Well sure, if you want to talk about public change room instead, then it would be the safe space provided. You’re obviously thinking of yourself as a non-threatening actor, but can you say that nobody will abuse the ability to use the ladies change room?

Assume someone on the other side of this simply wants safe zones for women that are safe from the other gender, what would you tell that person as to why it needs to be eliminated?

Sports is the only ring where it kinda makes sense to have separate leagues, but how much of an issue is this actually?

There’s no way it’s worth the rhetoric and actions people have been taking.

It feels like an incredibly large amount of work, and we don’t really see gay people and lesbians making an issue out of change rooms.

On the basis that one person may or may not abuse the situation all trans people deserve to be accused and/or treated as second class citizens? There are current real world incidences of cisgender women getting harrased and assaulted in these very “safe zones” under the guise of protecting cisgender women.

The exclusion of trans women from these spaces creates a culture where some people are on the lookout for those who “don’t belong”, and this is leading to women who don’t fit visual/societal definitions of feminity and womanhood to getting singled out and harrased in these very spaces.

Trans women are not “the other gender” as you put it, they are women; trans men are men. Bad actors who want to assault women or vulnerable people will do that any way they see fit, their gender identity is irrelevant. Being inclusive to trans people does not eliminate safe spaces, they are also deserving of being protected.

let’s talk about public roads. you obviously think of yourself as a non-threatening driver, but can you say that nobody will abuse the ability to go 95 through a red light? better limit all cars to 30.

the argument you are using is treating an entire group of people like they are criminals just by existing. innocent until proven guilty.

Yes you’re right. Would your ideal scenario then be we want everyone to be able to self identify as anything they want, or that we have no barriers to begin with?

Some people assume nefarious individuals would go into ladies change rooms, washrooms, or prisons.

Why would anyone have an issue what other people self-identify as? My name is Todd, but I’d like you to call me Steve. Does this impact your day?

we had pride way before we had legal recognition for pride

next up, mandatory Columbus day

No it doesn’t, just curious. I could see a scenario where they want no segregation based on sex/gender/race/age/etc… since anyone can identify as they want.

Nefarious people would do that regardless, if they chose.

So to stop the possibility that someone would sneak into a different bathroom to peek at someone’s genitals, you suggest we have people checking peoples genitals to even enter the room?

That takes a hypothetical problem and guarantees it.

It lets them reinforce the idea that “mens better than wimmens at sports” as well.

The whole thing is about reinforcing gender roles and views. Notice how they never go after transmen? Dudes may as well not even exist. It’s all about the transwomen and the potentiality to not look or act like their ideal of a woman. Must be stamped out!!!

Every fucking attempt to police transwomen in toilets has done nothing but harass cis women. There’s a reason for that

I hate to laugh but you are right, that does seem to be happening. I just cant rationalize an answer that appeases everyone.

I just also feel that both side seems to be strawman’ing the other, so a discussion seems somewhat ridiculous every single time with no one agreeing on anything.

It does happen, like we had a trans woman in BC (40s maybe) going into women’s washrooms and talking to teen girls, and asking them about their periods, but I seriosly doubt this is the normal behaviour of 99% of trans persons; it is the behaviour of a creep, wanting to talk inappropriately with teens.

1. Trans men get the ability to compete with other men, I assume you mean trans women get to compete with other women.
2. No one actually cares about women’s sports until “the trans issue” comes up. This argument is just an excuse to try to harm trans people. Most people can’t name a WNBA team, or name more than 5 female athletes.
3. Biological differences is what professional sports are. That’s why people who have similar builds seem to play the same sports.

Agreed; it’s not worth the rhetoric and actions. And while there’s definitely merit in assessing trans athletes to try and keep things as fair as possible (though they never stopped Phelps from competing, so “fair” is kind of a joke), it’s far more complex than a simple “there was testosterone so they have an advantage!”

For the “nonathletic” groups - think community-level sport - based on what data is available, there is effectively no statistical difference between cis and trans women’s physical performance after 2+ years on hormone therapy.

When it comes to elite athletes, trans women outperformed cis women in Fat-free mass index, Absolute hand grip strength, and Absolute Vo2Max, but under-performed in Relative VO2Max to mass, Ratio of expiratory volume to vital lung capacity, and Absolute countermovement jump (lower body power). The lower Relative VO2Max, and Expiratory volume can lead to disadvantages in terms of speed, recovery and endurance.

While hand grip strength is considered an indicator of overall muscle strength, to quote the first article linked:

The correlations between hand grip strength and individual sports are reviewed comprehensively in Cronin et al. Though maximum hand grip strength has a strong relationship with maximum upper or body strength in some movement patterns such as in powerlifting strength, there are weaker relationships with other movement patterns. There is evidence that hand grip strength is a poor correlate of knee flexion or extension strength and is far more reliable as a marker of physical function if used together with lower limb strength. Hand grip strength is more relevant for some physical performance activities such as rotational movements that transfer force and torque to the hand (ie, ball throwing), but shows poor correlation to movement patterns that require technical ability, physical capacity, aerobic fitness or tactical ability (ie, tennis stroke placement or cricket fielding performance)

It will require a lot more information before any athletics group would be able to make a truly informed decision, and it’s going to have to be sport by sport. Elite athletes are all outliers in their genetic makeup (Phelps, The average height of a WNBA player, etc). We know athletes have different hormone levels depending on the sport they play, but it’s chicken vs. egg on whether the hormones or elite performance came first. So trying to decide what is an acceptable advantage re: “pro athlete genetics”, vs. an unacceptable advantage re: “transgender genetics” is little more than opinions and politics at this point.

/info dump

I’d argue the sport influences the build more than the build influences the sport, with the exception to height. Athletes in the same sport have similar builds due to training in similar ways to use the same muscle groups. Cyclists have strong legs because they train to cycle, they didn’t wake up one day with massive legs telling them to be a cyclist.