In the world of MMA there has been a lot of noise lately about Fallon Fox who recently revealed that she was formerly a man. She is currently 5-0 with her last fight ending by KO in just 39 seconds. Many people claim that even though she hasn't been a man for many years, she still has an advantage over the other fighters who were born women since she grew up as a man and has the bone structure and frame of a man (some argue that this allows her to generate more torque and power in her punches). Her license to compete is currently under review.
In a similar story, there is now a transgender woman, Gabrielle Ludwig, who is competing in college basketball. This one is a little more extreme as she is 6'8" tall and is 220 pounds. She is also 50 years old and is able to compete just fine against women less than half her age. Clearly in this case the male frame she grew up with is a huge advantage as she is twice the size of those she is competing against.
So the question is, is this fair? Should these women be allowed to compete against other women who were born female and are naturally smaller by comparison?
Interestingly I remember something about how the London Olympics were using nothing more than a testosterone test to determine gender because it can be so difficult in many cases. I am not really sure how that should work. You could argue for integrating the sports to get rid of gender issues but then female competitors will be out matched in many sports.
Just one point of clarification before the discussion gets really heated - as a transgendered woman, Fallon Fox is required to have been on a hormone regimen for at least 2 years since undergoing surgery. It is more difficult for her to put on and retain muscle mass, and there's a suggestion (I'm not aware that it has been proven or disproven yet) that hormone treatments would leave her somewhat less aggressive than a non-transgendered woman. This is because testosterone blockers are leaving her with near-zero testosterone effectively in use, while a non-transgendered woman aggressively training for a fight and participating in one has a fair amount of testosterone.
She retains her natural frame, which is potentially an issue in a sport like basketball, but in combat sports, matchups are by weight anyway. I don't know if her frame is larger (i.e. she's lankier than average) or smaller (i.e. she's more obese than average) than normal for her weight class, but significant deviation from the average frame for a weight class is a disadvantage in a sport like MMA anyway.
EDIT: She's also required to not test above the normal range for testosterone in a woman, and will be retested periodically, so it's not a one-time qualification or anything like that.
In my mind the fairest way to organize sports leagues is to divide them, not by gender, but by level of performance. Like boxing's weight classes, baseball's minor and major leagues, and Starcraft's gold/platinum/diamond leagues. As long as the sorting algorithm is reliable enough, everyone finds their way into the division where they can compete, and philosophical questions like "What makes someone a woman?" (which really shouldn't have to be relevant to a freaking sport) may be dispensed with entirely.
Just one point of clarification before the discussion gets really heated - as a transgendered woman, Fallon Fox is required to have been on a hormone regimen for at least 2 years since undergoing surgery.
Clarify further: required by whom?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my mind the fairest way to organize sports leagues is to divide them, not by gender, but by level of performance. Like boxing's weight classes, baseball's minor and major leagues, and Starcraft's gold/platinum/diamond leagues. As long as the sorting algorithm is reliable enough, everyone finds their way into the division where they can compete, and philosophical questions like "What makes someone a woman?" (which really shouldn't have to be relevant to a freaking sport) may be dispensed with entirely.
It seems like that would spell the end of female participation at a professional or even top-tier amateur level in many of the major sports where strength or size are primary requirements.
I see the world in chromosomes. I don't care what the government says if you have a Y chormosome you are a man. Except in the extremely rare case where you have XXY.
I see the world in chromosomes. I don't care what the government says if you have a Y chormosome you are a man. Except in the extremely rare case where you have XXY.
There is a difference between being a man and being a male.
Sex, male or female, is determined by chromosomes.
Gender, man or woman, is more of a societal construct.
I see the world in chromosomes. I don't care what the government says if you have a Y chormosome you are a man. Except in the extremely rare case where you have XXY.
There is a difference between being a man and being a male.
Sex, male or female, is determined by chromosomes.
Gender, man or woman, is more of a societal construct.
Why is that? What reasoning or power would we have as a society to choose what is or is not something when its obviously categorized via science as one or the other. Reguardless of what "society" may say I still see them biologically as a man or a woman determned by their gender. Guess I'm weird that way.
Sports aren't split because of how people present themselves, or what they prefer to be called. If the WNBA was opened up to competition right now, men would probably replace most of the spots in that league, even though men already have the NBA. In other words, sports are split because men tend to be athletically superior.
Therefore, TG women who were born men should be in men's leagues. TG men who were born women should be in women's leagues.
In my mind the fairest way to organize sports leagues is to divide them, not by gender, but by level of performance. Like boxing's weight classes, baseball's minor and major leagues, and Starcraft's gold/platinum/diamond leagues. As long as the sorting algorithm is reliable enough, everyone finds their way into the division where they can compete, and philosophical questions like "What makes someone a woman?" (which really shouldn't have to be relevant to a freaking sport) may be dispensed with entirely.
Just one point of clarification before the discussion gets really heated - as a transgendered woman, Fallon Fox is required to have been on a hormone regimen for at least 2 years since undergoing surgery.
Clarify further: required by whom?
Almost certainly by the Florida Boxing Commission when they finish their transgender policy, which is based on the transgender policy of the Association of Boxing Commissions.
I can't vouch for everything in the article, but most of it's quite good. Combat sports are very highly regulated.
Incidentally, on the subject of divisions by performance, I think at least Ronda Rousey could challenge some of the middle-tier performers in the men's Bantamweight class. On the other hand, weight classes aren't divided for merit, they're divided so that top talent gets to face off against other top talent, not against lesser but larger talent. The best middleweight in the world (Anderson Silva) is almost certainly better than virtually any heavyweight, but might not be able to beat some of the top heavyweights in a fair fight because of the hundred pound size difference. Nobody is going to recognize the world's best minor league pitcher as a top pitcher, but the world's best middleweight mixed martial artist is widely considered the world's best mixed martial artist.
Sports aren't split because of how people present themselves, or what they prefer to be called. If the WNBA was opened up to competition right now, men would probably replace most of the spots in that league, even though men already have the NBA. In other words, sports are split because men tend to be athletically superior.
Therefore, TG women who were born men should be in men's leagues. TG men who were born women should be in women's leagues.
You're missing a step in your logical argument.
Your argument is something like,
1. Men are enough better at athletic competition that women need to have their own leagues simply for the sake of fair competition.
2. Transgendered women - who were born male - retain the physical advantages of their birth as a male. <--- this is the step you didn't spell out
Therefore 3. Transgendered women should not be permitted to compete in women's leagues.
(2) is false. The mounting evidence states that transgendered women are not at a physical advantage over women of the same size, and some evidence suggests that they may even be at a (slight) disadvantage.
It seems like that would spell the end of female participation at a professional or even top-tier amateur level in many of the major sports where strength or size are primary requirements.
Well, they'd mostly be in a lower division. But if you think about it, that's really what women's leagues are already - it's just that the sorting algorithm is based on sex rather than directly on performance.
It would require a quite large player pool to work out, so I'm not sure it'd be viable for college sports.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my mind the fairest way to organize sports leagues is to divide them, not by gender, but by level of performance. Like boxing's weight classes, baseball's minor and major leagues, and Starcraft's gold/platinum/diamond leagues. As long as the sorting algorithm is reliable enough, everyone finds their way into the division where they can compete, and philosophical questions like "What makes someone a woman?" (which really shouldn't have to be relevant to a freaking sport) may be dispensed with entirely.
Just one point of clarification before the discussion gets really heated - as a transgendered woman, Fallon Fox is required to have been on a hormone regimen for at least 2 years since undergoing surgery.
Clarify further: required by whom?
Almost certainly by the Florida Boxing Commission when they finish their transgender policy, which is based on the transgender policy of the Association of Boxing Commissions.
I can't vouch for everything in the article, but most of it's quite good. Combat sports are very highly regulated.
Incidentally, on the subject of divisions by performance, I think at least Ronda Rousey could challenge some of the middle-tier performers in the men's Bantamweight class. On the other hand, weight classes aren't divided for merit, they're divided so that top talent gets to face off against other top talent, not against lesser but larger talent. The best middleweight in the world (Anderson Silva) is almost certainly better than virtually any heavyweight, but might not be able to beat some of the top heavyweights in a fair fight because of the hundred pound size difference. Nobody is going to recognize the world's best minor league pitcher as a top pitcher, but the world's best middleweight mixed martial artist is widely considered the world's best mixed martial artist.
Sports aren't split because of how people present themselves, or what they prefer to be called. If the WNBA was opened up to competition right now, men would probably replace most of the spots in that league, even though men already have the NBA. In other words, sports are split because men tend to be athletically superior.
Therefore, TG women who were born men should be in men's leagues. TG men who were born women should be in women's leagues.
You're missing a step in your logical argument.
Your argument is something like,
1. Men are enough better at athletic competition that women need to have their own leagues simply for the sake of fair competition.
2. Transgendered women - who were born male - retain the physical advantages of their birth as a male. <--- this is the step you didn't spell out
Therefore 3. Transgendered women should not be permitted to compete in women's leagues.
(2) is false. The mounting evidence states that transgendered women are not at a physical advantage over women of the same size, and some evidence suggests that they may even be at a (slight) disadvantage.
I'm not a scientist. So if scientists determine #2 is false then I am fine with that. Are we talking about those who have had sexual re-assignment surgery, and if so, do you happen to know why it is false?
I would say this, at least. If I put on a wig, change my name to Wanda, dress like a woman and ask to be called a woman then I should still not be allowed to play in women's leagues on that basis alone.
Well, they'd mostly be in a lower division. But if you think about it, that's really what women's leagues are already - it's just that the sorting algorithm is based on sex rather than directly on performance.
It would require a quite large player pool to work out, so I'm not sure it'd be viable for college sports.
I doubt that those lower divisions would really exist. How many rungs of these divisions do you expect to be profitable?
Professional women's sports are viable because they are essentially a separate metagame. While men's tennis is dominated by overpowering serves, where points are decided by aces and returns, women's tennis has slower serves, and points tend to involve somewhat longer rallies. If you mix them together, that second meta disappears. The same is true of golf, where even the top women have failed to qualify for the PGA tour because of a significantly shorter average drive distance.
Professional women's sports are viable because they are essentially a separate metagame. While men's tennis is dominated by overpowering serves, where points are decided by aces and returns, women's tennis has slower serves, and points tend to involve somewhat longer rallies. If you mix them together, that second meta disappears. The same is true of golf, where even the top women have failed to qualify for the PGA tour because of a significantly shorter average drive distance.
Um... yeah. That's sort of the point of having separate divisions. The players who drive the farthest, serve the hardest, or whatever are placed in the highest division. Those with less power are placed in different divisions with correspondingly different metagames.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Um... yeah. That's sort of the point of having separate divisions. The players who drive the farthest, serve the hardest, or whatever are placed in the highest division. Those with less power are placed in different divisions with correspondingly different metagames.
Let's take the golf example. There are a lot of guys who can out-drive the women on the LPGA. More than enough to make up many divisions worth of players. It's not like you step down a level from the PGA tour, and suddenly no one's clearing 250 on their drives. If you head over to the local public driving range, you can see guys hit that.
You'd never see a division where ~250 drives were the norm, like they are on the LPGA, because there are just so many men who can drive further than that.
I think you're severely underestimating the differences here. The reason golf courses have ladies' tees is because drive distance makes a huge impact in golf. You can't hit the green in regulation reliably if you're coming up 30 yards shorter than everyone else off the tee. You can't 1-putt for birdie when you're 30 yards off the green. It's just not the same game if you're trying to play on a course that's a few hundred yards longer than you can hit off the tee.
But I digress. I don't think a transsexual should be allowed to compete in a division of sports not native to their birth sex. I'm not a sexist, but that just seems off to me. Males have a natural testosterone boost over females, but take the UFC for example. TRT is the new hotness there. How would that work for a trans individual? Would it wreak havoc upon their systems?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
Considering how college football has become corrupted and remains a farm league for the NFL, I am fully supportive of making a "one sport tiered system" that's fully privatized and not connected to academics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Considering how college football has become corrupted and remains a farm league for the NFL, I am fully supportive of making a "one sport tiered system" that's fully privatized and not connected to academics.
You mean like a sort of semi-pro league? A league that doesn't connect to a college but is a between step that is not quite NFL or full pro but still a respectable level of skill? They have that already.
I think you're severely underestimating the differences here. The reason golf courses have ladies' tees is because drive distance makes a huge impact in golf. You can't hit the green in regulation reliably if you're coming up 30 yards shorter than everyone else off the tee. You can't 1-putt for birdie when you're 30 yards off the green. It's just not the same game if you're trying to play on a course that's a few hundred yards longer than you can hit off the tee.
I think you have to ask yourself which social axis you want to balance fairness upon. Currently, you're using the gender axis - making the argument that women and men should be allowed equal opportunity to participate in sports. This view is incompatible with Blinking Spirit's (and my own) view that equality should be based on the axis of ability, instead of gender (i.e. people born with different levels of ability should have equal access). Is it really right to prioritize one axis over the other? why choose gender, when ability is just as variable in human populations?
In real life this actually boils down to financials, meaning what's profitable and what isn't. Using basketball as an example, grouping leagues by ability is MUCH more successful than by gender. look at the NBA and NCAA vs. the WNBA. Same thing is true for baseball, etc.
I can't think of a good egalitarian argument in favor of segragating leagues by sex vs. by ability, and i'd like to hear one. Also, i'm not sure if the point i made about financial viability is universal - obviously there would be exceptions.
Ironically this wouldn't make it fair at all and as alluded by others would basically ensure only the top 1% (arbitary low statistic to make a point) of women getting to compete.
I know over in states you don't really have much of a formula 1 following (yet but hopefully soon with texas back on calender and New Jersey next year), but it's a male dominated sport because so far no woman has been able to exhibit the skill or physical fitness necessary to make it in the sport.
If you applied this to all sports then women would justbe resigned to the bronze league to use your starcraft analogy rather than having their own leagues.
The olympics would be absolutely dominated in some areas by men with no female participation at all.
As to the original question about Transgender participation, they should only be allowed to compete as whatever gender they went through puberty as, because otherwise it's a vastly unfair advantage (or in some cases disadvantage).
I think it would be even worse than that. Thinking about the NBA.. they would have to use some kind of non-modifiable attribute that is important for the game to base ranking on so people dont go into a low rank and then train up before the season. So the obvious choice is height. Now just think about how that attribute distributes across the sexes.... the tallest women are not much taller than the average height for men. This means that for every woman that would qualify for a certain class there could be hundreds or thousands of men that qualify. That doesnt even take into account the issue of whether or not the sport would be profitable at that level anyway.
Keep in mind all of the professional sports leagues are private entities. It's really up to the owners of the league to decide how they want to handle the situation. It would be no different than if Hooters decides they dont want to hire transgender waitresses. It could become a messy legal issue at the college level sometime in the future though.
I'm not a scientist. So if scientists determine #2 is false then I am fine with that. Are we talking about those who have had sexual re-assignment surgery, and if so, do you happen to know why it is false?
I would say this, at least. If I put on a wig, change my name to Wanda, dress like a woman and ask to be called a woman then I should still not be allowed to play in women's leagues on that basis alone.
So, I'm not a scientist either, and I don't think it's been conclusively demonstrated, but the studies as I have seen them reported do say that it's false. So, don't take this as an absolute, irrefutable proof, I'm just re-reporting the evidence as I've come across it. We are talking about those who have had the surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy.
Men have two main advantages over women, physically. First, they have a larger frame. They're simply bigger than women are. Second, they have vastly more testosterone. More testosterone makes you put on muscle mass more easily, retain muscle mass more easily, makes you more aggressive, and gives a whole slew of other advantages.
A transgendered woman has had her testicles removed and is several years into hormone therapy that interferes with her body's testosterone production and ability to use testosterone. This takes away the advantage she'd have had as a man over women in athletics. The levels of testosterone that her body can actually make use of will generally be lower than in a non-transgendered woman. She will have no advantage in aggression, no advantage in building muscle, no advantage in retaining muscle - in short, she'll either be neutral or slightly disadvantaged athletically compared to a non-transgendered woman of the same build.
Now, in a sport like basketball, there's still a fairness question. A 6 foot 10 inch transgendered woman might not have an advantage over a 6 foot 10 non-transgendered woman, but there are pretty much no 6 foot 10 inch non-transgendered women. In combat sports like MMA, on the other hand, divisions are done by weight class. It's possible that a transgendered woman has, on average, a different build - either lankier or stockier - than a similar weight non-transgendered woman, but either way it's probably a disadvantage.
I think you have to ask yourself which social axis you want to balance fairness upon. Currently, you're using the gender axis - making the argument that women and men should be allowed equal opportunity to participate in sports. This view is incompatible with Blinking Spirit's (and my own) view that equality should be based on the axis of ability, instead of gender (i.e. people born with different levels of ability should have equal access). Is it really right to prioritize one axis over the other? why choose gender, when ability is just as variable in human populations?
In real life this actually boils down to financials, meaning what's profitable and what isn't. Using basketball as an example, grouping leagues by ability is MUCH more successful than by gender. look at the NBA and NCAA vs. the WNBA. Same thing is true for baseball, etc.
I can't think of a good egalitarian argument in favor of segragating leagues by sex vs. by ability, and i'd like to hear one. Also, i'm not sure if the point i made about financial viability is universal - obviously there would be exceptions.
I'm confused. We clearly group by ability. It's not one or other, we're doing both.
I think you have to ask yourself which social axis you want to balance fairness upon. Currently, you're using the gender axis - making the argument that women and men should be allowed equal opportunity to participate in sports. This view is incompatible with Blinking Spirit's (and my own) view that equality should be based on the axis of ability, instead of gender (i.e. people born with different levels of ability should have equal access). Is it really right to prioritize one axis over the other? why choose gender, when ability is just as variable in human populations?
In real life this actually boils down to financials, meaning what's profitable and what isn't. Using basketball as an example, grouping leagues by ability is MUCH more successful than by gender. look at the NBA and NCAA vs. the WNBA. Same thing is true for baseball, etc.
I can't think of a good egalitarian argument in favor of segragating leagues by sex vs. by ability, and i'd like to hear one. Also, i'm not sure if the point i made about financial viability is universal - obviously there would be exceptions.
I'm confused. We clearly group by ability. It's not one or other, we're doing both.
I think 87th is questioning the validity of grouping by gender based on NCAA basketball being more popular than the WNBA...
My response to which is there is a lot of cross over between the NBA and the NCAA. Some people like to watch the players that are coming up to the pro level. Heck the NFL combine which is nothing more than a glorified set of tests receives pretty large viewership because people want to see the future players. The WNBA does not have that draw for NBA fans.
In a similar story, there is now a transgender woman, Gabrielle Ludwig, who is competing in college basketball. This one is a little more extreme as she is 6'8" tall and is 220 pounds. She is also 50 years old and is able to compete just fine against women less than half her age. Clearly in this case the male frame she grew up with is a huge advantage as she is twice the size of those she is competing against.
So the question is, is this fair? Should these women be allowed to compete against other women who were born female and are naturally smaller by comparison?
Here's some links about them.
Fallon Fox: http://jezebel.com/5989623/mma-fighter-fallon-fox-may-lose-her-license-after-revealing-shes-a-trans-woman
Gabrielle Ludwig: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/50-year-old-transsexual-8216woman8217-makes-college-basketball-debut-video/
She retains her natural frame, which is potentially an issue in a sport like basketball, but in combat sports, matchups are by weight anyway. I don't know if her frame is larger (i.e. she's lankier than average) or smaller (i.e. she's more obese than average) than normal for her weight class, but significant deviation from the average frame for a weight class is a disadvantage in a sport like MMA anyway.
EDIT: She's also required to not test above the normal range for testosterone in a woman, and will be retested periodically, so it's not a one-time qualification or anything like that.
Clarify further: required by whom?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It seems like that would spell the end of female participation at a professional or even top-tier amateur level in many of the major sports where strength or size are primary requirements.
There is a difference between being a man and being a male.
Sex, male or female, is determined by chromosomes.
Gender, man or woman, is more of a societal construct.
Why is that? What reasoning or power would we have as a society to choose what is or is not something when its obviously categorized via science as one or the other. Reguardless of what "society" may say I still see them biologically as a man or a woman determned by their gender. Guess I'm weird that way.
Therefore, TG women who were born men should be in men's leagues. TG men who were born women should be in women's leagues.
Almost certainly by the Florida Boxing Commission when they finish their transgender policy, which is based on the transgender policy of the Association of Boxing Commissions.
You can find most of my information here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mma/news/20130307/fallon-fox-profile/?sct=mma_wr_a1
I can't vouch for everything in the article, but most of it's quite good. Combat sports are very highly regulated.
Incidentally, on the subject of divisions by performance, I think at least Ronda Rousey could challenge some of the middle-tier performers in the men's Bantamweight class. On the other hand, weight classes aren't divided for merit, they're divided so that top talent gets to face off against other top talent, not against lesser but larger talent. The best middleweight in the world (Anderson Silva) is almost certainly better than virtually any heavyweight, but might not be able to beat some of the top heavyweights in a fair fight because of the hundred pound size difference. Nobody is going to recognize the world's best minor league pitcher as a top pitcher, but the world's best middleweight mixed martial artist is widely considered the world's best mixed martial artist.
You're missing a step in your logical argument.
Your argument is something like,
1. Men are enough better at athletic competition that women need to have their own leagues simply for the sake of fair competition.
2. Transgendered women - who were born male - retain the physical advantages of their birth as a male. <--- this is the step you didn't spell out
Therefore 3. Transgendered women should not be permitted to compete in women's leagues.
(2) is false. The mounting evidence states that transgendered women are not at a physical advantage over women of the same size, and some evidence suggests that they may even be at a (slight) disadvantage.
It would require a quite large player pool to work out, so I'm not sure it'd be viable for college sports.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not a scientist. So if scientists determine #2 is false then I am fine with that. Are we talking about those who have had sexual re-assignment surgery, and if so, do you happen to know why it is false?
I would say this, at least. If I put on a wig, change my name to Wanda, dress like a woman and ask to be called a woman then I should still not be allowed to play in women's leagues on that basis alone.
I doubt that those lower divisions would really exist. How many rungs of these divisions do you expect to be profitable?
Professional women's sports are viable because they are essentially a separate metagame. While men's tennis is dominated by overpowering serves, where points are decided by aces and returns, women's tennis has slower serves, and points tend to involve somewhat longer rallies. If you mix them together, that second meta disappears. The same is true of golf, where even the top women have failed to qualify for the PGA tour because of a significantly shorter average drive distance.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let's take the golf example. There are a lot of guys who can out-drive the women on the LPGA. More than enough to make up many divisions worth of players. It's not like you step down a level from the PGA tour, and suddenly no one's clearing 250 on their drives. If you head over to the local public driving range, you can see guys hit that.
You'd never see a division where ~250 drives were the norm, like they are on the LPGA, because there are just so many men who can drive further than that.
I think you're severely underestimating the differences here. The reason golf courses have ladies' tees is because drive distance makes a huge impact in golf. You can't hit the green in regulation reliably if you're coming up 30 yards shorter than everyone else off the tee. You can't 1-putt for birdie when you're 30 yards off the green. It's just not the same game if you're trying to play on a course that's a few hundred yards longer than you can hit off the tee.
But I digress. I don't think a transsexual should be allowed to compete in a division of sports not native to their birth sex. I'm not a sexist, but that just seems off to me. Males have a natural testosterone boost over females, but take the UFC for example. TRT is the new hotness there. How would that work for a trans individual? Would it wreak havoc upon their systems?
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
This may be the first time ever a sentence has started that way and not ended in tragedy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You mean like a sort of semi-pro league? A league that doesn't connect to a college but is a between step that is not quite NFL or full pro but still a respectable level of skill? They have that already.
I think you have to ask yourself which social axis you want to balance fairness upon. Currently, you're using the gender axis - making the argument that women and men should be allowed equal opportunity to participate in sports. This view is incompatible with Blinking Spirit's (and my own) view that equality should be based on the axis of ability, instead of gender (i.e. people born with different levels of ability should have equal access). Is it really right to prioritize one axis over the other? why choose gender, when ability is just as variable in human populations?
In real life this actually boils down to financials, meaning what's profitable and what isn't. Using basketball as an example, grouping leagues by ability is MUCH more successful than by gender. look at the NBA and NCAA vs. the WNBA. Same thing is true for baseball, etc.
I can't think of a good egalitarian argument in favor of segragating leagues by sex vs. by ability, and i'd like to hear one. Also, i'm not sure if the point i made about financial viability is universal - obviously there would be exceptions.
Bident Layers
B Devotion
RG Devotion
UW Control
Modern:
Jund
UW Control
Combo Pod
Legacy:
DeathBlade
RUG Delver
BUG Control
I think it would be even worse than that. Thinking about the NBA.. they would have to use some kind of non-modifiable attribute that is important for the game to base ranking on so people dont go into a low rank and then train up before the season. So the obvious choice is height. Now just think about how that attribute distributes across the sexes.... the tallest women are not much taller than the average height for men. This means that for every woman that would qualify for a certain class there could be hundreds or thousands of men that qualify. That doesnt even take into account the issue of whether or not the sport would be profitable at that level anyway.
Keep in mind all of the professional sports leagues are private entities. It's really up to the owners of the league to decide how they want to handle the situation. It would be no different than if Hooters decides they dont want to hire transgender waitresses. It could become a messy legal issue at the college level sometime in the future though.
So, I'm not a scientist either, and I don't think it's been conclusively demonstrated, but the studies as I have seen them reported do say that it's false. So, don't take this as an absolute, irrefutable proof, I'm just re-reporting the evidence as I've come across it. We are talking about those who have had the surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy.
Men have two main advantages over women, physically. First, they have a larger frame. They're simply bigger than women are. Second, they have vastly more testosterone. More testosterone makes you put on muscle mass more easily, retain muscle mass more easily, makes you more aggressive, and gives a whole slew of other advantages.
A transgendered woman has had her testicles removed and is several years into hormone therapy that interferes with her body's testosterone production and ability to use testosterone. This takes away the advantage she'd have had as a man over women in athletics. The levels of testosterone that her body can actually make use of will generally be lower than in a non-transgendered woman. She will have no advantage in aggression, no advantage in building muscle, no advantage in retaining muscle - in short, she'll either be neutral or slightly disadvantaged athletically compared to a non-transgendered woman of the same build.
Now, in a sport like basketball, there's still a fairness question. A 6 foot 10 inch transgendered woman might not have an advantage over a 6 foot 10 non-transgendered woman, but there are pretty much no 6 foot 10 inch non-transgendered women. In combat sports like MMA, on the other hand, divisions are done by weight class. It's possible that a transgendered woman has, on average, a different build - either lankier or stockier - than a similar weight non-transgendered woman, but either way it's probably a disadvantage.
I'm confused. We clearly group by ability. It's not one or other, we're doing both.
I think 87th is questioning the validity of grouping by gender based on NCAA basketball being more popular than the WNBA...
My response to which is there is a lot of cross over between the NBA and the NCAA. Some people like to watch the players that are coming up to the pro level. Heck the NFL combine which is nothing more than a glorified set of tests receives pretty large viewership because people want to see the future players. The WNBA does not have that draw for NBA fans.