3 high school girls sue over transgender competition costing them races and scholarships

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: moebius

Performance decreasing drugs are allowed required?

The International Association of Athletics Federations has decided that it is an “unfair advantage”, requiring her to take take hormone-suppressing drugs to stay within gender rules.

Maybe the most "fair" approach would be not to go by gender, but to look at muscle mass, lung capacity etc.

a reply to: moebius

Nutrition...
Time spent in training...


Nah, testosterone levels makes more sense. That's a steeper slope than an Olympic ski jump.


"Take this. Or don't compete." Awesome.

a reply to: Phage

In Caster Semenya's case..maybe. She has more natural testosterone than normal, I guess more in line with a man

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: Phage
The main advantage of the higher testosterone levels is better /faster recovery between workouts, meaning that more time can be spent training.

The most fair step would be to get rid of gender based subcategories all together. The results of that would be catastrophic for sportswomen however.

a reply to: Phage

It is about the testosterone, the article I linked said she could compete without the drug, it's a bit unclear as to what she could compete in.

IAAF rules state Semenya - and other athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) - must either take medication in order to compete in track events from 400m to the mile, or change to another distance.

a reply to: vonclod

She has testes, as I recall. Perhaps she should be excluded because she's a freak. Or maybe a version of Special Olympics is called for.

Is there a specified testosterone level that the medication is required to attain?

How do we draw a tranny so that the aliens can tell the difference between a man, a woman and a mentally handicapped freak who has the backing of libtards the world over?



How?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Hurr.

Good one!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vonclod

She has testes, as I recall. Perhaps she should be excluded because she's a freak.

Is there a specified testosterone level that the medication is required to attain?

I don't know about the testes, but she is intersexed, so it's possible.

I wouldn't call her a freak..I did use that word earlier(I shouldn't of, but I just can't respect a Fallon Fox)

It's an interesting situation, I don't much more about it outside the article I linked. My Mom sent me the link, she thought it was wrong to make her take anything. Me, I leaned a bit to thinking it was ok, I guess there are side effects, that changes my perspective a bit.

I have no idea about what testosterone level they want to see. I did find a number.. 5 nmol/L limit for serum testosterone.

a reply to: vonclod

One may wonder. The intersexed are not new. In the past, before any sort of testing, who was competing as who?

More on topic; if a transfemale has the testoterone levels of a male, what happens? What about a transmale who wants to compete as a male.

Interesting times. But genders are among the least of our meaningful worries. I think.

a reply to: Phage

More on topic; if a transfemale has the testoterone levels of a male, what happens? What about a transmale who wants to compete as a male.

You're making my head spin!!

Interesting times. But genders are among the least of our meaningful worries. I think.

You are quite right,

originally posted by: Phage

Interesting times. But genders are among the least of our meaningful worries. I think.

Unless you are one of the girls who doesn't get a scholarship and can't afford college and their entire life trajectory is changed because of this.

a reply to: Phage

Either everyone who is not competing fairly as a woman (women taking T to become men, men who decide they are women, hermaphroditic women) compete as men, or they can have their own fair competitions.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: Phage
The main advantage of the higher testosterone levels is better /faster recovery between workouts, meaning that more time can be spent training.

The most fair step would be to get rid of gender based subcategories all together. The results of that would be catastrophic for sportswomen however.

Men aren't stronger, faster, etc. because they are able to recover more quickly and train more often. Testosterone has permanent effects upon muscle and skeletal development, e.g., it increases sattelite cell proliferation and the number of myonuclei in muscle. And just injecting testosterone has near-immediate effects upon endurance, strength and speed, not to mention the psychological benefits in athletic sports.

The problem nowadays is that everyone thinks they can always do everything and if something stops them they cry because they are feeling sad.
Back when I was young I wanted to be:

1. A Pilot of a passenger plane [no women, too small probably]
2. A Stewardess [not tall enough]
3. Go into the Foreign Legion [not male, not effed up enough in the head]
4. A Scientist [Bingo, have brains, became a scientist]

There is something for everyone and there used to be good and bad reasons for not letting everyone doing everything.
Some rules were sexist, some rules were spot on.
I am against saying no to people who are perfectly capable and it's juts about their genitalia. For example Pilot. I would have made a really good Pilot, but hey, Scientist is actually better.
However large bottomed, female police officers are a no-no. Not only are they disabled due to their weight, they are then on top of it weaker.
Any police that is hired not for being able to Police but for feels is wrong.
I saw Pakistani Police and just like everywhere else, they do favours to friends and family. It's what they do, it's not necessarily bad but it shouldn't happen in the Police force.
I've seen Police-men as tiny as a petite woman. No-no. Where is the authority?

Am I a kind of -ist? Sure in modern times I will be called words but in sensible times, I will be praised and speak the truth.

BAck to content: If you have body issues [mental body issues], that cause you to mutilate your body either with drugs or a scalpel, I don't want you in the Police and I certainly don't want you to compete in sport where your inner maladjustment has negative effects on the people around you.

In short: You can't be a sports person. You can play sports privately, with your partner or your children or whatever but you just can't be a serious sports person. It's as simple as that or...
...or start your own league. Like the paralympics.
Poeple with no legs can't run, if they need aids to run, they can still run, in the paralympics as otherwise they'd be off before anyone else catches on.
Blind people can't be surgeons.
Transfemales can't compete in female sports.
If they do they show that they hate women, that they are selfish and that winning means more than justice.
Anyone letting them is doing nobody a favour.

What we should teach kids is not that they can be whoever they want, but how to deal with a situation positively if they can't.

a reply to: Nothin

Still have a hard time understanding the problem, if someone wants to give a $20.00 prize to the nicest purple shirt, why anyone would complain about that.

I think the answer you're looking for is that the lawsuit is not really about scholarships. It's about the conditions put on schools who receive federal funding. When Title IX was passed in 1972, it was to provide equal programs/activities to women. Because sports are performance based, and women so not have the same physical capabilities as men, before Title IX passed, women could not effectively compete with men in sports, so schools were putting money into men's sports but not women's sports. Title IX requires schools that receive federal funding to put as much money into women's sports as they put in men's sports. But the Feds didn't enforce Title IX for many years, which prompted many lawsuits by women, which they most often won.

So this lawsuit is basically suing the schools for violating Title IX which demand equal opportunities for women by schools receiving federal funding.

The plaintiffs will have to show that the original intent of the law was based upon anataomical and biological sex, not "gender Identity," and that it still applies to sex not "gender identity." They will have to provide legal precedents and case law, showing instances where the court has already ruled in similar cases. And they will have to show that the law is not being enforced/applied equally, including (in my opinion) allowing persons of a male sex to participate in single-sex sports.

So the court is actually being asked to rule on whether or not Title IX sex-based rights can be applied to boys/men who identify as women, and allow them to compete in women's sports programs.

The opportunities for scholarships, grants, or whatever, would only be pertinent to the case as a potential material loss for the girls/women who lose to boys/men who identify as women.
------------------------------------------

To your greater point, schools can (in theory) do whatever they want... as long as they don't take federal money. If they told the feds that they don't want federal money any more, then there would be nothing for these girls to sue over, because the school would no longer be under Title IX mandates.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vonclod

One may wonder. The intersexed are not new. In the past, before any sort of testing, who was competing as who?

More on topic; if a transfemale has the testoterone levels of a male, what happens? What about a transmale who wants to compete as a male.

Interesting times. But genders are among the least of our meaningful worries. I think.

Before we were introduced to Caitlyn Jenner, Bruce Jenner captured the hearts of America exactly 39 years ago by winning the gold medal in the men's decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal.

Most athletes who dedicate themselves to achieving such goals all often have choices to make. Sometimes sacrificing certain personal freedoms in order to fulfill their dreams. If a transindividual chooses to compete they should make the decision which is more important. Winning in athletics by not taking hormonal drugs, saving that life change for after they reach their dream or taking hormonal enhancers and pursuing their dream of gender change.

It really seems so logical.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: JAGStorm

I would like to see transgenders compete in women''s boxing, MMA, basketball and tennis.

Then you will clearly see how unfair the competion really is.

Agreed, but we can *already* see how unfair it is in track for example.

Cheating, straight and simple. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure cheating, nothing less, nothing more.

a reply to: JAGStorm
When they change their God given sex they have entered a neither world. A world of no possibility athletically. Accept this. You cannot thrust you mental illness on those who have accepted their natural given assignment. Live you life in peace. Work and take care of those that matter to you. But do not cheat nature cause you are a freak of it. Those young girls trained hard to get some gains only to be negated by a genetically false freak of nature.

Good, I hope they win the case. It's effin' ridiculous that it has even come to this point. They have a advantage over females right out of the gate. There's no debating that. Are there some natural women out there that could compete at that level against those that are trans and win? Probably, but the majority of natural women will not be able to compete against someone born a male, transitioned or not.

They are spitting in the faces of girls/women with this rabid scramble to include trans athletes and you can bet your butt that there are those out there that will take advantage of this inclusivity to cheat themselves into a scholarship that they probably wouldn't have earned had kept to their bio male gender.