Transgender athlete

[Jose Fly]

It is all about having double standards.

Only if one ignores specific details and nuances.

I could literally be asking: What about XYZ that want to play this given sport competitively but can't? Are they forever relegated to lower-level leagues where they would play in obscurity? Is that an outcome we want?

Yes, and that's exactly what we have today, even in the women's leagues! That's what "competitive sports" entails (winners and losers)!

And if XYZ is replaced by anything other than 'cisgender women' or 'person with physical disability', you would easily say you don't care. Wouldn't you?

You really need to start talking in more specific terms.

 

[Koldo]

No. Absolutely not. And to be fair to you, you may not have seen earlier in this thread where I linked to Basketball Victoria documentation and discussed this.

Elite and sub elite have very specific and defined meanings for basketball here.
Keeping things relatively simple, there are 4 competitions (only) that fall into this category.

1. NBL - national men's competition, which is basically open to anyone, although it has rules around number of international players, etc.

2. WNBL - national women's competition, open to any women (rules around foreign players), and with developing rules around transgender athletes. It's basically case by case for now, although no identified trans athlete has played at this level.

3. NBL1 Mens - multi-state level men's competition, which is basically open to anyone, although it has rules around number of international players, etc.

4. NBL1 Womens - multi-state level women's competition, open to any women (rules around foreign players), and with developing rules around transgender athletes. It's basically case by case for now, with the first openly transgender athlete having applied and been approved for this upcoming season.

At every other level, right up to very high level state competitions, trans athletes can just nominate their gender and play based on that. It is literally just the above four listed competitions that are up for discussion at this point, in relation to Australian basketball.

Then why couldn't a sub category for males also become an elite competition?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is all about having double standards.

I could literally be asking: What about XYZ that want to play this given sport competitively but can't? Are they forever relegated to lower-level leagues where they would play in obscurity? Is that an outcome we want?

And if XYZ is replaced by anything other than 'cisgender women' or 'person with physical disability', you would easily say you don't care. Wouldn't you?

Weird argument. The way development paths work for elite competitions, there is a pipeline identified, and people are funnelled through it.

Those at the pointy end receive better coaching, more coaching, greater support services, higher level competition to play against, etc.

Its a zero sum game. There won't suddenly be more spots created, so why are we trying to exclude people from elite competition.

It's a weird idea anyway. TONS of people are excluded from elite competition. My daughter is in the development pathway as a player, I am as a coach. The chances of EITHER of us moving on to the sub elite or elite levels is negligible, but to even get to where we are we have been measured, assessed and competed with a lot of other people.

So, yes. Lots of people are 'relegated to playing in lower level leagues and playing in obscurity'.
I certainly was as a player.

I love the game and it's a massive part of my life regardless.

 

[Koldo]

Only if one ignores specific details and nuances.


Yes, and that's exactly what we have today, even in the women's leagues! That's what "competitive sports" entails (winners and losers)!


You really need to start talking in more specific terms.

I already have. I have presented the short basketball player example.

 

[Koldo]

Weird argument. The way development paths work for elite competitions, there is a pipeline identified, and people are funnelled through it.

Those at the pointy end receive better coaching, more coaching, greater support services, higher level competition to play against, etc.

Its a zero sum game. There won't suddenly be more spots created, so why are we trying to exclude people from elite competition.

It's a weird idea anyway. TONS of people are excluded from elite competition. My daughter is in the development pathway as a player, I am as a coach. The chances of EITHER of us moving on to the sub elite or elite levels is negligible, but to even get to where we are we have been measured, assessed and competed with a lot of other people.

So, yes. Lots of people are 'relegated to playing in lower level leagues and playing in obscurity'.
I certainly was as a player.

I love the game and it's a massive part of my life regardless.

No one needs to be put aside because of inherent physical traits. This is an option the competitive leagues make.

 

[Jose Fly]

I already have. I have presented the short basketball player example.

So this is just going in circles.

Earlier I asked you to define what "fair" in sports means to you and I asked if you some other questions about what I explained. Did you not answer those on purpose?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then why couldn't a sub category for males also become an elite competition?

Because it wouldn't be. The only elite competitions in Australia are the NBL for men and the WNBL for women. Establishing those and keeping them financially viable and competitive is a very tricky undertaking and the league is constantly innovating to survive.

We had the largest crowds ever at a WNBL match this season (18000) which is a marked improvement in interest for women's basketball. That is despite us being one of the strongest nations on earth for the sport.

Split it up, you don't end up with elite competitions. You end up with zero. No offence but there is literally no one who understands basketball in Australia or women's basketball anywhere who thinks that would survive.

You'd kill the top levels of the sport, which has knock on effects.

 

[Koldo]

So this is just going in circles.

Earlier I asked you to define what "fair" in sports means to you and I asked if you some other questions about what I explained. Did you not answer those on purpose?

A fair game is one where the outcome relies on player skill, training and decision making. Not on inherent physical advantages, for example.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No one needs to be put aside because of inherent physical traits. This is an option the competitive leagues make.

'Put aside because of inherant physical traits?'

Okay...what are you talking about? You need to be specific.
Do you want to get rid of women's sport?

 

[Jose Fly]

Its a zero sum game.

I think that's probably one of the core things some of the non-sports people don't understand.....competitive sports are cutthroat, mean, brutal, and unforgiving. As much as we like the stories of the plucky underdog who overcame the odds, for every one of those there are countless on the opposite side where a person dedicated everything they had to playing at the top level, only to fail.

And I think what non-sports folks truly don't get is....that's one of the main things we love about it!

 

[Koldo]

Because it wouldn't be. The only elite competitions in Australia are the NBL for men and the WNBL for women. Establishing those and keeping them financially viable and competitive is a very tricky undertaking and the league is constantly innovating to survive.

We had the largest crowds ever at a WNBL match this season (18000) which is a marked improvement in interest for women's basketball. That is despite us being one of the strongest nations on earth for the sport.

Split it up, you don't end up with elite competitions. You end up with zero. No offence but there is literally no one who understands basketball in Australia or women's basketball anywhere who thinks that would survive.

You'd kill the top levels of the sport, which has knock on effects.

Considering my height suggestion it would hardly affect the current league since the vast majority of the players wouldn't get into the other league. To call it a split up is a massive exaggeration.

 

[Jose Fly]

A fair game is one where the outcome relies on player skill, training and decision making. Not on inherent physical advantages, for example.

Um....there's a huge amount of overlap between those things. I gotta ask....are you a sports fan? Do you play sports?

EDIT: And can I take the above as you saying you would have sports leagues that are separated by physical traits like height? So rather than the NBA, we would have a league for people over 7', another for people between 6'5" and 7', another for people between 6' and 6'5", etc? Is that what you're proposing?

 

[Koldo]

'Put aside because of inherant physical traits?'

Okay...what are you talking about? You need to be specific.
Do you want to get rid of women's sport?

"Or we can compensate for those with a specific set of rules to make competition fairer. Or we can stop pretending we care about fairness in sports. All alternatives work."

 

[Kfox]

It is absolutely irrelevant whether you or anyone elses find my idea of fairness absurd. If you have an argument to make, present it and let's debate.

I did present my argument, and I don ‘t think I got a straight answer from you. I gave a list of characteristics that give some advantages over others like stamina, type of leg development, fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibers, Endomorph vs Echomorph body types, these things have an effect on the ability to play basketball, but you act as if only height makes the difference. You responded that we would need to ascertain what characteristics are essentially game breakers. Problem is; in basketball height is NOT a game breaker either; Muggsy Bogus and Spud Webb proved that a long time ago; how many endomorph body types have you ever seen in the NBA? None. So my question to you is, who decides which physical traits determine specific leagues, and how many leagues should we have?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am saying there are a LOT of sports played in Brazil that essentially nobody cares about. Why even have any category for them, at all, if popularity is a necessity?

Because people play them. Just like there are categories for all sorts of things in basketball in Australia, allowing broad access to play the sport at the level you are able to.
This includes height restricted leagues, walking leagues, age-based leagues, mixed-gender leagues, mixed-disability leagues, etc.

But you're kinda dodging the question, too. To quote myself...
If you're telling me that there are so many sports in Brazil that exist AND have various breakdowns of the competitors into classes beyond gender, and are team sports (ie. Basketball is fundamentally different to boxing) and keeping in mind we're talking about the elite level...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think that's probably one of the core things some of the non-sports people don't understand.....competitive sports are cutthroat, mean, brutal, and unforgiving. As much as we like the stories of the plucky underdog who overcame the odds, for every one of those there are countless on the opposite side where a person dedicated everything they had to playing at the top level, only to fail.

And I think what non-sports folks truly don't get is....that's one of the main things we love about it!

I played what used to be called Divisional basketball here. The best players in my team also played State league, a bunch of them were trying out or on the fringes, and then there were a few of us that were basically glorified rec league players.
My all around game wasn't up to it, and I was a bare 6 foot, but I had useful skills;

1) I turned up every night ready to play, and every training, and I did what the coach asked to the best of my ability. If he told me to play centre, I did it. (I mean...he was a better coach than that, but you know what I mean...lol)
2) I didn't complain when I got 2 mins (any game the state league players were available) and I went hard when I got 20 (any games they weren't available.
3) I was friends with the starting power forward, and was good at working with him, getting the ball in his spots, etc. We'd played a lot together, so it meant I could generate some offence off the bench, even though I was basically just a fast dude who could hit a wiiiiiiiiide open shot, and not much more.
4) The same starting power forward lost his license for drink driving, and I was able to pick him up for every training session, and every game, and make sure he got there.

I'm pretty sure point 4 on that list was actually my number one reason for making the team, although if I couldn't do 1-3 I wouldn't have made it anyway. But I was acutely aware that I was taking a spot a bunch of guys wanted, and I felt I kinda owed it to them to ball out to the best of my ability.

 

[Koldo]

I did present my argument, and I don ‘t think I got a straight answer from you. I gave a list of characteristics that give some advantages over others like stamina, type of leg development, fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibers, Endomorph vs Echomorph body types, these things have an effect on the ability to play basketball, but you act as if only height makes the difference. You responded that we would need to ascertain what characteristics are essentially game breakers. Problem is; in basketball height is NOT a game breaker either; Muggsy Bogus and Spud Webb proved that a long time ago; how many endomorph body types have you ever seen in the NBA? None. So my question to you is, who decides which physical traits determine specific leagues, and how many leagues should we have?

I am sorry but an exception doesn't make a rule.
I did give you a straight answer: I don't know what traits other than height are game breakers. But anyone that properly research the sport can figure this out.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Or we can compensate for those with a specific set of rules to make competition fairer. Or we can stop pretending we care about fairness in sports. All alternatives work."

It's kinda word salad, though.
What is it you're actually suggesting. Perhaps give me an example of how you see this.

 

[Koldo]

Because people play them. Just like there are categories for all sorts of things in basketball in Australia, allowing broad access to play the sport at the level you are able to.
This includes height restricted leagues, walking leagues, age-based leagues, mixed-gender leagues, mixed-disability leagues, etc.

But you're kinda dodging the question, too. To quote myself...
If you're telling me that there are so many sports in Brazil that exist AND have various breakdowns of the competitors into classes beyond gender, and are team sports (ie. Basketball is fundamentally different to boxing) and keeping in mind we're talking about the elite level...

I have no idea what is the relation between the current existence of various breakdowns in elite level and what I am arguing. No, they don't exist AFAIK.

If people playing a sport is sufficient, then there is no need for popularity to justify the existence of a sport or even the creation of a new category.

 

[Koldo]

Um....there's a huge amount of overlap between those things. I gotta ask....are you a sports fan? Do you play sports?

EDIT: And can I take the above as you saying you would have sports leagues that are separated by physical traits like height? So rather than the NBA, we would have a league for people over 7', another for people between 6'5" and 7', another for people between 6' and 6'5", etc? Is that what you're proposing?

I used compete in a State level Tai Chi tournament. For about 3 years. Got 1st place once, then quit. Nowadays, I only watch soccer and volleyball, except during the Olympics.

And no, my suggestion is definitely not to create a lot of different categories. Two different height categories should suffice.