Saturday, February 29, 2020

Elizabeth Warren Says, "Banning Men From Competing in Women’s Sports is ‘Cruel’" - My Thoughts


When has it gone too far? I got to thinking about transgenders and women's sports. I dug through a lot of information concerning the "Equality Act", "Title IX", Title VII", etc. I only wanted to look at women's sports as all the rest is very complicated.

I was considering why so many think there is not a problem with transgender women competing against biological women. I think the big mistake people make when this topic is discussed is stating the "obvious" reasons, assuming EVERYONE "knows" that they are obvious, without looking at WHY they are obvious. For most people, these things are obvious because that is what they have known their entire lives. It doesn't mean they are correct, it means that is what they were taught. So in this case, is "obvious" also "correct"?
So let's ask the question, "WHY do we have women's sports in the first place?" The actual answer is "biology". Women who want to play sports are at a disadvantage based on biology. Men tend to be physically larger, have more muscle mass, and some skeletal differences, along with a few other characteristics. These differences have always existed in order for the human race to survive. But BECAUSE they exist, men have a clear advantage when it comes to sports. So to create a fair and equitable playing field, men and women do not compete with one another in the area of sports.

Enter transgenders...
When a man identifies AS a woman, it does not reverse any of the biological factors that have always provided his advantages in sports. This is ONLY true once he has entered puberty. Prior to puberty, boys and girls are virtually identical in physique. But once puberty starts, boys and girls quickly move to being different. The argument is often made that treating prepubescent males with hormone therapy/surgery would keep them from taking on those masculine characteristics that give them the sports advantage. But let's think about that. Would providing such treatment not fall into "child abuse"?

We already have a famous case of a mother and father fighting in court over the gender identity of their son. The child wanted to be a girl and the mother was fully supportive while the father was not. The issue that was being fought was over whether or not the mother could "force" the father to dress their son as a girl, use his new name, start hormone therapy, etc. During the fight between parents, the child outgrew his "wanting to be a girl" phase and now wanted to go back to being a boy. IMO, making permanent, life altering changes to a child who has not reached an age of reason is child abuse. Let the child reach an age where they truly can make their own decision, and then let them do what they want.
So back to the topic, since post-pubescent transgender women have already gained the "male advantage", does allowing them to compete against biological women not destroy the very reason for having separate sports divisions?
Those who believe transgender women should be able to compete with biological women are now stating the case of a biological female athlete who DID beat a transgender woman in a race. My mind goes straight to: "She was obviously not good as a male athlete, and is STILL not a good female athlete." However judgmental that may sound, the data shows how much of an advantage men really do have over women in sports, and one outcome of a race does not change the facts seen since the beginning of sports.

Why would a girl ever aspire to compete in a sport when they know there is no chance for them to ever dominate that sport due to competition against transgenders who use their male advantages? Women who compete are dedicated and work extremely hard to achieve greatness. Why would we allow that to be taken away from them?