US girls sue for the right to have fair competition in sport

[xxyzz]

apnews.com/8fd300537131153cc44e0cf2ade3244b

Widely reported story yesterday - couldn't see it on here? Maybe lost among upcoming angst over the two big trial verdicts today?

Apologies if already a thread on this elsewhere

That's a great article from the Guardian. I thought it was balanced. They had comment from the transgirls saying how they felt, that's fine, it really showed up how they don't see the problem with being teenage male bodied and winning the girl's race. The photo of them racing makes it clear what's going on.

I liked this quote from a lobby group about why transgirls should be allowed in the girl's race:

The idea that the law only protects the individuals with XX chromosomes as compared to individuals with XY chromosomes is found nowhere in the legislative history of Title IX, in any implementing regulation or in any other aspect of the interpretation of Title IX over the last 50 years by the courts

If anyone were in any doubt that this is about lobbying to let men race in women only events, that spells it out. Everyone on the planet knows men have physical advantage over women even if some have a vested interest in pretending that's not true.

US girls sue for the right to have fair competition in sport?

Proud of these girls!!!

Just came on to support these girls and to thank them for their bravery.

I wish we had a 'like' button for GC's post.

Good for them. Sports scholarships in the US are a huge deal.

It’s bullshit from the Guardian. Look at these two screen shots. Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that this story was placed in the list where it won’t be seen by the casual observer, but only by those who happen to click on the “More” button?

A bit unfair, NotBad. There are as have been pointed out, many things wrong with the Guardian article, but placement is not one of them.

I spotted the article easily when it was new, a couple of days ago, prominently placed - it was published 2 days ago now, so understandably it's no longer at the top of the list.

I think there is plenty to criticise with that article and its bias that is genuine - there is no need to claim conspiracy where there is none.

I’m not claiming conspiracy. I’m claiming editorial bias. The screen shots were when the article had only been published for 12 hours, (discrepancy due to the time difference). They would have reported it then quickly shifted it. It’s not a conspiracy when it’s been an ongoing trend to report shoddily, report minimally, or more commonly, report nothing at all.

Hi xxyzz - we've edited the title of this thread, as requested.

Thank you.

NotBad, I saw the article straightaway on the front page when it came out - obvious, not hidden at all. I didn't have to search for it.

12 hours later is still quite a long time depending what else has happened in the meantime to push it off the front page. Bearing in mind this is US story relating to school sports so not massively high profile in the UK, and I was reading the UK not the US version of the paper.

Like I said, plenty of real stuff to criticise with that article, this just seems a bit of a red herring.

I’m new to this and getting increasingly incensed. So these are men claiming to be girls - born as men. Running in girl’s races? Wtf. What is this erosion of biological females? Why is someone trying to turn it into a race argument too?

Basics - born man - race in male races. Or do you know what put all the men who dress as women (and then they think this makes them a woman) race against each other.

I noted this from reddit a while ago, and it feels somewhat relevant here:

"Trans lobby: Puberty is an irreversible process. Trans children must be given hormone blockers as soon as possible. Also Trans lobby: Trans women can compete in women's sports because after 12 months of oestrogen their body becomes female and not male."

I really feel for her, and all the others like her who are missing out on their places on the podium and the opportunities that go with it.
I admire their bravery and really hope they win.

Why is someone trying to turn it into a race argument too?

It's a false analogy deliberately used to stop progressively-minded people who abhor Jim Crow laws from thinking about this attack on women's rights. "You wouldn't stop Black women from running, so why stop trans women from running?" In this particular instance, we are talking about Black male teens who are being framed as "Black girls" to hide the reality that sex is the relevant characteristic in this legal challenge and slander the actual girls as racists.

The analogy is false because:

• Melanin in one's skin doesn't make one taller, stronger, nor faster: male puberty does.
• Melanin doesn't make one able to rape: having a penis does.
• Melanin doesn't enable one to father children: having testicles does.
• Melanin in one's skin doesn't stop a woman from having periods nor being able to become pregnant by her rapist. No male faces these things.

Comparing being Black and being trans male is racist and sexist because it denies the relevance of female biology in the oppression of Black women and it pretends that having melanin in one's skin is comparable to having a rape weapon penis.

Call me cynical, but this couldn't possibly have been done on purpose, could it?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8009879/High-school-runner-beats-transgender-competitor-filing-lawsuit-cut-girls-category.html

Like when Rachel McKinnon came second by a fraction of a second.

Or (for a bit of light relief) Dash in the Incredibles "Don't win but make it look like you're trying! Go for second!"

It doesn’t matter if the male bodied transgender girl doesn’t always win:

-If they come second, then the girl who came third but should have come second - with a silver medal - loses out
-The girl who came fourth - but should have come third - bronze medal - a place in the rostrum - loses out.

• The girl who would have qualified for the final but didn’t because their place was taken up by a male bodied trans girl loses out.

Etc etc etc... how many girls lose out? Countless....

I agree totally, it is hugely unfair to all those who should be higher placed but are not because of male athletes.

It just seems rather coincidental that after a lawsuit is brought which highlights the unfairness of the male physiological advantage, the male participant doesn't do as well as usual against the females. Almost as if they are trying to show they have no physiological advantage after all

Nonsense TheShoesa
Chelsea Mitchell has obviously been training harder and now she can run faster.

I came on here to see if there was a thread and say well done those girls and good luck.

"they are suing to ensure that transgender athletes compete in their correct sex class like everyone else has to"

Its a defacto ban because these "transwomen" would be uncompetitive in male competitions. But I agree they need to be banned from female only competition as they enjoy an unfair advantage there. It that's unfair, so be it. Being able to compete in high level sports isn't a fundamental human right, and most athletes never succeed anyhow.

But I think most "transwomen" athletes understand it would be unfair to try and compete against "ciswomen" and exclude themselves. I've noticed most MtF athletes who compete against women seem to be narcissists who don't care how unfair this is.

A third/fourth category, mixed/open completions are all solutions. Doesn't change the fact that these people either want validation from competing with the girls/women or want any prizes on offer.
Sport might be a human right, but competing in your opposite sex class is not. How long before we have men's teams and the former women's teams filled with mediocre males? People won't watch, sponsors will leave, women's sport will have been destroyed.

I think the Guardian article wanted its readers as a whole to side with the 3 girls. Whatever was written; the picture they chose to use showed absolutely clearly what was going on. I don’t think they would have used that picture a year ago.

Interesting that it's an article from the Associated Press, so the Guardian doesn't have to take flack for the editorial line: it's agency copy.