|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Regarding racial segregation in baseball. Here is how I'd rank baseball by era.
1) MLB 1940-1984 ( the Pete Rose type hustle player is prevalent )
2) Negro Leagues 1920 - 1940 ( many players could do many things. )
3) MLB 1920 - 1939. ( so many `1 dimensional` players )
3) MLB 1985-1994 strike ( blue jays introduce the `we never, ever bunt` style and dominate the league)
4) 1996-2012 (Steroid era .. no bunting... almost all home run swings.. the 150 lb player disappears)
5) 2012-2026 (everyone is on HGH and Steroids ... all pitchers are 6'7" and throwing downhill.)
So , I dunno , I'm cool with an all black league. Rarely, has Major League Baseball offered a better product.
If a new all-black league were introduced this year and they guaranteed no HGH and no Steroids I'd probably give it a chance. If they played in massive ball parks where over the fence home runs were 1/3 as often as MLB I'd be even more inclined to watch.
I have not watched enough Japanese baseball to include it in the rankings. I'm all for Japanese teams limiting foriegn players though. I think of it in the same way Canadian Football League teams limit foreign players.
|
On July 01 2026 04:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2026 03:11 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There are a handful of mostly-independent characteristics we associate with "physical sex": assignment at birth, genitalia, hormone levels, chromosomes, reproductive cells, etc. There literally doesn't exist a scientifically uncontroversial definition of biological sex that neatly accounts for all of those. And then you have the fact that because of dysphoria (and potentially other reasons), the gender someone identifies as doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with any of the aforementioned traits.
So no matter what test you use to exclude people for gender-related reasons because of allegedly unfair advantages you're 100% guaranteed to also net a bunch of people that even the most socially conservative people don't have a good reason to call "intersex or "transgender." Nobody on earth asks to test your testosterone levels before they decide what pronouns by which to refer to you. So why is it that a thing in Olympic sports? To weed out "unfairness"? As KwarK and I have said, there are potentially infinite different unfairnesses that we've just accepted are not reasons to gatekeep people out of sports.
Why should anyone believe the harm from a transwoman winning a woman's sports league is somehow greater than the harm caused by arbitrarily excluding trans AND cisgender women, just in case one of them might have a chromosomal or hormonal advantage?
And all of this is an extra dumb issue because gradeschool sports are more about socialization (like, teamwork skills) than physical competitiveness and trans athletes are barely a thing in those anyway. And it's extra-extra dumb because there's no epidemic of trans athletes dominating women's sports leagues, it's entirely hypothetical. And my final point is: what if I showed you an editorial from the early 1900s against racial desegregation of sports leagues because the editorialist believed that in the future, sports would be completely dominated by racial minorities? I mean, in some sports that actually happened, racial minorities compete at a higher ratio than their existence among the general population. Your likely reaction is "I don't care." At this rate by 2028 we're going to arrive at "WNBA should stand for 'whites-only NBA'! Every championship team for the first 7-10 years of professional basketball were all-white. After desegregation, an all-white team or even starting lineup hasn't won a single championship since. Meanwhile all-Black starting 5's won 26 out of 30 championship between 1970 and 2000 (4 went to teams that included starting whites). Clearly Black and white people don't belong in the same leagues!". I'm glad we agree on this.
I think I overshot with 2028.
|
On July 01 2026 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:
Who here is objecting to weight classes?
How do you do weight classes for most sports? How do weight classes make sense for swimming, weight lifting, athletics, football, speed skating, basketball or, for that matter, most sports that don't involve hitting/kicking/throwing each other?
|
On July 01 2026 05:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:
Who here is objecting to weight classes? How do you do weight classes for most sports? How do weight classes make sense for swimming, weight lifting, athletics, football, speed skating, basketball or, for that matter, most sports that don't involve hitting/kicking/throwing each other?
Weight lifting has weight classes.
|
It goes like this, there should be an open category for every sport where anyone can participate. And then any subgroup of people who want to create their own private league because they feel they have a disadvantage should be able to do so.
That's how it is for women's sports or for weight classes or some sports have age categories, etc. The federation for those private leagues should decide individually what the criteria for participation are.
|
On July 01 2026 07:04 Geiko wrote:
It goes like this, there should be an open category for every sport where anyone can participate. And then any subgroup of people who want to create their own private league because they feel they have a disadvantage should be able to do so.
That's how it is for women's sports or for weight classes or some sports have age categories, etc. The federation for those private leagues should decide individually what the criteria for participation are.
there have been basketball leagues in NA where everyone had to be under 6'6".
I'm in favour of the mound in baseball being lowered the taller the pitcher is and the longer his arms are. So a 6'9" pitcher with long arms can throw on flat ground.
Competition becoming so overly serious it has ruined the fun of the game. The major sports were designed for average to above average sized men in the early to mid 20th century. These sports were not designed for a collection of giants who've been on HGH and Steroids for 10 years.
|
Canada11572 Posts
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been.
However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great.
And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams.
Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports.
Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else.
|
United States44170 Posts
On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else.
If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue.
To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”.
|
It’s a fairness question, which makes it brutal because it’s hard to be fair to everyone.
|
Northern Ireland27090 Posts
On July 01 2026 11:15 Billyboy wrote:
It’s a fairness question, which makes it brutal because it’s hard to be fair to everyone.
It’s basically impossible in this instance, unfortunately.
|
Canada11572 Posts
On July 01 2026 11:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else. If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue. To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”.
Considering this friend has done rugby for years and years and there were no problems with giant women despite it being a contact sport, I rather we are introducing a new problem. I'm not terribly familiar with rugby, but every female rugby player I've ever met seems to be short and stocky or else average height rather than taller than average you see in volleyball or basketball (though still not exactly 'giants' that would be liable to cause injury). But put a 6 foot something trans woman out there with an athletic man's physique, and I think the game has changed fundamentally for the women on the field.
|
On July 01 2026 11:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else. If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue. To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”.
Except giant cis women don't really exist. Or are extremely rare. In the USA less than 5 women are over 2m high whereas more than 100k men are over 2m high. If we just apply the standard rate of people who transition (probably not accurate but good enough to get an idea), that would mean that about 30-50 trans women over 2m exist in the USA.
Allowing trans women to compete in women's league effectively means you're multiplying the risk of giants in your games by 10x, which is kind of a big deal.
|
Doesn't seem to be a good grasp about statistics and normal distribution here.
In any given sport on any particular level there could an individual that is far above the rest.
And of course there could be some women that could compete in mens sports.
But those are extreme outliers.
With different normal distributions for men and women if we overlap them the difference is going to be massive in the number of competitive men vs women.
Simply put sport is no longer going to be any fun for girls or women becuse statistically they won't win.
Other differences are much smaller and while you have some people dominating at all levels top athletes usually compete on several layers (regional/national/global/top events).
And the motivations at the top are different from just the love of the game.
|
On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great.
And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams.
Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. On July 01 2026 13:07 Falling wrote:
Considering this friend has done rugby for years and years and there were no problems with giant women despite it being a contact sport, I rather we are introducing a new problem. I'm not terribly familiar with rugby, but every female rugby player I've ever met seems to be short and stocky or else average height rather than taller than average you see in volleyball or basketball (though still not exactly 'giants' that would be liable to cause injury). But put a 6 foot something trans woman out there with an athletic man's physique, and I think the game has changed fundamentally for the women on the field. This is where the debate simply can't be about access and calling people 'transphobes' for objecting. You're the encapsulation of the spread of "One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friends sister." This reverberates across communities, despite the overall small population. And it wasn't "just like that giant cis woman 5 years ago" ie the problem is distinct from within-sex genetic superperformers. So you can't get away with talking simply about inclusion and compassion versus the transphobes. You must acknowledge that mothers with stories of their daughter sent to the hospital are not going to hypothesize about an equally situated cis woman doing the same thing, when they know the underlying biology of generally taller and stronger males.
There's no perfect solution, admittedly.
|
United States44170 Posts
On July 01 2026 13:09 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 11:11 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else. If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue. To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”. Except giant cis women don't really exist. Or are extremely rare. In the USA less than 5 women are over 2m high whereas more than 100k men are over 2m high. If we just apply the standard rate of people who transition (probably not accurate but good enough to get an idea), that would mean that about 30-50 trans women over 2m exist in the USA. Allowing trans women to compete in women's league effectively means you're multiplying the risk of giants in your games by 10x, which is kind of a big deal.
Okay but if all the trans giants becomes a safety issue then a no giants rule seems like the solution. The petite willowy trans women aren’t the problem.
Nobody is saying there can’t be rules, just don’t make them arbitrarily target trans people if gender identity isn’t actually the issue. That’s more or less the route a lot of professional women’s orgs have already taken, the rule is against testosterone etc. not sex assigned at birth. A genetically abnormal cis woman who would be a danger to other players is barred for the same common sense reason as a physically similar trans woman would be.
|
On July 01 2026 14:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
In any given sport on any particular level there could an individual that is far above the rest.
And of course there could be some women that could compete in mens sports.
But those are extreme outliers.
i don't see women competing in the sport americans spend more money on than any other: baseball. There is now a guy throwing at 105 MPH. lol the hitter starts swinging before the ball is released. Any how, they're prolly going to lower the mound to slow these guys down. When they do that women will be throwing even slower.
girls stop being able to compete with boys in baseball around age 10. Elite male baseball hitters outperform elite female hitters by a very wide margin. I've already explained the pitching differences. They are massive.
A guy who wanted to transport over to women's baseball would have to have his throwing shoulder, throwing elbow, and hip joint reconstructed. Someday it might be possible. There could be a day when transwomen play in women's baseball. It'll take several surgeries though.
All these surgeries teenagers are getting revolving around baseball performance... its sad. THere is a bit of good news... young baseball players are avoiding Lasik eye surgery at all costs. Ambitious young hitters want 20/10 vision and they can't get that with Lasik surgery.
|
The actual biggest problem are your population sets.
"Sports" is such a fuzzy term that you can't possibly know anyone who does A but would actually be optimal for B or even someone who doesn't do anything at all would be the next ultra talented genius level athlete. So you can basically only infer from the known pool of athletes doing what they chose to specialize in. Difficult imo.
Also, there is a perfect solution: just make a multidimensional, continuum where every parameter for phsyiological, physical and mental prowess is measured and catorize the athletes accordingly. The only insignificant downside is that they'll have to wait a long time for a match. Or they need clones.
|
On July 01 2026 15:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 13:09 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2026 11:11 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else. If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue. To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”. Except giant cis women don't really exist. Or are extremely rare. In the USA less than 5 women are over 2m high whereas more than 100k men are over 2m high. If we just apply the standard rate of people who transition (probably not accurate but good enough to get an idea), that would mean that about 30-50 trans women over 2m exist in the USA. Allowing trans women to compete in women's league effectively means you're multiplying the risk of giants in your games by 10x, which is kind of a big deal. Okay but if all the trans giants becomes a safety issue then a no giants rule seems like the solution. The petite willowy trans women aren’t the problem. Nobody is saying there can’t be rules, just don’t make them arbitrarily target trans people if gender identity isn’t actually the issue. That’s more or less the route a lot of professional women’s orgs have already taken, the rule is against testosterone etc. not sex assigned at birth. A genetically abnormal cis woman who would be a danger to other players is barred for the same common sense reason as a physically similar trans woman would be.
That sounds complicated though. Are you going to have scientists deciding on acceptable testosterone levels and so on, and hormonal tests carried to every one participating in any amateur sports?
Thing is that elite athletes are already genetically freaks, usually with teams of scientists pulling every trick to maximize that advantage. So you are going to run into the question of whether having absolutely out of this world vmax because of your unique genetics doesn’t give you an unfair advantage.
Personally i don’t see how you implement a ruleset that doesn’t potentially either totally break certain sports, like in your sisters example, or discriminate against trans people.
|
On July 01 2026 15:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2026 13:09 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2026 11:11 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2026 10:15 Falling wrote:
If biology was the greatest factor, then trans women would be utterly dominating every physical women's sport they're allowed to play in. But that hasn't happened. And moreover, there's a significant gender gap even in sports that have basically no physical component at all, like Chess.
Because there are not that many? And of the already small population, I don't know what your impression has been but as far as I can tell the majority that I know that transitioned weren't terribly sporty to begin with and the ones I don't know seemed to congregate in more of the arts and arts adjacent. I could be wrong but that's been my impression. So if you are looking at bimodal distribution, you are probably on average not pulling from the top end athletically... unless you are loose on self-identification. And then, I imagine of those left, there actually is a large social pressure now to not compete in the women's league given how controversial this has been. However, given all that. It does not take many individuals to really distort a given field. You don't need every medal taken or a full team of transwomen volleyball players to feel something is wrong when it's your competition and the medal you are competing in. And even if they don't medal at the world stage, if they take your slot to represent your country, still not great. And in the really physical sports, it literally takes one to warp the whole competition. Women's league rugby on the Island that my friend's sister plays in. One 6 foot something transwoman caused multiple hospitalizations, including my friend's sister, many concussions and absolutely dominated on tries. Team just flattened the other teams. Multiple teams started trying to concede without playing. It just wasn't worth the risk of injury. Team with the transwoman complained to the league organizers that the other teams were conceding without playing. The issue got 'resolved' in that eventually the transwoman bumped up another tier level. And by resolved, I only mean I have no idea what happened after as it was outside my circle of friends. But I do know my friend's sister who grew up playing rugby since middle school was seriously considering quitting the league because it wasn't worth risking the much more severe injuries while effectively getting dunked on by the number of tries this person was running. I don't think that's healthy for women's sports. Of all the trans rights to push, I think sports is a losing issue and Democrats should focus somewhere else. If a cis genetic outlier woman was dominating the league wouldn’t that still be an issue? Seems like an issue inherent with contact sports and physiological differences rather than a trans issue. To put it another way, if a petite trans woman would be fine and a giant cis woman would cause just as many injuries then the required rule is “no giants”, not “no trans”. Except giant cis women don't really exist. Or are extremely rare. In the USA less than 5 women are over 2m high whereas more than 100k men are over 2m high. If we just apply the standard rate of people who transition (probably not accurate but good enough to get an idea), that would mean that about 30-50 trans women over 2m exist in the USA. Allowing trans women to compete in women's league effectively means you're multiplying the risk of giants in your games by 10x, which is kind of a big deal. Okay but if all the trans giants becomes a safety issue then a no giants rule seems like the solution. The petite willowy trans women aren’t the problem. Nobody is saying there can’t be rules, just don’t make them arbitrarily target trans people if gender identity isn’t actually the issue. That’s more or less the route a lot of professional women’s orgs have already taken, the rule is against testosterone etc. not sex assigned at birth. A genetically abnormal cis woman who would be a danger to other players is barred for the same common sense reason as a physically similar trans woman would be.
Banning giant cis women seems unfair to me. For example in beach volleyball, you expect pro women to be around 1,80m. Once in a while you get a really tall woman (1,90m) that for some reason didn't want to play basketball. Most women are fine with the occasional outlier. " Good for her for being so tall, we'll just have to play that much better to overcome the height difference". I think most women wouldn't be fine with more and more 1,90m transwomen playing competitively though because they wouldn't be able to compete anymore.
Splitting the sport into tall league and short league isn't reall doable either for a small sport like beachvolleyball.
I really think there's no unique answer, it depends on the sport, the risks, how many transgender individuals are really concerned etc.
|
Trans women in sports is a massive red herring, and affects like 7 people so its weird we are spending like 5 pages on that. Ofc i can point to the studies that seem to show that trans women score worse in athletic tests than cis women after HRT, but why bother. Everyone has made up their minds anyway.
Also if we are going to ban people like Caster Semenya from sports because of some weird chromosome shit (she is absolutely a woman), then we should've banned Michael Phelps for being a genetic monster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
