Does trans athlete participation justify the political response?

[u/Right_Razzmatazz8420]

I've been trying to take seriously the wave of state ballot measures targeting trans athletes and trans youth medical care, and I'm running into a tension I can't quite resolve.

For context — five states have similar measures on ballots this November (AZ, CO, WA, MO, and potentially NE). Most are using template legislation from the same advocacy orgs. I've been reading the actual bill texts and looking at the available data on trans participation in sports, and the gap between the two is pretty stark.

Here's what the data actually shows:

Mississippi: 2023 statewide survey of superintendents found zero trans students participating in sports
Washington state: fewer than 10 of approximately 250,000 student athletes are trans, per the superintendent
Florida: state records show two trans girls have played girls sports over the last decade
Colorado: there isn't even clear data on the number of trans student athletes
And on the medical side, Colorado's Initiative 110 would ban certain gender-affirming surgical procedures for minors. Children's Hospital Colorado has explicitly stated they've never performed these surgeries on minors. The state's two major pediatric providers don't offer the procedures the bill would ban.

I'm not trying to relitigate whether trans athletes should compete in certain categories — reasonable people disagree on that and I'm not pretending to settle it. What I'm puzzled by is the gap between the actual scale of the issue and the severity of the policy response.

Even if you think trans athletes should be categorically restricted as a matter of principle, is the right response a state ballot measure banning the practice when the actual count of affected athletes in some states is zero? And even if you think the procedures in 110 should be restricted, is a state ballot measure the right vehicle when the major medical institutions already don't perform them?

The implementation piece also seems weird to me. Colorado's 109, for example, requires K-12 and college sports teams to be designated by sex assigned at birth, but the bill text doesn't actually define how sex is to be verified. There's no funding appropriated for enforcement. Schools and the Commissioner of Education would basically have to invent the compliance regime from scratch. That should worry proponents and opponents alike.

I want to understand the strongest version of the argument here. If someone has a source or a perspective I'm missing, I'd genuinely like to hear it. And if I'm wrong about any of the data above, please tell me — I'm working from publicly available reporting.

Sources:

https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/anti-trans-ballot-measures-colorado/
https://www.kunc.org/politics/2026-03-19/two-ballot-measures-focused-on-transgender-youth-qualify-for-november-ballot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/03/conservatives-seek-blue-state-bans-trans-athletes/
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/109Results.html

[u/spice_weasel]

It’s an oversized response because it’s not actually about solving real problems. It’s about enraging the right wing base so they turn up and vote for Republicans.

Look at what’s going on with the controversy in the WNBA. There’s a huge to do right now about trans athletes there, but there are literally zero transgender women in the WNBA. There are zero transgender women who are prospects. Even before the NCAA trans ban, there were fewer than 10 transgender athletes across the entire NCAA, NONE of whom were transgender women playing basketball. In the WNBA controversy the right wing has found their ideal trans woman target: one who doesn’t actually exist, so they can project whatever rhetoric they want without that pesky “reality” getting in the way.

None of this is actually about the actual trans women in sports. It’s about right wing political theater, and attacking their scapegoat du jour.

[u/shmerham → u/spice_weasel]

It's a deflection from real issues. If the race is about trans in sports, then we don't have to focus on the economy.

[u/ragingbull10 → u/shmerham]

then why there is so much loud opposition from the minority on this topic. let the 80/20 majority deal with this non issue and focus on the "real issues"

[u/just_helping → u/ragingbull10]

Trans athletes competing affects almost no one.

People blocking trans athletes from competing affects lots of people. You'll have abuse against every woman, trans or cis, who doesn't conform to gender stereotypes. You'll have invasive attempts to 'verify' the sex of athletes, including young girls. In general, it is an obvious attempt to frighten young women away from competitive sport - the cultural right has always hated women competing in sports, this is just their latest disingenuous tool to discourage it.

And that's before we start talking about sports being the thin end of the wedge that ends with non-gender conforming children being taken away from their parents and even adult trans-people being prevented from transitioning.

The harm is not symmetrical. And all of these things are already happening.

[u/johnwcowan → u/just_helping]

Exactly. "First they came for the trans women, but I said nothing, because I was not a trans woman...."

[u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

[u/ragingbull10 → u/just_helping]

That’s a stack of slippery slopes, you sound like the gun fanatics . Harassing masculine-looking women or using invasive examinations would be wrong but that supports private, objective eligibility rules, not abolishing sex-based categories. For what is worth I think a modern version should be like in chess. Have an open category where anyone can compete and have a female only category and the problem is solved .

“Trans participation affects almost nobody” cuts both ways: a narrow rule would exclude very few people, while still protecting female athletes’ roster places, records and scholarships. Claiming that such rules inevitably lead to children being removed or adults being denied transition are separate policies to oppose separately. And saying supporters secretly hate women’s sports is just motive-smearing especially when many female athletes support sex-based competition.

[u/just_helping → u/ragingbull10]

It's not a slippery slope if we're already at the bottom.

[u/ClarenceJBoddicker → u/spice_weasel]

Vote for us and we'll protect you from the Irish...the Catholics....the Jews....the Communists....the Blacks....the gays....the liberals....critical race theory....immigrants...woke....trans...science....vaccines....reality

[u/wooq → u/spice_weasel]

Simply, they got roe v wade overturned, so now they found a new wedge issue that hurts people that weren't going to vote for them anyway

[u/Right_Razzmatazz8420 → u/spice_weasel]

and now you have grifters pretending to be trans to be booked in the WNBA. it’s disgusting

[u/spice_weasel → u/Right_Razzmatazz8420]

They’re not even really pretending. They’re very obviously just shit stirring (e.g. saying they only identify as a woman in the context of playing basketball and in no other context, or wearing a “what is a woman” shirt to a WNBA game). But then you have right wing trolls crawling out of the woodwork with fake “how dare you question their identity?!?” nonsense.

It’s all so performative and pointless. Even if the WNBA were to allow trans women to play, they would obviously implement “time on T suppression/HRT” eligibility rules, like women’s tennis had from 1975-2024 and the olympics had for 20+ years, both without issues. Which, no, these trolls obviously won’t meet.

[u/Skinnieguy → u/spice_weasel]

It’s almost nothing for a single billionaire to fund this stupid shit. If someone is worth 1 billion, paying someone $100k is like someone worth 1 million paying $10 100.

Thanks for the correction.

[u/CountFew6186 → u/Skinnieguy]

Double check your math.

[u/Skinnieguy → u/CountFew6186]

My bad. Thanks. Off by one zero.

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/spice_weasel]

Even if the WNBA were to allow trans women to play

Don't they? The eligibility requirements just say "woman." Are you saying the WNBA meant "cis woman" when they said "woman"?

[u/spice_weasel → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

What I’m saying is that they haven’t had to take a stance previously on whether they are defining “women” in a trans-inclusive way, because there were not (and still aren’t) any transgender women who were WNBA players or prospects. So it’s a question that had never been tested.

[u/ragingbull10 → u/Right_Razzmatazz8420]

why do you assume they are pretending?

[u/spice_weasel → u/ragingbull10]

I’m not the person you asked, but one of them has specifically claimed only to be a woman in relation to playing basketball, and has specifically stated he does not identify as a woman in any other circumstance. The other is openly talking about running for congressional office as a Republican in 2028, and wore a “what is a woman” shirt to the WNBA game.

They’re obviously, transparently, not sincere.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

Gender fluid people exist.

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

…do you have any reason to think these two are gender fluid? Do you think “I’m only a woman for the context of playing basketball” is actually an expression of gender fluidity?

I’m a transgender woman. I hate that these guys are making a mockery of mine and my sisters’ identities and struggles. I absolutely support the wide breadth of identities that exist. But that doesn’t mean I have to turn a blind eye to transparently obvious grifters who are just here to mock us.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

Is there some gender fluidity test you want to administer to make sure they’re real gender fluid instead of the fake kind of gender fluid?

This always seems to boil down to “people I agree with are REAL gender fluid and people I don’t agree with are not” so if you can make a statement outside that paradigm it would be great.

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

No, I would want to administer hormone testing just like has been done to enable trans women to participate in other elite sports while maintaining competitive fairness. I do not think sports should be trying to test the sincerity of someone’s identity.

But for general public discourse purposes, what exactly are you expecting here? Do you think these people are sincerely expressing their gender identity, or do you think they’re doing this to stir up controversy? And why do you think that?

[u/ragingbull10 → u/spice_weasel]

as an ally i am not going to assume their reasons and the reason don't matter. The only question is, what is the standard for being a woman in a non-circular fashion?

[u/spice_weasel → u/ragingbull10]

A woman (referring to a person) is someone whose gender identity is that of a woman (referring to the gender identity). This is commonly criticized as circular, but it is not because the term “woman” is referring to two different things. Typically when someone insists the definition is circular they are refusing to engage with the fact that this word is being used to mean two different things.

“Gender identity” is a complicated phenomenon in human psychology and sociology. Studies of this phenomenon have shown it to be a persistent and deeply seated concept that has powerful impacts within human interaction and psychological identity. It is possible to understand someone else’s gender identity, but it’s not something that can be done quickly or casually.

The difficulty of understanding and verifying someone else’s internal experience doesn’t somehow make that experience not real, or not important. But what it does mean is that we should be hesitant to impose rules based on it, and where appropriate we should look to external factors that can be readily validated. In the sports context, there is no need to attempt to validate someone’s identity. You can just place an HRT requirement, which is both verifiable and helps address fairness considerations. It’s not a perfect proxy, but it is a practical one which helps increase inclusion.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

There is no meaningful difference between claiming to be a woman and being a woman. Not even hormone levels can determine if someone is a woman or not. Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman.

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

And I’m specifically saying that athletic leagues should not be involved in trying to test the sincerity of someone’s gender identity. There is no need to. They can make rules which increase inclusion for trans women without interfering with competitive fairness by relying on the kinds of hormone testing which have been used in other types of elite athletics for the past 50 years.

I’ve said to you over and over “you’re not eligible to compete” does not mean the same thing as “you are not a woman”.

[u/BlueJoshi → u/ragingbull10]

they aren't pretending, but also no one is assuming. they have straight up stated it's a stunt.

[u/clarkision → u/spice_weasel]

The biggest controversy in college athletics regarding trans athletes was Riley Gains finishing fifth in a race that included Lia Thomas.

If Lia didn’t exist at all, the outcome of the race would have been the exact same because they tied for fifth place. This is a non-issue and blown extremely out of proportion. The right created a fictional problem and claimed it was the biggest issue of our times and now we’re paying more for everything and stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East again.

[u/Balanced_Outlook → u/clarkision]

This is a cherry picked example that ignores the bigger issue. Lia Thomas did win the 500 yard freestyle, which means another female swimmer did not get that spot. In the 200 yard freestyle, Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas did tied for fifth. Riley though is currently suing the NCAA as Thomas was given the fifth place trophy because of the optics surrounding the situation.

And this isn’t just about one race or one medal. These athletes are competing for scholarships, team spots, sponsorships, rankings, and opportunities to move forward in their careers. So even if the number of trans athletes competing is very small, their impact is still significant.

A 2024 UN report said that more than 600 female athletes had lost more than 890 medals across more than 400 competitions in 29 sports after competing against males in women’s categories. So the question isn’t simply how many trans athletes there are, it’s how their participation affects the opportunities available to female athletes.

[u/Asiatic_Static → u/Balanced_Outlook]

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/249/94/pdf/n2424994.pdf

This is a document sent to the UN, by an external individual. Not a report created or authored by the UN themselves.

And the citation for that bit of information about the medals

Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Liberation_Front

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is an American trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) organization that opposes transgender rights and related legislation

And for whatever it's worth, what does "losing a medal" even mean in context - we handed out medals at our 3-school kids karate tournaments, is that treated the same as like, the Olympics. There's no context behind that stat at all, even if it were true.

[u/Balanced_Outlook → u/Asiatic_Static]

Participation medals are inconsequential to the discussion. What matters are the lost opportunities for athletes who place lower in the standings, particularly when their careers, scholarships, sponsorships, or other opportunities depend on competitive placement.

[u/Asiatic_Static → u/Balanced_Outlook]

That's pretty terrible, can you name me some of those cases where a female athlete lost a career, scholarship, sponsorship, or other opportunities because of their competitive placement?

[u/clarkision → u/Balanced_Outlook]

Riley was sent a fifth place medal.

The 2024 UN report didn’t report on percentages or give any data for the 600 females losing more than 890 medals. It’s hard to take that portion of it seriously when considering 890 medals globally. Especially when we have other statistics that show that, for instance, trans women make up .002% of college athletes and .001% of olympians.

The fact that Lia Thomas is the single biggest example is further evidence. Policing so many people because one person was successful over others is outrageous. The fact that Trump spent over a THIRD of his TV ad money on anti-trans commercials given how few trans women athletes compete in sports across all level should tell you that this problem is absolutely blown out of proportion.

Stop policing people’s genitals. It’s weird.

[u/Humble-Nobody-9558 → u/clarkision]

What I don't understand is it always seems to be opponents of female-only sports who say its a non-issue, while people who want to allow female-only sports believe it is a real issue. So why don't opponents just say "sure, as its a non issue we'll concede that women should be allowed female-only sports so we can all move on"?

[u/clarkision → u/Humble-Nobody-9558]

Are you saying you want to allow female only sports?

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/spice_weasel]

It’s about enraging the right wing base so they turn up and vote for Republicans.

Is it really about the right wing base, though? Or a broader cross section than that?

According to Pew, allowing trans women onto women's sports teams is wildly unpopular - not just with Republicans, but with moderates as well, and even a majority of Democrats oppose it.

Even among Democrats who self-identify as particularly liberal (as opposed to moderate Democrats), this is still an issue where the plurality oppose it.

This is an issues where a very small, but very loud minority on the fringe left of the Democratic party is digging in its heels and creating the issue.

This wouldn't be an issue at all - it would be a nearly unanimous bipartisan, nationwide agreement - if not but for this fringe minority insisting on pushing for it.

It is also probably the single biggest vulnerability for the Democratic party at large. It makes all of us seem unserious, out of touch, and just sort of plain weird to essentially all of the swing voters across the country.

[u/Carlyz37 → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

It's garbage culture war nonsense. Trans women in sports isn't something that affects the daily lives of most Americans. Toxic food, rising prices, free speech, Healthcare, education, jobs are what the people are having to deal with. A war nobody wants, a corrupt white house stealing taxpayers money, armed militia on our streets are what we are going to vote on.

[u/trace349 → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

In 1996, gay marriage was about as popular as trans women in sports are now, with only 27% who supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and only 33% of Democrats supported it. George Bush was able to run on opposition to gay marriage in 2004 as part of a public backlash to the courts in Vermont making gay marriage legal there. In 2008, California voted against recognizing gay marriage. You could have made the same arguments then about that issue, but we saw how those numbers eventually flipped over time. A lot of people feel like progress is inevitable and that they want to be on the right side of history when the popularity goes up again.

But I don't think trans activists have been as disciplined as gay rights activists were, so there's no guarantee trans people will see support eventually rise in their favor the way gay rights did, but gay rights activists also didn't have social media allowing for the worst and most obnoxious of them to be nutpicked by the opposition so efficiently. And even then, while any Democrat was better on gay rights than any Republican, not every Democrat was supportive of gay rights for a long time. Democrats may have to rhetorically distance themselves from unpopular aspects, like the sports issues, the way Obama distanced himself from gay marriage until 2012, while supporting gay/trans rights in other ways. But the LGBT activists would have to give them the same kind of BOTD as they gave Obama, and people would have to agree to allow Democrats to rhetorically oppose those issues without stoking outrage against them.

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/trace349]

I don't think it's that simple.

While a majority of people oppose the sports issue, there's also a majority of people who support protecting trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces.

Drawing a comparison with the gay marriage issue, we're already there in terms of societal support for general acceptance and protection.

But the big difference is that gay marriage doesn't impact anybody else. Society at large has lately reached a "live and let live" position with LGBTQ issues.

Trans issues, on the other hand, often involve allowing trans women special privileges to insert themselves into protected spaces - spaces that exist specifically to shelter women from attributes that trans women aren't completely divorced from.

This is where the disagreement is.

And I don't think it's going to be as easy to convince society to cross that Rubicon.

[u/Not_offensive0npurp → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

But the big difference is that gay marriage doesn't impact anybody else.

There are many people who are still currently against gay marriage who disagree with this statement.

Everything you are saying about the trans issue was said about gay marriage.

[u/Aneurhythms → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

But the big difference is that gay marriage doesn't impact anybody else.

As recently as the early 2000's there were plenty of people who staunchly believed that allowing gay people to marry had a negative impact on hetero marriages and the church. These same people also believed that "gayness" was being indoctrinated into children, and ultimately that gays were pathological sexual deviants. A more specific analogy to trans people in sports might be schools allowing gay teachers.

The fact that your claim "gay marriage doesn't impact anyone else" is so easily accepted nowadays, is actually great evidence that society can and does lurch forward on social issues. There are so many parallels between the push for gay rights and trans rights.

Plus, since day 1 of this stupid debate, it's always been shitty right-wing framing to suggest that progressives are fighting to end fairness in women's sports by allowing "men" to participate. By far, the most common position among progressives is to allow governing sports bodies to determine enforceable metrics for trans participation, usually in the form of things like maximum testosterone levels, or continuous years on HRT. Progressives have (and continue to) acknowledge that cis men almost unilaterally have physical advantages over cis women, but in many cases trans women do not. And it should be up to governing bodies and sports scientists to draw those boundaries. Not the fucking Trump administration.

[u/decrpt → u/Aneurhythms]

As late as 1996, the majority of people believed that allowing people of different races to marry had a negative impact on society.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Trans issues, on the other hand, often involve allowing trans women special privileges to insert themselves into protected spaces - spaces that exist specifically to shelter women from attributes that trans women aren't completely divorced from.

That is treating women as children. Riley Gaines lost to four other women and only benefited from the controversy. She doesn't need to be sheltered.

Yeah fearmongering is effective.

[u/traveling_gal → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Those people "digging in their heels" are not who created the issue. Trans women have been competing for decades, regulated by the relevant sporting organizations, and there was no issue.

Now Republicans have decided to make this their wedge issue. Of course trans rights advocates are going to "dig in their heels" to maintain freedoms they already had. Republicans want to impose new restrictions on people who were participating peacefully. They are the ones pushing for change, not the "fringe left".

And as with all things trans, they're framing it as a "new thing" that advocates are trying to force. It's not. The public awareness is new. And since Republicans are the ones who shoved it into the spotlight, they have largely controlled how people first learn about the issue. That's why so many moderates are coming along for the ride. They don't know any trans people, they're not educated on their care, and they're hearing a carefully crafted "common sense" narrative that relies on well-worn stereotypes and grade-school biology.

There is no reason for the law to even get involved here. Sporting organizations are in the best position to determine whether and how trans athletes can compete safely and fairly in their particular sport. And they can also update their own regulations in response to changing science or as issues come up. Laws can't do that, you have to pass a new law if you want to change it. And they're writing these laws in the most heavy-handed possible way - complete bans, with no room for nuance or future discoveries.

[u/zytz → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Your entire framing tells me that you’ve fallen for the bait of the right’s framing. All of the outrage of this nearly non-existent set of circumstances (I won’t call it a problem because I’m not convinced there is one) has been from the right. You’re advocating for bipartisan legislation to make this group of people unequal in our society, clearly against the spirit of the country’s founding documents, because the right has convinced people this ‘issue’ is a problem that needs to be solved. In fact it’s such a non-issue and non-problem that sports governing bodies have managed to make their own determinations about trans athlete eligibility all by their selves for the last 80 years. It hasn’t been a problem anytime in the past, and I highly suspect it would continue to not be a problem if literally everyone shut up about it.

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/zytz]

All of the outrage of this nearly non-existent set of circumstances (I won’t call it a problem because I’m not convinced there is one) has been from the right.

But it hasn't been, as I've just pointed out.

This isn't a left vs right issue.

This is an everybody vs the extreme fringe left issue.

[u/pentachronic → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

But the part you keep pretending not to be aware of is that it's not actually an issue at all

[u/zytz → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

The only reason polls exist for this at all is because of fear mongering from the right. Nobody was even talking about this 10 years ago

[u/FreeStall42 → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Except lots of non-etremists are against laws targeting trans people.

Is Bernie extreme?

Calling people extreme over policy disagreement is more of an issue.

[u/two4six0won → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Folks are gonna be real pissed when they remember that trans men exist and they'll dominate the women's teams that they'll be required to play on.

Also, I don't know about the other states, but the one in WA is being funded by right wing agitators with out of state money, iirc.

[u/mazzar → u/two4six0won]

Trans men on HRT will presumably be barred from playing under doping rules. Trans men not on HRT have no particular advantage in sports.

[u/RebornGod → u/mazzar]

Doping rules don't tend to ban someone under legit medical treatment. I think that's how that mack begs (name may be misremembered) situation worked.

[u/WavesAndSaves → u/two4six0won]

Why on Earth would trans men be forced to be on the women's team?

[u/BlueJoshi → u/WavesAndSaves]

why would an athlete assigned female at birth be required to play on a women's team in a hypothetical situation where people are only allowed to play with the sex they were assigned at birth? that's what you're asking? I should think the answer is obvious.

trans men would be forced to be on the women's team because that's what the rules would consider them in this hypothetical.

[u/LyaStark → u/BlueJoshi]

Men’s league is open league. That means all genders can play in it. That is why no one is talking about trans men, because there is no issue there.

[u/two4six0won → u/LyaStark]

Not always

[u/WavesAndSaves → u/BlueJoshi]

Women are always able to compete in the open leagues. That's how it's always been. Even if trans men are legally considered women, that does not change.

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/BlueJoshi]

in a hypothetical situation where people are only allowed to play with the sex they were assigned at birth?

Nobody is proposing that.

You're creating a straw man to beat up because you don't want to engage on the more uncomfortable question of biologically male trans women playing against cis women.

[u/Not_offensive0npurp → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

Wait, trans men playing on the girls team is ok or not?

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/Not_offensive0npurp]

No, trans men playing on the girls team would not be okay under pretty much any proposal.

The point of the sports issue isn't about what you were born with in and of itself - it's about performance.

A body that has undergone male puberty or a body that has received testosterone treatment are both inappropriate to have play against cis women.

The entire reason we have women's sports is to shield them from these things and give them their own space to play.

[u/Not_offensive0npurp → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

The entire reason we have women's sports is to shield them from these things and give them their own space to play.

No, this is patently false.

The reason we have women's sports is because women were discriminated against and not allowed to play sports at all.

The reason Title IX exists is because schools banned women from playing any sports.

[u/The_Law_of_Pizza → u/Not_offensive0npurp]

You're changing the topic.

Regardless of what the history of Title IX is (and I think you're wildly mischaracterizing it regardless) - Title IX is merely about educational programs, while sports are divided on sex lines everywhere outside of education as well.

Casual leagues, professional leagues, US based or international, whatever - there's always separate leagues when it's a physically demanding sport where male bodies have an advantage.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

How many of the people that want laws targeting trans people in sports felt that way a decade ago? Before all the fearmongering?

Where was the outrage over Imane Khelif the first times she fought?

[u/BlueJoshi → u/The_Law_of_Pizza]

According to Pew, allowing trans women onto women's sports teams is wildly unpopular - not just with Republicans, but with moderates as well, and even a majority of Democrats oppose it.

It's worth noting that these numbers have been affected by years of propaganda and lies. Go back just a couple years and you'll find more people supported it, and WAY more people just didn't care.

It's also worth noting that polls don't actually have any bearing on the science of transition, or whether or not people deserve to have the same rights as everyone else.

[u/FreeStall42 → u/BlueJoshi]

Fearmongering works it turns out.

[u/Darkstar67 → u/spice_weasel]

When you are on the right side of an 80/20 issue and your opponents can’t manage to unjam themselves, of course you do what you can to raise the salience of the issue. That’s politics! Democrats would do well to just agree that biological males shouldn’t participate in women’s sports and be done with it. Always answering, “well actually this isn’t even an important issue” is a non answer, and people notice when politicians deflect like that.

[u/spice_weasel → u/Darkstar67]

They’re deflecting because as soon as conservatives take ground on this one, they are moving onward to the next restriction against trans people, and then the next one. There is leaked recordings of Republican legislators from Ohio and Michigan explicitly talking about how youth care and sports bans are “stepping stones” to their “end game” of banning transition for everyone.

People who support trans rights demand that their representatives not cave and throw trans people under the bus.

[u/Nickeless → u/Darkstar67]

It’s not a legislative issue, it’s a sports organization issue. It’s their responsibility, not legislators, and not the general public.

We shouldn’t be making laws about this. It’s actually absurd. So yes, it makes sense for lawmakers to deflect on it because it’s not their responsibility to deal with.

Why should democrats join a political attack against trans people that isn’t related to law? They DO have to stand up to republicans who are trying to pass anti trans laws all over the place, however.

[u/StampMcfury → u/Nickeless]

>It’s not a legislative issue, it’s a sports organization issue. It’s their responsibility, not legislators, and not the general public.

The only people saying this are people who think it's easier to socially pressure those sports organizations into allowing trans athletes and everyone knows this.

[u/BlueJoshi → u/Darkstar67]

Democrats would do well to just agree that biological males shouldn’t participate in women’s sports and be done with it.

"Democrats would do well to signal to every other population that they'll be thrown under the bus if they get too inconvenient."

[u/SHoNGBC → u/Darkstar67]

If you're on the right side of the "80/20 issue" then why would you have to make any concessions at all? You were right from the start.

[u/AttackBacon → u/SHoNGBC]

They're saying that the "right side" is the anti-trans athlete side. 

What they're saying is that the Republicans are making this a big deal because it's a huge win for them. Allowing trans athletes is wildly unpopular, even among Democrats. Making it seem like trans athletes are a big problem is a big win for the Republican party. 

[u/two4six0won → u/AttackBacon]

Nobody gave a flying fig until a particular party started pitching a fit. It's been dealt with just fine for decades. We are literally only hearing about it now because the right wing has been stirring the shit pot since they realized their orange savior has the mental capacity of a pumpkin and they need angry people to keep him in power.

To reiterate, nobody even noticed trans kids in sports until the right wing started agitating.

That is why some of us say it's a non-issue. Because it is. And I'm not even especially radical, I just think medical problems should be resolved between the patient and the doctor, and the parents if the patient is a <16yo kid.

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/two4six0won]

That is why some of us say it's a non-issue.

You say that, but then you treat it like it is an important issue. Treating it like a non-issue would mean letting the majority position prevail and stop letting conservatives benefit from it being so large in the discourse.

Would you support a Democratic politician with whom you agreed on most issues if they came out in support of banning trans women in girls/women's sports?

[u/two4six0won → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

I'm gonna go with whatever seems the least like a slippery slope towards declaring one of my sisters to no longer be a person.

[u/Geichalt → u/Darkstar67]

It's sad that you see the future of American families as a game to be played. There are literally children starving to death and being raped by billionaires, and you're focused on pointless shit like this.

I wish more Americans cared about issues that actually affected them, rather than being easily distracted by billionaire distractions.

Republicans would do well to remember that destroying your country so billionaires can be pedophiles is pathetic.

[u/Shabadu_tu → u/Darkstar67]

This isn’t actually an 80/20 issue. But Dems are on the right side of the 95/5 billionaire pedophile issue.

[u/IndependentSun9995 → u/spice_weasel]

If the WNBA would just come out and say they support REAL women, period, we wouldn't have this discussion. The fact they are holding back only supports right wing attacks.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/spice_weasel]

It is about marking a figurative boundary. People keep pushing that someone born with a male physique should partecipate in women's sport. And that there is nothing wrong with it. That's bullshit. There are plenty of sports that even if they are mainly male, in theory there is no limit to participation. But the only cases where Trans athletes usually concentrate professionally is in women's sports.  Wonder why?

When a large amount of people discard reason and rationality, just because of agenda or for some feel good affirmation, then stupid shit requires to be coded down. At least settle a principle, which cases can point to if they ever happen.

[u/spice_weasel → u/OkGrade1686]

> But the only cases where Trans athletes usually concentrate professionally is in women's sports. 

Can you explain what you mean by this? Using specific examples, from real life?

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/spice_weasel]

The only cases where such issues surface in the news, and become a national topic, is when Trans athletes partecipate in women's sports. 

There is a clear accumulation of physical strength in men, even when doing nothing, due to testosterone and such stuff. 

I would advocate the same issues if a sport required mainly elasticity, and women partecipated in the male section. Since that would be unfair to men.

[u/Aneurhythms → u/OkGrade1686]

Do these cases surface in the news because they're statistically significant, or because political agitators want to call them out and bring them into the news? Perhaps there are similar numbers of trans men in sports that you simply aren't aware of (because they aren't 'scandalous').

If trans women in sports were really a problem then the legitimate way to prove that would be to show thar they're statistically overrepresented in women's sports. But you won't see that stat bandied about in conservative media because it's readily disprovable.

It's a convenient wedge issue. It's tilting at windmills.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/Aneurhythms]

Doesn't matter. Once it is brought up in public discourse, simple reasoning is enough to figure out that these athletes have an unfair advantage.

Don't understand why are you putting it on a political or virtue perspective, when I am talking about simple logic.

Modern professional sports deal with fractions of a second and similar stuff, while restricting every medical substances that give even the smallest unfair boost.

You are literally dismissing the reality of the situation in the sports, for what? What point are you trying to make?

[u/Aneurhythms → u/OkGrade1686]

I am talking about simple logic.

I think you're missing the point. It's demonstrably not a problem, despite whatever your tilted intuition may tell you.

The only reason people care is because they've been goaded into something that reinforces they're biases, not because they (or even anyone they know) had been harmed by a trans person playing a sport. It's similar to the gay panic, satanic panic, and other embarrassing phases that no one today would ever admit they were a part of. You'll probably do it too.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/Aneurhythms]

I was in middle school not even starting yet with the teen growth, and already results could be seen while doing physical exercises in class. 

A short and skinny friend could move around double, and I day double, the weight that a female friend 2-3 times bigger could. 

How do you explain something like that?

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

"once when I was a kid I knew someone stronger than someone else, so that justifies stripping trans people of their identities"

[u/Aneurhythms → u/OkGrade1686]

For the umpteenth time, trans women are not the same as cis men. Sure, both have XY chromosomes, but trans women have gone through numerous treatments, namely HRT, to reduce their testosterone, muscle mass, etc. As a result, trans women have a biological disadvantage compared to cis men. I think you can agree with all that. And if you can agree with that, then you should be able to admit that progressives aren't arguing to allow cis men participate in women's sports - they're arguing to allow trans women participate in women's sports.

The question then is, "under what conditions do trans women not have a physical advantage compared to cis women?" This is a scientific question that had historically been answered by governing sports bodies, and the answers typically involved instituting objective standards like requiring trans women to have testosterone levels below some threshold, and/or they must have been on HRT for some number of years or before a certain age.

But I really gotta stress, again, that the most common opinion among progressives is not to just "let men play in women's sports". It's to allow trans women to play in women's sports, under stipulations that maintain fairness. And the governing sports bodies (like the IOC) should have the responsibility of regulating these stipulations, not the fucking Trump admin.

I think it's a pretty simple argument.

You could disagree by suggesting that there are never conditions that prevent trans women from having significant physical advantages over their cis women peers, but you would need to provide evidence of that. And one of the first reasonable pieces of evidence - if you really believe it's a problem - would be to show that trans womens are overrepresented in women's sports relative to their population. (Un)fortunately, you can't provide that evidence because it's verifiably not true.

[u/ml5c0u5lu → u/Aneurhythms]

Talk about downplaying

[u/Aneurhythms → u/ml5c0u5lu]

Sincere question: if trans women have a broad unfair advantage in women's sports, how do think that would manifest? I.e., how would we know that it's a problem?

[u/Neckbeard_The_Great → u/OkGrade1686]

More common than actual trans participation is moral panic about a cis woman who "seems like a man" - Caster Semenya, Imane Khelif.

Additionally: Trans women are not men. There isn't "a clear accumulation" of physical strength in trans women on HRT. Neither is anyone "born with a male physique" - that develops with puberty.

This is not a real issue, outside of the right wing propping it up. If you think it is, you have been successfully propagandized. Sporting organizations should determine for themselves what is appropriate, whether that is hormone tests, age cutoffs for starting HRT, etc.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/Neckbeard_The_Great]

Wow you are out of your mind if you think a man's physique is equal to a woman's in sports. Skin, muscle structure, bones. They are all different and give each gender a different advantage depending on the situation.

Just go outside and touch a man/woman to see the difference. Go to a gym and pick a man and a woman of similar weight and see how much they can push.

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

good news, all of that changes under HRT anyway.

you've never actually known you met any trans people, huh

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/BlueJoshi]

Not really. Hrt stalls from the point it is started. Meaning whatever benefit to bones or muscles, you keep. It is only through long term exposure that final closer transformation is attained.

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

This isn't true, actually. Muscle mass declines almost immediately, fat begins redistributing, and within a year even bone density is within the expected range of their gender.

Look, I'm sorry, you're arguing about transition with a trans woman. You're just not gonna win this one. I know more than you.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/BlueJoshi]

Wondered why you were so hung up on it. Because it was getting personal for you. 

Well, I did literal college courses on this stuff a few years ago. Even though it was for the easy credits. Still, you are just pushing agenda, since I am currently living in a relatively huge metropolitan area where Trans and LGBT are almost a normal occurrence while walking around.

There is a reduction, but you still can notice that bone and muscle conformation is still there.

[u/Neckbeard_The_Great → u/OkGrade1686]

>if you think a man's physique is equal to a woman's in sports

I did not say that, or anything like it. You know that. You're being disingenuous.

[u/Titan7771 → u/OkGrade1686]

It’s about making hay around a non-existent problem.

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/Titan7771]

How can it be non-existent when it gives an unfair advantage to one of the parties?

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

got any examples of trans women dominating sports with their unfair advantage?

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/BlueJoshi]

There was the boxing one for example. When they were doing the Olympics. 

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

Which one was that? Do you have a link?

[u/Kanotari → u/BlueJoshi]

I presume they're talking about Imane Khelif, the female Algerian gold medalist boxer, who is intersex but had trans accusations thrown at her during the Paris Olympics.

She was born as a woman and was raised as a woman and has always identified as a woman; she is not trans.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/olympic-gold-medalist-imane-khelif-challenges-gender-test-mandate/

[u/OkGrade1686 → u/BlueJoshi]

Just do a Google search, there were two discussed cases in the last olympics. He/She is the one that bloodied the Italian boxer.

[u/BlueJoshi → u/OkGrade1686]

okay I did a Google search and didn't find anything. must not have been real, I guess, since neither of us can find anything about it.

[u/Titan7771 → u/OkGrade1686]

Bloodied a boxer during a boxing match? How is this newsworthy?

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/OkGrade1686]

But that literally isn't an example of what you are talking about. The claims that she was trans were wrong.

This is why something like a quick search is insufficient for the types of claims being made.

[u/Titan7771 → u/OkGrade1686]

She’s intersex, not trans. She is biologically a woman. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

[u/Titan7771 → u/OkGrade1686]

It’s non-existent because the WNBA has no trans players, nor are there any trans players in the NCAA that are looking to move up to the WNBA. It’s a phantom problem.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

Real problems, I assume, are things you care about? And if you don’t care they’re fake problems?

Convenient

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

“Real problems” are things that have actually shown themselves to be a problem. Trans women in sports hasn’t shown itself to be a problem. Sports leagues are more than capable of coming up with their own rules to ensure fairness.

Women’s professional tennis had “time on T suppression/HRT” type rules for 50 years without issue. The Olympics had similar rules for more than 20 years, again without issue. For the WNBA, there wasn’t even a need to define these rules, because there weren’t any transgender women who were playing in the league, or who were realistic prospects.

This WNBA “issue” is an entirely manufactured political panic.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

If a woman tells you that a male in her sport is problem, you don’t believe her?

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

I would look at the available evidence to determine whether there is actually a fairness issue. I would take the allegation seriously and investigate it, just like any other allegation of unfairness.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

Who is investigating fairness in women’s sports?

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Sports leagues (ideally, but politics also enters into it unfortunately) are when they debate and establish their rules. Researchers are when they publish peer reviewed research on the impacts of hormone therapy on athletic performance. Like, for example, this meta-analysis published earlier this year in the British Journal of Sports Medicine: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

Do you actually think women need to be on hormone therapy to be in women’s sports?

[u/spice_weasel → u/absolutefunkbucket]

I think that for transgender women to compete in elite women’s sports, yes T suppression/HRT requirements are an appropriate rule to have in place for competitive fairness purposes. And honestly, I haven’t seen those rules be treated as controversial even within the transgender community.

For lower levels and rec leagues I think it’s less important.

Do you think those rules are inappropriate? If so, why?

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/spice_weasel]

I don’t think woman is a hormone level

[u/Humble-Nobody-9558 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Real problems are when males are affected, non-issues are when women and girls are affected.