comment: >
  
  
  It's tough because how can we define "major problems"?
  
  Is that tough? If a distinct competitive advantage is identified, that'd be a "major problem" in a competitive sport, end of.
  
  And it's weird to say "ok you can compete as long as you don't do too well."
  
  If a distinct edge was agreed to exist, then you'd just say "you can't compete here".
context: I just want a robot body so that I can beat all of the humans at sports. >
  
  I want robot ears so I can like techno >
  
  How did he see me? >
  
  r/unexpectedgrandmasboy >
  
  That's the deadest sub I think I've ever seen >
  
  5 members. 5 online. 
  We did it! >
  
  Make me a mod! >
  
  Are there any trans women competing in men's sports? >
  
  Just so I don't offend or fuck this up, trans women are the ones that used to be a man and now identify as a woman?
  If that's the case not long ago there was a swimmer that entered into the women's and beat all of them like a dolphin would beat humans in general. >
  
  Yeah I may have it backwards.  Not too familiar with this transgender thing, but hey, you do you.  Life is too short, find your happiness wherever you can. >
  
  NCAA leadership says the stated goal in policy making is “not if transgender athletes are included, but how.”
  Men’s - In most sports is the Open category; anyone and everyone can participate.
  Seems pretty self explanatory.
  Edit: Please don’t give me any awards, if you’re going to spend money anyways then please donate it to help underprivileged children play sports in your city or something. o/ >
  
  Yeah, I don't get why they're willfully ignoring that the nuance of biological differences only working one way in competitive sports >
  
  Yeah, I’ve had friend literally deny that there are differences between the sexes. I remind them that even within the “gendered” sports, we create categories to protect or improve competition. Boxing is a good example of individuals being further categorized in order to make things fair. No one seems to be up in arms about that. >
  
  It starts in children's media and goes from there. My HS gf was a junior olympic taekwondo athlete and did jujitsu as well. I played football and was nothing special athletically besides being 6'2 and her being 5'3".  
  Well we decided to wrestle/roughhouse because that's a fun excuse to touch each other but also we were both competitive.
  Well anyways. It was completely one sided. I had never been in a fight or wrestled or anything besides football and some track and field but it was almost a joke how easy it was to win or pin. And we eventually allowed her to kick and hit using her taekwondo but it didn't make a difference. Just weathered one or two blows getting close then hugged and sat on her.  She was very surprised and a little shaken by that but we both learned how much difference a foot of height and 100lbs made. >
  
  I was having a debate with a female friend who was rather athletic because she was victim shaming a rape victim saying she should easily have gotten away from the guy et. The guy was about my size so I grabbed her and pinned her in about 3 seconds. Knowing the victim was smaller and less athletic than her, she shut up. >
  
  Where do you you all live that people need to conduct experiments to understand that a foot of height and one hundred pounds of weight make a big fucking difference lol >
  
  The average human being greatly over estimates how capable they are in a fight. This includes women. >
  
  Can confirm. I'm 6'1" and for a long time thought I was very capable; I'm not. Hard lesson, but 3", 40lbs and some real training taught me better. >
  
  I got in my first real fist fight with someone about a foot taller than me. Learned real quick that reach is real. >
  
  This may sound a little cold, but we can't do everything in life. I want to be an NBA player but wasn't born with the body to accommodate that dream. >
  
  Have you ever thought about trying out for the WNBA? >
  
  They would still kick my ass. >
  
  I think part of the problem lies in the relationship between universities and sports and its worth re-examining. What is the purported role sports are supposed to play at the university level? What are they supposed to be doing for the students? Is it supposed to be a career stepping stone? A place for personal development and gratification? Butts in stadium seats? If the main concern is that a trans woman is potentially "stealing" a spot from a cis woman, what structural changes can be made to ensure that both students feel like they are getting what they need from their institutions? prohibiting trans athletes obviously disproportionately impacts one side, and there is at least insecurity on the part of some cis athletes that the integrity of the sport for them is at risk, and asking them to tough it out generates some understandable qualms and controversies. Is it necessary perhaps to develop a parallel league for these sports so that the cis gendered athletes feel their concerns are addressed and they still have the opportunity to get the professional and personal development they are enrolled in the school for, and the students in the NCAA continue to get what they are looking for as part of their university experience? Or is that just segregation? Does the issue merit more observation before anything should be done? Does it impact so few people that it's not even worth addressing? >
  
  
  If the main concern is that a trans woman is potentially "stealing" a spot from a cis woman, what structural changes can be made to ensure that both students feel like they are getting what they need from their institutions?
  
  I think the major concern there is scholarships. >
  
  Feels like a problem that would be addressed with more affordable or subsidized tuition. >
  
  If we agree that there are separate men's and women's divisions in athletics because men's bodies provide a general inherent advantage.
  How can we not agree that people born with men's bodies shouldn't be competing in the women's divisions?
  I don't get it. I get wanting to be non-discriminatory and accepting of people's gender identities, but we also need to accept that there are certain realities that prevent this from happening in every situation. >
  
  This question is bigger than transgender athletes. They still have to make rules to decide on people like Semenya. >
  
  I feel like we're throwing logic out of the window in favor of inclusivity. I support trans rights and people but it's literally fact that biological males have a physical advantage over biological females. 
  It honestly makes me angry as a woman that womens spaces can be taken over by people with advantages over them and when they speak out, they are called transphobes. >
  
  I said this under a month ago and was banned site-wide for three days for hate speech. >
  
  Trust me, I've said this on other subs and have been downvoted. I'm honestly shocked and relieved this comment wasn't downvoted. It gives me hope that people are becoming sick of this shit. >
  
  There’s a lot of nuance to this. Going through male puberty and then being on T-blockers, I don’t believe, completely negates any advantages. There’s still things like skeletal structure, height, and even upper bound muscular potential that could be considered unnaturally advantageous.
  To have negative impacts on others doesn’t require complete dominance either. If M to F trans individuals even tended to fall on the right side of the bell curve you are pushing others out of scholarships at preferred schools and all together. There's impact here that gets lost in the conversation that I’d argue is even more important than dominating the podiums/record books. For most, the scholarship is worth more than anything else.
  If women overall don’t care I’m not going to die on this hill because truthfully I don’t watch the sports for the most part, but saying nobody should care because they didn’t care about the sport isn’t really fair. People have/will have daughters that will want to pursue collegiate athletics. It’s not about the spectacle necessarily. >
  
  There is a lot of research that needs to happen for cis athletes to compete fairly w trans athletes and I don't think they have the competition rules right just yet. 
  I also think the discussion about trans athletes needs to be reframed.  I have no hate for trans people.  I do want to ensure fair competition for all.  One can be pro inclusion while still taking a position of getting the rules right.   Hs athletics is even more difficult bc they don't have the resources to manage competitions as it is. >
  
  This is the right way to frame it. And it’s how I feel too, especially as someone who worked in College athletics, mostly with female athletes. 
  I support trans people. You should feel comfortable in your body and I’m all for whatever you need to do that. However, athletic competition is dictated heavily by physiology, which is heavily impacted by biological sex and puberty. And there’s such a wide range there. Theres even a difference between someone like Caster Semenya who is a biological woman with high natural testosterone levels and XY chromosomes and Lia Thomas who is M2F transgender after going through male puberty. And there’s no one complaining about about F2M trans athletes, which is a whole other conversation. So it’s really about physiology. 
  Your point about reframing the conversation as a whole is so spot on though. I’m not as concerned about a trans athlete coming in dominating the sport, I’m more concerned about what this does to  shift the sport away from others. Lost scholarships, lost opportunities etc. 
  I just don’t think the science or the research is there to make this happen the way it should right now. >
  
  No amount of research will ever get you an answer that fits every sport other than maybe "there is significant overlap between trans women and cis women's performance". I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do studies, but at some point it just becomes impossible to prove without a doubt fairness because what makes someone good at a sport is a really complex question. At some point the science stops informing a decision and it becomes about what a sports values are. Also it's not lost scholarships or lost opportunities, it's opportunities going to trans women who will make use of them in the same way a cis woman will. >
  
  What are your thoughts on a trans division for sports? I’ve heard that brought up and while it sounds good at first, it gives me hardcore “separate but equal” vibes and we all know how that turns out. >
  
  Trans people make up .1-.5% of the population. This would effectively just mean we can't complete because there aren't enough of us for there to be scholarships or money on the line. >
  
  Compete in the open division. That's what it's for. >
  
  I’m all for inclusiveness and living your life how you want, but some things are just not in the cards for everyone. That’s how life works, it’s not always fair. 
  Sometimes anatomy or life choices shape what we can do. Not everyone can be a model, not everyone is cut out for physical labor. And not everyone can compete in competitive sports at the top level. That’s life and you know what… that’s ok. >
  
  Its truly unfair how much advantage men have over women in sports. I remember training with an national powerlifter around the same weight as me and I squatted her max pretty easily. I'm not even a big powerlifter guy my max squat is around 500. A guy who is on the elite level around the same weight as me squats 800. >
  
  I played women's soccer in college. We were decent, always dominating most of the other schools we played. The men's team was terrible. Once a year we'd have a "friendly" scrimmage and the boys would crush us. It didn't matter that I was a powerhouse against women, my 5'10, 130 pound frame couldn't compete with 200 lb men. 
  Obviously this argument is much more nuanced than that one anecdote but that's all I think of for these young women athletes. All those years of trainers, camps, coaches to get a scholarship and now the NCAA is forcing an uneven playing field on their dreams. >
  
  To one side: If this goes well and let's say 5 years down the road we don't see any major problems with it do you think you'll be open to conditionally accepting the new norm?
  To the other side: If this does not go well and 5 years down the road we see more and more concerns being demonstrated do you think you'll be open to conceding some of the points made?
  To the middle: Setting aside the out and out winners do you ever think it won't feel a little weird to say have a cis gendered female lose a spot on a team (or something similar) to a trans individual? >
  
  It's tough because how can we define "major problems"? Any time a trans woman wins or sets a record people will question the fairness. And it's weird to say "ok you can compete as long as you don't do too well."