J.C.MacSwell

It's not in this: "Over 80 women’s rights and gender justice organizations support includingtrans girls and women in women’s sports. So do high-profile female athletes. Soccer star Megan Rapinoe, former world No. 1 tennis player Billie Jean King and professional basketball player Candace Parker joined nearly 200 other professional, Olympic and collegiate female athletes on an amicus briefcontesting the Idaho law. Close to 1,000 collegiate athletes supported trans athletes in two letters, calling on the NCAA to move championships out of states that passed bans. WNBA players Sue Bird and Natasha Cloud, WNBA coach Cheryl Reeve, U.S. paralympian Alana Nichols and scores of other athletes signed on to a similar letter to the NCAA last year." Thank you. Now can you suggest a reason women's sports organizations can't accept that carte blanche level of inclusion?

Give me a hint...is it in the first link, behind the paywall? Quote something from one of them that suggests they wish to "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program." That's your claim... an extraordinary one given all you should have taken in during the life of this thread. Now back it up if you can.

Where? I'm willing to bet I won't find it, in the context of "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports. End program."

Just accept them? No strings attach? Which organizations are these?

They should be included. The question is "How should they be included?" Without a clear and acceptable answer to that you are setting them up for failure. Profound failure. Failure you will point your finger at. You point out the small numbers of transgenders excelling in female sports. Is your wish that that continue? Rely on continuance of stigma to keep their numbers low? Force them out unless they are willing to alter their bodies, through surgery or drugs? Or is your wish that they gain acceptance, and encourage them to compete in healthy sports?

The success of protected female sports is irrelevant? Far from it. Or do you mean irrelevant to this topic? Also far from it.

By and large it was exactly the opposite. It may have taken years to include the marathon, pole vaulting etc etc. but the separation allowed more women to compete at the highest competitive levels. Far, far more women.

You have to take it all with a grain of seasoning...

I'm not at least one of those first three...and can arguably check off one of the second three....so count me safe as well...

We were going to build a wall and make the Americans pay for it...but in our laid back way we never got around to it.

In their defence...Britannia would not have ruled the waves without them... (that is in their defence...isn't it?)

Okay. So what is wrong with these journalists argument here? Fauci does seem to think he should be above answering to Paul, to the point he doesn't really give substantial answers. (not that I heard everything, or any more than highlights, but his claim that what was funded was not gain of function is pretty clearly lacking...or hopefully I can be corrected?)

+1. That's why despite all your crap...we still love you...

I could do the same thing. I could suggest you have biases against minorities of your own, know that it's wrong, and are over compensating. ...or we could stick to the science and only call out racism, transphobia, etc. when it actually appears.

I wonder how many were thinking "scientists" when they responded to their confidence in "science", or how the question was posed? That said, I have no doubt about the trend. +1 Swansont. No one is accusing you of cherry picking...

If you had an elite biologically female athlete that transgendered to male you could give them an X metre distance stationary head start in a race against cis gender males. X might be the distance Flo-Jo was from the finish line after 9.49 seconds (9.49 seconds being Usain Bolts WR) during her 10.49 second WR run, after allowing that she didn't plan her race to finish at that point. That might not be a satisfactory way to include them, but would be much more accurate and objective than anything based on the allowance or encouragement of unnatural use of performance enhancing or de-enhancing drugs and trying to judge what the effects might be, or what the motivation might be for using more or less of them. It might not be satisfactory...in part because it might threaten male sports, slight as it may be in comparison to the current threat to female sports (from the current rule makers).

Good one!

Do you believe Div 3 teams generate more revenues than the div 1 teams at that tournament? Don't be an ass.

I thought I had, but maybe not clearly enough. Reading comprehension much?

She's as elite an athlete as her teammates, regardless if she can't compete at that level.

It's not an extraordinary claim Zap. If you claim it's not true...that would be. https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/championships-finances "For 2011-12, the most recent year for which final numbers are available, the NCAA spent a total of $105.3 million on championships. Of that, $68.8 million (65 percent) was spent on Division I and National Collegiate championships, $17.8 million on Division II championships (17 percent) and $18.7 million on Division III championships (18 percent)." also: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/expenses "Frequently Asked Questions The NCAA sends $503 million to Division I conferences and institutions. Does that cover most of their operating expenses? No. At a typical Division I institution, the NCAA distribution will cover less than 5 percent of expenses." Hopefully that might help you understand. If you want to question the obvious further...you're on your own. Certain Div 1 Mens teams generate huge revenues...Div 1 minor sports, div1 womens teams, div 3 teams...not so much.

You think Div 2 and 3 teams generate more revenues than Div 1?

The NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Rest assured that the females teams at that tournament had at least as nice accommodations as mens lower division teams.

I'm willing to bet that schools that have teams that generate less revenue....have lesser accommodations for said teams. Again. I agree.