Well, this is a conversation for sure. Brushing somebody off that doesn’t have the same experience as you is no way to keep people on your side.
I honestly have never heard of a study on trans athletes, so I don’t even know what you’re referring to. And if you’re saying there are biological differences between cisgender people and trans people, this is not an argument I have ever heard and is the exact example of nuance in the conversation I was referring to.
So, here’s my thinking if you are open to hearing it. I am a very liberal and compassionate person. I have always been. I absolutely support trans people, and if one of my children came out as trans I would be happy for them and support them. The hate that comes from republicans towards trans people (even children) disgusts me. But I have never understood the debate on athletics.
First, if you’re saying that legislation is largely unnecessary because the governing bodies of the sports leagues are already handling it, I totally agree. Those legislations are more about pointing a finger at trans people and shaming them than it is about protecting young athletes.
Second, you phrase it as “banning trans athletes”. This sounds different than the debate I have heard. There are plenty of rec leagues or clubs where your sex/gender shouldn’t come into play. And other leagues just depend on sex, not gender identification. Nobody should be saying a trans woman can’t play in a “male” league.
Now, it seems like you’re saying people born male should be allowed to compete in any competitive league according to their gender. This is where I disagree (and the governing bodies of the leagues should enforce this).
It seems like there are thousands of years of evidence that people born male have an athletic advantage over people born female. This is the entire reason male and female sports have always been separated. For you to say there is no evidence of an advantage goes counter to what seems obvious.
If I had a daughter that was in a competitive sport, I would be upset if she was losing to somebody that had obvious biological advantages of being born male (size, strength, etc).
With all that said, when I hear somebody like Newsom bring up the athletics debate then I hear somebody say liberals are “walking back any support for trans folk”, I feel like this is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t know if Newsom had other negative things to say about Trans people, which is mostly why I asked the question initially.
My understanding of HRT is that it it changes your muscle density, among other things. Although studies have shown they may still retain higher levels of muscle mass and strength. Anecdotally, a friend of mine is no where near as strong as they were before HRT. I know they were quite shocked when they realized they could no longer lift things they were once able to carry before transitioning.
Well, this is a conversation for sure. Brushing somebody off that doesn’t have the same experience as you is no way to keep people on your side.
I honestly have never heard of a study on trans athletes, so I don’t even know what you’re referring to. And if you’re saying there are biological differences between cisgender people and trans people, this is not an argument I have ever heard and is the exact example of nuance in the conversation I was referring to.
So, here’s my thinking if you are open to hearing it. I am a very liberal and compassionate person. I have always been. I absolutely support trans people, and if one of my children came out as trans I would be happy for them and support them. The hate that comes from republicans towards trans people (even children) disgusts me. But I have never understood the debate on athletics.
First, if you’re saying that legislation is largely unnecessary because the governing bodies of the sports leagues are already handling it, I totally agree. Those legislations are more about pointing a finger at trans people and shaming them than it is about protecting young athletes.
Second, you phrase it as “banning trans athletes”. This sounds different than the debate I have heard. There are plenty of rec leagues or clubs where your sex/gender shouldn’t come into play. And other leagues just depend on sex, not gender identification. Nobody should be saying a trans woman can’t play in a “male” league.
Now, it seems like you’re saying people born male should be allowed to compete in any competitive league according to their gender. This is where I disagree (and the governing bodies of the leagues should enforce this).
It seems like there are thousands of years of evidence that people born male have an athletic advantage over people born female. This is the entire reason male and female sports have always been separated. For you to say there is no evidence of an advantage goes counter to what seems obvious.
If I had a daughter that was in a competitive sport, I would be upset if she was losing to somebody that had obvious biological advantages of being born male (size, strength, etc).
With all that said, when I hear somebody like Newsom bring up the athletics debate then I hear somebody say liberals are “walking back any support for trans folk”, I feel like this is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t know if Newsom had other negative things to say about Trans people, which is mostly why I asked the question initially.
My understanding of HRT is that it it changes your muscle density, among other things. Although studies have shown they may still retain higher levels of muscle mass and strength. Anecdotally, a friend of mine is no where near as strong as they were before HRT. I know they were quite shocked when they realized they could no longer lift things they were once able to carry before transitioning.