NAIA ruling on Transgender athletes

Bonesaw said:

A possible advantage....wow.

Click to expand...

You might want to read the scientific articles. There is no proof *YET* that there is an advantage. There may be proof in the future, but not today.

I stand firmly on the side of defending female athletes, including my daughters. If it was revealed a biological male was on my daughter's college softball team, I'd yank her from the team and college so fast their heads would spin.

Female athletes who choose to play against guys in football do so with the expectation they're at a serious disadvantage to their competition. I'm also sure they'd be advised against doing it in the first place. A girl playing softball, or swimming against other females, has no such expectations. The playing field is level, for the most part. Sure, others may be more talented or physically gifted, but not to the extent of a male versus a female would be.

Will Thomas is 6'2". All the transitioning in the world won't take the height advantage he has over Riley Gaines away. It won't take away the advantage he has in limb length, or his lung capacity. Allowing him to shatter records against females is wrong.

Watch this video of the greatest female tennis player talk about playing against Andy Murray. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

sluggers said:

So, should we exclude people because they transitioned? Remember, that means you are excluding children from sports.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of the ruling. This was for college-aged players, not children. And allowing children to transition is another rabbit hole you might not want to go down.

sluggers said:

Whether you agree with the other side or not, it might be helpful to understand their position.

The vast majority of people who play sports are mediocre. They play sports to compete and for fellowship with other players, not to win. After all, sports are supposed to be about learning leadership and teamwork, not how to hit a 4-inch yellow ball.

So, should we exclude people because they transitioned? Remember, that means you are excluding children from sports.

If sports is about identifying the best athletes, then there is no point in having female sports. Why? High-level male athletes are stronger, faster, and bigger than comparable high-level female athletes.

I'm not sure what I think about it. It's very complicated.

Click to expand...

I don't know about these "children" you mention. What "children" are threatened with exclusion here? BTW...how is the idea of "transitioning" a child not thoroughly repugnant to any rational person?

The thread started with a discussion of college sports and the NAIA's decision. The recent examples we've seen, such as women's college swimming, aren't hard to to draw a conclusion about.

This isn't complicated.

Males competing on female sports teams at the MS/HS or college level is fundamentally wrong.

Allowing males access to female locker rooms because they are supposedly on the team is criminal.

LEsoftballdad said:

That wasn't the point of the ruling. This was for college-aged players, not children. And allowing children to transition is another rabbit hole you might not want to go down.

Click to expand...

I'm aware the rule was only for NAIA. The issue of "allowing children to transition" is not up for discussion here.

Just want to say thanks for this thread before it is locked or deleted. For me this is such a black and white issue, I appreciate when I see honest people with honest options.

Strike2 said:

I don't know about these "children" you mention. What "children" are threatened with exclusion here? BTW...how is the idea of "transitioning" a child not thoroughly repugnant to any rational person?

The thread started with a discussion of college sports and the NAIA's decision. The recent examples we've seen, such as women's college swimming, aren't hard to to draw a conclusion about.

This isn't complicated.

Males competing on female sports teams at the MS/HS or college level is fundamentally wrong.

Allowing males access to female locker rooms because they are supposedly on the team is criminal.

Click to expand...

We are not going to argue whether transitioning should be allowed.

You're stating conclusions without providing any reasons. Simply saying, "it's wrong because it's wrong" isn't an argument. Again, there is no scientific proof *as of yet* that transitioning males after a year have an advantage.

How about if transgenders were provided a separate place to change clothes? Would that be OK? For rec league sports, clothes changing is a non-issue.

You guys assume I'm against the NAIA ruling. I'm trying to work through this. The Women's Sports Foundation is against the NAIA ruling, Donna Lopiano, one of the founders of the WSF, is for the NAIA ruling.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donnal...he-voices-of-female-athletes/?sh=649c905d1d6e

Lock the thread. Nobody is going to change their opinion or learn about the issue in a unique way here but comaraderie over the common love of softball may be lost in the political shuffle.

LEsoftballdad said:

I stand firmly on the side of defending female athletes, including my daughters. If it was revealed a biological male was on my daughter's college softball team, I'd yank her from the team and college so fast their heads would spin.

Female athletes who choose to play against guys in football do so with the expectation they're at a serious disadvantage to their competition. I'm also sure they'd be advised against doing it in the first place. A girl playing softball, or swimming against other females, has no such expectations. The playing field is level, for the most part. Sure, others may be more talented or physically gifted, but not to the extent of a male versus a female would be.

Will Thomas is 6'2". All the transitioning in the world won't take the height advantage he has over Riley Gaines away. It won't take away the advantage he has in limb length, or his lung capacity. Allowing him to shatter records against females is wrong.

Watch this video of the greatest female tennis player talk about playing against Andy Murray. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Click to expand...

I agree with not allowing biological males due to a strength advantage. Not so much on a supposed height advantage since my DD is 6’3” so under that argument we’d ban thousands of women over 6’.

very simple. olympic standard. XX is female, XY is male. sorry about the genetic anamolies, or anyone else... you don't get to play.