To throw some red meat to the other side of the culture war today, Seth Huston became the first NCAA coach to comment in opposition to Lia Thomas’ eligibility at the upcoming NCAA championships.
While I agree with Huston on this issue, I’d rather him focus on getting our program back in a better place as we seem to have fallen back slightly the last several years.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2022 05:15 PM by ExcitedOwl18.)
(01-25-2022 05:07 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: To throw some red meat to the other side of the culture war today, Seth Huston became the first NCAA coach to comment in opposition to Lia Thomas’ eligibility at the upcoming NCAA championships.
While I agree with Huston on this issue, I’d rather him focus on getting our program back in a better place as we seem to have fallen back slightly the last several years.
only thing that comes to mind is this, when it used to be funny because everyone knew it was a joke, even lefties...
I love Eddie Izzard’s comedy. And always have. And thanks to GoodOwl for posting that hilarious clip.
And after reading Coach Houston’s comments, I can understand his attitude regarding the NCAA and their stance on transgender issues. Passing the buck. Not helpful.
And, as an aside, Eddie Izard is a transvestite. Unless something has occurred recently, I don’t think he’s transgender.
(01-25-2022 05:07 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: To throw some red meat to the other side of the culture war today, Seth Huston became the first NCAA coach to comment in opposition to Lia Thomas’ eligibility at the upcoming NCAA championships.
While I agree with Huston on this issue, I’d rather him focus on getting our program back in a better place as we seem to have fallen back slightly the last several years.
Student protests and demands of resignation in 3, 2, 1 …
(01-25-2022 06:12 PM)greyowl72 Wrote: I love Eddie Izzard’s comedy. And always have. And thanks to GoodOwl for posting that hilarious clip.
And after reading Coach Houston’s comments, I can understand his attitude regarding the NCAA and their stance on transgender issues. Passing the buck. Not helpful.
And, as an aside, Eddie Izard is a transvestite. Unless something has occurred recently, I don’t think he’s transgender.
I'd like to think that his comments primarily relate to
a) the NCAA punting rather than leading on this... it's not as if this is something brand new and
b) in large part because of this, the 'system' not being able to address these needs/issues in a way that doesn't unfairly (and without any real notice or options) penalize significant numbers of others in order to accommodate a few (or in this case, one?)
I'm sure some will find fault with almost any position anyone could take... If you support one, you are somehow against the other... but I hear (hopefully not simply because I want it to be so) that he is just upset that the NCAA isn't taking the lead on establishing competitive fairness... whatever that ultimately looks like
To reiterate something I believe Owl numbers has said before, until there is a transgender division (as Coach Huston alluded to), there should be two levels of competition: biologically-born females in one competition and then everyone else in another competition. That "everyone else" can certainly include biologically born-females that want to compete against transgender persons and biologically-born males.
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2022 02:47 PM by westsidewolf1989.)
I think you will need 3 categories. Biologically born females, biologically born males, and then enhanced humans. Enhanced would include any currently banned substances.
What i find interesting about this whole situation, is that it doesn't seem to be an issue on the "men's sports" side of the equation.... and, that women fought for years to gain equality in athletics thus title IX and now it is coming back to haunt.
(01-27-2022 01:57 AM)Owlman49 Wrote: What i find interesting about this whole situation, is that it doesn't seem to be an issue on the "men's sports" side of the equation.... and, that women fought for years to gain equality in athletics thus title IX and now it is coming back to haunt.
This.
Almost every sport would be dominated by men... not all men by any means, but men. Women fought for years to have their own place to compete 'fairly' against other women and now that is being taken away/spoiled/strained/choose your adjective... and they are mostly silent/being silenced. I don't get it. Nobody would care one bit if a 'born female' wanted to compete against men... whether transgendered or not. Sure, they would displace a few men/boys, but they certainly wouldn't dominate sports the way men would dominate (most) women's sports. I'm sorry if that sounds sexist... its not. It's demonstrable by all of the professional sports and Olympics, especially in 'timed' events.
I understand the struggles for these others, or at least I'm trying to... but in the end we're talking about subrogating women once again... and in an NCAA sport, you're potentially talking about denying a woman an education.
I don't think anyone would care if trans athletes wanted to compete in an 'open' division.... or in the men's division... and some of them would compete quite well, though they would be at a disadvantage.... either past or present... and unless and until there are enough of them for a third division, I just don't see how to fix it. Even if there were a third division, I am guessing there would be some advantages for one direction or the other (years of developing as a male vs currently taking male hormones) that would STILL not make things 'fair'.
But again, let's not forget that the whole reason women's sports were carved out and supported through Title IX was that sports were 'not fair'... and this was an attempt to address that.
(01-27-2022 01:57 AM)Owlman49 Wrote: What i find interesting about this whole situation, is that it doesn't seem to be an issue on the "men's sports" side of the equation.... and, that women fought for years to gain equality in athletics thus title IX and now it is coming back to haunt.
This.
Almost every sport would be dominated by men... not all men by any means, but men. Women fought for years to have their own place to compete 'fairly' against other women and now that is being taken away/spoiled/strained/choose your adjective... and they are mostly silent/being silenced. I don't get it. Nobody would care one bit if a 'born female' wanted to compete against men... whether transgendered or not. Sure, they would displace a few men/boys, but they certainly wouldn't dominate sports the way men would dominate (most) women's sports. I'm sorry if that sounds sexist... its not. It's demonstrable by all of the professional sports and Olympics, especially in 'timed' events.
I understand the struggles for these others, or at least I'm trying to... but in the end we're talking about subrogating women once again... and in an NCAA sport, you're potentially talking about denying a woman an education.
I don't think anyone would care if trans athletes wanted to compete in an 'open' division.... or in the men's division... and some of them would compete quite well, though they would be at a disadvantage.... either past or present... and unless and until there are enough of them for a third division, I just don't see how to fix it. Even if there were a third division, I am guessing there would be some advantages for one direction or the other (years of developing as a male vs currently taking male hormones) that would STILL not make things 'fair'.
But again, let's not forget that the whole reason women's sports were carved out and supported through Title IX was that sports were 'not fair'... and this was an attempt to address that.
I personally think this specific instance is not one most people are concerned with when it comes to transgender competition in sport - Thomas began transitioning around two years ago and even competed on the men's team at Penn. Such a late transition and then switch to women's competition - especially one with individual competition - seems to pretty clearly pose an issue regarding fair competition and what you talk about above.
It's the less obvious situations - transitions that occur earlier in life, people who are born intersex, women with naturally high testosterone levels - that create situations where a rule of "compete with what's on your birth certificate" may not be an appropriate approach. I think you fix this by reviewing things case-by-case and making the decision based on multiple lines of evidence.
To a certain extent, NCAA not making a blanket rule makes sense. But this seems to clearly be a case where the transition in competition isn't appropriate, and they're dragging their feet/punting.
(01-27-2022 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I personally think this specific instance is not one most people are concerned with when it comes to transgender competition in sport - Thomas began transitioning around two years ago and even competed on the men's team at Penn. Such a late transition and then switch to women's competition - especially one with individual competition - seems to pretty clearly pose an issue regarding fair competition and what you talk about above.
It's the less obvious situations - transitions that occur earlier in life, people who are born intersex, women with naturally high testosterone levels - that create situations where a rule of "compete with what's on your birth certificate" may not be an appropriate approach. I think you fix this by reviewing things case-by-case and making the decision based on multiple lines of evidence.
To a certain extent, NCAA not making a blanket rule makes sense. But this seems to clearly be a case where the transition in competition isn't appropriate, and they're dragging their feet/punting.
I think we agree on the idea that the NCAA has punted on this... but to the specific issue, you hit on what I was alluding to and open an entirely different can of worms.
What would stop a woman from taking performance enhancing steroids increasing her testosterone to a level where she was 'out of compliance' with NCAA or Olympic standards and then simply claiming that she is trans/intersexual and taking their chances on appeal with the NCAA? With college scholarships, NIL and other potential revenues at stake, I think there would likely be a TON more of this situation than of true trans persons... and the NCAA hasn't shown itself to be very good at taking stands and sticking to them. I'm far from an expert here, but I suspect that a woman could have a pretty significant amount of steroid in her body and still not be anywhere near what a male has.... and that some women have levels near there 'naturally'.
Maybe its not birth certificate, but it still needs to be 'something' more than simply a claim and/or a hormone level. There needs to be SOME objective standard... that of course can be appealed and/or amended for those rare occasions or as things change... and birth certificate is the easiest for something to do 'now'.... a starting point of allowing trans women (like in this case) to compete at some level.
(01-27-2022 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I personally think this specific instance is not one most people are concerned with when it comes to transgender competition in sport - Thomas began transitioning around two years ago and even competed on the men's team at Penn. Such a late transition and then switch to women's competition - especially one with individual competition - seems to pretty clearly pose an issue regarding fair competition and what you talk about above.
It's the less obvious situations - transitions that occur earlier in life, people who are born intersex, women with naturally high testosterone levels - that create situations where a rule of "compete with what's on your birth certificate" may not be an appropriate approach. I think you fix this by reviewing things case-by-case and making the decision based on multiple lines of evidence.
To a certain extent, NCAA not making a blanket rule makes sense. But this seems to clearly be a case where the transition in competition isn't appropriate, and they're dragging their feet/punting.
I think we agree on the idea that the NCAA has punted on this... but to the specific issue, you hit on what I was alluding to and open an entirely different can of worms.
What would stop a woman from taking performance enhancing steroids increasing her testosterone to a level where she was 'out of compliance' with NCAA or Olympic standards and then simply claiming that she is trans/intersexual and taking their chances on appeal with the NCAA? With college scholarships, NIL and other potential revenues at stake, I think there would likely be a TON more of this situation than of true trans persons... and the NCAA hasn't shown itself to be very good at taking stands and sticking to them. I'm far from an expert here, but I suspect that a woman could have a pretty significant amount of steroid in her body and still not be anywhere near what a male has.... and that some women have levels near there 'naturally'.
Maybe its not birth certificate, but it still needs to be 'something' more than simply a claim and/or a hormone level. There needs to be SOME objective standard... that of course can be appealed and/or amended for those rare occasions or as things change... and birth certificate is the easiest for something to do 'now'.... a starting point of allowing trans women (like in this case) to compete at some level.
To your point - the issue you bring up isn't about transgender athletes transitioning between sports, but instead allegations of doping to gain an unfair advantage.
But I think we're on the same page. I don't want an objective standard to be completely firm and inflexible. So to what you say, the objective standard could be a starting point - such as a birth certificate sex - which says if you want to deviate from this you must make your case.
We are both seem to be advocating for the same thing here - evaluating these decisions on a case-by-case basis that use multiple lines of evidence to make a ruling about athletes being able to compete in a given sport under a given sex.
(01-27-2022 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I personally think this specific instance is not one most people are concerned with when it comes to transgender competition in sport - Thomas began transitioning around two years ago and even competed on the men's team at Penn. Such a late transition and then switch to women's competition - especially one with individual competition - seems to pretty clearly pose an issue regarding fair competition and what you talk about above.
It's the less obvious situations - transitions that occur earlier in life, people who are born intersex, women with naturally high testosterone levels - that create situations where a rule of "compete with what's on your birth certificate" may not be an appropriate approach. I think you fix this by reviewing things case-by-case and making the decision based on multiple lines of evidence.
To a certain extent, NCAA not making a blanket rule makes sense. But this seems to clearly be a case where the transition in competition isn't appropriate, and they're dragging their feet/punting.
I think we agree on the idea that the NCAA has punted on this... but to the specific issue, you hit on what I was alluding to and open an entirely different can of worms.
What would stop a woman from taking performance enhancing steroids increasing her testosterone to a level where she was 'out of compliance' with NCAA or Olympic standards and then simply claiming that she is trans/intersexual and taking their chances on appeal with the NCAA? With college scholarships, NIL and other potential revenues at stake, I think there would likely be a TON more of this situation than of true trans persons... and the NCAA hasn't shown itself to be very good at taking stands and sticking to them. I'm far from an expert here, but I suspect that a woman could have a pretty significant amount of steroid in her body and still not be anywhere near what a male has.... and that some women have levels near there 'naturally'.
Maybe its not birth certificate, but it still needs to be 'something' more than simply a claim and/or a hormone level. There needs to be SOME objective standard... that of course can be appealed and/or amended for those rare occasions or as things change... and birth certificate is the easiest for something to do 'now'.... a starting point of allowing trans women (like in this case) to compete at some level.
It is very complex. The whole construct of sport is to compete to determine a victor. And there is no way to make all the variables even to make the competition fair. Yes you can control some variables which are current rules that are in place. There are differences in a body's response to exercise and activity. There are differences in genetics which impact performance. And these differences are inherent in each group as well as one's gender. The anaerobic threshold will vary between individuals within a group as well as between the genders. It is in one's genes and is what it is. Training can improve it so those athletes that train more efficiently to improve it will win more competitions. You can increase oxygen delivery artificially and this is restricted, blood doping or erythropoietin administration. Muscle mass also increases power and thus performance, anabolic steroids and growth hormone. These means are again restricted. Men by nature have more muscle mass and thus more power than women. As such, changing male to female will still have more traits of performance enhancement and render an competitive inequality. It is further impacted by the muscle composition with regards to fast twitch and slow twitch fibers for rate of power production and ultimately impacts the anaerobic threshold and performance. These can be modified slightly with training techniques which can be regulated to make them more equitable. So, again, there is a genetic component to being born with good genes for the better athletes that you can't regulate or make equal with a rule. In my opinion there should be rules against advantages gained by artificially altering physiology that would result in performance improvement and an advantage over an opponent.
(01-27-2022 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: To your point - the issue you bring up isn't about transgender athletes transitioning between sports, but instead allegations of doping to gain an unfair advantage.
Of course. Like most things, you need to make sure that the rules set up to make things 'fair' can't be exploited to make things 'unfair' in a different direction. The amount of power and money at issue makes certain things almost inevitable. We're not talking about someone 'unfairly' winning at a YMCA swimming meet, but at a level where tickets are purchased, scholarships or other moneys are awarded etc etc etc.
Quote:But I think we're on the same page. I don't want an objective standard to be completely firm and inflexible. So to what you say, the objective standard could be a starting point - such as a birth certificate sex - which says if you want to deviate from this you must make your case.
We are both seem to be advocating for the same thing here - evaluating these decisions on a case-by-case basis that use multiple lines of evidence to make a ruling about athletes being able to compete in a given sport under a given sex.
Mostly. I'm just saying that absent anything else, the birth certificate is a starting point... and its up to advocates (I'd think) to come up with alternatives and move those through the proving process (to demonstrate fairness). I'm not a fan of significant numbers of one-off cases... especially under the auspices of the NCAA. That group isn't fair, and has no real pretense to be so IMO. They are protecting 'the money'.
(01-27-2022 10:23 AM)ruowls Wrote: In my opinion there should be rules against advantages gained by artificially altering physiology that would result in performance improvement and an advantage over an opponent.
I THINK I agree with this, but it doesn't address the issue of defining 'artificially altering physiology'. If you mean adding male hormones to a genetic female, that seems straightforward and would tend to lead to giving him an advantage over other genetic females, but not over males... but in the other direction, it is not the artificial alteration that would give an advantage. She would have an advantage naturally that is being suppressed artificially. Right? Having your clinical perspective is helpful.
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2022 11:05 AM by Hambone10.)
(01-27-2022 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: To your point - the issue you bring up isn't about transgender athletes transitioning between sports, but instead allegations of doping to gain an unfair advantage.
Of course. Like most things, you need to make sure that the rules set up to make things 'fair' can't be exploited to make things 'unfair' in a different direction. The amount of power and money at issue makes certain things almost inevitable. We're not talking about someone 'unfairly' winning at a YMCA swimming meet, but at a level where tickets are purchased, scholarships or other moneys are awarded etc etc etc.
Quote:But I think we're on the same page. I don't want an objective standard to be completely firm and inflexible. So to what you say, the objective standard could be a starting point - such as a birth certificate sex - which says if you want to deviate from this you must make your case.
We are both seem to be advocating for the same thing here - evaluating these decisions on a case-by-case basis that use multiple lines of evidence to make a ruling about athletes being able to compete in a given sport under a given sex.
Mostly. I'm just saying that absent anything else, the birth certificate is a starting point... and its up to advocates (I'd think) to come up with alternatives and move those through the proving process (to demonstrate fairness). I'm not a fan of significant numbers of one-off cases... especially under the auspices of the NCAA. That group isn't fair, and has no real pretense to be so IMO. They are protecting 'the money'.
(01-27-2022 10:23 AM)ruowls Wrote: In my opinion there should be rules against advantages gained by artificially altering physiology that would result in performance improvement and an advantage over an opponent.
I THINK I agree with this, but it doesn't address the issue of defining 'artificially altering physiology'. If you mean adding male hormones to a genetic female, that seems straightforward and would tend to lead to giving him an advantage over other genetic females, but not over males... but in the other direction, it is not the artificial alteration that would give an advantage. She would have an advantage naturally that is being suppressed artificially. Right? Having your clinical perspective is helpful.
Giving male hormones, anabolic steroids, will give anybody receiving them an advantage over whatever group they are born into. So, males or females taking steroids will increase muscle mass and give an unfair advantage within that group. However, the physiological advantages most likely will not be able to overcome the genetic inherent inequities. In other words giving male hormones to a women, think East German women athletes in the Olympics in the 1980s. can't make a genetic woman equal to a genetic male in regards to performance because the women are starting at a genetic disadvantage already. If you go the other way by giving female hormones to a male, then you would decrease the athletic performance compared to other MALE athletes. That athlete would still have an advantage over other female athletes because they genetically had an advantage when they started to become more "female". You can't completely erase previous development. Obviously, that athlete would now have more female traits and would be at a disadvantage versus male athletes. Give male hormones to males and you have Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. Give female hormones to males and you have Kaitlyn Jenner. Won an Olympic Gold as a male against males. Put her in an athletic competition now against other women her age and she would have an advantage athletically against them but not against male athletes her age.
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2022 12:07 PM by ruowls.)
(01-27-2022 03:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Interesting perspective offered by Pat Forde's daughter (who happens to be one of the best swimmers in the NCAA).
It is interesting. I would be interested in what others thoughts about it are. I had several observations and thoughts come to my mind while reading the article.
(01-27-2022 03:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Interesting perspective offered by Pat Forde's daughter (who happens to be one of the best swimmers in the NCAA).
It is interesting. I would be interested in what others thoughts about it are. I had several observations and thoughts come to my mind while reading the article.
My first thought is that she is so good, one person isn't going to keep her from succeeding at her sport... or getting a scholarship... and as a competitive athlete, I'm betting she loves to compete (and beat) men... and Lia would be a close second. Also, she's in a very liberal part of the country and to say anything else would be a major issue. She could have just remained silent so I'm not knocking her for it,... but its still a fact.
(01-25-2022 06:12 PM)greyowl72 Wrote: I love Eddie Izzard’s comedy. And always have. And thanks to GoodOwl for posting that hilarious clip.
And after reading Coach Houston’s comments, I can understand his attitude regarding the NCAA and their stance on transgender issues. Passing the buck. Not helpful.
And, as an aside, Eddie Izard is a transvestite. Unless something has occurred recently, I don’t think he’s transgender.
Well, he's an EXECUTIVE transvestite...be clear about that...
I met him once...he stayed way late at a signing event and after hours and the doors closed, patiently and cheerfully talked to and signed for every single person who had waited in an unanticipatedly long queue. Something few "celebrities" of today would deem worthy of their time. I don't subscribe to all his particular points of view, but I do respect his talent as an entertainer, his comedy and especially his intelligence. He has a great balance of biting sarcasm with a hint of a wink in the eye that gives him that rare comic genius...and he's clearly studied history (being that he's from "Europe..where all the history comes from."
