• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Transgender athlete

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree that if a transwoman never underwent male puberty then this may allow them to compete fairly and should be allowed.

Not sure why this would be a reason to 'wait and see' regarding transwomen who have undergone male puberty though given we know they retain a significant advantage.

Ultimately, many sporting organisations will need to make a choice between inclusion and fairness rather than finding reasons to kick the can down the road.
The full understanding might not occur for a full generation. There is quite a bit of prejudice against trans people right now. Allowing them to compete is the ideal even if they did go through puberty. That is why, and this may vary by sport, one needs to consider what is fair to the competitors, safe, and includes as many people as possible. It may be a play it by ear situation for a while. It will not be totally fair no matter how it is decided. Some problems have no easy solution we can only do the best that we can do. I have no problems with a two year adjustment period for transwomen in most sports. It is the ones where the advantage is too great or to dangerous that must be decided.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I am suggesting that there are female players that can easily compete with male players regardless of genitalia or genetic dispositions. And it's time we grew up and faced that fact, and stop pretending that gender alone determines ability. It's time to designate competitors by some other criteria. And in basketball height will likely be a factor. As even the "short" players in that sport are taller than most other people. But as anyone might enjoy playing that sport, it can still be open to all via organizing different leagues with their own specific criteria (age, heights, etc.). And the same goes for any other sport.

This sounds like an awful outcome for female players. Truly. I don't want to judge what you do or don't know about basketball specifically, but it's a huge part of my week, particularly coaching junior girls at a pretty high level.
The current procedures in place for Basketball Victoria make much more sense.
(I linked to them in an earlier post, but for ease of reference : https://www.basketballvictoria.com.au/cdn/fy7f4fune5ck4sss)

Effectively, at sub-elite levels (which includes high grade representative basketball, including what I coach) people can nominate their gender. A trans athlete can list as and play as a girl.
That is MUCH preferable from my point of view than throwing boys and girls in a single pool once puberty hits.

One of my daughters is a good player. She plays as a big, standing about 5'6" or so (12 years old).
If she plays against boys, of course she might be better than them, depending on their skill level. But playing against boys COMPLETELY changes the game for her. It is a totally different sport. I'm happy to specifically go through why, but unless you're invested in basketball, I'm not sure it would make sense for either of us to go down that rabbit hole.

Suffice to say, she doesn't want to play against a bunch of relatively more athletic, fast, tall people who are pretty crap at the game. She wants to play people who are good at the same, and play with skill, and push her to be the best version of her self.

I've been used as a practice squad player against state level women before, when I was much younger. The people I had to guard her miles ahead of me in terms of skill. I was a crash test dummy basically, who could smother them with my length, speed, and strength. (I'm a 6'0" point guard, or at least I was back then) They were much better basketball players than me by any measure, but they hated me guarding them in practice (which was kinda the point), as it would completely break aspects of their offence.

BTW, the 'grow up and face the fact' thing is a little simplistic for my liking. I spend a lot of time coaching in women's sport, go to more professional women's sport than mens, and have an enormous amount of respect for female athletes. My position is about ensuring there is active, high-level competition for women. That has NOT been an easy journey over the years, and it's taken a lot of effort by a lot of people to slowly build it. I am a tiny part of that, but I would push back hard on any thought that I think male basketball players are 'better'.
 
It is the ones where the advantage is too great or to dangerous that must be decided.

When do you think an advantage is too great? In most sports the advantage is very significant so transitioning gives a massive boost in relative performance. It's like levelling up in a video game.

For safety, combat sports and sports like rugby are clearly too dangerous and would likely result in law suits pretty quickly.

What about sports like football and cricket that also carry increased risk of injury (including serious head injuries) though?

What is an acceptable level of increased risk of serious and perhaps life-changing injury? I also wonder what the legal status of knowingly exposing women to this increased risk will be.

How much increased risk do you think women should be forced to accept in the name of inclusion? How ethical is any increase in risk?
 
One of my daughters is a good player. She plays as a big, standing about 5'6" or so (12 years old).
If she plays against boys, of course she might be better than them, depending on their skill level. But playing against boys COMPLETELY changes the game for her. It is a totally different sport. I'm happy to specifically go through why, but unless you're invested in basketball, I'm not sure it would make sense for either of us to go down that rabbit hole.

Suffice to say, she doesn't want to play against a bunch of relatively more athletic, fast, tall people who are pretty crap at the game. She wants to play people who are good at the same, and play with skill, and push her to be the best version of her self.

My 11 y.o niece is a very good swimmer. her and one of the boys are by far the best at their primary school, attend swimming camps, enter races, etc.

They are pretty evenly matched and are 'enemies'. My sister says she will be distraught if he goes through puberty soon and starts to beat her all the time.

The "given the chance, women are just as good as men" arguments don't seem to consider what message this sends to girls who have been given the chance.

They have both had every support and opportunity to be good swimmers, so do you tell her that the only reason she is losing now is because she hasn't tried hard enough and needs to up her game?

Obviously you just have to say something along the lines of "when competition was fair you were just as good if not better, but now the competition is no longer fair and that's not your fault. Now go be the best you can be in the fair competitions."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
When do you think an advantage is too great? In most sports the advantage is very significant so transitioning gives a massive boost in relative performance. It's like levelling up in a video game.

For safety, combat sports and sports like rugby are clearly too dangerous and would likely result in law suits pretty quickly.

What about sports like football and cricket that also carry increased risk of injury (including serious head injuries) though?

What is an acceptable level of increased risk of serious and perhaps life-changing injury? I also wonder what the legal status of knowingly exposing women to this increased risk will be.

How much increased risk do you think women should be forced to accept in the name of inclusion? How ethical is any increase in risk?
Ideally each sport or at least area of sport would be judged separately. And yes, rugby, football, and combat sports can be very dangerous. Weight categories help in sports but it is definitely not enough. I did already link the case of a MMA practitioner that gave an opponent a concussion.

Doing nothing and not allowing any competition at all by trans people seems to be a far worse solution than the imperfect answer that we have now.
 
Ideally each sport or at least area of sport would be judged separately. And yes, rugby, football, and combat sports can be very dangerous. Weight categories help in sports but it is definitely not enough. I did already link the case of a MMA practitioner that gave an opponent a concussion.
Roughly, what would you say constitutes too big an advantage in sports like swimming or athletics though?

For example, do you think Lia Thomas gets too big an advantage given she went from a top 500 college athlete to a dominant number 1?

My personal opinion is that if the only reason someone is able to compete at their level is that they transitioned, then this is too big an advantage. I don't think you should "level up" by transitioning.

Regarding risk, What level of increased risk is ethically acceptable?

By football before I meant soccer, but even in sports like basketball you are increasing risk, albeit to a much lesser degree than other sports.

High risk: combat/collision sports
Medium risk: contact sports, sports with hard objects being propelled at greater speeds (baseball, cricket, field hockey, etc.)
Lower risk: non-contact sports where contact still occurs (basketball, etc.)

What duty of care to authorities have? How many more injuries are "a price worth paying", given decision makers won't be the ones paying the price?

Doing nothing and not allowing any competition at all by trans people seems to be a far worse solution than the imperfect answer that we have now.

Is there more benefit from allowing transwomen to enter high level competitions? I'd say that's probably not the case.

While people are working things out, we could let transwomen compete in women's categories at recreational level in sports without much increased risk, but not allow them to enter any high level competitions where we know they receive significant advantages (although even this is not without downside).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
No, but it is an indication that if the best of women stood a chance against the best of men, there would be women in the NBA.
Sure, and if black people weren't dumber than white people there'd be more black CEOs. Right? Because bigotry doesn't exist.

Sport is not about only "the best". In fact, it's that mentality that tends to ruin sports for a whole lot of people. Because it excludes everyone else from participating. It even humiliates them for for wanting to. And that's not the positive purpose of sport, nor it's real benefit to society.

Also, when we focus only on "the best" we encourage the bias and bigotry that we use to define "best". The best at what? Putting a ball through a hoop? Is that really what we're gong to use to define the best among us?
What’s wrong with separating them according to their biology?
But this isn't discussion about "biology", it's about biological gender. Which is not an accurate indicator of performance levels in most sports. Just as age, alone, isn't. Or weight, alone, isn't. Or experience, alone, isn't. These are all factors, but alone, they are not accurate indicators of performance. Which is why, because "biology" has become a much more complex subject these days, we need to update how we determine performance levels in sports, to make sporting events more open to all, and more fair.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This sounds like an awful outcome for female players. Truly. I don't want to judge what you do or don't know about basketball specifically, but it's a huge part of my week, particularly coaching junior girls at a pretty high level.
The current procedures in place for Basketball Victoria make much more sense.
(I linked to them in an earlier post, but for ease of reference : https://www.basketballvictoria.com.au/cdn/fy7f4fune5ck4sss)

Effectively, at sub-elite levels (which includes high grade representative basketball, including what I coach) people can nominate their gender. A trans athlete can list as and play as a girl.
That is MUCH preferable from my point of view than throwing boys and girls in a single pool once puberty hits.

One of my daughters is a good player. She plays as a big, standing about 5'6" or so (12 years old).
If she plays against boys, of course she might be better than them, depending on their skill level. But playing against boys COMPLETELY changes the game for her. It is a totally different sport. I'm happy to specifically go through why, but unless you're invested in basketball, I'm not sure it would make sense for either of us to go down that rabbit hole.

Suffice to say, she doesn't want to play against a bunch of relatively more athletic, fast, tall people who are pretty crap at the game. She wants to play people who are good at the same, and play with skill, and push her to be the best version of her self.

I've been used as a practice squad player against state level women before, when I was much younger. The people I had to guard her miles ahead of me in terms of skill. I was a crash test dummy basically, who could smother them with my length, speed, and strength. (I'm a 6'0" point guard, or at least I was back then) They were much better basketball players than me by any measure, but they hated me guarding them in practice (which was kinda the point), as it would completely break aspects of their offence.

BTW, the 'grow up and face the fact' thing is a little simplistic for my liking. I spend a lot of time coaching in women's sport, go to more professional women's sport than mens, and have an enormous amount of respect for female athletes. My position is about ensuring there is active, high-level competition for women. That has NOT been an easy journey over the years, and it's taken a lot of effort by a lot of people to slowly build it. I am a tiny part of that, but I would push back hard on any thought that I think male basketball players are 'better'.
Let's start with HUMANS as a single pool of possible participants, and then begin classifying and groupting them according to ability relative to the sport they're interested in. And let's do so regardless of what dangly bits they have or don't have between their legs, or what pronouns they prefer, since that does not seem to have any effect on anyone's performance, at all. There will be a lot of other factors, however, that will have an effect. And those will vary relative to each sport. The obvious ones will be age, skill, and overall general athleticism, but as it relates to a specific sport, it could also be height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, eye-hand coordination, and many other factors. And all of these would be better indicators for creating teams to compete in sports than gender and age, alone are.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Let's start with HUMANS as a single pool of possible participants, and then begin classifying and groupting them according to ability relative to the sport they're interested in. And let's do so regardless of what dangly bits they have or don't have between their legs, or what pronouns they prefer, since that does not seem to have any effect on anyone's performance, at all. There will be a lot of other factors, however, that will have an effect. And those will vary relative to each sport. The obvious ones will be age, skill, and overall general athleticism, but as it relates to a specific sport, it could also be height, weight, strength, speed, endurance, eye-hand coordination, and many other factors. And all of these would be better indicators for creating teams to compete in sports than gender and age, alone are.

Again, I'm limiting my comments to basketball as it's what I know and am involved in.

1)This would relegate women's sport to nothing. Female participation rates would plummet. With them, transgender athletes would not be put in a good place either. The winner is...ideology I guess?

2) if you disagree, please describe what the top four levels of competition would look like. Right now there is a men's open competition at the national level (NBL) a women's competition at the national level (WNBL), and state competitions for each gender (NBL1 men and women). I suspect you can't and you'll wave this away, because...ideology. That seems important. Feel free to substitute American examples if you prefer, I'm familiar with them.

I'd love to see how you're planning to divide people up based on hand eye coordination whilst arguing that your way is less divisive and more inclusive of HUMANS as a single pool.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Again, I'm limiting my comments to basketball as it's what I know and am involved in.

1)This would relegate women's sport to nothing. Female participation rates would plummet. With them, transgender athletes would not be put in a good place either. The winner is...ideology I guess?
You have no basis for presuming so. And if it were so, then apparently a lot of women are into sports for the wrong reasons.
2) if you disagree, please describe what the top four levels of competition would look like.
Why all this focus on the top levels? What do you think sports are about? What about all the people that want to participate in sports but that cannot be "top level"?
I'd love to see how you're planning to divide people up based on hand eye coordination whilst arguing that your way is less divisive and more inclusive of HUMANS as a single pool.
Oh, c-mon. It's not rocket science. Start with the obvious and define overall abilities until you have equitable skill levels for competition. Everyone can participate at their skill level regardless of gender or preferred pronouns.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
You have no basis for presuming so. And if it were so, then apparently a lot of women are into sports for the wrong reasons.
Who are you to tell them their reasons are 'wrong'? As for whether I have a basis or not, I have considerably more experience in education, junior sport generally, and girls sport in particular than you, yet you seem happy enough to push back on my opinion.
What gives you a 'basis for presuming so' about any of this?
Why all this focus on the top levels? What do you think sports are about? What about all the people that want to participate in sports but that cannot be "top level"?
I'm really wondering at this point if you read my earlier information and links regarding women's basketball in Australia. To paraphrase, transgender athletes at anything below elite and sub-elite levels can nominate their own gender and will be graded based on ability. If you are worried about transgender athletes having access to competition, then you can stop worrying. It is...literally...only at the top levels that this is an issue for basketball in Australia.
THAT'S why the focus on the top levels.

As for what I think sports is about, I am passionate about female sports in particular because it encourages good health, positive body images, and because I can make more of a difference there, as women's sports commonly suffer more shortages in terms of funding and coaching than men's do. My tiny contribution perhaps makes a little more difference. I also have three daughters, and feel more connected to the girls programs locally because of it. I have no idea if that passes muster, and frankly I don't care. If you're trying to insinuate that I'm some sort of armchair sports fan who only cares about elite level sports, I'd kindly ask you to desist. It's insulting.

Oh, c-mon. It's not rocket science. Start with the obvious and define overall abilities until you have equitable skill levels for competition. Everyone can participate at their skill level regardless of gender or preferred pronouns.

So do it, then. How would you structure the top four competitions?

For what it's worth, I just finished a season coaching a girls team which contained a non-binary player. I have no idea what 'dangly bits' they had, and I didn't care. It was the second season in a row that player has been with me, as they asked to remain in whatever team I coached (I'd recommended they move up a grade) as they felt comfortable in my team. You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions about who I am, what my relationship with sports are, or how I feel about transgender, non-binary, or other non 'traditional' athletes. It's a simplistic and tired argument. I'm actually interested and invested in girls basketball. It takes time 6 days a week, every week. Apart from my family, it is the major passion in my life.

I don't have the luxury of tossing out an opinion on this without considering the actual impact it has at a grassroots level.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Sure, and if black people weren't dumber than white people there'd be more black CEOs. Right? Because bigotry doesn't exist
Sport is not about only "the best"
Are you seriously gonna suggest if a woman were capable of playing in the NBA, she would be prevented from doing so due to the sexism in the NBA? That all of the women currently playing in the WNBA are playing at a sub-par level compared to the NBA due to sexism and bigotry? Is this what you are suggesting?
Also, when we focus only on "the best" we encourage the bias and bigotry that we use to define "best". The best at what? Putting a ball through a hoop? Is that really what we're gong to use to define the best among us?
When it comes to the NBA? Yes!!! Whoever is best at putting a ball through a hoop is what should be defined as the best. Why does this obvious fact elude you?
But this isn't discussion about "biology"
No; my question is about biology. Care to answer it? Why not just go with biology?
, it's about biological gender.
What on Earth is biological gender? Did you just make that up? Because I’ve never heard that term before. Before I can respond to what you’re saying here, you need to tell me what you mean by “biological gender” so I can have an understanding of what you are saying.
Which is not an accurate indicator of performance levels in most sports. Just as age, alone, isn't. Or weight, alone, isn't. Or experience, alone, isn't. These are all factors, but alone, they are not accurate indicators of performance. Which is why, because "biology" has become a much more complex subject these days, we need to update how we determine performance levels in sports, to make sporting events more open to all, and more fair.
I never said biology alone was an indicator of performance level in sports, I just said it would be a good thing to separate instead of gender as currently defined. And by the way, there are sports that are separated by age, experience, and countless other things; but this conversation is not about the over 40 division vs open divisions; professional vs amature divisions; or other divisions; it is about male vs female divisions. IMO separating male vs female using biology makes more sense than separating according to gender as currently being defined. If you disagree, explain why.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And what about college sports scholarships? Real money on the table there. Clearly something must be done.
They should hopefully b available to anyone who might qualify, especially since transgenders in college sports makes up for a very small percentage of athletes.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Unless childbirth becomes a sport, I see no reason to use gender as a significant delineating factor in determining a human's competitive ability.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, anyone who has played sports for any length of time well know injuries can and do occur. As for myself, I accumulated two broken collarbones, a hairline fracture on my fibula, two ripped tendons in my calves, a dislocated left elbow that never healed properly, bone spurs, and numerous more minor injuries. If one doesn't accept the possibility of injuries, maybe they should just take up playing card games.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Unless childbirth becomes a sport, I see no reason to use gender as a significant delineating factor in determining a human's competitive ability.
That's why we should use biology instead. Biology IS a significant delineating factor in determining a human's competitive ability.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
They should hopefully b available to anyone who might qualify, especially since transgenders in college sports makes up for a very small percentage of athletes.
No matter the percentage, the problem becomes when a transgender athlete who is a biological male takes the slot that deserves to go to a biological female, that's when things begin to get unfair.
BTW, anyone who has played sports for any length of time well know injuries can and do occur. As for myself, I accumulated two broken collarbones, a hairline fracture on my fibula, two ripped tendons in my calves, a dislocated left elbow that never healed properly, bone spurs, and numerous more minor injuries. If one doesn't accept the possibility of injuries, maybe they should just take up playing card games.
But when a biological male is allowed to compete against biological females in collision sports, he is likely to cause injuries that would not be caused if he were only allowed to compete against other biological males like himself.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No matter the percentage, the problem becomes when a transgender athlete who is a biological male takes the slot that deserves to go to a biological female, that's when things begin to get unfair.

But when a biological male is allowed to compete against biological females in collision sports, he is likely to cause injuries that would not be caused if he were only allowed to compete against other biological males like himself.
Thus, a bigger male on a football field should not be allowed to compete because there are smaller males also in the same game? Maybe go tell that to the NCAA and NFL/AFL and see what they think of your idea.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Thus, a bigger male on a football field should not be allowed to compete because there are smaller males also in the same game? Maybe go tell that to the NCAA and NFL/AFL and see what they think of your idea.
No; the best person for the job should should hold the position regardless of size; unless it is a restricted game like women's only, or senior division.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No; the best person for the job should should hold the position regardless of size; unless it is a restricted game like women's only, or senior division.
That's OK, but in some cases, there are not enough transgender athletes in a given place and a given sport to have such a separate category.
 
Top