High School Boy Wins All-State Honors In Girls Track And Field

Maybe this points up something that has been ignored for a long time: gender is a poor basis for dividing up sports.

I mean, it's easy to administer -- or was -- but it's really a proxy for other things, like muscle mass and size.

As we learn more, and gender identification becomes a legitimate factor, we should change what we base our divisions on.

For instance, the Olympics recently came up with rules regarding transgender athletes. Their rules are based on testosterone levels -- basically, for a male-to-female transgender to compete as a woman, they must submit to regular testing, and their testosterone levels must be below a cutoff for a year prior to competition.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...tes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery

That seems like a practical and logical approach that addresses the concerns of everyone involved.

You couldn't do exactly that for high-school students -- a year of testing isn't always possible or practical -- but you could come up with a similar approach based on factors that are directly relevant, rather than a proxy like gender.

 

So for you, there is no difference between identity and action? That's an interesting problem you have, maybe you should get it checked out?

For those of us capable of dealing with reality, and who see the world as it is (shades of grey) it's no challenge.

 

Since sports were divided by sex, it would figure that gender was ignored...

 

Thank you, word Nazi. The point still stands: Sex is a proxy for other things. So maybe we should stop using it, and instead base our groupings on things that are directly relevant, like testosterone levels.

 

As are ethnicities. Should we segregated these events by race? Using your standard of reasoning we should.

 

I tell myself that every time I look at my non-executive Costco membership card.

Oh, it's BS... you won't get me to say it isn't. I don't get it, and my opinion (as an admitted novice on the subject) is that these parents have effectively failed their children. However, that doesn't prevent me from realizing that simply identifying as a woman isn't hurting other women. Going out in public dressed as a woman doesn't harm women (identity). Participating in sport that allows for physiological advantage harms women (performance). The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Nice try, I know what Males and Females are. I also know that these are decided at birth and not open to a person Identifying as one of them.


The only one with an issue to be checked out is you and those who share your views I'm afraid. Reality isnt a word that you should be using until you actually figure out what it means.

 

Bingo, dude! Excellent example.......one thing about this that gets me is where is the PRIDE of these teen guys? Apparently it's non-existent. They know they have an advantage over the girls and that's good enuf for them, just so they can win.......

 

Suuuure,
So lets go down this road of yours.


Tomorrow Joe Public decides he wants to identify as a Woman, but you have already said that biological Males have an advantage in some areas, and that you wouldnt favor them competing in areas where this obviously would sway the outcomes...so this means the identifer isnt valid in that area at least.

Where and when will this be valid? Is there a list of things that are included and what arent included so Joe knows how much this "identifier" is actually worth?


And why would you have any restrictions at all if you really believe in this? If you back a Man claiming to be a Woman...isnt that the end of the issue? "He" is now a Woman, and should be treated as such everywhere?

 

Your trying to reset the parameters of the contest after the fact. It was a competition of females and he has a dick. Besides, doing it your way, any future women's medal winners will be assumed to have been male at birth, and said medal will have no value in a woman's competition, And that will be the end of female sports.

 

Words mean things. To paraphrase George Orwell, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.

Sex is what it is. It's not a proxy for anything.

As for dividing athletes by their testosterone levels instead of sex, I think that's a hilarious idea.

I can only imagine what people will suggest when men sweep the Low T and High T events...

 

I expressed no opinion on this particular event. My post was about how this event shows that the way we currently divide athletes is outdated.

Um, how could you possibly draw that conclusion? I think you're confusing me with another poster.

 

News article said he was from Thailand.
http://www.adn.com/sports/2016/05/2...ck-meet-a-transgender-athlete-makes-her-mark/

 

That is the problem I have, about people arguing that some women can.

The argument of "Could you beat Rhonda Rousey" is a straw man. You gotta go position for position and I don't think Rousey would even touch Anderson Silva or even Mighty Mouse.

On a separate note as someone who has practiced mma for 9 years, I want to test this theory and have a grappling tournament with Paige VanZant. I will go to such trouble fro science.

 

It only appears outdated to those trying to pretend that a Sex is something people choose. Of course thats going to create alot of logistical problems and new ways will need to be found to regain some balance.


How about just leaving fantasy playtime with Mr Rogers in the land of Make believe to begin with? Solves all of the issues.

 

Yay. But in this case, your criticism of my word choice didn't actually change the point I was making. Maybe you should reserve word criticism for when it actually makes a difference.

Sure it is. Why do we divide athletes on the basis of sex? You guys have said so yourself: Because men tend to have greater size and muscle mass. Note the "tend to". Sex is a proxy for size and muscle mass.

Now, specific size and muscle mass aren't a basis for division: obviously, we let male superathletes compete against male's with way less size, speed and muscle mass.

And we don't care about ALL things that affect those traits. As another poster has pointed out, we don't segregate on the basis of race, even though there are measurable racial differences, much like there are measurable sex differences.

Really, it seems like dividing on the basis of sex, but not on the basis of other, similar things, is pretty arbitrary.

That said, we can at least look at WHY we divide on the basis of sex. And it comes down to this: WHY do males tend to have greater size and muscle mass?

Answer: testosterone.

So if someone declares as transgender, why not use a directly relevant criteria -- testosterone levels -- to determine who they compete against? It addresses both the gender-identification issue and the competitive issue.

Given the above, why?

You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

 

Edit.
He's Thai not a native Alaskan.

There's an unfair advantage because he retains male musculature regardless of identifying as female.

 

You proceed from a bigoted assumption, thus invalidating the rest of your logic.

Gender identification is a real thing, and it is separate from physical sex. You claiming it is "fantasy playtime" is irrelevant bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

If a trans person goes through gender reassignment surgery, effectively becoming a physical female, it would make no sense to force them to compete with men in sporting events -- they would be handicapped from the start due to the physical changes to their body, including hormonal changes.

What the OP is about is the transitional case -- someone born male, who identifies as female, but has not yet gone the surgical route. How should such athletes be treated?

I think the decision made in this instance is flawed, but the real problem is that the school district had to make a decision, and there was no good answer. They could be criticized either way, because they were trying to shoehorn this situation into a binary set of pigeonholes that didn't apply very well.

Which is why my point is that current sex-segregated rules don't adequately address such situations, and given that questions like these are going to become more common, not less, we should examine our rules to see if they need updating to better handle things like this.

Your desire to just ignore the whole thing is just head-in-the-sand denial.

 

Good catch. For some reason it seems to me that Thailand has a lot of girly men.

 

If you werent born a Female, you cannot become a Female Ray. Your position is flawed from the get go.

 

I don't know. But the school district has to follow state laws.
What does that have to do with Alaska being mostly a R state? Can't blame the D's.

 

This issue also shows that groups given special recognition will use it to the point of misuse unless the parameters are carefully delineated. IMO the rules/regulations/ whatever behind this incident must have been very poorly written, perhaps intentionally, to create discord and confusion. This is not governmental officials doing their job, but creating unnecessary discord and disruption.

 

It means the D's had little to do with setting the rules in Alaska. Unless you think the minority rules the business of the state. I'd say some R's had to go along with setting the rules.

 

No. Gender identification is not separate from sex, there are only he and she and this can only be reversed through a surgical intervention and not completely so. Gender identification is an invention of the tiniest of minority, longing for inclusion and wanting to be considered normal, taken to the extremes by the ever willing Liberals, of whom this thread is correctly make fun of.

There.

 

Local? It was state competition. Nothing local about it. Every school in the state starts out participating.