this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
122 points (88.1% liked)

News

26922 readers
7825 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 57 points 5 days ago (10 children)

Newsom has consistently and repeatedly fought for trans rights. I dunno why trans advocates are getting hung up on sports. I swear you guys were manipulated into digging your heels in with the dumbest position possible solely to divide and discredit the movement for equality for trans people.

It's like how the news media will ignore dozens and dozens of innocent Black men getting shot by police until there's a story of a gang member with a rap sheet a mile long who was actively trying to rape someone when police shot him, and then they'll run the story hoping that the anti-racists will rush to defend him.

Insisting on having untransitioned or partially transitioned trans women in women's sports is such an obviously stupid hill to die on. You're all playing right into their hands.

[–] yogurt@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

I don't know if you're falling for it or this is just how you feel, but Newsom was talking to Charlie Kirk who popularized the "groomers" line, calls June "groomer month" all the time and constantly talks about executing "groomers". Newsom softballed it to make it seem like Kirk just cares about sports, and repeatedly dog whistled a lot about how much he agrees with Kirk keeping it ambiguous about what exactly he agrees with.

Maybe you believe Newsom is deep down a good guy and he's just doing this to shill for right wing votes, and once you give him power he'll be normal. But right now all he's doing is telling his audience of out of touch liberals that the "I don't want to see a black pilot on my plane" guy is the kind of sensible conservative Democrats should be bipartisan with.

IMO based on how he talks and the trans bills he's vetoed as governor, Newsom is the type of liberal that likes the idea of being the big guy protecting "these poor people" from dirty rednecks, but is also extremely suspicious that all this gender shit is some kind of Tiktok trend that might get out of hand if he lets trans people have it too easy.

[–] witnessbolt@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

I agree with you

As someone with trans family, and that works around parents (but has no kids myself), and is very liberal personally --

From what I can tell, Gavin is speaking to how the average parent feels. They are accepting of trans people, but have some hesitations and those are coming out through this example, for one. And I mean the more liberal parents

You either need to get out there and speak to these people and work to help them get over these feelings, or you need to accept how they feel and the... yes I'm spinning this phrase... boundary they are requesting and then work within that to change their minds

Raging at them and damning candidates over it without working to actually change it is just like the Palestine voters and Kamala all over again (at least at a superficial level)

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Because once you lose one right, the rest fall like domino's.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Ok then in that case you are SO fucking late to the party

[–] stetech@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

You're all playing right into their hands.

Correct. Ask any of these people “defending” women’s sports to name a dozen non-male athletes. Ridicule them upon failure to do so.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 35 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Not placing a value judgement on this, but you can probably expect a lot of Dems to distance themselves on trans issues. It's a group of issues that takes up a lot of air, and divides the party, while uniting republicans.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's so fucking dumb to capitulate to Republicans on any of these issues, because they'll just find some other bullshit to fabricate into a huge deal amongst their base of morons. Stand behind your beliefs you fucking cowards.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago

It really doesn't seem that hard to just constantly disprove the lies they're telling, over and over, until eventually the people who are still sane in this country understand what a non-issue the conservatives are freaking out over. I feel the same way about their "migrant crime" myth, which Democrats also immediately capitulated to and started campaigning on fixing despite crime statistics clearly demonstrating migrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's almost like standing up for their beliefs was never the goal, and they'll just say whatever makes their corporate donors happy.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 14 points 5 days ago

Sadly. You're correct. The existence of people like me is a wedge issue. >_<

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

It's stupid because their donors do not want them moving left, so they continue to pander to these nonexistent folks that they think will move away from the republican party to vote for them, leaving behind their actual base, who will simply not vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 35 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Sports are games.

Games are supposed to be inclusive and fun.

Society taking games deathly serious (and equivocating it with academic merit, aka serious pursuits) is the problem.

People rioting and murdering if the game didn't work out for their team is the problem. Putting billion dollar stakes on games is the problem.

Trans people or any people wanting to play games with their friends should be what society fosters and nurtures as the entire fucking point of society's existence. Something something... planting trees something something knowing they'll never sit under...

Nope? let's bring on the climate change induced extinction then. If our values are hyper competitive, dog eat dog bullshit from labor to fucking games, we should go extinct.

[–] Makhno@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children)

Trans people or any people wanting to play games with their friends should be what society fosters and nurtures as the entire fucking point of society's existence. Something something... planting trees something something knowing they'll never sit under...

Coed teams exist. They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.

Maybe the solution is non-gendered weight classes for sports, or just more coed teams. Idk

Edit: yall will convince yourselves of anything lol. Really wild the dumb shit some people will say

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They’re finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn’t go through puberty as a male.

Good news! Puberty blockers exist and have been studied and used for literal decades for other reasons.

That’s clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.

The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there's no more advantage.

In fact, women who haven't transitioned often have an advantage because their testosterone levels can be higher than women who have transitioned.

And that's the crux of the issue: human variation.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there’s no more advantage.

Would you be opposed to a requirement that trans women wanting to compete in women's leagues undergo 3 years of hormone therapy before being allowed to play?

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think most trans people would agree that's reasonable, but at that point, you also have to talk about the bans on transition for minors, which would affect a minors ability to have that time frame met, and then their ability to play.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

True, and that's a thorny problem but one that has to be addressed eventually.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Puberty blockers exist and have been studied and used for literal decades for other reasons.

In the case of a trans woman having not went through puberty as a male then yeah true enough as far as I know.

The science says 2-3 years of hormone therapy levels the playing field and there's no more advantage.

Are you sure about that? Because I looked it up and (after a few instances of "we have no idea but maybe not") I found this. I'll also admit that I only read the conclusion so I can't make any guarantees for the quality of the paper.

In fact, women who haven't transitioned often have an advantage because their testosterone levels can be higher than women who have transitioned.

Yeah that's the thing: Testosterone is only one part of athletic ability. The paper lists some parameters that are either not affected or affected but not reduced to within the average range of cis women, but the obvious example would be height.

load more comments (2 replies)

What about trans women who transitioned before puberty? What about cis or intersex women with elevated levels of testosterone? What about sports where it has been shown that after a long enough period of medical transition trans people have no significant advantage over their cis counterparts?

You appeal to science yet fail to cite a single source, so let me do it for you:

An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes... While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 days ago (17 children)

Ah, yes, let’s make laws specifically banning 2-5 children from ever having fun.

Like… what the fuck is wrong with you that you think a law targeting under 10 people in the entirety of the US is justified and not literally just bullying those kids on a national level to hope they fucking commit suicide? A law to tell 5 kids, specifically, that fuck them and they’re not allowed to have fun is god damn crazy.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.

That would be an argument worth discussing if the Nazis weren't also trying to ban puberty blockers and frothing at the mouth claiming the trans agenda is coming for their kids. But no, right now, that's a garbage bad faith argument, because it already has an obvious answer. That's how they poison the discussion.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BeanGoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Please tell me what these "issues" are, with peer reviewed scientific sources. There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT. Furthermore, the same people touting trans kids for their supposed "advantages" are the same people forcing them to develop those "advantages" by restricting their access to healthcare before puberty begins.

The cruelty is the point.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are no significant advantages to a "male puberty" that are not countered by HRT.

Uh... Palm size? Heart and lung size? Height? Don't get me wrong I recognize this for the culture war bullshit it is, but there is some truth to this that needs to be addressed.

Edit: I only read the conclusion (and wouldn't be able to tell if the methodology is flawed anyway) but I found this.

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So shouldn't we eliminate all players who may have physical advantages? What about a woman from birth who grows to 6'5"? Seems like that'd be an unfair advantage when playing against other women who may be only 5'10".

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I mean by your logic we should just eliminate women's leagues entirely and make everything coed.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Games are supposed to be fair. Unless you're going to completely desegregate men and women's sports, there's a real biological argument to be made here. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There is zero biological argument because you cannot make two categories based on sex which encompass everyone.

Example 1:

A cis woman with a genetic mutation which incrases her testosterone levels into the range of cis men. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 2:

A cis woman with XY gonadal dysgenesis. She has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome is mutated and doesn't function as it should which causes a "female" phenotype. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 3:

A trans woman in the 95th percentile of men with regards to physical strength. She is in the 10th percentile of women after transitioning. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 4:

A trans woman with Klinefelter syndrome and XXY genes. She has naturally very low levels of testosterone and she doesn't require testosterone blockers after transitioning and taking estrogen. Even before transitioning she had less muscle mass, weaker bones and wider hips than the average man as a result of her low testosterone. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

Example 5:

An African woman who would be in the 1st percentile of man if she were one, both in terms of physical attributes (size, muscle mass, heart size) and competitive results. Some "scientists" argue her race makes her less of a woman and more of a man. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?

There is zero risk of these people "replacing" cis women by the way. Yes, their performance may be greater than that of comparable cis women without any genetical mutations beyond a certajn point.

Yet risk is calculated as [severity] * [likelihood]. And due to the low likelihood stemming from their very low prevalence in the general population, there is no reason to ban them.

Women's sports is about representation of women. Trans women are part of that group, cis women with genetic mutations are part of that group, racial minorities are part of that group. You cannot exclude some women and claim this group is "fair" and representative.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Women’s sports is about representation of women.

Maybe that's the crux of the issue. You guys keep seeing women's sports as some sort of symbolism or representation or statement. The majority of people see women's sports as being about sports. No agenda needed. No messaging. Just physical competition purely for the sake of it.

Yes, it is about sports - but only in addition to being about representation. This is the key distinguishing factor between women's sports and male/open category sports.

If it were purely and solely about sports then women's sports as a category wouldn't exist. Female athletes would get similar funding and opportunities as male athletes, both in competitive and casual events.

Just take a look at chess: Why is there a women's league? Answer: Because there are significant systemic barriers against women in chess. Without their own leagues, there would be no representation in the top level at all due to men dominating the rankings. Having women's chess tournaments is about representing women in chess.

But trans women are banned from ranked women's chess events. And to put the cherry on top, trans men are stripped of all their titles after transitioning.

Cruelty is the point of these decisions. Not "supporting women".

Oh, and one more thing:

No agenda needed

Totally. Zero agenda, zero ideology, zero DEI and zero wokeness. Traditional conservative women's sports events just like we always had and how God intended. Not even a strand of feminism to be found here, nope.

[–] WhatSay@slrpnk.net 16 points 5 days ago

You know what's more unfair? Targeting transgender kids.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yeah I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole. This is so low priority.

[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Iz-rah-el who's iz-rah-el?

The way I view it is they claim to believe in a free market. I don't know of any leagues off the top of my head that aren't companies. If one company chooses to do it one way and it is actually bad for business, another company would replace them if it was actually an issue. But being that it isn't that big of a deal, no rival companies have surfaced to replace them.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago

Do not engage with such bullshit. This is such a fucking non-issue, that is ultimately more about demonizing one of the most marginalized minorities in history, rather than "protecting" anyone.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Member when the neoliberals tried to pretend this douche would be the next presidential pick?

The worst part about neoli erals is places solid blue like Cali get conservative leaders because they'll take dirty money in primaries, then the only option is a Republican.

It depresses turnout till a Republican wins, and that usually comes with the state flipping in an election year because that's when campaigning is highest.

It's not just that they're shitty people who won't fix anything, they're actively hurting dem turnout all over the country when it hits the news

We need higher standards across the board, not just in the oval.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 days ago

Literally his only good feature was that he was combative with Republicans. We all knew he didn't believe in any of it, but he had a shtick. Without that he's just another useless moderate.

And to abandon it now, when we need to unify as Democrats and not feed into any of their bullshit is particularly dumb. No one's going to give him brownie points for folding now, moderates just can't help themselves but reach for that golden ring of triangulation.

load more comments
view more: next ›