Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

I agree: biologically she is female of course, and I have no objection to her/them competing in the female category.

Still: as someone who declares themselves to have no affinity to other women, Hiltz is a singularly bad example to cite as evidence of what “other women” might feel about biological males participating in female sports categories.

(Assuming that 100% of women must all hold the same opinion on this issue for it to be a valid concern anyway, but that’s a separate problem.)

And for the sake of this Olympics we can safely drop the "biological" prefix in swimming & track & field events, for we can safely say men will be competing against men, and women will be competing against women ……

There will be no male athletes in the female category and vice versa.

Could handicap the transgenders and the let them compete with the females. Could even things out.

If only those women would just train harder and get over their mental block of thinking they are biologically different to men they might catch up 🙄

And if politicians and educational institutions actually gave a fcuk about Title IX in your neck of the woods, that would make an even bigger difference in participation rates among women in sports -

During the more than 50 years since its adoption, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has prohibited discrimination based on sex in activities or programs receiving federal funding. The federal law also mandates “schools to provide equal opportunity based on sex.” The department’s OCR is tasked with enforcing compliance of Title IX.

The report highlighted the persistent gap in college sports participation between women and men. Approximately 93% of colleges saw lower athletic participation rates for women relative to their enrollment rate during the 2021-2022 academic year.

Title IX also requires schools receiving federal funding to have participation numbers of men and women in college sports to be “substantially proportionate to their overall enrollment,” according to the Department of Education.

Yet, women’s overall athletic participation rate fell 14 percentage points behind their enrollment rate in the 2021-2022 academic year, the GAO found.

https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/05/13/even-as-interest-in-womens-college-sports-rises-report-finds-big-gap-in-participation/

But that doesn’t relieve educational institutions of their obligations under Title IX? It’s the responsibility of the educational institutions to create and provide for and promote opportunities for women in sports?

It’s not the athletes or the students themselves who are responsible for any educational institution adhering to the policies under which those same institutions receive federal funding.

It’s precisely for this reason that the GAO stepped in. I don’t think it’s so much a question of all things being equal (they aren’t), but rather a point that what little has changed, has only been to make circumstances worse for women:

At about two-thirds of colleges (63 percent), the rate of women's athletic participation was at least 10 percentage-points lower than their enrollment rate. Further, 40 percent of colleges not only had a large difference between women's athletic participation and enrollment rates, but also offered the same number or fewer varsity sports for women in academic year 2021–2022 compared to 2009–2010.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105994

As for the latest individual athlete in question, I dunno did they skip their weetabix that morning at this event where they came in 7th place -

As the sun approached the horizon line the girls lined up to close the day. The girls’ varsity race prediction held true to form, as Madeleine Lane of Hopkinton stormed away to win wire-to-wire in 19:16. With the winners of both races freshmen, the challenge is now on to see if one or both of them can become the first four-time winners of the race. Molly Ellison of Kearsarge spent the entire race in a land of her own, behind Lane but always safely ahead of third. She would eventually cross in 20:08. The next three, Emerald Briggs of Newfound,Shaylee Murdough of Hopkinton, and Aedyn Kourakos of St. Paul’s were packed together the entire race, but always roughly in the same order. NOT staying in the same order was Concord’s Shelly Smith, who, along with most of her teammates, ran smartly conservative races to gradually grind down the competition over 3.1 miles. Her teammates Chloe Gudas (8th) and Quinn Doherty (10th) also scored top-10 medals. Proctor’s Niko Cole-Johnson finished 7th, while Bow’s Julia Hou took home the 9th-place medal. In the team competition, by virtue of placing 5 runners in the top 14, Concord extended it’s win streak to a record-tying 11 wins in a row with 51 points. Hopkinton once again was runner up, with 81 points, to St. Paul’s 107 points.

https://nh.staterunning.net/2023/10/20/results-recap-race-videos-interviews-2023-capital-area/

Hadn't heard of her before. But, be honest. You know one race where they perform badly is never going to make the issue go away. Google the name and you'll find plenty of evidence. This post is less than a day old.

On the issue of women's participation in US college sports, one interesting observation Lauren Fleshman makes in her book is the typical college age in the US (and elsewhere) is 18-21, which coincides with peak testosterone production in men. Linear performance improvements in running are the norm at that age in the college system.

Women trying to replicate that (for scholarships, funding etc) often run into a problem where at that age their bodies are developing not for athletic performance but for other reasons and a performance plateau often happens. The reaction to that can be to try and affect the only other biological variable ie bodyweight, and often with disastrous consequences for disordered eating and resulting injuries. Women's peak performance improvements come later in the mid 20's often, long after they have left the college system, or maybe even the sport itself.

Your interpretation was neither the original nor intended meaning of Title IX. The original and intended meaning of Title IX was to prohibit sex based discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funding. It had nothing to do with protecting any concept of “sex-based rights”, which leads to one of its main criticisms, that in it’s application and testing by the OCR, the claim is that it discriminates against men:

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.

Where they are today was begun long before the Biden administration:

The Tower Amendment was rejected, but it led to widespread misunderstanding of Title IX as a sports-equity law, rather than an anti-discrimination, civil rights law. While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports. The United States Supreme Court also issued decisions in the 1980s and 1990s, making clear that sexual harassment and assault is a form of sex discrimination. In 2011, President Barack Obama issued guidance reminding schools of their obligation to redress sexual assaults as civil rights matters under Title IX. Obama also issued guidance clarifying Title IX protections for LGBT students through Dear Colleague letters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Hadn't heard of her before. But, be honest. You know one race where they perform badly is never going to make the issue go away. Google the name and you'll find plenty of evidence. This post is less than a day old.

I do, and I also know that zeroing in on individual athletes by way of confirming one’s own biases is even less likely to make the issue go away. Given it’s New Hampshire I thought to make a reference to the Salem Witch Trials, but that would have been more obscure than a better known reference to not having had their weetabix. The campaign does bear all the hallmarks of a witch-hunt, as opposed to creating opportunities for women in sports and promoting women’s sports.

This New Hampshire representative makes the point better than I ever could have hoped to:

In New Hampshire, the Senate previously passed a bill that would have banned transgender girls from participating on sports teams at both the high school and college levels. But the House defeated it earlier this month.

Democrats who opposed the bill that passed Thursday said it was based on fear mongering. Sen. Debra Altschiller, a Democrat from Stratham, said there are only five transgender girls in New Hampshire who are athletes.

"Those five girls are not a threat. They are the threatened," she said. "While this gesture of protection may seem valiant, we say no thank you. If you really want to protect girls, protect the marginalized transgender girls."

https://www.nhpr.org/sports/2024-05-16/new-hampshire-senate-passes-bill-to-restrict-transgender-athletes-in-grades-5-12#

That's an interesting reflection from Ms Fleshman, and of course it's yet another illustration that we practise sports with our bodies, which are inherently sexed, not with our minds. So how someone chooses to identify is entirely irrelevant to their sporting performance - it is their actual bodies that matter most.

It doesn’t just illustrate the idea that we practice sports with our bodies, but rather that it is just as important to be aware of mental as well as physical health in competing in sports. Unfortunately there are too many instances where coaches have not understood the importance of this relationship and their coaching practices reflect this. It’s why women competing in sports develop all sorts of disorders and why there is a growing movement of women athletes who are campaigning for better understanding of women’s health in sport:

https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/news/29876/12906118/womens-health-in-sport-how-can-research-gap-be-bridged-and-findings-put-into-practice

The idea that we practice sports only with our bodies and it has nothing to do with our minds, or that it is our bodies that matter most, is one hell of a hot take:

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/press_release/amid-the-nations-ongoing-youth-mental-health-crisis-new-research-shows-the-critical-role-sports-can-play-in-promoting-girls-mental-health/#:~:text=Sports%20Participation%20Can%20Lower%20Depression,vs%20those%20who%20never%20played.

The idea that it is the wrong battle for trans rights activists if they want to increase acceptance of transgender people generally is also not borne out by evidence to the contrary, particularly when you consider that without their advocacy, people with whom they share an affinity would be unaware of their existence. I’ll use them again as an example by way of demonstrating the point -

These days, Hiltz, who’s transgender and nonbinary, is shining in two lanes — on the track as one of the world’s top middle distances runners with a trip to Paris upcoming, and away from it as a role model for the queer community. Hiltz, who’s always competed in the female category, uses the pronouns “they” and “them,” and highly suggests people get used to that because they aren’t going anywhere.

“I’m just looking forward to keep showing up as myself and keep taking up space,” the 29-year-old Hiltz said Sunday at the U.S. track trials after earning their first trip to the Olympics. “I use they/them pronouns and people stumble all the time. But it’s like, ‘You can’t really ignore me anymore, because I’m a two-time, back-to-back champion. I’m here, get-it-right’ kind of vibe.”
…

For Hiltz, the point always boils down to this — inclusivity.

“As someone who’s competed in women’s sports my whole life, I think we do need protecting, but I don’t think it’s from trans women,” Hiltz said last summer. “I think it’s from abusive coaches. Or there are so many more issues, like equal representation, equal pay.

“Those are the issues I would love to address instead of trans women, because that’s not something we’ve ever had to have protecting from.”

Each year Hiltz organizes a 5K race to support LGBTQ+ organizations. The mantra is a “shared determination to show we belong anywhere we decide to be.”

“I want to continue to work to make space for everyone,” Hiltz said.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/07/04/nikki-hiltz-transgender-nonbinary-nikki-hiltz-runner-olympics/?outputType=amp

I think it’s important to them simply because they do not imagine human beings are so one-dimensional that they have only the capacity to care about one thing or another at any one time, or that they should advocate in a certain way in order to be acceptable to anyone with whom they do not share an affinity.

Someone’s had their weetabix this morning 😁

I mean, to go from “Title IX was a Godsend”, to imagining that people shouldn’t be able to challenge sex discrimination in sports? The turnaround was impressive, I’ll give you credit for that much 🤔

Sad to see that this law is being watered down.

This is from a recent "Under 12 Girls" skating event. Whatever your slant on the gender ideology debate, this is not right.

You can believe you are a woman, when a grown man is competing against children, why are alarm bells not being rung ?

Of course it's right.

That doesn't mean that the mind has no effect: obviously your brain is required to develop and apply strategy, and willpower also has an effect - but not whether someone believes themselves to be a man or a woman. That has literally no effect. Which is what I mean by saying we play with our bodies.

We use our minds to enable our bodies to work to their absolute maximum - but if willpower and strategy (including risktaking) were enough, female sporting records would not be systematically lower than equivalent male records.

I do struggle to understand the fascination with participation in top-level sport.

To me, the issues are quite simple but complex in their application.

A male can be a man or a woman. A female can be a man or a woman. I have no issue with that, and anyone can adopt whatever gender they wish and be treated accordingly. That is a truth and no adult should be stopped from adopting whatever gender they wish.

However, there is another second truth. A male cannot be a female, and a female cannot be a male. There are certain traits and issues associated with sex rather than gender that society must allow for. These include participation in top-level sport which should be divided along lines of sex rather than gender. It mostly a safety (in sports like rugby) and fairness (in sports like swimming) argument. There are other areas that society must allow for differences based on sex. These include medical treatment for conditions associated with one sex or another. There is also a conversation to be had around safe spaces for females which may be considered by some to be a cultural anachronism and by others to be essential safe spaces, particularly those who have been the victim of male violence in the past.

There are no universal or single truths around these issues, there are conflicting rights, conflicting safety issues, conflicting cultural demands. No one side or the other holds the right or correct view.

Man and woman refer to gender.

Male and female refer to sex.

They are different.

If you read carefully, you won't see much difference between our views.

I have no problem with a male wishing to live "as a female" (roughly within the limits you describe) or vice versa, but I'm puzzled at the idea that it's just a "fact" rather than a personal desire. And I think that matters because it seems to me that what you describe is really just that many people do not fit comfortably into traditional stereotypes. Surely we should change society so that stereotypes are not required, rather than medicate or do surgery on people to make them fit those stereotypes?

IMV it should be possible just to be a girl who likes playing with trucks without people like the Human Rights Campaign deciding you must be a boy really.

Same for men and boys of course: can't a man wear dresses and have long hair in our less-rigid society without that meaning he must be a woman really? Giving him/her drugs and often surgery, with all the associated risks, to make them "fit" the opposite gender stereotype feels to me like such a retrograde step.

resource allocation is a zero sum game

It really isn’t, and even claiming that it is, doesn’t justify the enormous disparity there is between investment in women’s sports and investment in men’s sports. That’s what makes the claims of discrimination against men laughable when the men’s sports have enormous resources and influence already compared to women’s sports, and the extra investment in resources required to bring women’s sports up to the same levels as the men’s sports fuels claims of discrimination against men.

There’s been plenty of input from Congress in the form of Republicans in the House introducing a litany of bills aimed at discriminating against transgender athletes. The latest example is the attempt to require all NGBs to ban transgender girls and women from participating in athletic events for girls and women, or lose their funding -

https://equality.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/equality-caucus-condemns-republicans-new-federal-ban-transgender

The point of laws in this context is to prohibit discrimination based on sex. The original intent remains intact, it just expands the scope of the existing law to protect people who weren’t considered when the law was originally written, and as for the direction the Supreme Court is headed, they’re far more likely to be headed in the same direction as they did with Bostock and Title VII which relates to the prohibition of discrimination in employment -

The majority opinion also rejected an argument that, in 1964, Congress could not have intended for Title VII to encompass protections for gay and transgender employees. Rather, Justice Gorsuch concluded that legislative history and intent should only be consulted when a statute is ambiguous, which was not the case here. Because the text of Title VII is clear, “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.” For, as Justice Gorsuch wrote, “[w]hen the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

https://uclawreview.org/2020/06/23/a-textualists-dream-reviewing-justice-gorsuchs-opinion-in-bostock-v-clayton-county/amp/#_edn47

Is sports performance the only thing that matters? Not even close.

In a sporting environment…yes, the only thing that matters is performance, which in turn equals results.

If identity is what really matters for people who compete in sports (never have I heard such nonsense), they can do that elsewhere. When males compete against females, it is not about identity, it is about the biological advantages they carry over the rest of the competition. If they are focused on identity, then why not do it against the same sex? Might it be because they wouldn't have those advantages over the same sex?