I'll play. No, common sense says it should not be allowed. But the PC and virtue signaling hierarchy, with an assist from the press, will defend it on the grounds of equity, inclusiveness, prejudice, etc.
(I know I am breaking my own rule here)
But hormones for x period of time doesn't change the fact that its still a man (in this case). If its a biological man then compete with men.
Hormone therapy can extremely decrease or eliminate any competitive advantage depending on when it was started. Starting it right at puberty is very different than doing so when you're 24 for only 6 months and previously was lifting weights and training as a male athlete your whole life.
Right. In this case she/he/they trained and competed as a man for three years in college. After 1 year of hormone treatment I guess all the manliness is gone.
I agree with you. If I was the decision maker I would not allow her to compete.
^^^^^^The real change I have seen in my lifetime is that there are no longer any boundaries. Crazy, extreme or even freakish ideas must all be indulged. And if anyone utters anything common sensical -- like "that's outrageous!" -- the speaker is subject to blistering ridicule, contempt or cancellation.
That's the glory of being an American, friend. People have the freedoms to do that type of thing. This country is supposed to be all about having that freedom. For example, I personally believe what what @bryanscho said but I support anyone's right to do things differently. With that, of course I believe there should be rules particularly when it comes to competitive advantages such as in this case.
Hormone therapy or not, you got a kick stand, you are a dude…
I disagree. It should be never. But I won’t say more for thread salvaging reasons.
I mean I get it. I would have felt the same way if it was 5-6 years ago.
I see what you mean but...time doesn't change the fact of the matter. He is a man and should compete against men.
If a person elects to engage in highly unconventional personal behaviors, I guess that's OK as long as (a) it is legal, and (b) you cabin the implications to yourself. But don't come back and expect/demand that everyone else engage in extraordinary gymnastics to accommodate your desired freakiness. And you certainly should not gain competitive advantages from electing to be an extreme oddball (which you correctly acknowledge in your closing sentence).
I think you mean male, which is part of the issue with sports. We oftentimes use gender and sex interchangeably when they aren't the same thing. If we want sports to be broken down by sex then so be it and change how we make the determination. At the heart of this is the notion of fairness in competition, which is understandable.
Serena is still a female competing against other females...like Usain Bolt is a male competing against other males. That these uniquely gifted athletes come along occasionally and blow away their competition isn't "unfairness"...it's just bad luck in timing for their competitors.
Ok well a male should compete in men's sports (which is what they are called). In the case of Serena Williams I think she played a male player once and not a top notch one. She lost of course which shows you the difference between a superior female against females and against males. So if a top rated tennis player wanted to get hormone therapy and become a female player would that be ok? Would it be ok depending on the domination level?
I think ability in the sport in comparison to whom they will be competing against should be a consideration. Should Federer be able to say I'm a woman and compete in a women's tennis? I don't think so.
You are advocating for a slippery slope here, and shifting the burden to the mainstream/normal athlete to "prove" that she isn't being disadvantaged. The burden should always be on the aberrational actor to justify/confirm that "her" unconventional participation is fair/legitimate.
Fine let them get a note from a doctor supporting that it’s fair to compete. Not sure what you mean by distraction? Isn’t that the same thing people say on why athletes shouldn’t admit to being gay bc it’s a distraction?
Yep, clearly a very slippery slope. There is no well defined criteria there. Who makes the judgment call? Did they have to start hormone therapy by age 11? Why not 10? Why not 12? I could go on and on listing subjective criteria. In order to accommodate occasional outliers we need to create a circus of ridiculous judgment calls? I understand the well meaning intentions of hoping to accommodate the occasional person who does not seem to have a discernible advantage but it’s just too difficult to quantify that.
it doesn’t take floodgates to be problematic
A 12 year old under no circumstances is mature enough, informed enough or understanding enough to make such as decision. Any parent who would encourage or allow a child of that age to take that path should be charged with complicity in the mutilation of a minor. That is an action that for all intents and purposes is not reversable . The altering of the normal growth and development brought on my hormone altering medications can never be undone.
This. To make someone be suitable to compete in sports they should be subjected to child abuse as a minor?
Oh FWT...you used the magic term some love to jump on ("slippery slope")...like you are over reacting to something that certainly unchecked would never progress into a real problem/issue...no, when has that ever happened before!?
First, what are you relying on that men who transition to women dominate the sport? Anything other than a couple of examples of it occurring?
this is a great argument but it's also a very, very narrow window. as an example i used to coach both boy's and girl's soccer teams. right up to about the age of 12 there wasn't much in it between the two - the girl's could hang no problem with the boys in most instances. this was for youth teams that were both ranked comparatively equal on a state level. (both top 10-15 at any point in a season)
This is finally getting some attention beyond the swimming world. The NCAA set the rules and it said 1 year of testosterone reducing therapy and you are good to go. So when he was competing as a male, through age 20, he was a really good Ivy league swimmer and qualified for NCAAs in the mile (means you are generally in the top 40 in the country). He becomes a she and comes back with a year or two of eligibility. Last November in an invite meet, she swims the #1 times in two events and the #3 time in a third. The times she swims in 1 event would have won the NCAAs last year. She isn't that far off from Ledecky's NCAA records. When she swam in that meet, the whole crowd sat on their hands when she finished and applauded wildly for the second place finisher who was literally 30 seconds behind in one event and 2 laps behind in another.
Wrong, genetic advantages for males include physical attributes like height, size of hands, feet, length of arms, etc. In swimming shoulder width and hip width is critical. The average male is 30% stronger than the average female. While starting hormone therapy could decrease that, it won't totally eliminate it and it will never take away genetic advantages like size.
You can pretend all you want it’s not true but we know it is. And it’s not the totally average guys who “become” women who are the issue. I could play in most womens leagues now and get my ass kicked. But if you take any reasonably adept male athlete against women, they will crush them. Before or after “changing.” It’s simple life.
In this environment???? Her teammates were scared of getting kicked out of school if they complained. But, other competitors weren't and did. The audience at her swim meet in November sat on their hands when she finished and cheered loudly when the second place women came in and finished. By the way, it was over 30 seconds between her and the second place finisher.
In this specific, scenario she clearly should not be competing because it truly is unfair.
Both Renee Richards and Kaitlin Jenner have also come out against transgender women competing against genetic females quoting it as unfair. Female sports activist, who usually are on the other side of issues like this, have come out as said this is unfair and against Title 9. Yet, NCAA hasn't backed down yet.
