the population, because that is the fascist playbook. You pick out a minority and declare them the enemy, so you don’t have to solve real problems. Don’t get me wrong, there is a legitimate conflict here between the interests of cis women and trans women.
But it’s not nearly as relevant as the fascists make it out to be. And most situations can be resolved with nuance, which is something that fascists hate. For example, whether trans athletes are better at sports is only relevant when it’s about prize money. We don’t need to be bullying kids for wanting to belong into a friend group.
And you’ll find plenty trans athletes that are simply less athletic than their cis counterparts, too. I’ll gladly serve as living proof that folks with a penis in their pants can be less athletic than folks with a vagina. That’s where the real source of conflict comes from, that women’s sports is a pretty arbitrary line to draw for opening up a second league. I do think women’s sports still has merit, because again, nuance. But I really don’t think that it’s worth ruining the lives of trans women.
Nice he’s great.
I agree with your second point. I think civilized literate people have to have the nuanced discussion, and I agree the rest is just a hatred playbook.
I too recommend John Oliver’s explanation, it really clearly shows how little those few trans people matter to sports in general and how much sports matters to those specific trans individuals.
There is a conflict here between the interests of SOME cis women and trans women. You only need look to women’s rugby or roller derby, 2 sports both very decidedly on one far end of the sports physicality spectrum, to see how little conflict is actually necessary.