News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Sports are games.
Games are supposed to be inclusive and fun.
Society taking games deathly serious (and equivocating it with academic merit, aka serious pursuits) is the problem.
People rioting and murdering if the game didn't work out for their team is the problem. Putting billion dollar stakes on games is the problem.
Trans people or any people wanting to play games with their friends should be what society fosters and nurtures as the entire fucking point of society's existence. Something something... planting trees something something knowing they'll never sit under...
Nope? let's bring on the climate change induced extinction then. If our values are hyper competitive, dog eat dog bullshit from labor to fucking games, we should go extinct.
Have you ever watched women’s sport vs. men’s..? Like cmon lmao.
Have you seen how big some NFL guys can get?? Imagine putting one of those guys in a women’s league? Put an NBA all-star in the women’s league? Imagine Mike Tyson in his prime fighting a woman. People would be hospitalized every minute
This crazy shit is what turned everyone off of Democrats this time around. All for like the maybe 10 trans athletes this would even apply to
Sports are a pathetic institution when they're more about competition than fun.
Life is competitive enough.
That’s your opinion, which I completely respect. But a lot of people make a living from sports and allow themselves to pull their families out of poverty because of it. Are you going to take that away from them because there’s a double digit number of trans people that this even applies to?
You sound like you don’t watch professional sports enough in a way to understand what I’m saying, which is fine but also why I’m trying to make this point
Games are supposed to be fair. Unless you're going to completely desegregate men and women's sports, there's a real biological argument to be made here. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
There is zero biological argument because you cannot make two categories based on sex which encompass everyone.
Example 1:
A cis woman with a genetic mutation which incrases her testosterone levels into the range of cis men. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 2:
A cis woman with XY gonadal dysgenesis. She has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome is mutated and doesn't function as it should which causes a "female" phenotype. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 3:
A trans woman in the 95th percentile of men with regards to physical strength. She is in the 10th percentile of women after transitioning. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 4:
A trans woman with Klinefelter syndrome and XXY genes. She has naturally very low levels of testosterone and she doesn't require testosterone blockers after transitioning and taking estrogen. Even before transitioning she had less muscle mass, weaker bones and wider hips than the average man as a result of her low testosterone. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 5:
An African woman who would be in the 1st percentile of man if she were one, both in terms of physical attributes (size, muscle mass, heart size) and competitive results. Some "scientists" argue her race makes her less of a woman and more of a man. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
There is zero risk of these people "replacing" cis women by the way. Yes, their performance may be greater than that of comparable cis women without any genetical mutations beyond a certajn point.
Yet risk is calculated as [severity] * [likelihood]. And due to the low likelihood stemming from their very low prevalence in the general population, there is no reason to ban them.
Women's sports is about representation of women. Trans women are part of that group, cis women with genetic mutations are part of that group, racial minorities are part of that group. You cannot exclude some women and claim this group is "fair" and representative.
Make a trans league if there’s really such a demand for it. Problem solved.
A separate but equal league? Sure sounds appealing to many to segregate trans people into their own categories.
May as well apply it to bathrooms as well while we're at it.
What, the same way biological males and females are “segregated” in sports?
May as well just make bathrooms with individual stalls/rooms. Then everyone will shut up about this stupid crap.
I don’t care what you got going on down there at the end of the day, but you’re on some crazy shit if you think it’s fair to make trans women that have gone through puberty compete against other women. It’s just simple biology, nothing evil about that.
Do you believe segregating a minority group making up 1-2% of the population will not have discriminatory effects? That there will be equal access to funding, scholarships, competition and sport leagues?
You can't seriously believe this. Isn't it plainly obvious that this would be an excuse to ban trans people from doing any sports? That any sports club will just argue there aren't enough trans people to allow them to be members?
And I'd seriously like to know how it is unfair for cis women to have to compete against trans women in chess. Right now trans women are barred from competing in any women's leagues regardless of when they started transitioning by the way.
How do trans people have any advantage in hundreds of other sports, from gymnastics to ballet to competitive diving - all of which have a more or less significant artistic element?
By the way, there are already discriminatory regulations barring certain cis women in the name of "fairness":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_regulations_in_women%27s_athletics
Also, what a coincidence:
Sure sucks for these Africans that they "randomly" happened to not meet these criteria. It couldn't possibly be that certain ethnicities are more or less likely to have certain genetics.
If there’s a demand for it it will happen. And chess isn’t a real sport lol It’s as much a sport as “competitive gaming”
In some sports there are weight classes, because being a certain weight gives you an inherent biological advantage on average over people of a different weight. The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.
Women’s sports vs Men’s sports is a similar idea. Separate people by some biological classification that’s often tied on average to an advantage at the sport, so that everybody has the chance to play against someone of a similar baseline.
That division doesn’t have to exclude trans people, but it does mean that a line gets drawn somewhere. And yes, that line might include some cis people with a genetic abnormality getting excluded as well, and some cis men with a genetic abnormality might be included.
If you want to draw the divisions by something like muscle mass or testosterone levels instead of trying to define sex and gender clearly enough for this purpose, that would probably be easier, although “low testosterone sports” doesn’t have the same marketability as “women’s sports” lol.
That's true. In professional boxing there are 18 weight classes from 46.3 kg (103 lb) to 101.6 kg (224 lb) plus the unlimited weight class. Only very few adults are excluded as the vast majority weighs more than the lower bound.
But with sex-based roles? Two don't really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn't even be a need for per-sport subclasses.
Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We're talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn't there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?
Imagine if in the early 1900's it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn't somewhere.
Sports is full of divisions. Division by age is the most common, followed by division by skill, and division by sex. Some sports use extra divisions by weight. Some find age/sex/skill to be enough. In some sports, especially at lower age or skill levels, co-ed is common (division by sex is not used). There are also divisions for people with physical disabilities, sometimes with tweaks to the rule to accommodate.
In all cases, the purpose of these divisions is to find a balance where everyone can get a fair matchup.
Absolutely 100%. I think everybody should be able to participate in sports, and I think that rules about sex divisions should be modified to account for trans people and people with gender-related disorders. I don’t think just letting people choose a division is fair though, there should be rules for consistency and fairness.
The border of the divisions is always at least somewhat contentious because people just before the cutoff have an advantage. Many high-level athletes have similar birth dates because they were born just before the age cutoff growing up. Being slightly older in the age divisions gives an advantage, and that leads to performing well, which leads to feedback loops such as coaches and parents and the kid noticing the good performance and focusing on the sport more. This ends up in more kids who were at the edge of their age range growing up becoming successful athletes as adults.
Also with weight-based divisions, it’s typical in higher skill levels to body-build to slightly above the cutoff and then avoid drinking water for a day to get slightly below the cutoff.
No line you draw will be perfect, but you do have to draw a line somewhere.
There are a some problems with this analogy. Scholarships are very different from competitions (although sports scholarships exist, which is a whole other topic to discuss…). Also the gender case is looking at the edge cases of an existing cutoff, which is not the case about left handed people, unless you want to hypothetically add they might have some relation to some other grouping.
I’ll offer some analogies that I think might be similar. What about someone with developmental issues who was held back in school? Would it be fair for the other kids if they get to play sports with the younger age group because of their mind? Would it fair for the kid who was held back to have to play in the older age group because of their body? What about someone who has a condition affecting their weight? Should that condition let them compete in a lower weight class? I’m not saying I have the answers to these scenarios, btw. I think a lot of it comes down to a case-by-case basis, and guidelines with leeway for exceptions are probably better than strict rules.
Maybe that's the crux of the issue. You guys keep seeing women's sports as some sort of symbolism or representation or statement. The majority of people see women's sports as being about sports. No agenda needed. No messaging. Just physical competition purely for the sake of it.
Coed teams exist. They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.
Maybe the solution is non-gendered weight classes for sports, or just more coed teams. Idk
Edit: yall will convince yourselves of anything lol. Really wild the dumb shit some people will say
What about trans women who transitioned before puberty? What about cis or intersex women with elevated levels of testosterone? What about sports where it has been shown that after a long enough period of medical transition trans people have no significant advantage over their cis counterparts?
You appeal to science yet fail to cite a single source, so let me do it for you:
Good news! Puberty blockers exist and have been studied and used for literal decades for other reasons.
The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there's no more advantage.
In fact, women who haven't transitioned often have an advantage because their testosterone levels can be higher than women who have transitioned.
And that's the crux of the issue: human variation.
Would you be opposed to a requirement that trans women wanting to compete in women's leagues undergo 3 years of hormone therapy before being allowed to play?
I think most trans people would agree that's reasonable, but at that point, you also have to talk about the bans on transition for minors, which would affect a minors ability to have that time frame met, and then their ability to play.
True, and that's a thorny problem but one that has to be addressed eventually.
In the case of a trans woman having not went through puberty as a male then yeah true enough as far as I know.
Are you sure about that? Because I looked it up and (after a few instances of "we have no idea but maybe not") I found this. I'll also admit that I only read the conclusion so I can't make any guarantees for the quality of the paper.
Yeah that's the thing: Testosterone is only one part of athletic ability. The paper lists some parameters that are either not affected or affected but not reduced to within the average range of cis women, but the obvious example would be height.
Ah, yes, let’s make laws specifically banning 2-5 children from ever having fun.
Like… what the fuck is wrong with you that you think a law targeting under 10 people in the entirety of the US is justified and not literally just bullying those kids on a national level to hope they fucking commit suicide? A law to tell 5 kids, specifically, that fuck them and they’re not allowed to have fun is god damn crazy.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006
That would be an argument worth discussing if the Nazis weren't also trying to ban puberty blockers and frothing at the mouth claiming the trans agenda is coming for their kids. But no, right now, that's a garbage bad faith argument, because it already has an obvious answer. That's how they poison the discussion.