News
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.
view the rest of the comments
Can somebody explain to me why we shouldn’t have a trans league or allow them to play with the opposite gender? There’s a reason we have men’s and women’s leagues. Trans women can have a big advantage over many cis women. What am I missing here?
A few years ago, I played roller derby. It's one of the most trans inclusive sports on the planet. Trans women are explicitly welcome to play in the womens leagues.
I live in Australia, in a city of a couple of million people. We had 4 or so different derby "clubs", and each one of those could field anywhere between 1 and 3 derby teams of various levels. Once you looked outside of the city to include towns and smaller cities within a couple of hours drive, there were around 10 or so "teams". I was one of 2 trans folk active in my city at the time (3 if you count someone who was playing on the mens team)
Now, every capitol city in Australia has a similar situation, though the bigger cities can field a few more teams than my city could.
At one tournament weekend, with a whole year of planning, folk decided to put together a trans team for a demonstration game. It took the whole country to fill that team, and they played the game, without having had any chance to practice together.
There wasn't enough trans folk to make two teams, let alone a meaningful season, with playoffs and multiple rounds against different teams.
"Just make a trans league" has the same meaning as "trans people aren't allowed to participate".
You could make a trans and cis league, keep cis league and then eventually create a trans league.
Notably, this is so typical of the issues we face. It's a type of (subtle) transphobia called "Just asking questions" or, more rudely "JAQing off"
You "just asked a question" about trans leagues.
I made a multi paragraph response, from a first hand, lived experience.
Your response in turn, did not connect or engage with a single thing I wrote, despite my entire post being a reply to your question, and was basically just another question, shifting the goal posts to the try and arrive at an answer that aligns with the perspective you clearly already hold.
A perspective clearly on display in your other engagements in this thread, where you haven't once given ground, taken anything on board or shifted your position in response to someone giving you an answer to your questions. All you have done is push for exclusion, and then just shift the board around to push from a different direction.
You may not be actively transphobic, but you are doing the work of transphobes either way, because you phrase your questions as if you're open to hearing the responses from folk, but keep pushing for exclusion, no matter what answer you get.
Sorry I didn’t remark on your experience playing roller derby. I absolutely responded to what you said by saying that they could create a separate league that combines people because there aren’t enough numbers. That was your whole point with your big long answer. Don’t need to respond to every piece it. You may not be a pretentious but you’re doing the work of pretentious people.
Trans leagues don't work because there aren't enough trans people. That's not going to change. Trans people will always be a minority. We won't suddenly get the numbers to support segregated teams.
Your solution is delay segregation, so that we can be segregated in the future. It so fundamentally misses the heart of the issue... Segregation is the problem... If cis folk would just "not" segregate trans folk, the problem would be gone. So your solution is to start with the point we want to end up at, where no one is excluded, until we get to a point where exclusion is possible, and then do it!
Yeah, because my attitude is the real issue here, not the ongoing campaign of exclusion and hatred targeting trans folk...
Guess who else has an advantage over many other cis women? Cis women with "superior" genetics. We don't bar them. In fact, finding them seems to be one of the main drives of sports.
Usain Bolt has such a massive genetic advantage over everyone else and no one is calling for him to be banned from running, or to be forced in to his own league. Same with Michael Phelps. Let's not even get started on tall people in basket ball.
A person's sex is just more genetics.
Well, there is Imane Khelif. There was a push to bar her from boxing. But that kind of thing happens very rarely.
The push to ban her was because of a conspiracy theory that she wasn't actually born female, wasn't it? I think that puts her in to the "ban because she's trans" category, rather than the "ban her for superior genetics" category. Ie, without the current "trans sports panic" no one would have even considered banning her.
I think the reason they were accusing her of being trans was just because she's naturally a good boxer.
The difference is HRT could be considered as gaming the system whilst being born that way is luck of the draw.
Michael Phelps has gentics made for swimming that allow him to perform multiple strokes to perfection. He's considered a lucky man. If there was a pill one could take to attain such superhuman abilities. It would be considered doping, and rightfully so.
When trans women go on GAHT/HRT, our bodies change a lot. I've lost considerable muscle mass and strength versus just over a year ago (it was very noticeable in the garden this year, oof). The lack of testosterone also changes your mental state and tones down the stereotypical male competitive nature. You literally become softer.
My personal opinion is that if you're on hormones for at least a few years, you've shown that you clearly want to play and shouldn't be disqualified, and at the very least be given a chance to participate. As far as I'm concerned, this entire thing is politically-charged and is about as interesting as acetaminophen and vaccines causing autism.
What you don't hear is trans men wanting to compete in men's sports. They need to have a voice too, as rare as it might be.
The first is that trans women do not have a big advantage over cis women. They have, at best, a very slight advantage, depending on their time on HRT and age.
The second is that there isn't a lot of trans people. Trans people make up around 2-3% of the population, so they would have around 1/30th of the number of teammates in their school. That would be difficult to make a full team around. And because they're segregated out, they would need to find other teams to play against, as well.
The third thing you're missing is that you really only care about trans women in this debate. Do you care if trans men compete against cis men? They compete at very similar levels, too, and if you think being born as a woman is a disadvantage, then why do they do just as well after transitioning?
And the last thing is that we have gendered leagues due to a sexist history behind sports. Women weren't allowed to compete in a variety of sports for a long time. Women's leagues were initially created for the same reason black leagues were created. We have kept them because they are a really lazy way to determine what category of play you are in, as though they act similar to weight classes in wrestling. But athletes within the same sex can compete at completely different abilities for different reasons. Taller players can have a much bigger advantage against shorter players in a ton of sports, so why don't we use height as a determiner of which league you play in instead?
Can you give some examples of these sports?
only considered trans women because generally in sports you’re trying to be stronger and larger. Trans men can do that and have the disadvantage.
I get what you’re saying about separate leagues but the strongest and tallest men would have an advantage over the strongest and tallest women, skill aside.
Maybe just make a mixed league that everybody is cool with playing in and keep separate leagues too.
No, I get it. But, you're using what you feel is true versus what is true. The "advantage" you're talking about isn't significant among any study, ranging from a 7% advantage in some athletic categories to a 13% disadvantage in others.
Competitive sporting associations have rules and regulations for trans athletes competing in sex-segregated leagues, and they typically involve around two years on HRT and I'm not sure if you're aware of the side effects of starting HRT, but athletes typically see substantial muscle loss. These competitive organizations do not see trans athletes excel when following these rules. And that is because trans athletes aren't superior to cis athletes.
The strongest and tallest man probably has some advantages in some sports over the tallest and strongest woman, but you need to compare the strongest and tallest trans man to the man and trans woman to woman because those comparisons are surprisingly more in favor of the cis athlete than you would probably like for a whole host of reasons.
In sports every little bit matters. There’s not enough data among athletes to support what you’re saying. Some studies show that there is still an advantage. What you feel is true is true based on cherry-picking studies.
Unless you can point to all of the trans athletes dominating sports right now, my point is pretty easy to defend. If it is a competitive advantage, there would be multiple trans athletes at the top of women's sports regardless of how uncommon being trans is, and there simply isn't.
You're saying there's not enough data, but you're also saying that it shouldn't be allowed, therefore ensuring there will never be enough data using, again, the exact same excuses for making black leagues (competitive advantage). And to accuse me of cherry-picking while explicitly doing so is ironic, since I was using aggregated studies.
It would be simpler for you to claim that you will never accept trans people, instead of trying to use logic to defend your stance, because you're wrong.
You’re assuming a lot. I’ll never accept trans people? That’s a big statement. Sorry to have offended you. Hope you have a nice day.
Wait, where are you going? You still haven't shown this group of trans people that are the top of women's sports.
Statistically, if there is an advantage, trans people would be the top of their sports, given that all other factors would be normalized. So, you simply have to show that there is a congregation of trans people at the top. That would inarguably prove that you are correct and there is a competitive advantage to being trans. If you leave, I will continue to be under the (correct) assumption that there is no advantage to being trans.
Not enough trans anthletes to warrant their own league. Who would even watch it?