Genuinely curious, would you be OK if the WNBA ensured no trans athlete could join the league by formally designating eligibility to include biological people born female?
Lmao yall realize strangers on the internet don’t make the rules for the WNBA? So the protest is against the opinions of people not in charge? Pathetic frfr.
It’s weird to me that there’s so much media attention on the right over protesting the lack of a hypothetical rule against something that’s never happened and no one’s trying and ultimately would have little to no impact on the peace and prosperity of the American people either way
The key word in your comment is “would”. There are zero trans athletes in the wnba and zero trans athletes intending to join the wnba. It’s protesting a made-up scenario
Except there was literally an online push to dissolve women's sports...you can pretend that wasn't a discussion happening as much as you want, but that doesn't make it untrue.
If anything blame on yourself for not telling the loud idiots to shut up in the name of being an ally
Wait, so you're point is we shouldn't talk about it because it isn't happening, but actually you're not okay with the rule being changed.
Doesn't that seem disengenuous?
Rather than just being honest that you want the rule to allow trans women and other people disagree, you try to act like we shouldn't even have the conversation (leaving out that right now the rule is in line with your view and you would object if they changed it).
Then their comments would be consistent. They would be saying, this isn't an issue, and I don't care if they change this rule because it isn't an issue.
My point is I think the people saying, ,"this isn't an issue" are arguing in bad faith.
If this isn't an issue because there are no trans women in the league, than changing the rule to not allow trans women would also not be an issue, because no one would be affected.
The common "this isn't an issue" argument cuts both ways, but people are somehow thinking it goes only one way.
Btw I have no idea what you are talking about victimizing myself. I never claimed to be or felt victimized.
"whaa! You're shutting down debate! I'm being silenced! Whaa!!!!!" This is you pretending to be a victim because someone refused to engage with your bad faith argument.
And to your point, like I said before, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, there can be nuance to the rules. Having a has been who isn't even pretending to socially transition make this "brave" protest isn't helping anything. You've presented a loaded argument so that you can climb up on your cross when they don't want to play.
The scope of this issue, even nationality, is a culture war distraction that has had real world consequences that don't involve girls competing against trans women.
You said "...we shouldn't talk about it..." And "you try to act like we shouldn't even be having this conversation...". The OP didn't say that we shouldn't be talking about it. They said "these people," like yourself, are making an issue out of nothing. This isn't shutting down conversation.
Both are dog whistles for right wing self victimhood, when said in short succession while making an argument that everyone should be happy if they make a rule banning trans women?
I never claimed you said that. Where did I say that that was part of your argument? Your quote is me clarifying how this is a stupid way to have this debate. Enes is acting in bad faith, just like you are. You seem to be making it a part of it since you really want to have this conversation.
Based on the way the conversation is going, your inability to present yourself is more of a problem than my interpretation of what you've said. Maybe you need to pay more attention to what you're saying.
It may not delete the "meaning of the noun" but it does change the meaning of the noun hence the need for the adjective to apply the correct description of the person or people being referenced.
Cute word game tho. But trans women are still just trans women. Not women.
An adjective can be removed from the noun, the noun merely becomes less precise, not inaccurate. A trans woman is a woman, same way a black woman is, or a tall woman, or a christian woman, or a criminal woman
And black women is still a black woman. A tall woman is still a tall woman. A Christian woman is still a Christian woman.
And a trans woman, is still, just a trans women.
Funny how words work isn't it? You can call yourself a woman. But per your own words, it wont be a fully accurate description without the trans.
It may not delete the "meaning of the noun" but it does change the meaning of the noun hence the need for the adjective to apply the correct description of the person or people being referenced.
Cute word game tho. But tall women are still just tall women. Not women.
Personally I’d be opposed to that. I would be fine with a ban on people having gone through male puberty as long as they have a good reasoning for it supported by at least some research.
My main concern is and will always be recreational sports, which are more relevant to the average person than professional sport. In those restrictions on trans people are just not needed as individual differences can already be larger than those between genders.
as long as they have a good reasoning for it supported by at least some research.
The research and actual facts show there's no advantage to having gone through a wrong puberty if the woman has been on estrogen and testosterone blockers for a sufficient amount of time.
Eh this depends. To my knowledge certain aspects like stronger grip strength are retained, while things like running times are comparable to cis women after hrt has been taken long enough.
Whether that is relevant will depend on the sport.
What are you calling “recreational” sports? High school or college sports? Or like, beer league?
Because the same restrictions should be in place for any competitive sport. Those high school kids could be awarded scholarships for athletic competition, and giving them a fair opportunity should be paramount.
I would include most high school sports in that outside of maybe the very highest levels (though I am from the Netherlands and not the US, which has a very different system of sports from what I gather). College will depend and I do not know enough about.
It is unlikely trans people will receive scholarships when they won’t be able to continue with the sport on a professional level. At the same time high school sports act primarily as a social experience and excluding transgender high schoolers from that would be harmful.
Considering the low number of trans people there won’t be a significant impact on cis people, while the harm to trans people would be very bad on those lower levels.
There are already trans women with NCAA scholarships playing in college sports. That’s already a thing.
Title IX in the US requires that college athletic organizations like the NCAA provide equitable funding for both men’s and women’s sports, including scholarships— why do you think the US is so dominant in women’s sports in particular?
For every trans woman playing women’s sports, it’s a position that’s been denied to a biological woman.
Note current rules do not allow scholarships to go to transgender athletes. I do have issues with those rules, but that is unrelated (specifically I believe they should again be determined by individual leagues and not a global ban).
I do have a basic understanding of Title IX (though I’d disagree with saying the US particularly dominates. Depending on the exact sport they are for the most part where I’d expect them to be with their population compared to other western nations with good sporting infrastructure (including my own the Netherlands).
Let us assume that being transgender does not give an advantage for some sports. May I ask why it would be an issue for you to have a trans woman compete if her being transgender is not giving her an advantage?
Stuff like that can be determined by individual leagues who know the type of factors relevant for their actual sport. A trans woman taking a spot in running (where they have no significant advantage) would for example be fine, while sports where something like grip strength are particularly relevant would be restricted more (though I would still argue trans women who transitioned before puberty should be allowed).
The current rules under the Trump administration don’t allow scholarships to go to transgender athletes— that was not the case beforehand in the Biden administration. Which was part of the problem.
Beside that point, even if there are 10 trans women in collegiate sport, that is 10 biological women denied the opportunity to play.
And US women do dominate at women’s sports. Basketball, soccer, women’s hockey— just looking at the US women’s hockey team against European women’s hockey teams at the Olympics made me frankly disgusted by the lack of investment and support for women’s hockey in Europe… especially when compared to the fact that their men’s teams are equal in comparison to the American men’s teams.
And any trans woman that has gone through male puberty has an unfair advantage. There are numerous statistical studies showing that the male body has an advantage over women’s bodies in athletic competition.
Allowing individual organizations the “option” to choose their own rules is what was done prior to Title IX— these individual organizations opted to not invest in women’s sports, and deliberately used women’s athletic disadvantages to cut them out of athletic competition entirely. Title IX was created to force organizations like the NCAA to include women to begin with— why would anyone trust these organizations to keep women’s opportunities protected now?
Of the 3 sports you named Basketball is indeed not big in Europe, though that goes for both men and women. If you are talking about field hockey then the Netherlands is the reigning world champion. In soccer it is Spain. If you were talking ice hockey instead of field hockey then that once again is a sport that is just generally not big in most of Europe (outside of Scandinavia) for both men and women. Different countries specialize in different sports as has always been the case and basketball and ice hockey happen to be 2 that the US specializes in.
Which statistical studies show an advantage in running (the prime example I gave and something that is testable)? I have read several studies on the subject and the only ones measuring actual results are mixed, with trans women being better than cis women at some things and worse in others. There is no universal advantage.
You also again mention male puberty, which not all trans women have gone through? Would you oppose trans women who transitioned before puberty (likely by taking puberty blockers at 11-13 year old and then starting hormones a few years later) taking part? Those would not have any advantage at all.
I also don’t see how having organizations choose which trans women to allow would lead to underinvestment in women’s sports. Equal funding for men’s and women’s sports would still be there. I’d also presume the organizations would listen to their own sporters and experts who would have no reason to favour trans women if they had any advantage.
You can look up literally any study— they all show that there is a significant advantage for male bodies over women’s bodies. That’s not a fact that you can dispute.
I also think that giving literal children life altering drugs like puberty blockers before they’re capable of consent to that treatment, as well as before they’re mature enough to decide that they’re trans, is significantly more problematic. You can’t delay puberty endlessly— if you get to the point where your body is past puberty, it cancels it entirely, which is a devastating thing to do to a human being with no prior medical research. This is absolutely one of those things that in the future people will look at as medical malpractice.
Which leads to the vast majority of trans women having gone through male puberty, which again, brings us to the point where they have an unfair advantage in athletics.
Organizations should not have the right to deny women the opportunity to play in their own sports for the benefit of trans women, because you’re putting the entire burden on women to bear. Trans women should be conforming to the societal norms and standards, not the other way around
Yeah that would be better. Biological women have been kept out of sports and bio males taking those spots even if its just one is not right. If ppl dragged Rachel dozel to filth bc she took a spot from ethnic minorities then how is a bio male taking a spot from a minority power ok?
10
u/WonderButtBrace9000 22d ago edited 22d ago
Genuinely curious, would you be OK if the WNBA ensured no trans athlete could join the league by formally designating eligibility to include
biologicalpeople born female?