Boys taking gold and silver in girls' athletics

Not fair on girls born girls at all. Their needs come bottom of the list though. Hopefully they will be compensated at some point in the future if they miss out on scholarships, which inevitably they will.

Transgender teenagers, too often rejected by family and friends, have substantially higher rates of suicide and drug use. I know a race isn’t as important as a life.
A quote form the article.
I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by the transgender community, however clearly a race is important, or they wouldn’t want to be involved, and why should biological women be penalised to accommodate transgender women?
There is a huge issue here, biological females are at a disadvantage against someone who was born male and has trained and run at a competitive level as a male. Andraya’s Father is quoted stating this in the article.

sports where there are undeniable advantages related to male biology

That's nearly all sports.

Pretty unfair on girls. Kinda like the weightlifter at the recent games who got 'injured' before the final.

One would hope there is at least exemptions for sports where there are undeniable advantages related to male biology. I hope that doesn't sound harsh. Its just common sense.

OlennasWimple: "the 100m time posted by Miller is only half a second off the Olympic qualifying time for the women's 100m"

Good point. It can only be a matter of time before a man breaks the women's world record for 100m.

This makes me mad and it is so unfair. I would have been furious to be one of the girls beaten in this race. It is just wrong.

The transmen when they transition just accept they they won't be winning much, so they must be making the decision that transitioning is more important than top level sports. Why isn't it the same for the transwomen?

How will this play out for college entrance, where high school sports matters a lot?
Will girls not be able to get any college athletics scholarships? Will they sue?

A really badly written article

Frankly, the rigid birth certificate standard strikes me as so morally unfair that it makes me sick

What makes me sick is the moral unfairness that sees girls pushed down the pecking order because of boys

BTW, the 100m time posted by Miller is only half a second off the Olympic qualifying time for the women's 100m

Some recent threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3236147-Trans-Park-Run-Deletion

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228541-Max-testosterone-level-for-trans-athletes-to-be-halved

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3219506-Boston-Marathon-2nd-version
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3231439-Now-Biological-Women-Will-Never-Win-a-Marathon-Ever

What a badly written and researched article. It confuses the issue by referring to males as girls and continues the lie that the only advantage men have over women is testosterone and not e.g. completely different hip and knee structures, greater lung and heart capacity, great bone density (and frequently longer stride length).

The reason men are faster than women is no state secret. It’s testosterone. according to the article.

So, nothing whatever to do with bigger heart lung capacity, stronger muscles, longer levers etc. at all. Yeah, right.

By law US universities have to spend as much on female sports and scholarships as they do on males.

So this race has not just stopped 2 girls from competing and displacing 2 girls from the top positions, it leads on to 2 girls losing out on finance, scholarship and a university education.

And in the UK several universities have already thrown the rule book away, allowing men who think they are women to compete in women's sport, with no testosterone checking or consent sought from women.

Girls lose out on scholarships in favour of boys (who perhaps wouldn't otherwise get a scholar).

There is no incentive here at all. There is nothing worrying at all about girls not being educated.

The article is so badly written and confusing. It's a pretty simple question. Should boys be allowed to compete in girls' events? And if so, why bother having separate events for girls and boys?

There's a linked article too, about Andraya Yearwood:

www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-yearwood-transgender-0531-20170530-column.html

This article claims the issue is "nuanced and difficult". But it's really not.
It quotes Yearwood's father as saying:

"In terms of the fairness aspect, I don't think about that as a father. I only think about, is my daughter happy, healthy and able to participate in what she wants to do? I don't care if she wins or loses. I don't care if she wins and gives the medals back. She got to compete as a girl where she feels she should compete. That's all that matters to me."

That takes parental selfishness to extraordinary levels. What about the other girls? Doesn't anybody care about them? (Well, we know the answer to that.)

Well yes you should take a standBecause otherwise it will carry on. It will be taken as acceptance. Women made progress in the past and it will be the only way going forward. It's not easy. I am not sure how I would respond when pushed. Nevertheless we should be socialising ourselves to accept that is what we may need to do

I'd imagine everyone who enters these events gives a 'heck' about them, otherwise why bother. These are competitions, people are trying to get a good place. If they are pushed down unfairly then clearly that is a problem.

If males aren't normally allowed in an event, and women who take performance-enhancing drugs are banned, then logically trans-identified males should be kept out too.

Nice that the parent of the winning child gets to decide whether anyone else gives a heck about the event. Would they have a different opinion if the event was connected to scholarships and college places? I doubt it.

Not all events count towards rankings. For example, schools events definitely don't in England (and the CIAC is only schools events, but I know less about US system)

But I posted just to give an answer about why people enter events that nobody gives a heck about, as that was asked unthread as a specific question.

It should matter to all of us, because If this is allowed to continue there will be no top female athletes in 20 years.
No mention in the piece about male/female physiology being different, or that levels of testosterone allowed in these cases are far greater than the average level seen in women.

Hmm, not much of a choice is it? "Would you like your athletics career screwed now by boycotting, and get labelled a bigot and publicly vilified, or would you like it to end at the end of this season when you've failed to place in the top three in any race (where the one and two spots in every race went to biologically male individuals)?"

The girls surely knew but decided not to make a fuss? Not to boycott?

I really really hope we don't end up like that here. The unfairness makes my blood boil

It will certainly matter to those young female athletes in USA as their scholarship to top universities depends in their rankings.

In the US school sport is disproportionatly important because of NCAAs and scholarships... which can save rather a lot of money on fees...