The provisions of Title IX created whole cloth women's sports in the United States.
What I believe @mgil and I are stating is allowing transgender women to compete against cisgender women risks undoing one of the most profound impacts of Title IX.
The provisions of Title IX created whole cloth women's sports in the United States.
Title IX requires that institutions such as schools offer equal opportunities. Functionally, after many lawsuits and such, the courts ruled that schools must offer the same opportunity to participate in sports for women as they do men. There was an explosion in women's sports across the country. Softball, volleyball, soccer, and so on.
I would add to this, that it also moved US Women's sports from the grounds of the upper middle class and above to something almost everyone* can participate in. My undergrad alma mater had Women's fencing going back to the 30s (or before), but they had a different coach, shit equipment, no opportunities for real competition and fenced one of 3 weapons. A local fancy school has had some women's sports since the dawn of time, field hockey and such, but not at the same levels, breadth or funding as Men's sports. Title IX took Women's sports from this thing you had around to occupy a few of the more rambunctious girls and made it near universal, same as Men's sports.aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:13 pmTitle IX requires that institutions such as schools offer equal opportunities. Functionally, after many lawsuits and such, the courts ruled that schools must offer the same opportunity to participate in sports for women as they do men. There was an explosion in women's sports across the country. Softball, volleyball, soccer, and so on.
USA Powerlifting lost a two-year court battle this week after a judge ruled that it had discriminated against transgender athlete JayCee Cooper by banning her from competing in women's competitions.
The ruling also mandated that the sports organization "cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices" because of sexual orientation and gender identity and that it revise its policy related to sexual orientation and gender identity within two weeks.
I think eventually, if given enough appeals to a higher courts, they would win.BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:20 pm Necro
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-new ... m=news_tab
USA Powerlifting lost a two-year court battle this week after a judge ruled that it had discriminated against transgender athlete JayCee Cooper by banning her from competing in women's competitions.
The ruling also mandated that the sports organization "cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices" because of sexual orientation and gender identity and that it revise its policy related to sexual orientation and gender identity within two weeks.
Re education camp for youmbasic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:36 amI think eventually, if given enough appeals to a higher courts, they would win.BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:20 pm Necro
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-new ... m=news_tab
USA Powerlifting lost a two-year court battle this week after a judge ruled that it had discriminated against transgender athlete JayCee Cooper by banning her from competing in women's competitions.
The ruling also mandated that the sports organization "cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices" because of sexual orientation and gender identity and that it revise its policy related to sexual orientation and gender identity within two weeks.
They might be bankrupt by then with attorney costs, etc.
Must suck arguing about water is wet, the sky is blue, and people who were born and grown-up as men would have a natural advantage over [*makes a big sigh*] cis-women physically ...
My experience: people that support transgender MtF competing against XX chromosome individuals do not generally respect sports. It is easy for them to hand wave away the concerns over fair competition. If it could be conclusively* proven hormonally adjusted XY individuals have a competitive advantage versus XX individuals, the argument would shift that inclusivity is more important anyway.dw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:59 pm I don't know what % of people who think there should be no trans-bans believe that there is no issue of fairness vs believing MTFs have an unfair advantage but not thinking that justifies discrimination.
One anti-ban person I spoke with IRL took the line that there wasn't "conclusive scientific proof" one way or the other, therefore we musn't discriminate, which is imo blatant special pleading (insofar as we support all kinds of policies based on common sense or what we believe is common sense rather than scientific evidence).
My experience as well. Within my circle of real life acquaintances the person most vocally opposed to re-classifying male as female athletes is also the person most engaged in a sport. Meanwhile my real life acquaintances who disagree with her most strenuously have no interest or involvement with sports. Under the participation trophy mindset, trans activists would be correct that inclusivity is more important than giving xx women a chance at winning. Also, proof is a thing in math, but not biological or social science, so that standard will never be met.aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pmMy experience: people that support transgender MtF competing against XX chromosome individuals do not generally respect sports. It is easy for them to hand wave away the concerns over fair competition. If it could be conclusively* proven hormonally adjusted XY individuals have a competitive advantage versus XX individuals, the argument would shift that inclusivity is more important anyway.dw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:59 pm I don't know what % of people who think there should be no trans-bans believe that there is no issue of fairness vs believing MTFs have an unfair advantage but not thinking that justifies discrimination.
One anti-ban person I spoke with IRL took the line that there wasn't "conclusive scientific proof" one way or the other, therefore we musn't discriminate, which is imo blatant special pleading (insofar as we support all kinds of policies based on common sense or what we believe is common sense rather than scientific evidence).
*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.
This is my position (don't care about sports). It's a branch of entertainment, whatever brings the most audience is what they should do. I don't think there's any higher principle at play. I know people use sport for scholarships and whatnot, but I wouldn't understand that business even if there were no trans athletes.Philbert wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:11 pmMy experience as well. Within my circle of real life acquaintances the person most vocally opposed to re-classifying male as female athletes is also the person most engaged in a sport. Meanwhile my real life acquaintances who disagree with her most strenuously have no interest or involvement with sports. Under the participation trophy mindset, trans activists would be correct that inclusivity is more important than giving xx women a chance at winning. Also, proof is a thing in math, but not biological or social science, so that standard will never be met.aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pmMy experience: people that support transgender MtF competing against XX chromosome individuals do not generally respect sports. It is easy for them to hand wave away the concerns over fair competition. If it could be conclusively* proven hormonally adjusted XY individuals have a competitive advantage versus XX individuals, the argument would shift that inclusivity is more important anyway.dw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:59 pm I don't know what % of people who think there should be no trans-bans believe that there is no issue of fairness vs believing MTFs have an unfair advantage but not thinking that justifies discrimination.
One anti-ban person I spoke with IRL took the line that there wasn't "conclusive scientific proof" one way or the other, therefore we musn't discriminate, which is imo blatant special pleading (insofar as we support all kinds of policies based on common sense or what we believe is common sense rather than scientific evidence).
*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.
Strong disagreement here (I think). The higher principle at play is that sports = civilization.convergentsum wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 1:52 am
This is my position (don't care about sports). It's a branch of entertainment, whatever brings the most audience is what they should do. I don't think there's any higher principle at play. I know people use sport for scholarships and whatnot,
convergentsum wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 1:52 amThis is my position (don't care about sports). It's a branch of entertainment, whatever brings the most audience is what they should do. I don't think there's any higher principle at play. I know people use sport for scholarships and whatnot, but I wouldn't understand that business even if there were no trans athletes.Philbert wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:11 pmMy experience as well. Within my circle of real life acquaintances the person most vocally opposed to re-classifying male as female athletes is also the person most engaged in a sport. Meanwhile my real life acquaintances who disagree with her most strenuously have no interest or involvement with sports. Under the participation trophy mindset, trans activists would be correct that inclusivity is more important than giving xx women a chance at winning. Also, proof is a thing in math, but not biological or social science, so that standard will never be met.aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pmMy experience: people that support transgender MtF competing against XX chromosome individuals do not generally respect sports. It is easy for them to hand wave away the concerns over fair competition. If it could be conclusively* proven hormonally adjusted XY individuals have a competitive advantage versus XX individuals, the argument would shift that inclusivity is more important anyway.dw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:59 pm I don't know what % of people who think there should be no trans-bans believe that there is no issue of fairness vs believing MTFs have an unfair advantage but not thinking that justifies discrimination.
One anti-ban person I spoke with IRL took the line that there wasn't "conclusive scientific proof" one way or the other, therefore we musn't discriminate, which is imo blatant special pleading (insofar as we support all kinds of policies based on common sense or what we believe is common sense rather than scientific evidence).
*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.
aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pmMy experience: people that support transgender MtF competing against XX chromosome individuals do not generally respect sports. It is easy for them to hand wave away the concerns over fair competition. If it could be conclusively* proven hormonally adjusted XY individuals have a competitive advantage versus XX individuals, the argument would shift that inclusivity is more important anyway.dw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:59 pm I don't know what % of people who think there should be no trans-bans believe that there is no issue of fairness vs believing MTFs have an unfair advantage but not thinking that justifies discrimination.
One anti-ban person I spoke with IRL took the line that there wasn't "conclusive scientific proof" one way or the other, therefore we musn't discriminate, which is imo blatant special pleading (insofar as we support all kinds of policies based on common sense or what we believe is common sense rather than scientific evidence).
*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.
You are equating some kind of double blind type study that compares transitioning individuals' athletic performance to non-transitioning individuals as scientific proof. I do not believe that is required or necessary. We very rarely have that level of 'scientific proof' for anything. I think at this point we can all agree that smoking causes cancer. The medical literature supports this. It has been 'proven' in a court of law. We don't have 'scientific proof' that establishes that relationship. The study would require thousands of individuals through a lifetime forcing one group to smoke. Similarly, a transitioning study would have to clone thousands of individual pairs and force one of the pair to transition. Ethical issues aside (which are significant), both studies are immensely cost prohibitive to give us answers we already know.dw wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:23 amTo your asterisked point, the specific claim was that we don't have scientific proof that post-hormone therapy MTFs have an advantage in general over natural females. Again most of us would say the evidence of our eyes is sufficient but this is such a historically rare phenomenon and frankly of so little interest that I can believe there's not a lot of formal study of it.