"NCAA faces calls to ban trans athletes from competing in women's sports after NAIA's decision"

[mthoopsfan]

Could posters please be careful of their posts, so this thread can be discussed in a major egriz forum?

"The NCAA was called upon to follow the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) after the collegiate organization for small colleges and universities banned transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

The NAIA said its decision was rooted in "fair and safe competition for all student-athletes" and that "Title IX ensures there are separate and equal opportunities for female athletes." The organization said only athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in "NAIA-sponsored female sports." The policy goes into effect on Aug. 1."

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ncaa...peting-womens-sports-naias-decision-your-move

 

[TheNorthRemembers]

Good. Finally some sanity in the world.

INB4 thread lock

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I don't really understand what there is to discuss about this.

1. Biological sex differences are real proven scientific fact.
2. It is, at a minimum, unfair to biological females to make them compete against biological males, and it can actually be dangerous to them.
3. Trans athletes can compete against men.

(Waiting to be called a TERF)

 

[GrizWin99]

I doubt anybody on this board is going to disagree. Despite what some think, common sense isn’t totally mute on egriz.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

The only thing I find interesting about this is the following: Remember a few years ago when the NCAA was threatening to prevent states with biological sex laws from hosting NCAA tournament games? I’ve always been in favor of athletes competing with who they are scientifically, but I wasn’t in favor of Montana’s proposed law at that time because I thought the NCAA would actually go through with its threats and we would be able to host playoffs games. Empty threat.

Well, if the NCAA were to go the way of NAIA on this, it would be quite the 180 in the span of two-ish years, and decrease my respect for the NCAA. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m saying I’d love it if the NCAA did exactly what the NAIA did. I’m just saying it would make the NCAA look weaker than it already does given its threats to the exact opposite.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

The only thing I find interesting about this is the following: Remember a few years ago when the NCAA was threatening to prevent states with biological sex laws from hosting NCAA tournament games? I’ve always been in favor of athletes competing with who they are scientifically, but I wasn’t in favor of Montana’s proposed law at that time because I thought the NCAA would actually go through with its threats and we would be able to host playoffs games. Empty threat.

Well, if the NCAA were to go the way of NAIA on this, it would be quite the 180 in the span of two-ish years, and decrease my respect for the NCAA. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m saying I’d love it if the NCAA did exactly what the NAIA did. I’m just saying it would make the NCAA look weaker than it already does given its threats to the exact opposite.

I won't believe the NCAA is going to do the right thing until it actually happens. They seem to be on the wrong side of most arguments.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I won't believe the NCAA is going to do the right thing until it actually happens. They seem to be on the wrong side of most arguments.

Yeah. Plus, I think they are way too prideful to go from, “If you have a state law ban, then no playoffs in your state.” to “We now have an organizational ban that mirrors your state law ban” in the span of two years.

 

[EverettGriz]

I won't believe the NCAA is going to do the right thing until it actually happens. They seem to be on the wrong side of most arguments.

Ha! So true.

But if I recall correctly -- and statistically speaking I likely do not -- that move from the ncaa dealt less with trans athletes competing than it did warning states who wanted to ban trans people from other actions the ncaa viewed as rights, such as using the restroom of their choice.

 

[3-7-77]

I’ve always been in favor of athletes competing with who they are scientifically...

Spoken like a word parsing politician. "I always supported ______, except when I was against it.' Maybe it's a 'Yogi Berra-ism.'

I believe the term you are trying to avoid is 'biologically,' what you are at birth. Objective criteria.

 

[TheNorthRemembers]

Well, if the NCAA were to go the way of NAIA on this, it would be quite the 180 in the span of two-ish years, and decrease my respect for the NCAA.

The NCAA has never cared about anything but money. Despite what the media will tell you the public mostly does not support trans athletes competing in Women's sports. I think among people that actually watch sports it's even higher. It's not a popular stance for them to take and I think they're slowly realizing after the last two years with all the fallout from the Lia Thomas situation and Dylan Mulvaney/Bud Light that it's not a good business stance to take. It's only a matter of time before a biological man tries to play a revenue women's sport like basketball and they'll really have a problem on their hands. The smart move for them would be to just take the PR hit now and follow the NAIA. Nobody that actually consumes their product is going to disagree with that.

 

[SaskGriz]

I don't really understand what there is to discuss about this.

1. Biological sex differences are real proven scientific fact.
2. It is, at a minimum, unfair to biological females to make them compete against biological males, and it can actually be dangerous to them.
3. Trans athletes can compete against men.

(Waiting to be called a TERF)

You are a TERF. Now, what is a TERF?

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

You are a TERF. Now, what is a TERF?

A trans exclusionary radical feminist. Basically, a woman who believes that only biological females can be called women. Which I mostly agree with (I don't care what they call themselves as long as I am not forced to agree with them), but I'm not exactly a radical feminist. I'm an enigma lol.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

A trans exclusionary radical feminist. Basically, a woman who believes that only biological females can be called women. Which I mostly agree with (I don't care what they call themselves as long as I am not forced to agree with them), but I'm not exactly a radical feminist. I'm an enigma lol.

Hmm . . . sounds exactly like what a TERF would say.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Ha! So true.

But if I recall correctly -- and statistically speaking I likely do not -- that move from the ncaa dealt less with trans athletes competing than it did warning states who wanted to ban trans people from other actions the ncaa viewed as rights, such as using the restroom of their choice.

I read this really quick to refresh my memory: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...etes-says-events-will-be-places-free-n1263879

You might be thinking of when the NCAA pulled postseason events out of North Carolina in 2016 due to the "bathroom bill" mentioned in the article.

But then in 2021:

The NCAA Board of Governors said it "firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports." The board said it would monitor situations regarding trans athletes' participation without specifically mentioning states that have banned it or are considering bans. It did say the "environment" could affect the locations of championship games.

So, while they initially made it about bathrooms, etc., it kinda seems like they threatened to extend it to the playing field in certain states wanting to host postseason contests, but obviously let off in the end. Anyway, I don't see them reversing course. That would require them to say they were wrong.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I don't really understand what there is to discuss about this.

1. Biological sex differences are real proven scientific fact.
2. It is, at a minimum, unfair to biological females to make them compete against biological males, and it can actually be dangerous to them.
3. Trans athletes can compete against men.

(Waiting to be called a TERF)

Technically, wouldn't trans-females be in the same situation or worse competing against men as women are competing against them?

 

[uofmman1122]

Technically, wouldn't trans-females be in the same situation or worse competing against men as women are competing against them?

I'm assuming you mean trans men (female to male).

But no, she said that all trans people should compete against men, because for women who want to transition, the hormones work and they are basically the same as men, but for men who want to transition, the hormones don't work, and they are still just men.

It's science.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Technically, wouldn't trans-females be in the same situation or worse competing against men as women are competing against them?

I don't see how they could ever fare worse than biological females (in general- there's always some weird anomaly) considering they had the benefit of testosterone for many years, beginning in the womb. Whether or not they would fare just as poorly as bio women really depends on a number of different factors, not the least of which is: their overall athletic ability to begin with, whether they are taking "female" hormones, whether they are still "intact", how long they've been taking hormones, etc...

Here's an article that talks about how only 25% of male to female transitioners are able to even get their testosterone levels within "normal" female levels (which is a big range tbh). So that means 75% are not able to do that. Beyond that, they have had the benefit of many years of testosterone which we all know affects bone, muscle, lung, and heart development.

Medicine Alone Does Not Completely Suppress Testosterone Levels Among Transgender Women | Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine

www.bumc.bu.edu

So yes, transitioners are going to have a very hard time competing against men however they are not equal to bio women in any way, and female athletes shouldn't have to pay the price for that. Maybe someday there will be an "other" category, but until then biological men shouldn't have access to women's sports.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I'm assuming you mean trans men (female to male).

But no, she said that all trans people should compete against men, because for women who want to transition, the hormones work and they are basically the same as men, but for men who want to transition, the hormones don't work, and they are still just men.

It's science.

Wasn't there a trans-male in Texas or Nebraska who juiced and wrestled against the boys for a few years before the state passed its bio law? The wrestler then had to wrestle other biological females, and the wrestler absolutely dominated due to years of male hormone therapy? I feel like I read that somewhere, and the wrestler was just like, "Hey, just following the law here."

To me, that's where it gets dicey, and where the NAIA's rule only looks at one side of the issue (male to female competing against bio females). Could see more instances of trans-males dominating women's sports because they're playing against other bio females. I mean, they've been on testosterone therapy, etc. Probably not as many instances, but I could see it happening.

 

[uofmman1122]

Wasn't there a trans-male in Texas or Nebraska who juiced and wrestled against the boys for a few years before the state passed its bio law? The wrestler then had to wrestle other biological females, and the wrestler absolutely dominated due to years of male hormone therapy? I feel like I read that somewhere, and the wrestler was just like, "Hey, just following the law here."

To me, that's where it gets dicey, and where the NAIA's rule only looks at one side of the issue (male to female competing against bio females). Could see more instances of trans-males dominating women's sports because they're playing against other bio females. I mean, they've been on testosterone therapy, etc. Probably not as many instances, but I could see it happening.

Yes, his name is Mack Beggs, and he was forced to wrestle in the girl's category where he won 2 state championships and never lost.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Wasn't there a trans-male in Texas or Nebraska who juiced and wrestled against the boys for a few years before the state passed its bio law? The wrestler then had to wrestle other biological females, and the wrestler absolutely dominated due to years of male hormone therapy? I feel like I read that somewhere, and the wrestler was just like, "Hey, just following the law here."

To me, that's where it gets dicey, and where the NAIA's rule only looks at one side of the issue (male to female competing against bio females). Could see more instances of trans-males dominating women's sports because they're playing against other bio females. I mean, they've been on testosterone therapy, etc. Probably not as many instances, but I could see it happening.

Yeah this is where it gets dicey, which is why I believe that as long as there is no "other" category, all trans athletes need to be prohibited from competing against unadulterated bio females. (I may not have articulated that point clearly previously.) Otherwise you would have to let bio females use whatever substances they wanted to use - however, most bio females don't want beards and deep voices, so they probably wouldn't do it, but then it's still not exactly fair.