Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 7:41:51 GMT -5
That matters because people are saying she has an unfair advantage being born physically male playing the woman’s game. Just because she transitioned to a woman doesn’t mean she has given up some of her physical advantages. Are you implying that all elite physical athletes should “give up” their advantages so the rest of the field feels more comfortable? Kids that grew up with two volleyball players as parents will have an unfair advantage compared to every other player their age, especially early. Kids whose parents could afford elite club volleyball every year since fifth grade are definitely going to have an advantage in the recruiting process. Kids who live in urban areas with a dozen club options are going to have a huge unfair advantage compared to kids from remote, rural areas where the nearest club is four hours away. Kids whose parents are two Olympic athletes are probably going to have an unfair advantage too, right? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 1, 2018 12:56:03 GMT -5
Since it is a New Year, I hope we can leave the cycle of this particular argument behind:
1) She's too good to play.
1a) What does that mean in competitive sports? Is Zhu too good to play?
2) She has an unfair advantage.
2a) Doesn't everybody who makes it to the pro level, compared to average people?
3) She's still really a man re. sports performance [not usually said exactly like that, but it's what it boils down to].
3a) Not by the rules everyone has agreed to play by.
4) The rules are wrong.
4a) So what measurable and objective rules do you propose?
5) I don't know, but the rules must be wrong because she's too good to play.
.
.
.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdbrain on Jan 1, 2018 14:34:30 GMT -5
Mike, are you saying that there are no legitimate arguments or ideas that people should be able to discuss about this issue if they don't agree with you? This is a complex issue and there have been a lot of thoughtful comments. And since when on VT is arguing about the rules off limits? Open discussion and debate is good. If you disagree with someone, make your argument, but I don't see how making a list and trying to tell people that they shouldn't talk about things on the list is productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyba11 on Jan 1, 2018 15:12:49 GMT -5
That matters because people are saying she has an unfair advantage being born physically male playing the woman’s game. Just because she transitioned to a woman doesn’t mean she has given up some of her physical advantages. Are you implying that all elite physical athletes should “give up” their advantages so the rest of the field feels more comfortable? Kids that grew up with two volleyball players as parents will have an unfair advantage compared to every other player their age, especially early. Kids whose parents could afford elite club volleyball every year since fifth grade are definitely going to have an advantage in the recruiting process. Kids who live in urban areas with a dozen club options are going to have a huge unfair advantage compared to kids from remote, rural areas where the nearest club is four hours away. Kids whose parents are two Olympic athletes are probably going to have an unfair advantage too, right? Hold up there a second. You're picking and choosing issues that society does not have any rules or regulations about. There are issues that society does feel that athletes should have to give up "so the rest of the field feels more comfortable" like using steroids. (Using words like "comfortable" as sarcastically as you did really adds nothing to your point and makes you look like an ass) Every issue you brought up, society does not have a way to differentiate. Because of that, I would very easily call all of those "fair advantages." Again, it's important to understand that fair does NOT mean equal. You can't help who your parents are. You can't help where you were raised. You can decide whether or not to transition MTF. I'm still not sure this is a great argument that I buy, but it is one that can be made. Another argument that I think better explains why your examples don't really draw parallels to this is that there are no different "championships" for a kid who played club and a kid who didn't. We consider them to be in the same talent pool for their activity. Let's look at track and field. There are the olympics, and then there are the paralympics. A MUCH more relatable discussion would be: if a very good (but not olympic great) runner decided to cut off a toe, or a hand in order to compete in the paralympics instead of the olympics, what would the discussion look like? Now I don't know exactly what you need to quality as a paralympic athlete, but if someone were able to barely slide past the rules while still maintaining an advantage, I don't think the argument would be about that athletes right to live how they wanted, but about how the rules can be adjusted to ensure no one takes advantage of the rules to gain an edge. While I think that argument really hits the heart of why people are so offended, it is most likely a bit sloppy due to my lack of knowledge of how paralympic rules work. Here's a similar one.. What if a "mid-major" D1 school recruiting a great group of athletes and gave them 3 years of athletic scholarship, used all available D1 resources training their athletes, and then for the next season dropped down to D3 to win a national championship? For the sake of this argument, they could reduce all of their athletic scholarships into "academic scholarships" the same as D3 schools, and forgo all the other advantages that they had as a D1 program because now "they want to identify as a D3 school because they didn't fit in with the D1 schools." I suppose I should have started with this: I am not against transgender MTF athletes competing as women!! However, I do understand why people can be upset at the opportunity for people to switch from a tougher league (mens, regular olympics, D1) down to an easier league (womens, paralympics, D3), while still maintaining some of the old advantages that had initially required them to participate in the tougher league. I do not think that people are making this switch to be more competitive in sports. I don't think people making this switch should be banned from sports. I do think that as it becomes more socially acceptable the chances of people doing it for competitive reasons might go up and we need to have appropriate rules in place to prevent that. But even at this point, the argument should not be that they should be allowed to take these advantages down to a lower league, but what the burden of proof that they no longer possess these advantages should be. If you disagree with that, then essentially your argument boils down to we should get rid of men's volleyball and women's volleyball and all just play co-ed volleyball because we let rich people and poor people play together and that's the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerholiday on Jan 1, 2018 15:22:03 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better. I am so sick of political correctness dictating policy. Bottom line, it gives players an unfair advantage. You know what else gives an unfair advantage? Access to high-level training. Opportunity biases against minority athletes. Socioeconomic status. Do you think Gamova had an unfair advantage? Or Luis? Do you think her parents stacked the deck, gene-wise? Hell, have you seen Alhassan’s contact point? Talk about an advantage. Even Plummer is very physically different than the majority of other female volleyball players out there. What does that have to do with allowing male genetics to compete in a womans game. That is just plain stupid. You guys are so in love with being so understanding and accepting that you are creating a very unfair playing field for those women who have trained tirelessly and did it the honest way. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerholiday on Jan 1, 2018 15:27:52 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better. I am so sick of political correctness dictating policy. Bottom line, it gives players an unfair advantage. Define unfair? Do players whose parents paid for years of the most expensive training at the best clubs have a fair advantage? Do the children of hall of fame athlete parents have a fair advantage? Do 6’8 women have a fair advantage? Does a player with a surgically repaired knee have a fair advantage over one who needed but didn’t have the surgery? Why is one advantage unfair and the other isn’t? I had a friend play coed. He was a superstar and when he showed up to the gym to play on your team most teams umderstood it was game over before it started. He was that dominant at every single position he played. He is now 43 and still playing high level ball. It was unfair when he was a male so imagine if he decided to be transgender do his genetics change or his ability? No. He was frankly very dangerous to women when he played. He hit way too hard and it did injure women and men. Be careful what you hope for because once you go down this path then their is no going back. |
|
|
|
Post by alhorford90 on Jan 1, 2018 15:31:13 GMT -5
Define unfair? Do players whose parents paid for years of the most expensive training at the best clubs have a fair advantage? Do the children of hall of fame athlete parents have a fair advantage? Do 6’8 women have a fair advantage? Does a player with a surgically repaired knee have a fair advantage over one who needed but didn’t have the surgery? Why is one advantage unfair and the other isn’t? I had a friend play coed. He was a superstar and when he showed up to the gym to play on your team most teams umderstood it was game over before it started. He was that dominant at every single position he played. He is now 43 and still playing high level ball. It was unfair when he was a male so imagine if he decided to be transgender do his genetics change or his ability? No. He was frankly very dangerous to women when he played. He hit way too hard and it did injure women and men. Be careful what you hope for because once you go down this path then their is no going back. This anecdote is exhausting. And said friend sounds like a douchebag. I've played plenty of co-rec league/open gym. The guy who is a danger to women is always a douche. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyba11 on Jan 1, 2018 15:37:23 GMT -5
I had a friend play coed. He was a superstar and when he showed up to the gym to play on your team most teams umderstood it was game over before it started. He was that dominant at every single position he played. He is now 43 and still playing high level ball. It was unfair when he was a male so imagine if he decided to be transgender do his genetics change or his ability? No. He was frankly very dangerous to women when he played. He hit way too hard and it did injure women and men. Be careful what you hope for because once you go down this path then their is no going back. This anecdote is exhausting. And full of bad assumptions. "Does his ability change?" When the hormones are adjusted, yes, it would change. How much is yet to be determined, but you can't just say no without backing it up. "He was that dominant" We are not yet talking about dominant men transitioning. If Matt Anderson or Ngapeth becomes transgender, then we can have that talk. "No going back" Slippery slope. Nice try. |
|
|
|
Post by alhorford90 on Jan 1, 2018 15:47:32 GMT -5
You know what else gives an unfair advantage? Access to high-level training. Opportunity biases against minority athletes. Socioeconomic status. Do you think Gamova had an unfair advantage? Or Luis? Do you think her parents stacked the deck, gene-wise? Hell, have you seen Alhassan’s contact point? Talk about an advantage. Even Plummer is very physically different than the majority of other female volleyball players out there. What does that have to do with allowing male genetics to compete in a womans game. That is just plain stupid. You guys are so in love with being so understanding and accepting that you are creating a very unfair playing field for those women who have trained tirelessly and did it the honest way. Transgender athletes are in no way dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 1, 2018 17:31:48 GMT -5
Mike, are you saying that there are no legitimate arguments or ideas that people should be able to discuss about this issue if they don't agree with you? This is a complex issue and there have been a lot of thoughtful comments. And since when on VT is arguing about the rules off limits? Open discussion and debate is good. If you disagree with someone, make your argument, but I don't see how making a list and trying to tell people that they shouldn't talk about things on the list is productive. Why are you inventing words for me that I didn't say? I have consistently said the same thing: The current rules say she's legal to play. If you don't think that's right, what new rules do you propose?If you want to change the rules, propose a change! It's way easier to complain about a complex situation than it is to fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by birdbrain on Jan 1, 2018 18:17:50 GMT -5
What new rules do I propose? For starters, anyone who types in bold large font letters should have to watch 40 consecutive hours of Duran Duran videos. I'll get back to you on the other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 1, 2018 18:25:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll just bet you will. About the same time that the sun goes nova.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wiz on Jan 1, 2018 18:30:51 GMT -5
People will whine and complain about anything. She is allowed to play, let her play.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Jan 1, 2018 22:19:19 GMT -5
What new rules do I propose? For starters, anyone who types in bold large font letters should have to watch 40 consecutive hours of Duran Duran videos. I'll get back to you on the other stuff. Propose if they have XX chromosomes they can only compete against women. If they have XY chromosomes they can only compete against men. Tiffany has XY therefore she would have to compete against men if she wanted to compete. Simple science and logic. No matter how many surgeries she has she will alway have XY chromosomes. The committee would have to come up with a rule for people with Swyer syndrome which I think is perfectly fine. Has there ever been a high level athlete with Swyer syndrome? |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 1, 2018 22:39:31 GMT -5
When it is being reported that women from high school to the international level of play are jumping and touching heights of 11'6" and higher than what does it matter if a man transitioning to a woman is playing with women. That seems like a level playing field with that type of talent. According to this type of reporting heard on numerous broadcast both radio and television, and reported on this very board women are very capable of reaching the best touch heights reported in men's sports including the NBA and college levels. If true, let transgender men play unimpeeded it should not be a problem particularly at the Olympic level. I am 99.999999% sure there are no female highschoolers who can touch 11'6 'and higher'. If true i'm more interested in them than this thread. If false, why the bs? |
|
