4 ms·

> but would be sad to be banned. Enforcing the existing and long-standing sex-based classification is not a ban; competition within one’s own sex category was

> but would be sad to be banned. Enforcing the existing and long-standing sex-based classification is not a ban; competition within one’s own sex category was always and remains permitted.

sintlpl 7mo ago
[flagged]
etherus 7mo ago
If you were required to compete with people of a gender you do not identify with, even when event organisers recognise you as more fitting among the other group, that's a ban. There are trans masc people. Requiring them to compete with women is unfair and disrespectful. Requiring trans fem people to do so is the same. The rules around gender identification in regulated sports require proof of medical treatment yada yada to accept that people are 'trans enough', which is itself discriminatory. Trans people are a lot less distinct and separate from everyone else than you'd be led to think.
- huntny 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - etherus 7mo ago
    Is this happening? I believe there are ~10 trans ncaa athletes. We're just hunting them. Why?
- frumplestlatz 7mo ago
  The classification is based on sex, expressly due to the material differences between the sexes. It is not and has never been rooted in any sort of sociological concept of gender as an independent category from one’s sex.
  - etherus 7mo ago
    The material difference between people we bar and do not bar is not large enough to constitute a difference against competing with people we assign within the same sex group [1][2][3]. This might feel counterintuitive, but please consider that trans people who have medically transitioned are not as different from cis people of the same gender than you expect. Hormones do a lot. [1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-... [2]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-... [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/
    - junofan 7mo ago
      I think the eye test is more reliable than the BMJ when it comes to international competition at the highest level. We’ve all seen the videos.
    - chipotle_coyote 7mo ago
      "This might feel counterintuitive" is precisely why the religious right has seized on transgender participation in athletics as a wedge issue. When they say "well, somebody who was born as a man obviously has a natural advantage over people born as women," it feels logical, right? The fact that it largely isn't supported by data rarely comes up, and when it does, it's easy to deflect with "maybe there's just not enough data yet" (which, of course, could just as easily be an argument against imposing such bans, but never mind). It is infuriating how successful the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd has been at pushing discriminatory legislation through in the last few years based largely on feelings rather than facts.
      - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
        Let’s reverse this. Why should physical competition be classified based on sociological conceptions around gender?
        7mo ago
- mirekrusin 7mo ago
  There could be translympics just like there is paralympics.
  - dpatterbee 7mo ago
    We probably don't want to head down the path of creating new competitions for people that meet arbitrary criteria. White-straight-man only olympics anyone?
    - zuminator 7mo ago
      White straight men aren't being barred from the Olympics.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - sillyfluke 7mo ago
      I'm guessing you wouldn't say this if you attended the paraolympics, or perhaps it would enforce your already held views, I'm not sure. But there are already 64 different classes of impairment that compete as far as I can tell. Frankly I found it a bit fascinating.
erxam 7mo ago
[flagged]
TimorousBestie 7mo ago
This kind of argument was not persuasive when Alito deployed it for his pedantic dissent in Bostock v. Clayton County [0, specifically p. 17], and it remains not persuasive now. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

> but would be sad to be banned. Enforcing the existing and long-standing sex-based classification is not a ban; competition within one’s own sex category was always and remains permitted.

sintlpl 7mo ago

[flagged]

etherus 7mo ago

If you were required to compete with people of a gender you do not identify with, even when event organisers recognise you as more fitting among the other group, that's a ban. There are trans masc people. Requiring them to compete with women is unfair and disrespectful. Requiring trans fem people to do so is the same. The rules around gender identification in regulated sports require proof of medical treatment yada yada to accept that people are 'trans enough', which is itself discriminatory. Trans people are a lot less distinct and separate from everyone else than you'd be led to think.

huntny 7mo ago
[flagged]
- etherus 7mo ago
  Is this happening? I believe there are ~10 trans ncaa athletes. We're just hunting them. Why?
frumplestlatz 7mo ago
The classification is based on sex, expressly due to the material differences between the sexes. It is not and has never been rooted in any sort of sociological concept of gender as an independent category from one’s sex.
- etherus 7mo ago
  The material difference between people we bar and do not bar is not large enough to constitute a difference against competing with people we assign within the same sex group [1][2][3]. This might feel counterintuitive, but please consider that trans people who have medically transitioned are not as different from cis people of the same gender than you expect. Hormones do a lot. [1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-... [2]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-... [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/
  - junofan 7mo ago
    I think the eye test is more reliable than the BMJ when it comes to international competition at the highest level. We’ve all seen the videos.
  - chipotle_coyote 7mo ago
    "This might feel counterintuitive" is precisely why the religious right has seized on transgender participation in athletics as a wedge issue. When they say "well, somebody who was born as a man obviously has a natural advantage over people born as women," it feels logical, right? The fact that it largely isn't supported by data rarely comes up, and when it does, it's easy to deflect with "maybe there's just not enough data yet" (which, of course, could just as easily be an argument against imposing such bans, but never mind). It is infuriating how successful the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd has been at pushing discriminatory legislation through in the last few years based largely on feelings rather than facts.
    - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
      Let’s reverse this. Why should physical competition be classified based on sociological conceptions around gender?
      - 7mo ago
mirekrusin 7mo ago
There could be translympics just like there is paralympics.
- dpatterbee 7mo ago
  We probably don't want to head down the path of creating new competitions for people that meet arbitrary criteria. White-straight-man only olympics anyone?
  - zuminator 7mo ago
    White straight men aren't being barred from the Olympics.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - sillyfluke 7mo ago
    I'm guessing you wouldn't say this if you attended the paraolympics, or perhaps it would enforce your already held views, I'm not sure. But there are already 64 different classes of impairment that compete as far as I can tell. Frankly I found it a bit fascinating.

erxam 7mo ago

[flagged]

TimorousBestie 7mo ago

This kind of argument was not persuasive when Alito deployed it for his pedantic dissent in Bostock v. Clayton County [0, specifically p. 17], and it remains not persuasive now. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf