The question of whether it is fair for transgender women to compete in female sport categories is one of the most debated issues in modern athletics. It sits at the intersection of science, ethics, and social justice, and sparks passionate arguments on both sides. On one hand, advocates for inclusion argue that sport should reflect values of equality and respect. They emphasize that transgender women are women, and excluding them from female categories denies their identity and perpetuates discrimination. Supporters also point out that many sports bodies already require hormone therapy and testosterone suppression, which they believe levels the playing field. For them, the issue is about human rights and ensuring that everyone has access to the benefits of sport — competition, community, and recognition. On the other hand, critics raise concerns about fairness and biological advantage. They argue that male puberty can confer lasting physical benefits — such as bone density, muscle mass, and cardiovascular capacity — that hormone therapy cannot fully reverse. From this perspective, allowing transgender women to compete in female categories risks undermining the integrity of women’s sport, potentially discouraging cisgender women from participating if they feel the competition is unequal. Sports organizations worldwide are struggling to balance these competing values. Some, like the International Olympic Committee, have shifted toward more flexible frameworks, leaving decisions to individual federations. Others, such as World Athletics, have imposed stricter bans on transgender women in elite female categories. This patchwork of policies reflects the difficulty of reconciling scientific uncertainty with ethical imperatives. Ultimately, the debate forces us to ask: should sport prioritize inclusion even if fairness is questioned, or prioritize fairness even if it excludes some athletes?
Yes
No
Sometimes
Depends on the how far they have transitioned
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Is it fair for transgender women to compete in women’s sports?
The real question is how often does this actually occur to make it the issue conservatives are making it out to be?
The swimmer Riley Gaines complains about that one girl being trans and it being unfair? Yeah, they both placed 5th to biological women. What advantage did longer arms and legs, lung capacity, etc did this trans woman have that supposedly made her instantly better than all the biological women?
Truth is, there are SOME advantages, but they are able to be overcome. If a trans person (and let's be honest the complaint is always against trans women, not trans men), is on hormones for a year or two, has suppressed their biological hormones to low levels and is now rocking their requested hormones at normal baseline levels, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Frankly, all this talk about how it wouldn't be fair to women makes women just sound weak and pathetic when compared to men and that pisses me off.
You want to keep them from playing sports? Fine. Just stop making the rest of their lives hell just because you don't agree/understand/ like it.
(Not you specifically, just those who are doing it)
The other points was discomfort in dressing rooms and how thenother person got the trophy… discrimination. Why are womens sports separated at all? Make all compete together and women rarely will qualify at collegiate levels. there's a reason for the distinction. Whats crazy is society (some in western society especially) is trying to erase Difference and blur it… to accomodate as you say, very few. Thats messed up. No problem if have have their own leagues, probably have more hormon and emotionally confused people as we continue to damage environment and promote such.
You can wait to get changed, come in earlier or find a different changing room. I am sure they will be willing to make concessions for getting to play.
This idea that women can't compete with men is implying trans women aren't women though. If that's your take then it just makes your a transphobe. If that's your calling card, fine, but i won't be party to it. I have friends and loved ones who fall under that umbrella and I dont see them as anything but who they identify as.
And your take about trying to erase differences and blur it is exactly what needed to be done to end gender inequality and racial segregation but if you are saying we should roll those back too then you REALLY have issues.
You’re absolutely right to point out that the scale of this “issue” is often blown wildly out of proportion. Cases like Lia Thomas or Imane Khelif get amplified endlessly, but in reality the number of transgender athletes competing at elite levels is vanishingly small compared to the millions of cisgender athletes worldwide. Riley Gaines’ complaints about one swimmer ignore the fact that both she and Thomas placed behind multiple cis women — proof that supposed “automatic dominance” isn’t borne out in results.
Yes, there can be residual advantages from male puberty, but hormone therapy and eligibility rules are designed to mitigate them. And as you noted, those advantages are not insurmountable — cis women still win, often decisively. The bigger problem is how the debate gets weaponized: conservatives frame it as an existential threat to women’s sport when the data shows it’s rare, nuanced, and manageable.
So the real controversy isn’t about fairness alone — it’s about political narratives turning a handful of cases into culture‑war fodder. Meanwhile, trans athletes are treated as scapegoats, their identities reduced to talking points. If the concern is truly fairness, then the focus should be on refining eligibility standards, not demonizing people who just want to compete.
Lightbulb- and that right there is proof of your transphobia. As far as I am concerned, they are women. It's pathetic to break us down to our reproductive system and say that's why you are a woman. It doesn't "degrade" women. It just redefines what one is and that's ok.
Ronald- 100% correct and well put. They are completely used as scapegoats to hide what conservative leaders are doing to this country. They did the same thing to the gay/lesbian community before this and before that it was racial segregation they fought for. It's always the same argument, minorities are the issue. People like Lightbulb here who have bought into the "issue" and refer to them as "disturbing others" are trying to reclassify another minority group as less than someone else.
So thats the gap, you have decided to redefine the term woman, i have not. Feel free to define it… To me, you are abusing other people to satisfy the emotional needs of these few. That makes no sense to me.
Someday im sure science will enable a male body to have hormone cycles and produce anlive human from within… and that will further blur the picture. Until then, thats enough difference to me without much thought. Amd its not an insult to the trans person, they have to deal w reality like anyone and it appears they have a hard time with that.
So again, you are breaking us down to our reproductive systems.
So does that mean women who don't have a uterus/ovaries aren't women? I will let those who have had total hysterectomies/oopherctomies that they have to be guys now.
Are you breaking it down to chromosomes? I will let male presenting intersex people that they are probably women now instead.
It isn't as clear cut as you think.
As for defining, you have a dictionary. Do your own work.
Lightbulb’s reaction is a perfect example of how quickly the conversation jumps from “fairness in sports” to “denying an entire group’s legitimacy.” When someone insists that recognizing trans women as women is “proof of transphobia,” they’re not being dramatic — they’re pointing out a pattern. Reducing womanhood to reproductive organs isn’t a neutral stance; it’s the same exclusionary logic used against every minority group conservatives have targeted over the decades.
It follows a familiar political script: pick a tiny, vulnerable minority, exaggerate their impact, then use them as a distraction from real issues. It happened with gay people, with interracial marriage, with racial segregation — always the same formula, always framed as “protecting society.” Now it’s trans women being cast as threats to sports, bathrooms, and “tradition,” even though the actual numbers and evidence don’t support the panic.
What Lightbulb is doing — calling trans women “disturbing others,” treating them as a problem to be managed — is exactly how marginalized groups get dehumanized. It’s not about sports; it’s about reclassifying people as “less than,” so their rights become negotiable.
If the concern were truly fairness, we’d be talking about eligibility standards, hormone regulations, and actual data — not trying to erase an entire group’s identity.
I can see why those testifying before congress couldnt answer the question as to what a woman is. As such, i have to wonder if the higher the education, the more blurry it gets.
Would trans people favor going up in difficulty rather than down? Maybe you can't answer… butbif there's male chromosomes, there was or is a penis and the body thus make developed. Seems easy for any board to determine go ‘up’ to male level rather than down to female (smaller bodies, less speed, etc). That being said more fair and reasonable. Cannot use whst somone defines themselves as foe the criteria.
You wouldn't accept me identifying as an 8 yr old girl.
Ugh "down to female" wtf? We aren't lesser beings thank you very much.
As long as you aren't hurting anyone, I don't care what you want to identify as. If you want to parade around in pigtails and be in bed by 730 then knock yourself out. You can even have yourself a daddy out there. I believe it's called DDLG. There really is something out there for everyone.
Maybe you should try being more tolerant and try for a higher education yourself.
Lightbulb, the reason people “with higher education” struggle to answer your version of what a woman is is because they’re aware that biology, medicine, and law don’t boil gender down to a single chromosome check. It’s not blurry because they’re confused — it’s blurry because reality is more complex than the slogans you’re relying on.
Your “identify as an elephant” or “8‑year‑old girl” comparisons don’t land. They’re not arguments; they’re jokes meant to dodge the fact that gender identity is a medically and legally recognized human experience, not a fantasy role‑play. Claiming otherwise is just a way to avoid engaging with the actual science behind gender identity and transition.
As for chromosomes: Plenty of cis women don’t have XX chromosomes. Plenty of cis men don’t have XY. Intersex variations exist. Hormone therapy radically changes muscle mass, strength, hemoglobin, and performance metrics. Sports bodies use eligibility standards because biology isn’t as simple as “penis = male forever.”
Your “go up rather than down” idea ignores the purpose of sports categories: they’re based on current physiology, not childhood anatomy. A trans woman on long‑term hormone therapy isn’t competing with “male bodies” — she’s competing with the body she has now, which is why governing bodies evaluate hormone levels, not birth certificates.
And calling it “mental/emotional/spiritual” is just a polite way of saying you think trans people are delusional. That’s not concern for fairness — that’s dismissal of an entire group’s legitimacy.
If fairness is the goal, then talk about performance metrics, regulations, and actual data. If the goal is to deny trans women’s existence, then at least be honest about that instead of hiding behind elephant analogies.
Its fact women and girls perform at lower levels and are smaller. There’s a reason there is two groups… so girls have a chance else maybe one wnba star would make nba… for a game… maybe.
Again have separate trans competition which is fair for trans. I see your points, but i dont agree w much and many others dont either.
You are ignoytge voices of what yoi call cis females. Thats not on. Leave them alone, create your own categories if necessary.
Bri, don’t tempt me with a challenge — you know I can’t resist a dramatic comeback. If you’re demanding a re‑do, then clearly my answer didn’t just beat yours… it out‑performed it so hard it left you filing an appeal with the judges.
But hey, if you want round two, I’ll happily step back into the ring — just say the word and I’ll give you something that’ll make your “Dammit” sound even louder.
And for the record, I’m very flattered you’re keeping score.
Lightbulb, nobody is denying that men and women, on average, have different performance ranges — that’s literally why sports already use performance categories, weight classes, age brackets, and hormone‑based eligibility rules. The existence of two groups doesn’t magically justify excluding an entire minority from one of them. It just means sports need criteria, not slogans.
Your “WNBA vs NBA” example actually proves the opposite of what you think: elite sports are sorted by current ability, not childhood anatomy. A cis woman who meets male‑category performance standards can compete there. A trans woman who meets female‑category standards can compete there. That’s how governing bodies already operate — by physiology now, not by birth labels.
The “separate trans league” idea sounds simple until you look at reality: there aren’t enough trans athletes to form competitive divisions, especially at youth and amateur levels. You’d be creating a category that effectively excludes them from meaningful competition. That’s not fairness — that’s segregation with extra steps.
As for “ignoring cis female voices,” that’s not what’s happening. Women disagree with each other on this topic — loudly. Some support inclusion, some oppose it, many fall somewhere in between. Pretending there’s one unified female opinion is just a way to elevate the voices you personally agree with while dismissing the rest.
You’re free to keep your view, but the conversation isn’t about forcing you to change it — it’s about recognizing that sports policy has to serve everyone, not just the majority, and not just the loudest group. Fairness isn’t achieved by excluding people; it’s achieved by building rules that evaluate athletes based on actual performance metrics, not assumptions.
If you don’t see a reason to change your view yet, that’s fine — but the world doesn’t freeze because one person isn’t convinced. The discussion moves forward based on evidence, not comfort.
Lol I am going to give you a follow on here for that response. Not that it's any sort of great reward, but seeing as how I follow a very limited number of people, I consider it to be top notch!
I also had a free coupon reward for a scoop of ice cream at your local Baskin Robins for you, but I needed something sweet and kinda used it. It's the thought that counts though, right?
The lady didn't know what insaidnso clarified. Im fine with going up to male. Rarely if ever does a ‘real woman’ make the cut. But never is a ‘real man’ allowed into the ladies or girls ranks. Its an interesting point about physiology… like the williams sisters if consider oushing to mens tennis. But that is hard to manage. It may be possibke to do it differently … motocross does this by age mainly but still maintains a womens group and no male is allowed. Girls can be fast and strong as heck but thsts fifferent then being a male body.
Thenpolls say society ain't buying what you say… doubt anyone emse read it. If there was an education campaign also conveying the emotional view of trans, maybe those numbers shift. But not enough for me. I have no problem telling them ‘no’’
Again in ny boom, the trans swimmer got first place in her category and the women got 5th. Hesge bever strpped foot in eomans restroom with (i assume) his penis heshe doesn't want but has.
Yes… sex organs are relevant. And likely heshe would have raced men by classificationnof tgeir body. Maybe there is nuance there.
Problem solved? Or emotiknal tirade from the trans athletes… all 4 of them according to you…
Bri, a follow from you is a great reward — your standards are basically VIP‑only, so I’ll take the honour.
And as for that Baskin Robbins coupon… I’m choosing to believe you almost saved it for me. The thought definitely counts, even if the ice cream didn’t survive the journey. I’ll just pretend you picked the flavour I would’ve gone for anyway.
If this is how you hand out “top notch” recognition, I’m curious what the platinum tier looks like.
Lightbulb, you keep saying you “clarified,” but all you did was restate the same assumptions with more typos and more certainty. You’re treating your personal comfort level as if it’s a universal sports policy, and that’s exactly why your argument keeps tripping over itself.
You talk about “real women” and “real men” like biology is a simple on/off switch, but every major sports body uses performance metrics, not your personal vocabulary. That’s why the conversation is about classification standards, not whatever you think counts as “real.”
Your Williams‑sisters example doesn’t help you either — they didn’t push into men’s tennis because elite women’s tennis is already a different competitive ecosystem, not because someone locked a door and yelled “no men allowed.” You’re mixing physiology with policy and hoping nobody notices.
And the swimmer you keep referencing? You’re repeating the same myth: she didn’t “win everything,” and she didn’t “dominate women.” She tied for fifth with cis women — which you accidentally admitted. That alone shows your argument isn’t built on data; it’s built on vibes.
You keep saying “problem solved,” but you haven’t actually solved anything. You’ve just drawn a line around your personal discomfort and declared it a universal truth. That’s not nuance — that’s just confidence without accuracy.
If you want to talk fairness, talk fairness. If you want to talk biology, talk biology. But if you’re going to keep mixing feelings with facts, don’t be surprised when someone points out the difference.
Ronald, platinum tier is a signed autograph of a screenshot of your question, and a gift card to amazon for $10. I AM a big spender after all.
Lightbulb - sex organs aren't relevant at all. Excuse the language, but it's not like she used a dick (assuming she still even has one) as an aid in swimming and coming in 5th in her competiton. She has breasts, her fat distribution had changed and their is a chance she's already had bottom surgery. Her body classification would be female at that point.
The problem is solved when transphobes stop letting their feelings dictate their lives. They see a trans person and say "ew yucky". They ostracize them, punch down on them, and want to erase them from society to make themselves feel more comfortable in society. Talk about snowflake behavior.
Ronald i stated the solution, the person swimmer that was not a female finished 5 but in her classification got first. And heshe dossnt go into the woman’s restroom w a penis hanging. If chooped off, i dunno…
Somehow, you like to ignore women feelings, but then youve somehow found a way to distort the word so feelsnok to you. Maybe you secretly are jeleous or spiteful of females that can produce offspring. Who knows. The poll should tell you society does not agree with you so you should work harder to see their viewpoint. Time to interview women but the problem is you domt know what that means.
Lightbulb, you’re really out here acting like an 84% poll is the burning bush of truth, when all it actually proves is that people love clicking “no” on anything they don’t fully understand. If polls were the gold standard of wisdom, pineapple on pizza would’ve been outlawed years ago.
And your “solution” is basically: she finished 5th, but in her classification she finished 1st, and also maybe she has a penis, maybe she doesn’t, I dunno… My guy, that’s not a solution — that’s a horoscope with extra confusion.
Then you accuse me of “ignoring women’s feelings,” while simultaneously telling women they’re too delicate to handle competition unless you personally approve the roster. You don’t get to play Guardian of Womanhood while also calling them fragile flowers who need your protection from… other women.
And the jealousy line? “Maybe you’re secretly jealous women can produce offspring.” Lightbulb, please. If I wanted to be jealous of someone’s reproductive abilities, I’d be jealous of sea turtles — they lay 100 eggs at once and don’t even have to raise them.
Finally, telling me to “interview women” because I “don’t know what that means” is hilarious. You’re lecturing me about listening to women while ignoring the fact that women disagree with you, not me. You don’t want women’s voices — you want women who echo your viewpoint.
But hey, if you want to treat a poll like a holy scripture, go ahead. Just don’t pretend it magically turns your argument from “I dunno, maybe she chopped it off?” into a scientific thesis.
If you ever want a real debate, I’m here. If you want to keep throwing darts in the dark, at least aim for the board next time.
I think it's an incredibly difficult question to answer because not everyone is equal. An adult who decided to transition a few months ago isn't the same as a person who has taken hormones since their childhood. And a MtF isn't the same as a FtM. And then it depends again on the sport...
I think for sports where there is a gender separation for a good reason, in case of doubt they should not be allowed, but exceptions could be made depending on the results of various tests. But you can't just give a general yes or no to this.
The most important thing to remember is that this is an extremely rare phenomenon that almost never happens, so it’s nowhere near worthy of the outrage and trans hysteria it’s generated. I think the powers that be LOVE IT, because it’s this minuscule issue that affects only just a little bit north of “nobody”, yet it’s this huge wedge issue on the right.
I will NEVER forget the ridiculous mountain that was made of the molehill that is trans-female participation in sports. It’s like trying to ban people from wearing a different shoe on each foot; there are probably a handful of people out there who might do that, but even if that were the worst offense in the world, it’s just occurring at such a low rate that it’s not even worth thinking about.
Whats baffling is the total lack of regard on the left. What kind of men dont protect their women and girls? Sissies or wussies So what if its 10 out of 1 million? And no, it shouldn't be such a big issue, it isn't since a certain person… and he alone… right sided then issue…. Globally.
@lightbulb27 Well, again…. its not really a thing that’s happening, so there’s nothing to react to. Name me a trans-female athlete besides Lia Thomas, the swimmer who Riley Gaines keeps complaining about tying for a non-medaling spot, lmao. And Riley will keep doing it because it makes her money. It’s all a grift. But I promise you can’t name a second one without looking it up. The right wing are known hysterics, we have to do this shit all the time with them. Their entire worldview is based around in- and out-groups, paranoid delusions of certain demographics being a threat, and just generally being scared of your own shadow. Never met such chronically fearful people in my life, and we just can’t be doing politics or life in general based on you guys’ incessant irrational, unwarranted, and unprovoked freakouts. Literally has been holding human progress back throughout history, and history unwaveringly looks back on the right as being wrong. So when can we stop the bullshit and stop having to be hampered by our most reactionary people? Can’t we just start skipping the step? In a hundred years you guys are gonna look like complete assholes. We won’t be around to see it, but mark my words, you WILL be the villains in the story.
I e seen the stories over time you are right, i dont have their names in my head. The olympic boxer be one. But there's no doubt the division politically in how the issue dealt with.
You are justifying the lack of regard and as well the bowing to special interest trans lobby on few incidents. That remains a wrong view but i agree it was blown up larger than reality. But then again, we had gay pride 🏳️🌈 flags all over and in the white house and ‘weird’ books pushed on school chikdren which i saw and questionable. You can thank Trump for fixing that, temporarily, because it was nuts!!
It's a dog whistle for the right-wing and a tempest in a tea cup. In the NCAA, there are no more than 8 athletes out of 500,000 that this applies to, according to the head of that organization. It's occurred in a handful of middle and high schools, no more. It can easily be dealt with on the local level, but as I said, it's just another Republican dog whistle designed to stir up fear.
@lightbulb27 Huh? I have no idea what "justifying the lack of regard means". My view is wrong "in your opinion", while the application of the different views because a "legal question". Legality doesn't bring about universal agreement as to the "right or wrong" view of any particular subject; it simply means it's the law.
Speaking of law however, Trump has no legal standing to "deal with it", even as an executive order. That isn't law.
@lightbulb27 Imane Khelif was the Olympic boxer from Algeria who I think you’re referring to. Imane Khelif is a biological woman. You’re falling for right wing trans-panic propaganda stories. I don’t know how much you know about Algeria, but it’s not a place where they really cotton much to trans folks. I doubt you’ll see a lot of “out” trans people from the Muslim world. And I just would also challenge you to point to any prominent politician on the left who’s leading any sort of charge FOR trans-females to be allowed in women’s sports. Did Kamala say something on the campaign trail? A congressman? A governor? Like give me some actual names and some things they’ve said that are fighting for trans-female inclusion in women’s sports. I’m genuinely curious. I always hear “the left is calling for” all this stuff, but yet I sure couldn’t tell you anyone who made it known to us, on the left. I have never once heard a left wing politician say in their stump speech “…and I will FIGHT for the rights of trans-women to compete with biological females athletically!!!” The right is on level 99 outrage about all of this, but they never name any names. I would bet that the most strategically smart move is to not even get into having an opinion on that, because —one more time for anyone who came in late— THIS IS BARELY HAPPENING ANYWHERE AND IS JUST BEING USED AS RIGHT WING OUTRAGE BAIT TO SMEAR THE OPPOSITION. It’s that simple, and that insignificant.
@lightbulb27 You speak as if there’s anything wrong, weird, or undesirable about being LGBTQ+ as opposed to not being LGBTQ+. There isn’t, and that’s a fundamentally flawed worldview that will render any subsequent belief you have on the topic incorrect. Again, we can’t keep going through the generations being unable to “have nice things” because enough people who are unable to coexist with others keep making life and society so unnecessarily difficult because of some weird belief or hang-up.
Here is the science: "trans" women are men, not women. A man can't change into a woman. Period. Guys claiming to be women are full of shit. "Identity" is irrelevant. Fuck inclusion. Fuck their "feelings".
It is not discrimination to reserve women's sports and facilities for actual women. Women fought for Title IX and it should not be taken over by men.
Besides, people who take drugs or hormones should not be allowed to compete in professional athletics. The fact is, not everybody can be a pro athlete no matter how much they want to.
Lliam, your “science” is just shouting the word man over and over and hoping nobody notices you skipped every actual scientific detail. Declaring “period” isn’t a mic‑drop — it’s just you tapping out of the conversation because you don’t understand the difference between sex, gender, and sports physiology.
You say identity is irrelevant, but then your entire argument is built on your personal identity as the arbiter of who counts as a woman. That’s not science — that’s ego.
And the “fuck their feelings” line? Come on. That’s not toughness; it’s just admitting you don’t have a real point, so you’re leaning on hostility instead of evidence. Meanwhile, actual sports bodies use hormone thresholds, performance metrics, and medical review panels — not whatever you yelled into your keyboard.
Title IX? It protects women’s access to sport. It doesn’t deputize random internet guys to decide who counts as a woman. And your “no drugs or hormones in pro sports” rule would ban half the cis athletes on medically‑necessary treatments, so congratulations — your solution breaks the thing you’re trying to defend.
You keep saying “not everybody can be a pro athlete,” but somehow you think you get to decide who’s allowed to try. That’s not fairness. That’s gatekeeping dressed up as biology.
If you want to talk fairness, talk fairness. If you want to talk science, talk science. But if all you’ve got is “trans women are men, period,” don’t pretend that’s anything more than a slogan.
Lliam, calling my comment a “woke rant” is adorable — it’s the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling la‑la‑la because the conversation got more complicated than a bumper sticker. You didn’t “catch” me unable to define a woman; you just caught yourself relying on a definition so flimsy it collapses the moment someone asks you to think past chromosomes.
If your entire worldview can be summarized as “biology is whatever I remember from 7th‑grade health class”, that’s not a flex — that’s a cry for help. The fact that you think complexity equals confusion says more about your limits than mine. Higher education doesn’t make the definition blurry; it just makes it accurate, which is apparently where you tap out.
And let’s be real: calling something “woke” is just what people say when they can’t keep up with the conversation. It’s a substitute for an argument, the verbal version of unplugging your router and blaming the Wi‑Fi.
If you want to debate, bring an actual point. If you want to sneer, at least try to be original.
Otherwise, all you’ve proven is that your definition of “woman” is as shallow as your attempt at a comeback.
@Ronald_25, I know the difference between men and women from personal experience. You obviously don't know the difference because you were programmed to embrace transgenderism and the existence of imaginary multiple genders in gender studies class.
Given that you don't know what a woman is, you must not be a man, either.
Have you gotten your bottom surgery yet or are you contend with just having boobs and wearing dresses?
I laugh at your attempts at rhetorical argument. I think you're a joke and want nothing to do with mind fucked people like you. The insanity of your ideology is destined to die out.
Lliam, the amount of projection in your message could power a cinema projector. You didn’t “prove” you know the difference between men and women — you just proved you don’t know the difference between an argument and an emotional outburst.
You jumped straight from “biology” to “bottom surgery” like you’re speed‑running every stereotype you’ve ever heard. That’s not insight; that’s just panic dressed up as certainty.
And calling people “programmed” is a convenient way to avoid engaging with anything that challenges your worldview. It’s easier to say “you’re brainwashed” than to actually address the points I made about gender identity or sports classification. But convenience isn’t correctness.
You say my ideology is “insanity destined to die out,” yet every major medical, psychological, and legal institution disagrees with you. So either the entire world is wrong, or your argument is built on vibes instead of facts. I’ll let you decide which one sounds more realistic.
You can laugh at my rhetoric all you want — but laughter isn’t a counterargument. It’s just a reaction when you don’t have one.
You don’t want anything to do with “mind‑fucked people”? Fair enough. But if you think disagreement equals erasure, and facts equal attacks, then the only person messing with your mind is you.
Hey, check this out maga-dolts, conservatives and other dog whistle responders --- liberal here, and I say NO. I approve of the way the LPGA defines their requirement:
* All biological females are welcome to compete *
Simple, direct, to the point. I do NOT agree with: * K -12 or universities & colleges allowing non-biological males to compete in female athletics * HOWEVER, if a biological female is capable of making the cut on what is normally an all male team, I don't care. Perfect example: a biological female place kicker on a male football team, or a skater or goalie on a male hockey team where no female teams exist.
So there you go, right-wingers... it's probably one of the few things we can agree on.
Lightbulb, your argument is basically: “I’m fine with women competing against men… but only when it flatters my worldview. The moment fairness cuts both ways, suddenly it’s a crisis.”
You’re trying to sound “simple and direct,” but what you’ve actually done is carve out a one‑way street where cis women can move up if they’re good enough, but trans women must always move down because you’ve decided their identity doesn’t count. That’s not fairness — that’s convenience dressed up as principle.
And the kicker? You’re pretending this is some noble defense of women’s sports while ignoring that your rule only ever restricts one group. If your standard were truly about competitive integrity, you’d be talking about performance metrics, hormone regulation, and actual data — not “biological male” buzzwords recycled from political talking points.
Your “perfect example” of a woman joining a men’s team actually proves the opposite of what you think: sports bodies already evaluate athletes based on current ability, not childhood anatomy. That’s why your double standard sticks out like a sore thumb.
If you want to argue fairness, argue fairness. If you want to argue identity, argue identity. But don’t pretend you’re being “direct” when you’re just applying one rule to cis women and a completely different one to trans women.
I think you mean me. I'm making a case both for ability AND availability, and it's not the opposite of equality. That said, I'm also OK with just saying "no" if there's no women's venue available, but why do you have to? Fairness, in this case, is not the same to me as "exactness".
What you want to proclaim as equality has a few nuances to it. You want it to be black and white, I do not.
For one, women aren't restricted from playing men's sports because they have a physical advantage, because they simple do not. The reverse however, IS true. Men are restricted from women's sports because they DO have a physical advantage, not just because they're biologically different. If everyone was playing at basically the same level, there'd be no need to separate the sexes except for personal preference.
If a woman is the best bowler at your college but there is no women's bowling team, you want to say "too bad, it's a men's team only". Ok, I can sort of live with that, kinda. Is it "fair"? It's fair only because someone decided those are going to be the rules. Just like it's "fair" that you keep a physically superior man or trans woman out of women's sports that rely heavily on physical ability. But if a trans woman wants to be on the woman's Chess Team, why do we give a shit? These are two very different things that I'm not willing to throw under the same blanket, regardless of who thinks it's a "pretend" situation.
You’re making a distinction between ability, availability, and fairness, which is fine — but you’re also acting like I’m the one insisting on a “black‑and‑white” world while your version is somehow the nuanced one. In reality, you’re just drawing the line in a different place.
You say women aren’t restricted from men’s sports because they don’t have a physical advantage — true. But that’s not the point I was making. The point is that rules exist to create consistent standards, not to tailor every situation to every hypothetical. If a college only has a men’s bowling team, that’s not oppression — that’s just logistics. If a trans woman wants to join the chess team, nobody cares because chess isn’t a physical sport. That’s exactly why I separate categories by type of competition, not by vibes.
You’re treating my argument like I’m trying to impose some cosmic “exactness,” when really I’m just saying: If we’re going to talk fairness, we should apply the same principles across similar situations. Not identical outcomes — just consistent logic.
You say you get my point but don’t agree. Fair enough. But don’t frame it like I’m demanding a universal truth while you’re floating above the debate with enlightened nuance. You’re just choosing a different set of exceptions, and that’s okay — but it doesn’t make your version inherently more flexible or mine inherently rigid.
Different frameworks, same conversation. Though I do respect and appreciate that you haven't devolved into personal attacks on ones character and shouting into your keyboard like others on G@G
LOL Why would I personally attack you? You're one of the coherent people on here who can express themselves intelligently and make a viable point based on a sensible premise. Whether I agree with your conclusion or not doesn't change that statement.
That said, and as I said, I understand your call for absolute consistency here, but I also think certain situations call for the kind of nuancing these new horizons demand. Some rules can handle exceptions, and the trans issue (or non-issue at times) and the sports issues, call for that in my mind.
I'm not at all saying the women are oppressed in the bowling situation - not one bit. I understand fully it's about the money, the participants, the available competition, and if it isn't there then you're not oppressing anyone. So it that situation, why not make an exception? I'm choosing a particular set of exceptions where before, there weren't any at all. I'm aware of that.
Anyway, thanks for the convo. See you next question!
You’re solid in how you lay things out, and I genuinely appreciate that. We won’t agree on every detail, but the convo’s been thoughtful and fun, and I’m glad we could meet in the middle on the tone. Thanks for the chat, looking forward to the next one!
Is it fair to beat up on transgender people because over recent decades is has become seen as unfair to beat up on Catholics, the Irish, Polacks, Jews, black people, women, homosexual people, old people, disabled people... and transgender people are the last minority vulnerable enough to get away with attacking?
No, unless they transitioned very early (circa early puberty), they have an unfair physical advantage over women for life, no matter how much T blockers and estrogen pills they take. I support (real) trans people, but they can't compete in sports for their new gender, wether they are ftm or mtf.
Only 0.3 to 0.4 percent (less than 1 in 200) of women are transgender. Therefore, it is seldom a problem in team sports. However, at the elite level and in individual sports, they are winning at up to 100 times the rate of biological women. The fact that they win individual events at up to 100 times the rate relative to their percentage of the population demonstrates that this is not fair.
this like southpark exposed the hypocrisy. they insist people are not like fish that have 'male and female fish based on body'. but then say this lady can't compete with women.
the law decided he is now a lady. that is how she was allowed to play. liberals are the worst hypocrites.
Strateguy, your Google search didn’t “expose hypocrisy,” it exposed the fact that Google thinks you’re more likely to be shopping for a fishing rod than conducting a biology seminar. You typed “female fish” and expected a dissertation; Google saw that and said, “Ah yes, this man wants pictures of people holding trout.”
The irony is you’re trying to make a grand point about biology using the least biologically complex animals on Earth. Fish literally have sex differentiation, gonads, secondary sexual traits, and in some species sequential hermaphroditism — meaning some fish change sex as part of their normal life cycle. If anything, fish biology makes your argument wobble harder, not stronger.
You’re saying “people aren’t like fish,” but then using fish to prove people should be treated like fish. That’s not hypocrisy — that’s just a logic loop so tight it’s cutting off circulation.
And the South Park reference? Cute. But quoting satire as scientific evidence is like citing The Onion in a courtroom. Entertaining, sure. Persuasive? Not unless the judge is Cartman.
If you want to talk biology, talk biology. If you want to talk Google search results, maybe try a keyword that doesn’t confuse the algorithm into thinking you’re planning a weekend at Bass Pro Shops.
There is no debate. Men do not belong in women’s sports period. Those men can call themselves dragons, an eagle or a race car….. they chose to call themselves woman. That doesn’t make them any less mentally ill, nor does it make them any less a man.
A good and common reply. However how would you reply if transgender women argued back that "we identify as women, so we want to compete in women's sports, we don't want to be seen as a separate gender"?
I identify as an elephant but for apparently racist reasons, the zoo is not allowing me in.
Thers a difference between someones image if themself and the reality if whom they are. That might hurt feelings and thats the issue, but we have to get beyond selfishness to the greater good. The purpose of separation if give real females a morw fair field and safety. Trans women are not real women. If they dont know that, then it is a mental / emotinnal/ spiritual issue.
Equating trans women to “identifying as an elephant” is a lazy analogy that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. Gender identity is recognized by medicine, law, and sports governance; pretending it’s the same as claiming to be an animal is just mockery dressed up as argument.
Your claim that “trans women are not real women” isn’t a statement of fact — it’s an opinion rooted in exclusion. Science shows that hormone therapy profoundly alters physiology, and sports bodies have created eligibility standards precisely to balance fairness and inclusion. To dismiss that as a “mental/emotional/spiritual issue” is to erase both the lived reality of trans people and the frameworks already in place to ensure competition is safe and fair.
If fairness is truly the concern, then the conversation should be about refining competition standards, not about denying an entire group’s existence with bad analogies. What you’re calling “selfishness” is actually the fight for dignity — and history shows that every minority group has faced the same baseless accusations before being recognized as equal.
Frankly id put more effort into figuring out if hormone therapy changes things thay much, then what are the effects or were the effects of the synthetic hormones in the environment on such person, such as plastics and such. If anyone takes synthetics id boot them to ‘open’ classification or disqualify from competition.
People should be natural, its bad enough in football. Cycling was quite strict sbout doping. Can you imagine people going the other way and taking testosterone. Not fair.
Lightbulb, you’re basically proposing a doping policy so strict it would disqualify half the planet — and somehow you think that’s the “simple fix.” You’re treating hormone therapy, environmental endocrine disruptors, plastics, and medical treatments as if they’re all one big interchangeable bucket of “synthetics,” when in reality they’re wildly different things with wildly different effects.
If you booted everyone with synthetic hormones into an “open” category, you’d end up with a league consisting of: • trans athletes • cis women on birth control • cis men on TRT • anyone with a thyroid condition • half the cyclists you just praised • and pretty much every athlete who’s ever had a medical issue
Congratulations — you’ve invented the world’s largest sports division by accident.
And the “people should be natural” line? That ship sailed the moment sports started using nutritionists, altitude tents, cryotherapy, custom gear, and training science so advanced it might as well be wizardry. The idea that athletes are “natural” is a cute fantasy, but it’s not how elite performance works.
Testosterone doping is already banned. Hormone therapy for trans athletes is regulated. Environmental chemicals aren’t performance enhancers — they’re just modern life. You’re trying to solve a nuanced issue with a rule so broad it would nuke the entire system.
If fairness is the goal, the answer isn’t “ban everyone who isn’t a perfectly untouched caveman.” It’s clear performance standards, regulated hormone thresholds, and actual data, not a purity test no human could pass.
But hey — at least your heart’s in the right place. Your solution just needs fewer torches and pitchforks and a bit more science.
No trans in any women’s sports or in men’s. No artificial legs like at the Olympics years ago by a South African. Just XY and XX competing against themselves with nothing that isn’t part of their natural body.
The Tunisian boxer’s case is often cited, but it’s not actually proof about transgender athletes. Imane Khelif was ruled eligible by the IOC and has denied being transgender — her situation involved conflicting eligibility rules between federations, not a clear example of transgender inclusion. The controversy shows how easily debates about fairness in women’s sport get blurred with issues of sex verification. It highlights policy inconsistency and public confusion more than it settles the fairness question.
Anonymous
(25-29)
9 d
Trans women are male and shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female sports. If a person is born male that means they will be male for the rest of their life. Humans cannot change sexes.
Calling trans women “male” and insisting they can never change is less an argument than a stubborn refusal to engage with reality. Science, medicine, and law all recognize gender transition as valid, and countless governing bodies have established frameworks for eligibility in sports. To cling to “born male, always male” is to ignore decades of research, lived experience, and the fact that sex and gender are not simplistic binaries carved in stone.
If your position boils down to “humans cannot change sexes,” then you’re not debating fairness in sport — you’re denying the existence of transgender people altogether. That’s not a serious contribution to the conversation; it’s a closed‑minded slogan masquerading as logic. The real discussion is about balancing fairness and inclusion, not erasing identities with outdated absolutes.
If they have been through male puberty they are likely taller and have bigger lungs, hands or hearts etc which will give them an unfair advantage in sports. Those types of things cannot be change with hormonal therapy after puberty.
Better reply. I agree, hormonal therapy during transition is not a perfect process, there will be remainance of your former self. What would your opinion be of a transgender gender devison of sports?
I agree with the opinion owner, it's very simple as that, no need for the long arguments and rights and all this sh*t! Men are men and women are women!
“Biological men cannot compete with biological women”? Funny, because if that were literally true, women’s sport wouldn’t need protection from men at all — yet history shows otherwise. The statement oversimplifies biology into a slogan, ignoring the messy reality of sex differences, hormone regulation, and eligibility rules. It’s less a scientific argument than a bumper sticker, and bumper stickers rarely win nuanced debates. If fairness is the concern, then the real issue is how governing bodies define and enforce competition standards, not tossing around reductive absolutes.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions