|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 8, 2019 0:24:04 GMT -5
The anger in the “allow them to play” crowd also confirms what I originally suspected. You can’t have reasonable debate, you just want to yell and insult and shut down all debate, because it’s easier than addressing the facts and the evidence.
DEAR TROLL,
THERE ISN'T A DEBATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
Maybe wake up and watch some volleyball? The Gophers and Creighton are headed to a fifth set.
It isn't an issue in volleyball, at this time. It is an issue in U.S. high school sports, in particular wrestling and track and field. It is also an issue in international cycling and weightlifting. To say that it has never happened is just to inform the world that you are uninformed.
I look forward to Matt Anderson changing his name to Matilda Anderson and leading the U.S. Women's Volleyball team to a gold medal at the 2020 Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Dec 8, 2019 0:39:41 GMT -5
DEAR TROLL, THERE ISN'T A DEBATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. Maybe wake up and watch some volleyball? The Gophers and Creighton are headed to a fifth set. It isn't an issue in volleyball, at this time. It is an issue in U.S. high school sports, in particular wrestling and track and field. It is also an issue in international cycling and weightlifting. To say that it has never happened is just to inform the world that you are uninformed. I look forward to Matt Anderson changing his name to Matilda Anderson and leading the U.S. Women's Volleyball team to a gold medal at the 2020 Olympics.
The Matt Anderson commit is where the other side makes some good points. Nothing has ever happened where a Matt caliber player has come out as transgender and competed against women. That’s where they say we are arguing over a nothing topic.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 8, 2019 1:05:08 GMT -5
It isn't an issue in volleyball, at this time. It is an issue in U.S. high school sports, in particular wrestling and track and field. It is also an issue in international cycling and weightlifting. To say that it has never happened is just to inform the world that you are uninformed. I look forward to Matt Anderson changing his name to Matilda Anderson and leading the U.S. Women's Volleyball team to a gold medal at the 2020 Olympics.
The Matt Anderson commit is where the other side makes some good points. Nothing has ever happened where a Matt caliber player has come out as transgender and competed against women. That’s where they say we are arguing over a nothing topic. It will happen in volleyball some day. It has already happened in international cycling and weightlifting.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Dec 8, 2019 3:02:31 GMT -5
I must have missed all those stories about trans athletes winning all those women's championships and dominating their sport. I guess you have. This is actually a pretty big issue in international cycling and weightlifting right now. You must be living under a rock if you haven't heard of the controversy and litigation resulting from biological males winning track championships in Connecticut high school girls competition. So, everyone who doesn't follow international cycling and weightlifting, lives under a rock? That's a lot of people living under rocks. I cannot think of another "sport" I could care less about than cycling and weightlifting. Oh wait, I just thought of one: Bullfighting. But I can see how having a transgender matador would be totally unfair to the bull.
|
|
|
Post by versatility on Dec 8, 2019 10:51:50 GMT -5
Dan Rettke needs to be DNA'd The few transgenders I have seen (only one volleyball player from Brazil) it was clear that they all were born men. Thank you for saying you’ve only seen a few “transgenders” because of those who have fully completed their transition the majority do not look like men. In fact, I’d venture to guess you’ve met more “transgenders” than you realize and just couldn’t tell. While we’re on the topic of looking like a man, I’ve seen many posters on here say Jordyn Poulter is built like and plays like a man, and she does. Should she be banned for looking and playing like a man? It does give her a physiological advantage. And again that description of her has been used by MANY other posters many, many times to describe her during her NCAA days. I could name several more women who look and play like men. So is your criteria for banning a player whether or not they look and play like men? Or is it DNA AND appearance? If so I’d like to call for gender tests for Poulter and a host of other female athletes.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Dec 8, 2019 11:03:45 GMT -5
I'm surprised that schools like Cal Berkeley don't roll out entire teams full of athletes that merely "identify" as women.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 8, 2019 11:39:02 GMT -5
The few transgenders I have seen (only one volleyball player from Brazil) it was clear that they all were born men. Thank you for saying you’ve only seen a few “transgenders” because of those who have fully completed their transition the majority do not look like men. In fact, I’d venture to guess you’ve met more “transgenders” than you realize and just couldn’t tell. While we’re on the topic of looking like a man, I’ve seen many posters on here say Jordyn Poulter is built like and plays like a man, and she does. Should she be banned for looking and playing like a man? It does give her a physiological advantage. And again that description of her has been used by MANY other posters many, many times to describe her during her NCAA days. I could name several more women who look and play like men. So is your criteria for banning a player whether or not they look and play like men? Or is it DNA AND appearance? If so I’d like to call for gender tests for Poulter and a host of other female athletes. It isn't appearance. It's chromosomes.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 8, 2019 11:45:42 GMT -5
Thank you for saying you’ve only seen a few “transgenders” because of those who have fully completed their transition the majority do not look like men. In fact, I’d venture to guess you’ve met more “transgenders” than you realize and just couldn’t tell. While we’re on the topic of looking like a man, I’ve seen many posters on here say Jordyn Poulter is built like and plays like a man, and she does. Should she be banned for looking and playing like a man? It does give her a physiological advantage. And again that description of her has been used by MANY other posters many, many times to describe her during her NCAA days. I could name several more women who look and play like men. So is your criteria for banning a player whether or not they look and play like men? Or is it DNA AND appearance? If so I’d like to call for gender tests for Poulter and a host of other female athletes. It isn't appearance. It's chromosomes. It's been known for decades that "chromosomes" is not the right answer. Too many edge cases where people either do not have the typical XX or XY chromosomes or where people actually do have those chromosomes but for some other reason they don't have the typical sexual development associated with them. Because of this, no major sports sanctioning body has relied on chromosome testing for a long time now.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Dec 8, 2019 11:52:58 GMT -5
I dread the day I spot a big ole spandex bulge at a WVB game.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Dec 8, 2019 12:31:37 GMT -5
It isn't appearance. It's chromosomes. It's been known for decades that "chromosomes" is not the right answer. Too many edge cases where people either do not have the typical XX or XY chromosomes or where people actually do have those chromosomes but for some other reason they don't have the typical sexual development associated with them. Because of this, no major sports sanctioning body has relied on chromosome testing for a long time now. What about banning people born with “typical” XY chromosomes from competing in women’s sports? Obviously, it is not a total solution but it’s a start.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Dec 8, 2019 12:48:54 GMT -5
It's been known for decades that "chromosomes" is not the right answer. Too many edge cases where people either do not have the typical XX or XY chromosomes or where people actually do have those chromosomes but for some other reason they don't have the typical sexual development associated with them. Because of this, no major sports sanctioning body has relied on chromosome testing for a long time now. What about banning people born with “typical” XY chromosomes from competing in women’s sports? Obviously, it is not a total solution but it’s a start. And who is going to pay for testing of all these athletes - or are we going to only test the players that don't look XX? Will this test be part of the NCAA clearinghouse - so we test the HS kids before any roster spots are offered? I'm sure many women currently competing would be bared based on your not XY test - I suspect you don't understand how common this situation is.
|
|
|
Post by Moonlight on Dec 8, 2019 13:04:20 GMT -5
Track, cycling, lifting, vb, bb, MMA, etc.. only negatively affects women.
In regards to 'this is not happening', denying the actual is not convincing. There is evidence (clearly) and facts that we can easily observe. The pattern is observable. You can easily predict between men's and women's athletics, which will be next to have a record set by a trans athlete. Of course cisgender men will not lose at the highest level to transgender men. Cisgender women lose in a way cisgender men will not. Some women's records being broken:
“What a day, 9 for 9! Masters world squat record, open world bench record, masters world record, and masters world total record!" (A previously unnotable male lifter, now competing in women's division)
McKinnon (cycling) gold metals, titles, record etc.
It's simply a fact that this has happened only in women's athletics. Some think it is okay some do not.
But saying 'this is not an issue' when elite female athletes litterally have gone on record saying 'this IS an issue' could do with some clarification on your part. Do you mean to say female athletes are not qualified to have opinions on women's athletics? Or do you mean these female athletes may have opinions but they aren't worth much? Should perhaps men (who lose nothing here) be the arbiters of what feelings and opinions are permissable?
A truly novel idea would be to pretend only men exist and in which case we could logically say 'those womens' opinions never happened'. Wait that is what you are saying yes? It does simplify the matter yes, but if these women who want to be treated equally to men do not exist, how can you call them unintelligent cucks? What a dilemma! Besides that one caveat I think you have hit on a great solution. Instead of saying the opinions of female athletes do not matter, lets just say they never happened.
But honestly the pattern goes one way. We need a better solution than not giving a rip about women's athletics or pretending their opinions don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Dec 8, 2019 13:18:02 GMT -5
Geez, it's not even the offseason. This will be my only post on this, because I'm hoping it fades away to the second page once the tournament games start tonight. There have already been 40-page threads on this topic, so if you really feel like engaging with the "discussion" around this issue, I'd suggest you start reading. I highly doubt you or anyone has anything novel to add. And shocker: these threads always end up operating similar to pointless Facebook comments debates. So sure, if you have an agenda or stance you need to promulgate, post away, but let's not veil this at some attempt for advocacy or equality. This is Volleytalk, not the US Senate floor. My takeaway from the previous "discussions" on this board: people can say they aren't transphoblic blah blah blah, but the most telling sign to me about people's stance on this issue is that the argument is always "it's unfair to MY daughter or MY team" instead of focusing on dignifying the trans individuals, by positively exploring how we can modify the rules to adapt to our growing understanding of gender and sex. It's a f*cking game compared to someone's identity/life, and all of these inflated/dramatic fears about "biological boys are going to beat my biological girl daughter!!!!" really just demonstrates misplaced values and a lack of empathy. So u support coed sports to the exclusion of gender specific sports. And don't keep score because it's just a game.
|
|
|
Post by maestro on Dec 9, 2019 5:08:03 GMT -5
We know, scientifically, that people with specific genetic profiles have genetic advantages when it comes to specific athletic activities. Be careful what you ask for here, lest you start finding yourself arguing that, for example, Kenyans need to be banned from Olympic marathons in the name of fairness to all the other athletes. This analogy breaks down because there isn't a separate competition class for Kenyans and, say, Norwegians. And thus no Kenyans transitioning to Norwegian and competing (and excelling) in the Norwegian division. Also, approaching this analogy from the other end, if the division between male and female is as "arbitrary" (to use your word) as the division between Kenyan and Norwegian, then this analogy suggests that there shouldn't be separate divisions for male and female, just like there aren't for Kenyans/Norwegians. And that, as rook pointed out, is likely not in the best interest of female athletes. Too many edge cases where people either do not have the typical XX or XY chromosomes... I'm sure many women currently competing would be bared based on your not XY test - I suspect you don't understand how common this situation is. While I'm aware that it's relatively common for a male to have an extra X chromosome, and somewhat less common for a female to be short an X chromosome, a bit of Googling (which may not be accurate cuz the interwebs, and if so please correct me) turned up that XX males (i.e. males without a Y chromosome) "occurs in approximately 1:20,000 newborn males". While the incidence of XY females (i.e. females with a Y chromosome) "is approximately 1 in 100,000 people". So, while not perfect, it seems to me that testing for the presence of a Y chromosome would be a decent jumping off point to disqualify someone from participating in women's sports. Yes, it would wrongly allow 1:20,000 males to compete, and would unfairly disqualify 1:100,000 females, but that would be better than abolishing women's sports entirely IMO. And for the record, I'm under 55 and Libertarian.
|
|
|
Post by justahick on Dec 9, 2019 6:54:06 GMT -5
We know, scientifically, that people with specific genetic profiles have genetic advantages when it comes to specific athletic activities. Be careful what you ask for here, lest you start finding yourself arguing that, for example, Kenyans need to be banned from Olympic marathons in the name of fairness to all the other athletes. This analogy breaks down because there isn't a separate competition class for Kenyans and, say, Norwegians. And thus no Kenyans transitioning to Norwegian and competing (and excelling) in the Norwegian division. Also, approaching this analogy from the other end, if the division between male and female is as "arbitrary" (to use your word) as the division between Kenyan and Norwegian, then this analogy suggests that there shouldn't be separate divisions for male and female, just like there aren't for Kenyans/Norwegians. And that, as rook pointed out, is likely not in the best interest of female athletes. Too many edge cases where people either do not have the typical XX or XY chromosomes... I'm sure many women currently competing would be bared based on your not XY test - I suspect you don't understand how common this situation is. While I'm aware that it's relatively common for a male to have an extra X chromosome, and somewhat less common for a female to be short an X chromosome, a bit of Googling (which may not be accurate cuz the interwebs, and if so please correct me) turned up that XX males (i.e. males without a Y chromosome) "occurs in approximately 1:20,000 newborn males". While the incidence of XY females (i.e. females with a Y chromosome) "is approximately 1 in 100,000 people". So, while not perfect, it seems to me that testing for the presence of a Y chromosome would be a decent jumping off point to disqualify someone from participating in women's sports. Yes, it would wrongly allow 1:20,000 males to compete, and would unfairly disqualify 1:100,000 females, but that would be better than abolishing women's sports entirely IMO. And for the record, I'm under 55 and Libertarian. It is much more common than that... "Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life." Some of these late onset conditions are very common eg "Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals"
|
|