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...
There already is segregation in sports. This is not new and for some it’s not some targeted attack on trans people. It’s coming from the same reason we separate men and women’s sports. In fact, it’s quite inclusionary to try to segregate trans sports because that’s what we do already. One day trans people may no longer be the minority they are and you might be thinking, hey I’d like to have a trans exclusive league.
The whole idea is to have a league where people are cool with playing with trans people or even make it a league where anybody can play, but also keep leagues for just cis people. Then if you want have a trans league.
It literally is. The transphobic organisations pushing this openly admit that it's a wedge tactic, a first step to make future trans segregation easier.
You can rest assured, we will not reach a day when I enjoy being segregated
So, "open" leagues tend to just be mens leagues, with the odd adventurous cis woman, and the gender diverse people that have been pushed out of their other spaces.
And I don't want to play with men for the same reason that most cis women don't want to play with men. On average, they are stronger, faster and put me at a higher risk of injury.
And it doesn't matter how "open" the league is, when the majority of people in it are cis men, it's deeply uncomfortable to navigate that space as anyone who isn't a cis man.
I'd assume there aren't actually enough trans women trying to play sports to form a league. NCAA President Charlie Baker testified in December 2024 that he knows of fewer than ten transgender college student-athletes among 510,000 athletes total.
You could make a league that trans and cis people could play in, and keep a league for cis. Then eventually start trans league.
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.
Being trans is being born that way.
How so? The classifications are based on sex and not gender
That's irrelevant. Being trans isn't "gaming the system" it's just something you're born being. No one is going to transition for an advantage in a ball game and it's ridiculous to even suggest it.
Right! No one is doing so now, but there's nothing stopping people from doing so if it becomes so normalized. It's a reductio ad absurdum of your argument. You're acting like this is the first time legislation can be passed in favour of a group of people such that it can't be abused by others strictly for personal gain.
Furthermore, just because people's intentions for transitioning now aren't chiefly to obtain an advantage in a ball game doesn't mean that they DON'T actually possess an advantage...
Also you need to provide a justification for why my initial distinction is "irrelevant". The classifications into men's and women's sports are based on sex and not gender.
No one would ever do it and it's ridiculous and transphobic to suggest it. Do you think a cis man would actually choose to live like this for a possibly minor advantage in women's sports? It's a joke.
I'm sure someone might try, but once the realities of gender dysphoria sink in and their boobs start growing they'd realize it isn't worth transitioning to the wrong gender just to be able to dunk in the WNBA or whatever. I don't think you realize how fucking horrible it is for your body to mutate into a (WRONG HORRIBLE NO NO NO) form that you hate. No one would choose to live like that for what might ultimately be a very minor advantage. Stop entertaining that as a legitimate concern.
Whether we should segregate sports by sex instead of other considerations is a separate conversation that other people in this thread want to have, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. I'm telling you, gender dysphoria isn't something someone would choose.
Gender dysphoria is real. Stop trivializing it.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Also:
Furthermore, just because people's intentions for transitioning now aren't chiefly to obtain an advantage in a ball game doesn't mean that they DON'T actually possess an advantage...
I'm all for letting trans women participate in male sports if it they've been in the transition period long enough that their physical capabilities don't give them an unfair edge. I also think you've done me a huge disservice by claiming that I'm "trivialising" gender dysphoria when all I've done is use a valid argumentative technique. I only brought in the reductio ad absurdum to show that anybody can claim to be "born" that way regardless of whether or not transitioning is practical.
Your original claim was that trans people are "born" that way and i disagreed. Citing that we classify these things based on sex and not gender. It's not another discussion entirely because it's my rebuttal to your claim.
There's no need to make this about ad hominems or bring your emotions into this. I've never once claimed in this thread that trans folks should lose rights or be barred from participation in society.
You specifically used the term "game the system" which directly implies someone who isn't trans faking their transition for an advantage in women sports. I don't see any other way to interpret this, and this is a transphobic idea because it completely trivializes gender dysphoria as something someone would willingly experiece for what is likely a very minor (or non-existent) advantage.
Although, again, I am not really making an argument that trans women wouldn't have an advantage in women's sports. They might! I'm not necessarily convinced that they definitely would, or that their advantage is greater than other genetic factors, or that sex segregation in sports is even the best way to divide the leagues. That has nothing to do with my problems with what you said.
I'm specifically taking issue with the idea that someone would use being trans as a trick to dominate women's sports. It's an absurd idea.
My claim is that being trans is something you're born as, it's not a trick people use to game the system. Your argument against it seems to be that, actually, anyone could cheat and transition for an advantage in women's sports. This necessarily implies cis men.
I honestly don't see where I'm misunderstanding you. I'm just laying out the logical conclusions of your "valid argumentative technique".
Speaking of valid argumentative technique! It seems reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy. It's a legitimate way to show the flaws in an argument, like pointing out people would fall off the edge if the world if it was flat.
P1 - Transgender women who possess an unfair advantage should be allowed to compete on equal grounds with women AFAB
P2 - Anyone can transition
Consequentially - Everyone can transition in order to gain an unfair advantage
I don't know what's so difficult to understand here. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't care about the practicality of the absurd outcome.
That says it's an "argumentative technique" and not a fallacy? I think it's a way to demonstrate the flaws of an argument.
It's also irrelevant because that's not even what I did. That's because:
Not just anyone can transition, a cis person who went through HRT and socially transitioned would give themselves gender dysphoria. Being trans is something inherent to trans individuals, it's not a trick used to game the system.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I was using the reductio ad absurdum as an argumentative technique throughout this discussion.
Fair enough, I'm willing to give you that people that transition just to gain an edge in sports wouldn't necessarily be considered "trans". At the end of the day my core argument was that it wouldn't be fair to let trans women who potentially possess an edge physically to participate in sports where that physical edge is salient because it could be taken to this absurd end.
C'est fini
No, actually, I thought you were accusing me of taking your absurd argument to its logical conclusion. I didn't realize you were justifying why you are playing rhetorical games to say stupid shit like "cis men are going to transition to cheat in women's sports". It's nonsensical, it won't happen, anyone that tried would quit when their boobs started growing because gender dysphoria is real.
Gender dysphoria is torture. It's not a fun way to game the system and cheat at women's sports. The money and fame don't justify mutilating your body untill you want to die, especially in women's sports where there isn't a lot of money or fame to go around. Suggesting otherwise is basically saying that gender dysphoria isn't a big deal, that people would willingly do that to themselves for a minor advantage. It's inherently transphobic.
This isn't the absurd logical conclusion of letting trans women play sports, this is a transphobic misunderstanding of dysphoria.
Talking to you is self harm.
👍
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?