Women’s Ivy League Swimming?

[MrShorty]

@Grunt I doubt I have any more insight into what "carnal desires of the natural man" means than you do. I can easily go with the circular/tautological, "it means anything that runs counter to God's will for us," but that doesn't really help when deciding which individual behaviors and beliefs goes into that box.

I also agree that the Church is trying to be as loving and accepting as it knows how within the limits of what it believes God's will is. The question I see many asking is if the Church has a complete and accurate understanding of God's will regarding transgender persons, and, how to reconcile the Church's understanding of God's will with the understanding many individuals are claiming through personal revelation.

[Grunt]

44 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The question I see many asking is if the Church has a complete and accurate understanding of God's will regarding transgender persons, and, how to reconcile the Church's understanding of God's will with the understanding many individuals are claiming through personal revelation.

You do?   I feel The Family is pretty clear.  I think individuals in the Church struggle with God's will not matching their personal ideology.   I certainly did/do.   It was difficult for me to bend to God's will.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Grunt

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

I hate to break it to you @Traveler, but many people, even those you view as sinners, are not stupid. They’ll know within thirty seconds if you are preaching at them out of brotherly love/honest Christian concern or just out of a desire to scream, preach, show off or as an outlet for anger issues. 
 

Ask yourself this (and I mean this honestly)-who are you more likely to listen to? Someone who hates you or someone who actually legitimately cares about you? 
 

If you can’t convey the care part, your words are totally meaningless. 

 

 

People love to blame others for their shortcomings.  "Yeah, I'd keep my covenants but I don't feel you care about me".    It's human nature.  

Edited February 25, 2022 by Grunt

[MrShorty]

@Grunt I'm not convinced that the Family Proclamation is as clear as is sometimes claimed. The Proclamation states that, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Beyond that, I see nothing in the document that defines or elaborate on what "gender" means. Pres. Oaks clarified a few years ago that, as far as the Church was concerned (if I recall correctly, he did not claim revelation or otherwise to be speaking for God), gender means biological sex at birth. As I see it, there's enough ambiguity there to allow someone to recognize through personal revelation that their eternal gender may not line up with their biological sex at birth.

As for the suggestion that people are just stubborn about bending their will to God's will -- probably true. If it's not too much of a distraction, I think a big part of why the priesthood and temple ban lasted until '78 was our collective stubbornness about bending our will to God's will. Ultimately, the challenge is still the same -- how do we know that the declarations of our leaders are God's will? Are we going to reduce the question of what to do about those who don't get a testimony or get a contrary testimony down to stubbornness on the part of the member?

IMO, if we are going to reduce the discussion down to, "those who don't get testimonies are just stubborn," I think we will lose some of the ability to have good conversations. I know many users here at 3rd hour don't always like those conversations, and I don't necessarily think those conversations have to take place here at 3rd hour. There are plenty of other places where these conversations can take place. Wherever the conversation takes place, I think it will need to be more nuanced than, "someone is stubborn."

[MrShorty]

@Traveler I want to start by saying that I am sorry you were bullied like that in the Army in the mid-20th century. Such behavior seems completely antithetical to any kind of understanding of Christian behavior.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Second, I learned that despite all the arguments to the contrary that human sexual behaviors are learned and are not prewired

Recognizing that this belief comes out of your anecdotal experience, I feel like it must be said that, in the 21st century, the consensus is that human sexual proclivities (and transgenderism, too) are at least partially in born (usually described as a complex and poorly understood interplay between genetic, in-utero epigenetic, and environmental factors). I don't know how to best reconcile your anecdotal experience and conclusion with the conclusions and experiences of a myriad of other people that don't match yours. Ultimately, the only thing I think I can say is that we have a different and better (even if still incomplete) understanding of LGBT issues than we did half a century ago. If we want to speak into the current marketplace of ideas on LGBT issues, we need to have a firm grasp of the current understandings. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that you or I or 3rd hour need to lead out in these discussions. Those who do successfully engage the current dialog are going to have a good understanding of the current ideas and beliefs.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Grunt I'm not convinced that the Family Proclamation is as clear as is sometimes claimed. The Proclamation states that, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Beyond that, I see nothing in the document that defines or elaborate on what "gender" means. Pres. Oaks clarified a few years ago that, as far as the Church was concerned (if I recall correctly, he did not claim revelation or otherwise to be speaking for God), gender means biological sex at birth. As I see it, there's enough ambiguity there to allow someone to recognize through personal revelation that their eternal gender may not line up with their biological sex at birth.

See, this is where the problem lies.   The Church issued "The Family".   When it didn't agree with what some people wished were true, those people said "ahhh, but gender could mean anything".   So the Church came out and said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/transgender-understanding-yourself/how-does-the-church-define-gender?lang=eng

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is biological sex at birth.

Those same people are now saying "ahhh, but that's ambiguous".   It's not, though.  It's very clear and has been even further clarified.   The Prophet himself could knock on the door, look those people in the eye, and spell it out even further for them and they still wouldn't accept it.  They are looking for loopholes.   It's sad, and I don't know how to reach those people.  

Quote

As for the suggestion that people are just stubborn about bending their will to God's will -- probably true. If it's not too much of a distraction, I think a big part of why the priesthood and temple ban lasted until '78 was our collective stubbornness about bending our will to God's will. Ultimately, the challenge is still the same -- how do we know that the declarations of our leaders are God's will? Are we going to reduce the question of what to do about those who don't get a testimony or get a contrary testimony down to stubbornness on the part of the member?

Stubbornness?  I wouldn't say so.  Sometimes testimonies are a light switch.  Sometimes they are not.  There are numerous talks on testimony, though.   You aren't going to get a testimony of everything, but if your testimony is contrary to what the Prophet has stated as true, then why would you stay in the Church?

Quote

IMO, if we are going to reduce the discussion down to, "those who don't get testimonies are just stubborn," I think we will lose some of the ability to have good conversations. I know many users here at 3rd hour don't always like those conversations, and I don't necessarily think those conversations have to take place here at 3rd hour. There are plenty of other places where these conversations can take place. Wherever the conversation takes place, I think it will need to be more nuanced than, "someone is stubborn."

I didn't see anyone call someone stubborn, but I may have missed it.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@mikbone I agree that we need to build our foundation on the words of Christ. As it relates to transgender issues (including how to navigate competitive sports), what are the words of Christ on this issue and how do we know they are the words of Christ?

Perhaps alongside that, in a pluralistic society, how and to what extent should we inject our understanding of the words of Christ into the laws, practices, and procedures of sports' governing bodies and states and nations?

Well, I have some pretty good qualifications to comment on this question.  I am the original poster.  I have a medical degree.  I competed in NCAA Division I sports.  And I read the words of Jesus Christ.  

You may not realize it... But I originally posted this thread as a joke.  In my opinion, this is not a transgender issue.  It is an issue about cheating in sports.  I competed against athletes who cheated with anabolic steroids.  It is not fair.  Women should be able to compete with women.  If transgender athletes wish to compete, we should probably let them have their own division.  I suspect that there would not be a tremendous amount of interest. 

Neither of these two athletes has genetic or developmental anomalies like testicular feminization or ambiguous genitalia (which are very very rare btw).  They are taking advantage of the 'shifting sands' of transgender wokeness to bring glory to themselves while dashing the dreams of women who have worked very hard to become elite athletes.

I am a card-carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and as such, I believe that the following statement as the words of Christ.

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

My sport was the Decathalon just like Kaitlyn Jenner.  Back when Kaitlyn was Bruce, she was an impressive athlete.  I suspect that he/she may have taken anabolic steroids back in the '70s, many of the elite athletes were back then...  But he competed with the men, not the women.  

Edited February 25, 2022 by mikbone

[MrShorty]

13 minutes ago, Grunt said:

if your testimony is contrary to what the Prophet has stated as true, then why would you stay in the Church?

A very good question. As Tevye said, "I'll tell you, I don't know" All I know is that I see many who want to stay in the Church in spite of their disagreements. How do we feel about that? Would we prefer to encourage them to see the door and take it -- kind of "purify the Church of its progressive elements"? Or do we want to engage them where they're at and help them stay?

As for the word "stubborn", that was the word I put in place of "difficult[y]...bend[ing] to God's will." If you feel that stubbornness doesn't capture the idea you were conveying there, what would you feel would be a better interpretation?

[Grunt]

10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

A very good question. As Tevye said, "I'll tell you, I don't know" All I know is that I see many who want to stay in the Church in spite of their disagreements. How do we feel about that? Would we prefer to encourage them to see the door and take it -- kind of "purify the Church of its progressive elements"? Or do we want to engage them where they're at and help them stay?

We encourage them to repent and follow the Prophet.   We don't tell them "yeah, you might be right and the Prophet is probably wrong".

Quote

As for the word "stubborn", that was the word I put in place of "difficult[y]...bend[ing] to God's will." If you feel that stubbornness doesn't capture the idea you were conveying there, what would you feel would be a better interpretation?

I view stubbornness as an intentional act.   I view difficulty as a struggle.  There were many things I had difficulty bending my views to match God's will on.   How did I eventually get there?   In some cases I haven't.  Those issues are on my shelf.  On other issues I eventually came to understand them.  Until I do/did, I act(ed) in faith.   I believe God has chosen Prophets to lead us in these latter days, so I follow them.   I don't put my beliefs before their statements, even if it hurts like heck to bend in that direction sometimes.   If I knew I was supposed to, but refused, I would call that being stubborn.   When I was trying to develop that understanding, I considered that difficulty.   At no point on that path, though, did anyone following the Prophet suggest that my way might have been the right way.  I'm so incredibly grateful for that.   

A few that weren't following the Prophet tried, but fortunately I saw them for what they were in time.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Grunt

[MrShorty]

14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I am a card-carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and as such, I believe that the following statement as the words of Christ.

I apologize for not catching that the OP was more of a joke. I have a daughter who just entered treatment for gender/body dysmorphia (so far only talk therapy, but who knows how far that will go), and maybe I'm just a little hypersensitive at the moment so that I missed the joke.

I, too, am a card-carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (still not sure if day is supposed to be capitalized or not, I thought the official instruction was a lower case "d", but I could easily be in error on that), and I agree that the statement from the proclamation is the words of Christ. I don't, however, believe that the clarifying statement mentioned by Grunt (Gender = biological sex at birth) represents the words of Christ. So, two card-carrying members (if we had the resources, we could further extend the survey to untold thousands of card-carrying members and see what percentage agree and disagree) don't completely agree on what constitutes the words of Christ on this topic. What happens next? Declare that all those who disagree with the full statement plus clarification are no longer card-carrying members?

As for the OP, I agree that the real issue is one of competitive fairness (or cheating, if you prefer). I'm not convinced that a blanket "trans-women cannot compete alongside cis-women in any sport" fully addresses the question. Sports like swimming (USA Swimming and the NCAA were mentioned in the OP's article as governing bodies for the competition in question) seem to be trying to understand what is fair and unfair in allowing trans-women to participate alongside cis-women. I do not have any expertise in this area, so maybe I will ask if we have specific points or policies where we think USA Swimming (arbitrarily putting them as the highest authority on fairness within the sport of women's swimming) is misunderstanding or misusing data in deciding that trans-women who meet certain criteria (the OP's article only mentioned testosterone levels) can fairly compete against cis-women?

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I don't, however, believe that the clarifying statement mentioned by Grunt (Gender = biological sex at birth) represents the words of Christ.

It wasn't mentioned by me.  It was stated by the people chosen by Christ, and sustained when you renew your Temple Recommend.    What you want to be true is at odds with what we've been told by Christ's chosen.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Grunt

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

have a daughter who just entered treatment for gender/body dysmorphia

Hope she gets the treatment she needs my friend. God bless your family. 

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:"Yeah, I'd keep my covenants but I don't feel you care about me".    It's human nature.  

That’s actually one of the issues with the LGBTQ community. If they had a stronger support system in the church, it could be easier for them to do exactly that. My heart breaks for them. 

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I apologize for not catching that the OP was more of a joke. I have a daughter who just entered treatment for gender/body dysmorphia (so far only talk therapy, but who knows how far that will go), and maybe I'm just a little hypersensitive at the moment so that I missed the joke.

I, too, am a card-carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (still not sure if day is supposed to be capitalized or not, I thought the official instruction was a lower case "d", but I could easily be in error on that), and I agree that the statement from the proclamation is the words of Christ. I don't, however, believe that the clarifying statement mentioned by Grunt (Gender = biological sex at birth) represents the words of Christ. So, two card-carrying members (if we had the resources, we could further extend the survey to untold thousands of card-carrying members and see what percentage agree and disagree) don't completely agree on what constitutes the words of Christ on this topic. What happens next? Declare that all those who disagree with the full statement plus clarification are no longer card-carrying members?

It's body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria, although someone could have both...

I don't pretend to be an expert on psychiatry though.  I hope the best for you and your daughter.   I have 8 sons and 3 daughters, they are all special.  

According to the proclamation, gender is eternal.  I think that I know what that means.  I'm not going to judge you or your daughter though.  

Christ's doctrine is pretty simple. 

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Edited February 26, 2022 by mikbone

[Traveler]

On 2/25/2022 at 11:33 AM, LDSGator said:

I hate to break it to you @Traveler, but many people, even those you view as sinners, are not stupid. They’ll know within thirty seconds if you are preaching at them out of brotherly love/honest Christian concern or just out of a desire to scream, preach, show off or as an outlet for anger issues. 
 

Ask yourself this (and I mean this honestly)-who are you more likely to listen to? Someone who hates you or someone who actually legitimately cares about you? 
 

If you can’t convey the care part, your words are totally meaningless. 

 

 

I am having a most difficult time with your questions.  I have discovered that I seldom learn much from those with whom I agree.  I tend to learn mostly from those with whom I disagree.  I have also discovered that those most likely to lie to you are those that are are your friends.  Our enemies are more apt to remind us of our failures.  Strangely our friends are often more concerned about offending us than being truthful, especially if we are the type to be offended by things that are true that we (for whatever reason) do not like.   A phrase often used is "tough love".  Many tend to think that a difference of opinion comes only through hate.  That if you really cared you would not have a different opinion.  You and I are having a difference of opinion and I do not think you do not care.  I do not think you are preaching.  And I am listening to you - though I do no understand your logic.   You do not seem to connect with logic so I am making an effort to discover if I have missed something.

There is a saying that only a fool will allow themselves to be offended by someone that intends to offend them.  But it takes a much bigger fool to be offended by someone that does not intend to offend them.  Do you really believe that you should only learn from someone that care about you?

I discovered when I was in college that most professors really did not care that much about me - unless they thought I was smart.  If they thought I was smart they would give me a good grade even if I had not earned it.  If they though I was a bit nuts (smart aleck) they would just as soon flunk me even if I earned the A.  In short - if anyone wants to be successful they need those around them that will be honest and willing to offend them - especially if the truth offends them.  You need those that care about the truth more than they care about your impressions of the truth.

I was taught by my parents that if I would learn something I should seek out the very best and most knowledgeable about what I intended to learn.  I have learned by much sad experience that the persons that flatter me the most (even if the flattery appears to be friendly and caring) are never the friends needed when things get the most difficult.  In my work I learned that those most skilled and interested in success very seldom put caring first - that excellence and dedication are more valued than friendships

If you have not read about the leadership qualities of Alexander the Great?  If anyone is interested I will share some of the qualities that most impressed me.  I am also impressed about the qualities of Christ - he did not try to convince the Pharisees that he was their friend.  And the rich young man?  He was more willing to offend him with what he lacked than to appear to him as his friend.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

I tend to learn mostly from those with whom I disagree. 

Well, we disagree here. So I hope you learned something! Lol. 

[NeuroTypical]

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

Strangely our friends are often more concerned about offending us than being truthful, especially if we are the type to be offended by things that are true that we (for whatever reason) do not like.   A phrase often used is "tough love".  
...
There is a saying that only a fool will allow themselves to be offended by someone that intends to offend them.  But it takes a much bigger fool to be offended by someone that does not intend to offend them. 
...
In my work I learned that those most skilled and interested in success very seldom put caring first - that excellence and dedication are more valued than friendships
...
I am also impressed about the qualities of Christ - he did not try to convince the Pharisees that he was their friend.  And the rich young man?  He was more willing to offend him with what he lacked than to appear to him as his friend.

Ok @Traveler, Imma take a shot at helping you. 

So, my buddy and I started out the usual teenage jerks, and he morphed into a better Latter-day Saint than me.  He repented better, went on a mission better, let his light so shine better, was a better teacher, performed better at any of his callings, better and more meaningful temple attendance, far more and far better meaningful spiritual experiences, better at teaching his children the gospel, you name it.  So I held on to the two things I was better at than him, gave him lots of good-natured crap about him needing to keep his ego in check, and we were good friends for half a lifetime.  Probably a full 20-30% of the good things about me, I learned from him.

His hero was his mission president.  He credited Pres. Dood for turning him around and whipping him into shape.  Always had high praise for the guy.  So, when Pres Dood was going to move from his fancy SLC apartment next to the temple, my buddy grabbed me and my truck, and off we went.  Pres Dood opened the door, welcomed his former missionary (and me), and we got to work moving his stuff.  As my friend and his old mission prez caught up while we worked, I overheard something.  Pres Dood asked my friend good-naturedly, "so, what, you hang out with guys wearing goatees now?", and both of them looked at me.

For an instant, I felt shame at my appearance.  This was the mid '90's, in the middle of my 6 years of inactivity, when facial hair could keep you out of the temple.  My buddy, who I looked up to immensely, and about the only human on earth that he looked up to, had both judged my personal worthiness and found me lacking.  

My shame turned to anger.  I mean, it hurt because it was true, I wasn't temple-eligible in many ways, and this one was visible by all.  But, I had shown up to help this guy move.  It was my truck we were using.  My friend was even wearing my gloves.    Unbeknownst to my friend, I had been secretly reading the BoM for around 3 months, praying nightly, hoping to find a testimony.  A big reason I was seeking a testimony, was the good light I had seen radiating from my LDS friends and family - I wanted what they had - a firm confidence in the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ that allowed them to live life as a disciple.  I wanted to be a disciple.  Until now.  I came within a millimeter of abandoning my scripture study, my quest to improve myself.  If one of the 'best mormons' were willing to judge and dismiss someone they had never met, due to their appearance, what sort of fool would I be for wanting to become that?

Well, my anger subsided, and the hurt feelings lessened over time, as hurt feelings tend to do.  I was eventually happy because I had a new thing to rib my almost-perfect friend about - I mercilessly needled him for years about the time his hero, the picture of Christlike service, the ultimate disciple, didn't want unwashed hairy heathen boys getting their sinful fingerprints all over his fancy mirrors.  It was great fun, and not a small lesson to my friend about humility and hero worship.

I learned no great or small lesson that day.  I was not humbled.  There was no sin I needed to be chastised about before I could find the motivation to overcome.  I already knew that earthly heroes were not perfect.  Here's my point, Traveler: I continued and completed my quest to gain a testimony, not because of that experience, but in spite of it.  It didn't even have the power of an obstacle for me to overcome on my path.  I almost quit, then and there, but I continued, because LDS folk's light was still desirable, even though they were obviously still human.  Further, I have personally witnessed at least half a dozen times, acquaintances, friends, kids at church, receive similar treatment and quit the church.  Let me put it plainly - in a church headed by Someone who taught the worth of the one out of the ninety-and-nine, I have personally watched LDS folk drive half a dozen ones away from the church with their preaching and calling to repentance.   My high school friend Chris left after he had enough lectures about his music.  The young woman at church, struggling with activity and health problems, was never seen again after being lectured in the foyer about appropriate dress.  A co-worker tearfully flipped the mormon half of her family the bird, and now contentiously endures them at reunions, because how insultingly judgmental they always are.  

If you're gonna speak bluntly in ways that might offend, you run the risk of being the final straw that breaks the camel's back.  20 years of listening to exmormons, I've lost track of how many of 'em have stories of getting offended and leaving.  Can you tell the difference between preaching in love/out of love, and preaching truth at someone because you're supposed to preach truth?  If you can't, you might consider keeping your mouth closed until moved upon by the spirit.  Especially, ESPECIALLY, with transgender folks.  Higher rates of mental illness, higher rates of suicide attempts, higher rates of suicide completions than the next human over.  They are, as a measured and studied demographic, more fragile than us.  Treat them gently.

Let me distill everything down to one sentence: If you're gonna preach repentance, make sure you've been showing at least ten times as much genuine love for the individual, before the preaching.  

Edited February 27, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/25/2022 at 5:50 PM, mikbone said:

 

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

But that’s the Old Testament, which I think we all agree was superseded by the New Testament and statements of our Lord such as “if any part shall offend, pluck it out.”  

On the athletics angle:  speaking as a corpulent tub of lard who never has and never will participate in anything more athletic than a three-legged race and could be beaten up by three out of every four random females I see in the street:  my impression is that female athletics exists for two reasons:  1) Because for biological/physiological reasons, the vast majority of females cannot compete with the vast majority of males in the vast majority of sports, and the string of losses that would result from compelling them to do so would be demoralizing for females; and 2) because a not-insignificant part of the audience for female athletics is people who, for one reason or another, enjoy watching the female body in motion.  I personally think it’s silly to allow someone who went through puberty as a dude and has the muscle mass and physiological development of a dude, compete as a female.  But then again, in the unlikely event that any of my kids participated in athletics, and the even u likelier event that one of them came in as high as second place, and the first place winner was transgender—I’d have no problem saying “well, we may not be allowed to say it; but everyone here knows that the  winner was physiologically a guy, so shake it off—you, who competed as a female, did great as compared to the other actual females in the event.”  So as far as I’m concerned, the folks running female athletics can do whatever they want.  

With regard to staying in the Church:  I certainly respect and sympathize with those who are attracted to it for tradition-related reasons; and that’s not (IMHO) a bad reason to stay.  But I think that first and foremost our church is a church of ideas, not tradition; and part of being a “card [or, temple recommend]-carrying member” is embracing a certain ideal of loyalty and a sort of lowest-common-denominator of conformity, both vis a vis the Church leadership and to the broader membership.  When someone says “hey, I’m a card-carrying Mormon too”—maybe; but we all know how they got that card, and we know the commitments and covenants that are supposed to accompany it.  And because of the nature of the Church as a primarily-ideologically-based association, members who openly reject some or all of the ideology are going to find they don’t have as much (for lack of a better word) credibility, or influence, members who openly accept it.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

my impression is that female athletics exists for two reasons: 

There are other good reasons for female sports and Title IX. 

Without sports, I likely wouldn't have gone to University (the recruitment and scholarships gave me many opportunities).  I likely wouldn't have been interested in sports medicine.  I likely wouldn't have become an orthopaedic surgeon.  

I lived in the athletic dorms and had many female athlete friends.  Many of whom likely wouldn't have been able to attend university without the athletic scholarships.

Soon we will have boys claiming university scholarships that deservingly should go to genotypic females.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Soon we will have boys claiming university scholarships that deservingly should go to genotypic females.  

Considering that university graduating classes  now tend to be, I believe, in excess of 60% female—

—maybe we should let ‘em?  

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because for biological/physiological reasons, the vast majority of females cannot compete with the vast majority of males in the vast majority of sports, and the string of losses that would result from compelling them to do so would be demoralizing for females;

I agree that this is the driving reason between having men's and women's divisions in most sports. What I see currently happening (and a big part of why I say this is all in flux right now) is athletes and sports governing bodies and society in general are trying to understand just how much of the competitive advantage is inherent in growing up biological male and how much is current biological maleness. @mikbone is probably a lot closer to the literature and better equipped to interpret it all, but I see some literature that seems to show that trans-women who receive the right combinations of treatments (the OP's article only listed testosterone levels, I'm not certain what more or less there is to it all) can compete fairly against cis-women. I'm certainly not in a position to judge the literature, but I tend to assume that these governing bodies (in the OP's case, USA Swimming) will have as their primary focus the integrity of their sport. As near as I can tell, no one wants to turn women's athletics into competitions that cis-women cannot compete in, but these governing bodies are also trying to be as inclusive as they can towards trans-women. I don't know all of the details, but it seems that at least some of these governing bodies are being convinced by the data they are presented that it is possible for trans and cis women to compete fairly against each other. Whether or not the specific incident mentioned in the OP fully fits into that possibility or not, I don't know.

[mordorbund]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 1) Because for biological/physiological reasons, the vast majority of females cannot compete with the vast majority of males in the vast majority of sports, and the string of losses that would result from compelling them to do so would be demoralizing for females

Here’s a site that compared the best of high school boys versus the best of Olympic women in track and field events: https://boysvswomen.com/

The Olympic athletes don’t fare well.

[scottyg]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Here’s a site that compared the best of high school boys versus the best of Olympic women in track and field events: https://boysvswomen.com/

The Olympic athletes don’t fare well.

My times in high school would have been fast enough to qualify. Based on those times between the 100, 200, and 400 meters I would have placed in the bottom half of the various races. No medal for me...but I would still be running among the worlds best.

[MrShorty]

@mordorbund @scottyg    the data comparing cis-male high schoolers against cis-female Olympic athletes is interesting. I guess the question is how comparable are cis-male high school athletes to trans-female athletes. The claims I see coming from trans affirming sources and governing bodies is that, after sufficient transitioning treatments, trans-women compete in many sports at the same level as cis-women. Again, I'm not in a position to fully evaluate the data, but it seems that data comparing cis-boys to cis-women is not by itself going to answer the question of how well trans-women compete against cis-women.

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@mordorbund @scottyg    the data comparing cis-male high schoolers against cis-female Olympic athletes is interesting. I guess the question is how comparable are cis-male high school athletes to trans-female athletes. The claims I see coming from trans affirming sources and governing bodies is that, after sufficient transitioning treatments, trans-women compete in many sports at the same level as cis-women. Again, I'm not in a position to fully evaluate the data, but it seems that data comparing cis-boys to cis-women is not by itself going to answer the question of how well trans-women compete against cis-women.

Are there any examples where this is the case?   I keep hearing this from the pro-trans community, but almost every example I've ever seen shows this not to be the case.   Most of the examples out there show men dominating women's sports.