This is one of those issues that I really haven’t thought much about, interesting to hear the different perspectives.
Am I wrong in assuming that there is no competitive difference between the bottom 5% of athletic scholarship recipients and the equivalent number of best players not offered athletic scholarships in any given sport?
Personally, I don’t have any more of a problem with “cis woman loses scholarship to trans woman” than “6’0 woman loses scholarship to 6’3 woman” but even if it’s accepted as unfair I would think there’s no one who is objectively 100% deserving of a scholarship losing out.
It’s going to be wrong, if difficult to measure. You wouldn’t be able to measure it in a team sport, but in something like track or swimming? It would cause someone who objectively deserved it to not get one.
Would be a small affect too obviously.
This is a tricky issue. I’ve worked with a number of trans teens whose life partly hangs in the balance of being validated for who they are. I’ve also worked with plenty of damaged and hurting cis teens whose life hangs in the balance of their sports participation - often a lone bright spot in an otherwise desperate life. I understand the desire to protect them both.
The problem with this issue, I think, is that we don’t know for sure that group #2 is actually being harmed. And because we don’t have the hard statistical data necessary to make an informed decision, much of the discourse is driven by reactionist phobic propaganda telling us that - once again - minorities are scary monsters out to ruin our lives and mangle our children. Sound familiar?
We’ve spent thousands of years forcing the marginalized to prove to us that they are not a threat, and now we’re asking already-tortured 16-year-olds to do the same. Maybe we should just default to treating minorities as equals until proven otherwise.
15 Likes
Right, and character only matters because there is little to differentiate athletically at that level.
My alma mater has a women’s basketball player who is 6’7 and two who are 6’6. Surely, there are shorter players out there who’ve worked harder…
This is an excellent post. That is all I have to offer.
1 Like
Legit shocked at how many otherwise good posters are buying into the obvious right wing bad faith bullshit “trans people are ruining women’s sports!” argument.
8 Likes
I think it’s a tough line to walk as a cis male. If you default to empathizing with the plight of cis females, trying to combat your patriarchal/misogynistic programming, it now leads you into accusations of a new form of bigotry. The issue is messy and nuanced, it seems to be markedly less so for those without sport-centric sympathies (and the knowledge therein).
Anyway, the only other thing I have to add tangentially related to the conversation is this exception to the rule.
Manon Rhéaume (born February 24, 1972) is a retired Canadian ice hockey goaltender. An Olympic silver medalist, she achieved a number of historic firsts during her career, including becoming the first woman to play in any of the major North American pro-sports leagues.[1]
In 1992, Rhéaume signed a contract with the Tampa Bay Lightning of the NHL, appearing in preseason exhibition games in 1992 and 1993. She spent five years in professional minor leagues, playing for a total of seven teams and appearing in 24 games. She also played on the Canada women’s national ice hockey team, winning gold medals at the IIHF Women’s World Championship in 1992 and 1994, and the silver medal at the 1998 Winter Olympics.
She was also 5’7 fwiw.
Using Reddit as a guide (yeah, I know) I can’t help but object to the notion that liberals are stretching rationality to go out of their way to insist there are no issues with trans women participating in women’s sports. IME it’s 100% the other way.
I’m not saying it’s always in bad faith but both online and in real life I’ve found myself largely alone in the position that this is at most a nothing issue and that some trans women having an athletic advantage over all or nearly all cis women isn’t objectively unfair to begin with.
I think you’d have to define liberals/the left incredibly narrowly to come anywhere close to a demographic that is pro-trans women I’m women’s sports.
“Protecting” cis women who mostly havent asked to be protected from scary trans people in their bathrooms/classrooms/sportsfields is really not challenging your misogyny.
Edit 1. Its also not a tough line.
Edit 2. GTFO with your vague “well actshually… its only the real sports experts itt who can understand the nuance” nonsense please.
6 Likes
There are no “Men’s” divisions. Chess tournaments are open to everyone, although there are some women’s events/prizes in order to encourage women’s chess.
1 Like
Because I’ve seen both sides expressed in this debate and I’m genuinely curious what the % breakdown is on this issue here. Private ballot poll.:
Should we have Gender Divisions in sports?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
It’s not hard to imagine why young women might feel uncomfortable sitting opposite and only a few feet away from a man in a loosely regulated environment for several hours.
0% this. 100% sexism.
Too simplistic. Women have the right (as per Polgar) to compete against men if they wish.
It is a strange anomaly that in a cerebral “sport” there are separate tournaments for women, and I’d be in favour of scrapping them if the participants didn’t want them.
It’s true that women were deemed intellectually inferior when such tournaments were first proposed (and some top men players since have embarrassingly signed up to this notion), but despite the dodgy history it’s hard to deny there are benefits to the players and to the encouragement to younger females to take up the game.
But I’ll let you mansplain to women chess players why they shouldn’t be allowed to have their own tournaments.
Swiiiiiiiing and a miss.
4 Likes
The reason women would want to have their own group is because of the sexism of men and how they treat the women. Same reason there are female only poker tournaments.
If men weren’t awful no woman would want them.
My point stands. It’s sexism. Both in men segregating themselves due to a sense of superiority and women segregating themselves to get away from men.
1 Like
Oh ok. So when you originally said “0% this” (re. women feeling uncomfortable) you really meant “100% this”.
Easy mistake to make.
1 Like
There’s just no way to reconcile being a trans ally and “trans women are women” with “also we need to carefully regulate which activities they are allowed to participate in as women.”
Also people seem to be making the bizarre assumption that the only thing a male has to do to become an elite athlete is…transition to being a woman? The fact that men are better athletes than women on average doesn’t mean that every person born male is going to suddenly be competitive in women’s sports.
8 Likes