Transgender athlete

[Jose Fly]

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.

That's a great story! Good thing you had a car!

My youngest kid is a college athlete (goalkeeper) and is working towards playing pro soccer (she's already made a semi-pro team). When she was young, in our area there was three levels they could play in....premier, select, and recreational. Premier was the top level for kids who wanted to, and could, play against the best (with sub-divisions of A teams and B teams), select was still competitive but didn't have as high expectations for travel and training, and rec was the "just for fun" league.

Every once in a while I'd tell her that there's no pressure to play premier. If she found it overwhelming or too intense, she could always play select or rec and that would be perfectly acceptable. But OMG she absolutely freaked out at that! "NO WAY will I ever play select or rec!!!" she'd yell. For her, it was either premier or nothing.

A lot of folks just can't relate to that mentality, and I'm not sure there's a way to get them to understand it.

 

[Koldo]

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

I am suggesting we either be fair or stop pretending we care about fairness in sports.

If we don't care about fairness, do away with women categories. If we care about fairness, let's either create new categories or adjust the rules in a way that an inherent physical trait is not a game breaker.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

So if someone told you you couldn't compete at the State level because your arms were too long and that wasn't fair to the others, how would you have taken that?

What two height categories are you suggesting for basketball?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am suggesting we either be fair or stop pretending we care about fairness in sports.

If we don't care about fairness, do away with women categories. If we care about fairness, let's either create new categories or adjust the rules in a way that an inherent physical trait is not a game breaker.

Sheesh, I've already tried to explain how "fair" means different things in different contexts. Did you already forget that?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Being fast is kind of a deal breaker in the 100m.

Could make an Olympic event for people who can’t run 100m in less than 20 seconds.

Big fat guys against little people, see who works the hardest.

 

[Koldo]

So if someone told you you couldn't compete at the State level because your arms were too long and that wasn't fair to the others, how would you have taken that?

What two height categories are you suggesting for basketball?

I would have said: How do my arms being bigger than others benefit me?

I suggested a Max 1,85 meters category. But that's just a suggestion.

 

[Koldo]

Being fast is kind of a deal breaker in the 100m.

Could make an Olympic event for people who can’t run 100m in less than 20 seconds.

Big fat guys against little people, see who works the hardest.

False equivalence. Obviously being the fastest is the entire point of 100m.

 

[Koldo]

Sheesh, I've already tried to explain how "fair" means different things in different contexts. Did you already forget that?

I disagree with how you have defined the term.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would have said: How do my arms being bigger than others benefit me?

Sorry, I was thinking of something else.

I suggested a Max 1,85 meters category. But that's just a suggestion.

Since you've already stated that height is an advantage in basketball, that would make the taller league the better one, right? So then what would you say to the under 1.85m people who are actually better players than some in the over 1.85m league? "You're just too short"?

 

[Augustus]

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.

When I was at school, if your dad was a plumber you’d have a great chance of getting in the football team as he had a van and could take 8 kids and a load of kit.

Coach couldn’t risk you dropping out

The spoilt kid who had bats, balls, pads etc would be a shoo in for the cricket team.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Cool. I'm okay with a theoretical discussion about these things. But we might talk past each other a bit, because I'm deliberately sticking to basketball because of the large amount of experience and exposure I have.
For what it's worth, my broad belief is that different sports will require different approaches, and we should be aiming to make sports as inclusive as possible. I know we probably differ on what 'inclusive' means, but I'd be judging that by participant rates at all levels, by the health and success of the elite level competitions, and by the ability of different groups of people to play and be connected with the sport.

Obviously on that last point, including transgender athletes is a no-brainer, and I think it should be the aim. Just that we need to keep it in context of the first two points.

That's a broader, and more theoretical statement of what I believe, in case that helps clarify anything between us. My thoughts on basketball are much more specific and less transportable to other scenarios.

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.

Correct. Which is why all competitions here beneath the elite and sub-elite levels have various categories, and allow transgender athletes to nominate for whichever gender they identify as.
And for the elite and sub-elite levels (which, again, is a very specific term, and basically relates to professional level competition only) there is currently not a strong rule in place, but instead a vague mention of dealing with this on a case by case basis.
The first test of this has literally just occurred (at the sub-elite level, from a player recently playing at the state level, where there is an element of player payments, etc) and it is almost certain she will be given permission to play.

At the elite and sub-elite levels, you are literally talking about business entities with substantial costs, including player and staff payments, venue hire for games and training, fees to the league (to support referee development, infrastructure, etc), fan-bases and associated membership revenue, etc.
Splitting those into smaller entities doesn't result in more access to elite competition. It results in a broken top-tier. (Again...elite and sub-elite has a very specific meaning, and in basketball terms you are talking about a televised sport which needs to compete against international competitions for players, and against larger sports like Australian Rules Football for advertising, etc).

It is worth noting that the financial viability or otherwise of these top tier competitions has a major impact of the accessibility, subsidisation, and sustainability of various programs at the lower levels, PARTICULARLY less financially self-sufficient programs, which still includes girl's basketball, as well as disabled versions, domestic versions for weaker players or old fellas like me, etc.

 

[Kfox]

I am sorry but an exception doesn't make a rule.

Endomorph body type has not even been an exception! At least a few short guys have made it in the NBA; if you gonna claim height, you gotta claim some of the other things I mentioned also.

I did give you a straight answer: I don't know what traits other than height are game breakers.

I just listed some; you are just refusing to acknowledge it.

But anyone that properly research the sport can figure this out.

In other words, you don’t have an answer. How about if we just leave things as they are and only have the best allowed in professional sports.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry, I was thinking of something else.


Since you've already stated that height is an advantage in basketball, that would make the taller league the better one, right? So then what would you say to the under 1.85m people who are actually better players than some in the over 1.85m league? "You're just too short"?

It's funny. Not much gets me going more than blocking the shot of some 200cm dude (not that I get up there much these days).
My team has it's own big guys (as you'd appreciate) and they are heavily reliant on little fellas like me to space the floor and give them the ball where they need it. I worry way less about a really tall team than I do about a team with a few good talls, and some great guard play to take advantage of them.

What casual fans don't appreciate is that it's really not the big guys that cause little guys like me to miss out. At least, not in as straightforwards a way as 'big is good, little is bad'. I lick my lips when some big spud trundles out to the perimeter to guard me, even at 48...lol

Back when I was trying out for high level teams, at a basic level they'd want a mix of heights (really, a mix of ballhandling, speed, perimeter shooting, inside play, etc, but let's just say 'heights' for simplicity sake).

Team of ten, they might have a couple of little guys (with little being anyone average height or smaller). Then they'd have about 4 wings, standing between 6'2" and 6'5". Then they'd have their bigs. 6'5" upto sky is the limit (although 6'11" is the largest I've personally faced).

There is a LOT of competition amongst the little fellas. If 150 people were trying out for the ten spots, half would be little guys, and 2 will make it. Again, simplifying, but...

Whereas a 6'11" guy might get past the first cut if he can manage to jog up the court without tripping over, because there is probably only 1 of him at the tryouts. It's a scarcity thing, moreso than an exclusionary thing.

It gets different at the NBA level, as you are literally talking about the most genetically freaky group of people on the planet I think. So those ball handling roles can suddenly be filled by 6'3" guys, because the wing roles are filled by 6'7" guys, etc. Means the little guys like me aren't just competing with each other for a spot or two, we are competing against the most fluid of the taller guys. Still, the height thing is overplayed to some extent. Build the ultimate basketball player, and he's more like a strong wing. Lebron, Kawhi, those guys. Super tall players lack the speed and fluidity for the top level, but can DOMINATE at lower levels (Hi Tacko Fall).

Hard pass on having to play in a league of short guys. It would be super fast, and basically not feel much like basketball at all. Taking advantage of mismatches is half the fun.

 

[Kfox]

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

Only 2 categories? How is that fair? How is the guy 6'6" supposed to compete against the guy 7'2"? Or the guy 6'1" supposed to compete against the guy 6'6"?

 

[Jose Fly]

I disagree with how you have defined the term.

Well that's not a surprise, since you apparently see excluding an otherwise able player from a league because he's too short, as more fair than a league that's open to anyone who's good enough to make a team.

I've noticed a pattern among the people who are replying to your posts, i.e., that you avoid questions, rarely give specifics, and speak in vague generalities. So unless you have something concrete you wish to discuss and are willing to engage more openly, I believe I'll just step aside.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When I was at school, if your dad was a plumber you’d have a great chance of getting in the football team as he had a van and could take 8 kids and a load of kit.

Coach couldn’t risk you dropping out

The spoilt kid who had bats, balls, pads etc would be a shoo in for the cricket team.

Hah!!!

My daughter and I both wonder whether me being an accredited coach will help or hinder her moving forwards.
It helps her make a team, as they are always looking for 'proper' coaches, and as she moves up levels, what 'proper' means is more an more serious. So her having a proper coach for a dad is either neutral or helpful in making a team.
But they also need to spread the 'proper' coaches out. So she is in the 5 team. Would she be in the 4's if I wasn't a coach?
At that level, it's soooo subjective and is basically splitting hairs, and doesn't really matter. But if she squeaked into the 3's, all of a sudden she gets access to an additional training session per week, and would be included in a more professional development academy.

Ultimately I love coaching her, she has improved a lot, and we're hoping we get a chance to go head to head against the 4's more for fun than anything. But there are definitely sliding doors moments in junior sport.

(note : 4 team, 5 team, etc might be a bit opaque. My daughter plays at a club with 50 boys teams at her age group level, and about 21 girls teams. They're the biggest club in the southern hemisphere in terms of participant numbers. So she's doing very well. But the 1 team? Holy crap those kids are amazing...)

 

[Jose Fly]

It's funny. Not much gets me going more than blocking the shot of some 200cm dude (not that I get up there much these days).
My team has it's own big guys (as you'd appreciate) and they are heavily reliant on little fellas like me to space the floor and give them the ball where they need it. I worry way less about a really tall team than I do about a team with a few good talls, and some great guard play to take advantage of them.

What casual fans don't appreciate is that it's really not the big guys that cause little guys like me to miss out. At least, not in as straightforwards a way as 'big is good, little is bad'. I lick my lips when some big spud trundles out to the perimeter to guard me, even at 48...lol

Exactly! When I was a player/coach, whenever we'd play a really tall team, I'd gather everyone in the huddle and just say "Let's run them to death", and we'd usually win.

Back when I was trying out for high level teams, at a basic level they'd want a mix of heights (really, a mix of ballhandling, speed, perimeter shooting, inside play, etc, but let's just say 'heights' for simplicity sake).

Thank you for pointing that out! Apparently some folks don't realize that.

Team of ten, they might have a couple of little guys (with little being anyone average height or smaller). Then they'd have about 4 wings, standing between 6'2" and 6'5". Then they'd have their bigs. 6'5" upto sky is the limit (although 6'11" is the largest I've personally faced).

There is a LOT of competition amongst the little fellas. If 150 people were trying out for the ten spots, half would be little guys, and 2 will make it. Again, simplifying, but...

Whereas a 6'11" guy might get past the first cut if he can manage to jog up the court without tripping over, because there is probably only 1 of him at the tryouts. It's a scarcity thing, moreso than an exclusionary thing.

That's a really good point. It's like when I played in a city league and our coach saw me and declared "we have a center" because at 6', I was the tallest on the team. But at our first game the other team had a guy 6'8" and I got killed! Had someone taller than me even shown up, they would've been on the team no questions asked!

It gets different at the NBA level, as you are literally talking about the most genetically freaky group of people on the planet I think. So those ball handling roles can suddenly be filled by 6'3" guys, because the wing roles are filled by 6'7" guys, etc. Means the little guys like me aren't just competing with each other for a spot or two, we are competing against the most fluid of the taller guys. Still, the height thing is overplayed to some extent. Build the ultimate basketball player, and he's more like a strong wing. Lebron, Kawhi, those guys. Super tall players lack the speed and fluidity for the top level, but can DOMINATE at lower levels (Hi Tacko Fall).

Oh heck yes....the NBA guys are just plain freaks of nature. Until you see them in person and close, it's hard to appreciate. I'll never forget the first time I saw Shaq play. It was his lone MVP year and I mostly watched with my jaw dropped at how he was not only the biggest guy out there, but in some ways also the quickest.

Hard pass on having to play in a league of short guys. It would be super fast, and basically not feel much like basketball at all. Taking advantage of mismatches is half the fun.

Yup, and those suggesting breaking up the league by height just don't get it, and likely never will. Heck, I'm not even sure what such a proposal is intended to accomplish.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, I was thinking of something else.


Since you've already stated that height is an advantage in basketball, that would make the taller league the better one, right? So then what would you say to the under 1.85m people who are actually better players than some in the over 1.85m league? "You're just too short"?

Being the tallest player doesn't make you the best one. Being tall however is almost a necessity to be one of the best.

 

[Koldo]

Well that's not a surprise, since you apparently see excluding an otherwise able player from a league because he's too short, as more fair than a league that's open to anyone who's good enough to make a team.

I've noticed a pattern among the people who are replying to your posts, i.e., that you avoid questions, rarely give specifics, and speak in vague generalities. So unless you have something concrete you wish to discuss and are willing to engage more openly, I believe I'll just step aside.

I see no problem in allowing a short basketball player to play in an open category.

I am answering as long as I see the questions as pertinent, which most are, and I have given specifics such as pointing out the issue with short basketball players. I have already presented my view, if anyone wishes to discuss it they are free to do so.

 

[Koldo]

Only 2 categories? How is that fair? How is the guy 6'6" supposed to compete against the guy 7'2"? Or the guy 6'1" supposed to compete against the guy 6'6"?

Absolute equality is not possible. Small height differences wouldn't make much of a difference.