197
submitted 9 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] Makhno@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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...

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

[-] EmilyIsTrans 19 points 9 months ago

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:

An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes... While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.

[-] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 19 points 9 months ago

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

[-] BeanGoblin 18 points 9 months ago

Please tell me what these "issues" are, with peer reviewed scientific sources. There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT. Furthermore, the same people touting trans kids for their supposed "advantages" are the same people forcing them to develop those "advantages" by restricting their access to healthcare before puberty begins.

The cruelty is the point.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 16 points 9 months ago

There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT.

Uh... Palm size? Heart and lung size? Height? Don't get me wrong I recognize this for the culture war bullshit it is, but there is some truth to this that needs to be addressed.

Edit: I only read the conclusion (and wouldn't be able to tell if the methodology is flawed anyway) but I found this.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago

So shouldn't we eliminate all players who may have physical advantages? What about a woman from birth who grows to 6'5"? Seems like that'd be an unfair advantage when playing against other women who may be only 5'10".

[-] ofcourse@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Athletes have always leveraged unfair advantages in sports. There’s a reason there’s super tall players in basketball and short ones in gymnastics. May be they should enforce that average height of teams must match global averages. Countries with fewer resources just can’t support athletes in many sports so why not make that more fair?

There’s research showing that some women athletes (i.e., born with female reproductive organs) have higher testosterone levels than many men, and even some male athletes. So why are they allowed to compete in women sports instead of men?

There’s a lot of ways to make sports more fair. Banning transgender people without fair science based facts is not one of them and is plain bigotry. It’s like saying an athlete on anti-depressants should be banned because they are happier and more motivated so have an unfair advantage.

[-] Uruanna@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

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.

[-] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago

The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 49 points 9 months ago

Do not engage with such bullshit. This is such a fucking non-issue, that is ultimately more about demonizing one of the most marginalized minorities in history, rather than "protecting" anyone.

[-] Gewoonmoi@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Yes, but the problem is that the right engages with these issues. It allows them to score points. The left should have never been in a position where it was arguing in favor of trans women in women's sports. It allows the ghouls on the right to dodge the economic and social issues that really matter.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

The left should focus on real problems that matter to people in material ways. The right wants to make major cultural battles over some tiny fraction of people. They don't "engage with these issues", they create them. If you feel the need yo constantly defend yourself from every manufactured right wing outrage, you have already lost. By engaging, you legitimize their narrative. Focus on improving peoples' lives in measurable ways.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

Yeah, we should totally focus on something so vanishingly rare and trivial it almost doesn't exist instead of the myriad of real world, life and death problems.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 9 months ago

We don’t need solutions for wealth inequality nor housing crisis nor cost of living issues nor the rise of fascism.

[-] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

It is trivial, but at the same time, this issue is a cultural flashpoint, extremely politicized, and also potentially a vote winner/loser. It's very unfortunate.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but the US just voted for a neo-fascist regime, and some of these cultural/identity issues may have played a role in that.

It's a tightrope, for sure.

All I can say for sure is that whatever the Dems were doing didn't and won't work moving forward. Whether it's true or not, the perception of the democratic party seems to be that they care more about identity than everyday issues. For everyone's sake, it might be time that they attempted to change that perception.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WhatSay@slrpnk.net 40 points 9 months ago

You know what's more unfair? Targeting transgender kids.

[-] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 38 points 9 months ago

Not placing a value judgement on this, but you can probably expect a lot of Dems to distance themselves on trans issues. It's a group of issues that takes up a lot of air, and divides the party, while uniting republicans.

[-] oyo@lemm.ee 23 points 9 months ago

It's so fucking dumb to capitulate to Republicans on any of these issues, because they'll just find some other bullshit to fabricate into a huge deal amongst their base of morons. Stand behind your beliefs you fucking cowards.

[-] djsoren19 5 points 9 months ago

It really doesn't seem that hard to just constantly disprove the lies they're telling, over and over, until eventually the people who are still sane in this country understand what a non-issue the conservatives are freaking out over. I feel the same way about their "migrant crime" myth, which Democrats also immediately capitulated to and started campaigning on fixing despite crime statistics clearly demonstrating migrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's almost like standing up for their beliefs was never the goal, and they'll just say whatever makes their corporate donors happy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] knightly@pawb.social 16 points 9 months ago

Sadly. You're correct. The existence of people like me is a wedge issue. >_<

[-] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

It's stupid because their donors do not want them moving left, so they continue to pander to these nonexistent folks that they think will move away from the republican party to vote for them, leaving behind their actual base, who will simply not vote.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

Yeah I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole. This is so low priority.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The way I view it is they claim to believe in a free market. I don't know of any leagues off the top of my head that aren't companies. If one company chooses to do it one way and it is actually bad for business, another company would replace them if it was actually an issue. But being that it isn't that big of a deal, no rival companies have surfaced to replace them.

[-] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Well I assume when talking from a government perspective, the conversation is going to inevitably become about highschool sports and whatnot. Where I still definitely don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] undystains@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

Sounds like someone is preparing for Presidential run for office.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Speaking as a Californian, unfortunately, he probably is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When you culture is so much about cOMpEtItiOn that you forget that sports are just a made up thing for witch we get to make whatever rules we like. Gender segregation in sports isn't that eternal either.

If you're that worried about different abilities competing, install a tiered system like the Special Olympics.

EDIT: Interesting read: https://daily.jstor.org/gender-incommensurability-in-sports/

What if the separation of competitions, “said to be a natural consequence of the differences between men and women,” is actually is “just a tool to create those differences”?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
197 points (100.0% liked)

News

33571 readers
2082 users here now

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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS