Exodus Strength

Oldandfat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:18 pmTitle 9. Lol. Didn’t see the I. Know it makes sense kinda. But how does allowing trans people to compete against women achieve this?

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.

What does whole cloth mean?

Oldandfat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:33 pm What does whole cloth mean?

create out of nothing. Essentially, women's sports was not available in the United States before Title IX.

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:49 pm

Oldandfat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:33 pm What does whole cloth mean?

create out of nothing. Essentially, women's sports was not available in the United States before Title IX.

There was no womens sports prior to 1972 in the US?

Oldandfat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:50 pmThere was no womens sports prior to 1972 in the US?

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.

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:13 pm

Oldandfat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:50 pmThere was no womens sports prior to 1972 in the US?

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.

* Couldn't resist.

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.

That was the ruling of a Minnesota state court. I guess they have an discrimination statute that is broader than the federal Title IX? Because I thought the latter had not been held to protect gender identity.

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.

I think eventually, if given enough appeals to a higher courts, they would win.

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 ...

mbasic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:36 am

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.

I think eventually, if given enough appeals to a higher courts, they would win.

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 ...

Re education camp for you

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).

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: 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.

*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 pm

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: 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.

*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.

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.

Philbert wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:11 pm

aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pm

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: 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.

*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.

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.

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.

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,

Strong disagreement here (I think). The higher principle at play is that sports = civilization.

Sports are incredibly important, possibly one of the most important parts of turning uncivilized fucking savages (children) into productive non-shitbag citizens. In sports we encounter life writ small, with risks minimized. Yet the importance we place on them amps up the emotion so that we can still teach life lessons. Someone without a competitive sporting background has missed out on millions of tiny lessons. Value of being a team player, value of not being a team player (how to pick between them), importance of hard work over time, not being a jackass in victory or defeat, benefits of physical activity, improved physical skills, and many more.

I think there are 2 distinct risks to sports from this topic.

First, that the immediate value of sports is damaged because it feels like kids are being asked to play a rigged game. There's a lot of nuance here about what is the actual advantage in which situation, but kids (teens especially) are usually on high-alert for adult hypocrisy and I think this topic has attracted a lot of it in a way that may turn swaths of teens off of sports. If it comes down to a cost benefit about shafting huge swaths of the population a good bit vs shafting a tiny # of people hugely, I'd probably come down on the later (while trying to find workarounds as much as possible)*.

Second, part of the incentive to lure kids into sports (and reap the benefits as described above) is the pro/semi-pro/olympic/college game, including scholarship/college application benefits. Damage to this lure risks the loss of the downstream benefits. So, while entertainment is a big part of it, it's certainly not all of it and we should to be on guard against this risk.

Basically, sports are vitally important for life lessons. Things that risk damaging youth sports should be approached carefully and slowly.

*I would footnote that I am allergic to claims of you can't do a cost/benefit analysis b/c something is a matter of "basic human rights" or whatever other short-circuit phrase du jour that is being employed.

I think I disagree with almost every statement made in the above.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 1:52 am

Philbert wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:11 pm

aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pm

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: 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.

*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.

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.

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.

What do you think about math competitions?

aurelius wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:53 pm

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: 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.

*I believe there is a mountain of medical literature that demonstrates this. Along with tens of thousands of years of human observation and experience.

To 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.

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.

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.

I will add it is likely the XY transitioning population that also plays sports, unlike smokers, is so small that survey type studies are probably useless to draw broad conclusions from as there already is a significant variance in athletic performance among individuals. But, and it is abig but, self selection means that XY transitioning individuals that want to play sports most likely have better than average genetics for athletics. Sports already weeds out individuals non-athletic individuals at the competitive levels. A mediocre XY athlete is a top tier/elite XX athlete. This is the issue.

IMO: Medical science conclusively demonstrates the physiological differences between XX and XY individuals. The literature shows XY individuals develop lifelong physical advantages as compared to XY individuals very early in development. Such differences show XY individuals have different bone structure, denser muscle tissue and bones, faster reflexes, overall greater size, and so forth compared to XX individuals. These differences do not go away because an adult XY individual alters their hormonal profile for some arbitrary time period. We have witnessed this. Look at the college swimmer and the Oly weightlifter. They look like giants compared to the XX individuals they compete against and still perform similarly to their pre-transition performance. This idea that we cannot draw valid conclusions from established medical science on human development, use thousands of years of human observation/experience, and conclude from recent observation of XY transitioning athletes having success in XX sports is, to me, so silly that it makes us all dumber. Again, smoking. Everyone knew smoking was terrible for your health. Hundreds of years ago. Cigarette companies kept blasting 'not scientifically proven' until it all came down on them.

An interesting question I do not believe the medical literature answers: does an XY transitioning individual have a significant physiological advantage compared to XX individuals if they begin transitioning early enough in their development?

I think I'd be more understanding of the "common sense" stance if there were more widespread instances of it actually disrupting competition for women. It's a small subset of trans women trying to compete, and then of that small subset a small % are actually competitive enough for it to matter at higher levels. Like even being exposed to a significant stream of culture wars nonsense, the two examples that come to mind are the college swimmer and the New Zealand weightlifter, both of whom still get beat by cis women.

I've also got a very different sampling bias. Most of the vocal supporters of trans participation in sports that I know personally are women in powerlifting. Some are not super competitive, but some are high level powerlifters. Most of the detractors are men or a few TERFs who are not any more competitive than the supporters.

I don't have a strong stance of weighing the "common sense" evidence vs the scientific evidence, but I think the Barbell Medicine article about it was reasonable and that viewing individual circumstances makes more sense at this point. Like Marie Kroc not showing up to competitions and destroying everyone after 20 years of being an elite male powerlifter on steroids before transitioning vs the two examples from the first paragraph.