|
Post by nederlander on Dec 20, 2023 12:16:50 GMT -5
That isn't the standard for competing in NCAA women's volleyball. We’re talking semantics then. The NCAA standard takes for granted the fact that it is a female sport. There’s no imperative to define a standard, because it’s understood. If biologically-born female is not the undersood standard, then you could just as easily say non-transgendered men are eligibible to play NCAA women’s volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 20, 2023 12:27:11 GMT -5
That isn't the standard for competing in NCAA women's volleyball. We’re talking semantics then. The NCAA standard takes for granted the fact that it is a female sport. There’s no imperative to define a standard, because it’s understood. If biologically-born female is not the undersood standard, then you could just as easily say non-transgendered men are eligibible to play NCAA women’s volleyball. Well that's just completely false. The NCAA has long-public policy for trans athlete participation in NCAA sports. It's had one for more than a decade.
|
|
|
Post by nederlander on Dec 20, 2023 12:41:35 GMT -5
Yes, some trans athletes have competed in Womens sports, but the standard is nevertheless understood as biologically-born females. That some trans-males have been allowed to compete does not not invalidate the understood standard. It simply means the inderstood standard has not been unilaterally adhered to. Which is exactly the debate this thread is addressing. That the NCAA has allowed trans-male athletes to compete is a given, but what others are saying is that allowing them compete has violated an understood standard. The NCAA has effectively violated it’s own standard, and that in turn, is being brought forth as evidence that there is no standard which excludes trans-male athletes. Those are semantically different assertions. You are suggesting that standard does not exist. Others are asserting that the standard exists, but has been violated.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 20, 2023 12:48:29 GMT -5
Yes, some trans athletes have competed in Womens sports, but the standard is nevertheless understood as biologically-born females. That some trans-males have been allowed to compete does not not invalidate the understood standard. It simply means the inderstood standard has not been unilaterally adhered to. Which is exactly the debate this thread is addressing. That the NCAA has allowed trans-male athletes to compete is a given, but what others are saying is that allowing them compete has violated an understood standard. The NCAA has effectively violated it’s own standard, and that in turn, is being brought forth as evidence that there is no standard which excludes trans-male athletes. Those are semantically different assertions. You are suggesting that standard does not exist. Others are asserting that the standard exists, but has been violated. So the NCAA has a different standard than the NCAA's standard? The long-standing policy standard the association has been operating under for many years? Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by nederlander on Dec 20, 2023 13:18:36 GMT -5
No, they just aren’t enforcing the standard that existed without question for decades. I’ll grant you that the NCAA appears to be endorsing trans-male athletes in womens sports. But you’re confusing practice with policy. Allowing trans-male athletes to compete in womens sports is a violation in practice, not a rewriting of policy. You’re making the argument that the policy has changed to allow trans-males, but also are asserting that that has always been the policy. But that has not always been the policy. The NCAA has certainly muddied the waters, so I do get what you’re saying. They did open the door to the approach you’re taking. That’s a fair argument. I just disagree that the door was always open, or that opening it was the right practice.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 20, 2023 13:48:46 GMT -5
No, they just aren’t enforcing the standard that existed without question for decades. I’ll grant you that the NCAA appears to be endorsing trans-male athletes in womens sports. But you’re confusing practice with policy. Allowing trans-male athletes to compete in womens sports is a violation in practice, not a rewriting of policy. You’re making the argument that the policy has changed to allow trans-males, but also are asserting that that has always been the policy. But that has not always been the policy. The NCAA has certainly muddied the waters, so I do get what you’re saying. They did open the door to the approach you’re taking. That’s a fair argument. I just disagree that the door was always open, or that opening it was the right practice. It is the policy and has been for at least a decade. It's not on me if you're ignorant of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 20, 2023 13:50:14 GMT -5
In the end, this whole debate reduces to whether a small subset of people are disposable, or not. I'd prefer not to dispose of anyone. Sorry, this is not about making anyone disposable. This is about a disagreement and or debate about whether people of a certain biological sex can change to the opposite sex. What is sad is that too many people who yell "hate" seem to have at least as much hate as the other side. Which criteria are you going to use to determine biological sex? Criteria differ in who is assigned to which sex, and literally all of the criteria are not actually binary. Thinking of sex as purely binary means only the normative cases get included. Cases that aren't normative are excluded. Even the most strict definition of biological sex (one that arbitrarily assigns sex based on external appearance of genitalia rather than functionality of genitalia or any other feature relevant to competitive ability) the frequency of non-normative cases is 1 in 5,000 people. That's ~66,000 nationally. You could easily fill a couple large high schools and field a couple vball teams with that population - if they weren't terrified of outing themselves. As I explained above, transgender affirmative care literally saves lives. That's not controversial. It could save a lot more lives if it wasn't so stigmatized. When someone who undergoes such care is excluded from participating in an element of society from which they receive value, we're sending a message: getting potentially life saving care will get you punished. If you can't understand how that kind of imposed choice makes people angry, I just don't know what to say. Of course they feel disposable, because that thinking means they are. And it's not even about competitive fairness in some cases. Even a young trans man wasn't allowed to compete with young non-trans men when they would rather have done so. They are forced to be paired unfairly with non young trans-women. That's just madness from a competitive fairness point of view. There are ways to maintain competitive fairness without excluding people. That's what international and professional sporting bodies have done for a long time. Trans athletes in general understand why that has to be true. What is keeping us from doing so?
|
|
|
Post by nederlander on Dec 20, 2023 14:02:40 GMT -5
No, they just aren’t enforcing the standard that existed without question for decades. I’ll grant you that the NCAA appears to be endorsing trans-male athletes in womens sports. But you’re confusing practice with policy. Allowing trans-male athletes to compete in womens sports is a violation in practice, not a rewriting of policy. You’re making the argument that the policy has changed to allow trans-males, but also are asserting that that has always been the policy. But that has not always been the policy. The NCAA has certainly muddied the waters, so I do get what you’re saying. They did open the door to the approach you’re taking. That’s a fair argument. I just disagree that the door was always open, or that opening it was the right practice. It is the policy and has been for at least a decade. It's not on me if you're ignorant of the rules. I literally just acknowledged that the NCAA has allowed some trans-male athletes to compete in womens sports. Where we disagree is whether or not that represents policy. That is a semantic debate that we will have to accept disagreement on. You are asserting that allowing trans-athletes establishes policy. I am arguing that it represents a practice that goes against policy. I am not disputing that trans-males have been allowed to compete.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Dec 20, 2023 14:05:16 GMT -5
In the end, this whole debate reduces to whether a small subset of people are disposable, or not. I'd prefer not to dispose of anyone. The argument doesn’t hinge on disposability, it hinges on eligibility. A wheelchair bound individual won’t/ can’t compete in most events in the Olympics but are still eligible to compete in the Para-Olympics. I see this as trying to determine where people should be eligible to compete and what the parameters for that, should be.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 20, 2023 14:07:02 GMT -5
It is the policy and has been for at least a decade. It's not on me if you're ignorant of the rules. I literally just acknowledged that the NCAA has allowed some trans-male athletes to compete in womens sports. Where we disagree is whether or not that represents policy. That is a semantic debate that we will have to accept disagreement on. You are asserting that allowing trans-athletes establishes policy. I am arguing that it represents a practice that goes against policy. I am not disputing that trans-males have been allowed to compete. The NCAA literally has a policy. www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/1/27/transgender-participation-policy.aspx
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Dec 20, 2023 14:09:54 GMT -5
Sorry, this is not about making anyone disposable. This is about a disagreement and or debate about whether people of a certain biological sex can change to the opposite sex. What is sad is that too many people who yell "hate" seem to have at least as much hate as the other side. Which criteria are you going to use to determine biological sex? Criteria differ in who is assigned to which sex, and literally all of the criteria are not actually binary. Thinking of sex as purely binary means only the normative cases get included. Cases that aren't normative are excluded. Even the most strict definition of biological sex (one that arbitrarily assigns sex based on external appearance of genitalia rather than functionality of genitalia or any other feature relevant to competitive ability) the frequency of non-normative cases is 1 in 5,000 people. That's ~66,000 nationally. You could easily fill a couple large high schools and field a couple vball teams with that population - if they weren't terrified of outing themselves. As I explained above, transgender affirmative care literally saves lives. That's not controversial. It could save a lot more lives if it wasn't so stigmatized. When someone who undergoes such care is excluded from participating in an element of society from which they receive value, we're sending a message: getting potentially life saving care will get you punished. If you can't understand how that kind of imposed choice makes people angry, I just don't know what to say. Of course they feel disposable, because that thinking means they are. And it's not even about competitive fairness in some cases. Even a young trans man wasn't allowed to compete with young non-trans men when they would rather have done so. They are forced to be paired unfairly with non young trans-women. That's just madness from a competitive fairness point of view. There are ways to maintain competitive fairness without excluding people. That's what international and professional sporting bodies have done for a long time. Trans athletes in general understand why that has to be true. What is keeping us from doing so? You choose to think of people being excluded but that’s simply not the case. You just don’t like where others think they should be included. For those that do not fit the binary options of XX or XY, there are still places within those two categories that they can be placed. Each could be done case by case, but again I suspect you wouldn’t like where others on here feel they should be placed.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 20, 2023 14:59:59 GMT -5
Where we disagree is whether or not that represents policy. That is a semantic debate that we will have to accept disagreement on. The official NCAA policy does a pretty good job establishing policy.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 20, 2023 15:12:31 GMT -5
LOL.
"1+1=3"
"No, 1+1=2"
"3"
Shows math book: "2"
"We will just have to accept disagreement on this."
|
|
|
Post by OHVBKING on Dec 20, 2023 15:23:56 GMT -5
I would like to congratulate the University of Washington for rescinding the scholarship offer to this person. Thank god there are smart people willing to take a stand and telling the "WOKE CULTURE" this is not happening.
|
|
|
Post by molokaiboi on Dec 20, 2023 15:38:49 GMT -5
I would like to congratulate the University of Washington for rescinding the scholarship offer to this person. Thank god there are smart people willing to take a stand and telling the "WOKE CULTURE" this is not happening. topspin 🤭🤙🏽
|
|