So the actions of Thomas basically proved that their efforts were necessary since the NCAA proved powerless to stop an obviously unfair situation.

I would respectfully disagree. Because it is replies like that that signal a priority of strong tribalism over actual positions on specific issues.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Nope. Those state laws mostly focused on high school athletes, not college. None of those laws stopped Lia. The NCAA was already working on updating their transgender policies and announced these updates prior to Lia winning a championship. They had been waiting for the IOC, and the USOC, to update their policies, which they did.

Proved the necessity for such laws to exist in order to protect the playing field for women. Sorry, I didn't clarify. Thomas exposed the loophole which needed to be addressed in multiple ways due to lots of overlaps and gaps in the systems of regulation.

Those laws were all passed prior to Thomas winning a national championship. None of them stopped her from winning a National Championship. They also had limited affect at the state level as many of the states that passed these laws had no trans athletes. The laws were political theater, they did not address a pressing issue.

What did address the issue is the IOC, FINA, and the NCAA updating their policy.

None of those policy updates would have any effects at the high school level. The NCAA was too little/too late to prevent the Thomas situation, which suggests that organizations at all levels should not wait until there is a problem in order to respond.

You obviously have a massive bias on the issue and dismiss the laws as political theater, but I think many people can see the Thomas situation as a very reasonable piece of evidence for why the laws were, and are, necessary to protect women's sport. The political theater surrounding the issue is no doubt being amplified for political "points", just as it is around any contentious political position. It's not as if the trans specific issues are the only example of hyperbole in today's political environment. Both sides are guilty.

Replies like what, like mine?
I'm not sure if you intend to come off this way, but most of your posts and replies here really seem to push the tribalistic narrative. You're not pointing out what exists, you're literally the only one bringing it to the conversation.

Your reply to Yeeper is a perfect example. You're more concerned with how he identifies politically and are trying to show him that he has views that don't align in lockstep with the party you essentially told him he belongs to.

Instead of talking to him about what he was actually saying you're more concerned with pigeon holing him in to either left or right. You're literally pushing tribalism and divisiveness by doing that. Hence the reference to you being a HuffPost bot.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

You keep shift the goalposts from Thomas (College) to the High Schools that were covered by these laws. Is that because you there are so few examples of trans athletes dominating in High Schools?

The laws did nothing to address Thomas, the NCAA did. Their changes in policy were the result of years of research and discussion, it was not a knee jerk reaction.

I have been very clear on this topic. I think that in most cases trans people retain an inherent advantage that tilts the playing field. In most cases I support the changes that the federations have made. My "Massive Bias" is against politicians wasting taxpayer money on political stunts that do not address a pressing issue but are designed to rally a base and stoke division.

If you look at my posts, it is pretty clear that is not remotely my intention. I am simply trying to ask, understand, and discuss. The vast majority of the time, I do indeed talk to him about what he was actually saying, but typically, he just evades and then falls back on doing personal attacks. I guess that is easier for him. But in response, I never attack him, I never call him a bot, or say he "has a warped view of politics". Ever. No matter what he says to me.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Do you know the difference between attacking the person and attacking their argument?

Did attack your character? No I said your logic was idiotic.

Thank you, sir, for clarifying that important point.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Sorry, I don't have a publicist reviewing my posts.

I agree with you. Edit mine to say, "problematic activists."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

If there's so few trans people, then so few people will be affected by the laws.

There you go. Done. We'll never hear of you commenting on this topic again, right?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Can you point to a single instance where a F2M trans person won ANYTHING in sports?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

You don't think the demonization of trans people by politicians for political gain affects trans people?

It's because the issue exists, or may exist, in so many different areas, and seems to have potential be expanding rapidly as transgender numbers expand rapidly. There are hundreds of sports, and hundreds of governing bodies with different sets of rules and it's fairly likely that none of them really saw the definition of "woman" and "man" changing so significantly, thus the somewhat turbulent responses.

If there was one entity that set policy for all of sport, then it would be the obvious point of policy change, but that's not even close to our current reality. Add to that the opportunity for litigation and the ever present political theater of the USA and it's a complete disaster.

I am still unclear. How does that question explain anything I was asking?

Did you not read my link?

On this we can agree.

Note, these are only state laws so you have a patch work of laws that vary across the country. Many of them are doomed to failure in the courts......all the better reason for this, like all other sport eligibility requirements, to be managed by the sporting federations and state agencies that manage school sport. Right now it is little more than political theater.

Your argument is that "there are so few." That's YOUR argument, not mine.


You only seem to care about the "few" trans people being able to compete in women's sports, yet care not-at-all about the women that they are affecting in those sports.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

For the record, wasn't it about a year before Lia Thomas that Conn. HS T&F state championship was won by a trans female? I think maybe even 1st and 2nd. So maybe the other states were taking action because of that? I'm not going to be bothered to look up specific dates and states. Or perhaps in their state they faced such an issue.

Your question:

"Are you saying that there are no trans men wanting to play sports?"

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that virtually all of them are willing to give up playing sports for the sake of changing genders.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

That was five years ago. I think that it may have sparked the idea for some that there may be political gain in the issue. By the time Thomas came along many of the laws were already passed.

I mean this as respectfully as possible because you have been a great advocate for trans individuals and offer a lot of information.

But claiming the argument against trans athletes is demonization is a bit disingenuous. Pointing out that trans women arent the same as biological women especially with respect to physical capabilities and that they present an unfair advantage is not demonizing.

That being said there are awful and insensitive individuals who will take poor stances on the matter and some of them are politicians.

But I don’t think they speak for all (as is often the case with the most extreme outspoken individuals) and the rest don’t take a demonizing approach by saying it’s not fair.

You appear to have reading comprehension issues as that is clearly not my "argument". Here is my position again, please to not distort what I write.

"I have been very clear on this topic. I think that in most cases trans people retain an inherent advantage that tilts the playing field. In most cases I support the changes that the federations have made. My "Massive Bias" is against politicians wasting taxpayer money on political stunts that do not address a pressing issue but are designed to rally a base and stoke division."

The bolded seems to indicate that you think the whole thing is about politics and that there was no actual problem addressed by the laws. I can acknowledge the political theater is a component of these laws but believe that they were necessary to address a significant and growing problem.