Miss Nevada - first transgender Miss USA Contestant

[Sour Masher]

If Ronda Rousy were to fight a male MMA fighter at the height of her career, I would feel very uncomfortable watching it. I would watch Serena Williams play tennis against a man, though.

That reminds me that my college roommate was a decent tennis player--good enough to be on his small HS team, but not good enough to be on the college team. I remember how adamant he was that he could beat Serena Williams at tennis. I thought and think he was completely delusional, but he would go on and on about how much worse women players were than men. As a layperson, it does not see like that start of a difference in tennis compared to many other sports, but I think we can all agree that it is a huge difference for many sports, and I would imagine none of us would enjoy watching a man fight a woman, and while a transwomen no longer identifies as a man and I accept and respect that, in this one arena, I just think a transwoman who wants to compete will have to do it with their assigned-at-birth gender.

[chancellor]

So, we've chosen to make Athletics the pinnacle of purity?.

Yup, that ship sailed a looooooong time ago. It’s why every sport has drug testing. And rules about equipment. And a whole lot of other stuff.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I thought I did, and my post just above this one tries to further. There is a difference between professions that involve punching people in the face and other professions. I am surprised that even combat sports do not give you any pause.

It doesn't. If a woman can become a Navy seal or a combat pilot, she should be able to fight her weight class vs a man. If she's not good enough to compete, train harder. Maybe if there hadn't been millennia of inequity, the genders would be closer together in terms of strength and ability.

Preventing someone who identifies as a female from competing vs females is discriminatory, you can make any excuse you want--but in the end--we either strive for things to be equitable or we justify our biases.

[Sour Masher]

We, as a society, have been conditioned to this mentality, through multiple conduits. BUT as society advances, the distinction that men are superior to women in ANY aspect diminishes, it's natural for people of my age to want to be "chivalrous" but most women of today and beyond consider that concept antiquated. some are even offended by it, because it infers they are not equal to men and therefore need special treatment. Now is the time that you hold the door for people you care about regardless of gender, rather than act as a 'gentleman'

Your examples are spot on, two men who got into a shoving match would have been dealt with differently than the perceived man vs woman incidents you described.

We really need to move into the 21st century and abandon our patriarchal attitudes if we're ever going to achieve gender equity.

I agree with every single thing except things that involve strength and speed. Maybe that changes in time, especially if we start genetically modifying ourselves. But today, to deny that men, on average, are bigger, stronger and faster than women, on average is to deny biological reality. Luckily, none of that stuff matters for most professions these days. And I am all for allowing women to compete with men in just about any other field. In fact, I just realized a potential inconsistency in my position--I am for women in the military and in combat situations. I guess there, my thinking is that weapons training is usually more important than physical strength.

[Sour Masher]

It doesn't. If a woman can become a Navy seal or a combat pilot, she should be able to fight her weight class vs a man. If she's not good enough to compete, train harder. Maybe if there hadn't been millennia of inequity, the genders would be closer together in terms of strength and ability.

Preventing someone who identifies as a female from competing vs females is discriminatory, you can make any excuse you want--but in the end--we either strive for things to be equitable or we justify our biases.

Physical differences is a biological fact of nature across species. I agree, down with the patriarchy--we had our chance and we fucked it all up to hell, mostly because of our biological differences from women. But to deny this basic fact and suggest it is about societal inequity, as if that is the cause and women being smaller is the effect completely flips the science of why these differences exist around.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yup, that ship sailed a looooooong time ago. It’s why every sport has drug testing. And rules about equipment. And a whole lot of other stuff.

Did nothing about Steroids (still don't in some sports) Looked the other way on drug use (still do in some sports)

This is not about protecting women, it's about punishing/controlling Trans women.

I'm done living in the 50s, time to advance society into the 21st century, hell let's just skip to the 22nd seeing as how we've spent so much of our current existence clinging to the past.

[chancellor]

Well, if you’re wondering about the physical advantages men have over women, Serena is an instructive case. Around 2008, Serena went off on how she could beat any man rated outside the top-200 male tennis players. Some European player rated in the low-200s took up the challenge. He hardly trained for the match, drank about a liter of shandy before the match, and beat her handily.

And I didn’t even think about combat sports.

[Sour Masher]

Well, if you’re wondering about the physical advantages men have over women, Serena is an instructive case. Around 2008, Serena went off on how she could beat any man rated outside the top-200 male tennis players. Some European player rated in the low-200s took up the challenge. He hardly trained for the match, drank about a liter of shandy before the match, and beat her handily.

And I didn’t even think about combat sports.

Dammit, my roommate was right...kinda. I still think she would have whooped his ass. He sucked .

[Sour Masher]

The point about Navy Seals is a good one though. I have to think through this. Maybe I am being inconsistent in being for women being in military combat against men but against transwomen competing against those born women in less deadly combat sports. Is military combat more about training and weapon skills or physical strength and speed? I gotta think through why I feel one way about one and another about the other and if there is a good reason for it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Physical differences is a biological fact of nature across species. I agree, down with the patriarchy--we had our chance and we fucked it all up to hell, mostly because of our biological differences from women. But to deny this basic fact and suggest it is about societal inequity, as if that is the cause and women being smaller is the effect completely flips the science of why these differences exist around.

There are biological women who could kick my ass up and down the street, who have been and always will be, better athletes than I am/could have been. PLUS women, in the past, have been dissuaded from exploring their athleticism to it's Nth degree as being Unladylike, etc. Had their physical development been fostered as much as it was in men, the differences would be less. Obviously a male at his elite peak is physically superior to a female at her elite peak, but if you're going to tell me that I can't find women who could beat every one of us in here at our BEST sport--I'd take that bet.

BTW Yes in mammals, the Male is usually stronger, but not in all species. And even in Mammals (including Humans) though the Male might have a physical strength advantage, the female has a better survival rate than the male. Can Tolerate pain better than the male. And tolerates our shit better than we do (I know I just threw that last one in for fun).

I don't know how much more we can go round with this.


I'll always advocate for the most equitable option. And unless we seek to make everything "fair" no matter how elegant our intent, parsing Fairness is something I'll never be on board with.

[Sour Masher]

There are biological women who could kick my ass up and down the street, who have been and always will be, better athletes than I am/could have been. PLUS women, in the past, have been dissuaded from exploring their athleticism to it's Nth degree as being Unladylike, etc. Had their physical development been fostered as much as it was in men, the differences would be less. Obviously a male at his elite peak is physically superior to a female at her elite peak, but if you're going to tell me that I can't find women who could beat every one of us in here at our BEST sport--I'd take that bet.

BTW Yes in mammals, the Male is usually stronger, but not in all species. And even in Mammals (including Humans) though the Male might have a physical strength advantage, the female has a better survival rate than the male. Can Tolerate pain better than the male. And tolerates our shit better than we do (I know I just threw that last one in for fun).

I don't know how much more we can go round with this.


I'll always advocate for the most equitable option. And unless we seek to make everything "fair" no matter how elegant our intent, parsing Fairness is something I'll never be on board with.

Some of these points again, go off on tangents. Did you bring up the non-mammals thing for a reason relevant to our discussion, or the pain tolerance thing, because you thought I was arguing men are better than woman overall? Did you bring up the point that that top .1% of women can beat most guys at physical activities for a relevant reason? Of course, I agree that is true (as it is true that women live longer than men and have other biological advantages). Lots of women can beat me and most other guys at physical stuff. If I did not understand that before I ran my first and last 5k, I certainly understood it after. But while there is much overlap, we are talking about the top vs the top, and there the difference is stark.

Your stance and some of your comments lead me to a final question--do you think those that identify as male and those that identify as women should all be pooled to compete in all sports? If not, why not? To me, the answer is obvious. Very few women would ever be able to compete at the highest level with men in many sports. But I am trying to understand your logic, specifically, because some of the points you have made lead me to not understand why you would be against men competing against women in athletics. How does how one identify as change the biology of the advantages?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Your stance and some of your comments lead me to a final question--do you think those that identify as male and those that identify as women should all be pooled to compete in all sports? If not, why not? To me, the answer is obvious. Very few women would ever be able to compete at the highest level with men in many sports. But I am trying to understand your logic, specifically, because some of the points you have made lead me to not understand why you would be against men competing against women in athletics. How does how one identify as change the biology of the advantages?

My stance is that, until we strive to make every form of competition equitable in every way, we're being hypocritical singling out Trans women to be banned. We say it's to protect bio women, but we aren't doing the same thing to protect Trans men from getting smashed by biological males are we?

Because we're STILL in that patriarchal, gotta protect the weaker sex, mentality.

There's no banning of Intersex athletes is there? There's no banning of Trans Males from competing vs Bio Males is there?

FWIW I'm NOT against men competing vs women in any sport.

I'm just trying to make sure things are fair and equitable, not that my opinion will matter, ever.

PLUS I absolutely believe most if not all of this Trans regulation is based in prejudice rather than genuine concern of competitive balance/fairness and until they stop Trans men from competing vs Bio men (and other issues I've mentioned) I'll continue to feel this way.

[Sour Masher]

My stance is that, until we strive to make every form of competition equitable in every way, we're being hypocritical singling out Trans women to be banned. We say it's to protect bio women, but we aren't doing the same thing to protect Trans men from getting smashed by biological males are we?

Because we're STILL in that patriarchal, gotta protect the weaker sex, mentality.

There's no banning of Intersex athletes is there? There's no banning of Trans Males from competing vs Bio Males is there?

FWIW I'm NOT against men competing vs women in any sport.

I'm just trying to make sure things are fair and equitable, not that my opinion will matter, ever.

PLUS I absolutely believe most if not all of this Trans regulation is based in prejudice rather than genuine concern of competitive balance/fairness and until they stop Trans men from competing vs Bio men (and other issues I've mentioned) I'll continue to feel this way.

I am not aware that there are any differences in rules for trans-men and trans-women, but I will take your word for it. For me, the difference there is that a trans-man who chooses to compete against those born as men is making a choice to compete against those with an advantage. A trans-women who competes against those born women are putting those women in a spot where they cannot choose whether they think it is appropriate to face someone born a man in competition. If everyone is cool with it, it is cool with me, but my assumption is that many women would choose, if they could, not to compete with a trans-women, for fear that they would be at a disadvantage.

[Sour Masher]

My favorite sport at the moment is American Ninja Warrior. Many of my favorite athletes are women in that sport, and I love that they all compete on the same course, taking turns, and they all support each other and train together. But recently, as the sport has evolved, to give women more of a chance to advance, the top women are guaranteed a spot in the next round, even if they do not beat the top men. If more women do beat the men, they, of course, move on, but at minimum, a certain number of women are allowed to make it. It seems fair to me, given the physical differences, although I think the advantages men have over women in that sport at relatively small. Do you think that is fair, or should those that move to the next round be based solely on who performs the best?

BTW, it is a great sport with lots of amazing athletes and seems populated by really good people, at least that is how they sell it. Everyone seems to support each other, even as they compete against each other.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I am not aware that there are any differences in rules for trans-men and trans-women, but I will take your word for it. For me, the difference there is that a trans-man who chooses to compete against those born as men is making a choice to compete against those with an advantage. A trans-women who competes against those born women are putting those women in a spot where they cannot choose whether they think it is appropriate to face someone born a man in competition. If everyone is cool with it, it is cool with me, but my assumption is that many women would choose, if they could, not to compete with a trans-women, for fear that they would be at a disadvantage.

We see it differently--The ban treats a Trans Woman as a man and the Trans Man as a woman. They are either a man or a woman, The Trans qualifier will fade in time. In the future, think Starship Troopers, where men and women train, live and serve together. Gender bias will be a thing of the past. Or at least I can hope.