NCAA Statement on Transgender Participation

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

https://babylonbee.com/news/rudolph-changes-name-to-rolanda-dominates-female-reindeer-games

[Don Johnson 4754]

Beat a few olympians 

 

[UTGrad98 2280]

 

Beyond ridiculous this is allowed to happen. Common sense completely out the window. Feel so bad for the girls who have trained for this and who now have this as their memory of a moment they've worked so hard to get to.

 

Make no mistake I'm not upset at all at the trans girl either. Just another issue to politicize at the expense of others. Idiotic. 

 

Any trans girl athlete still has a man's body. Am I taking fucking crazy pills? 

[ftf82 485]

Westlake kid!

[clapclapclap 9000]

*l*

Edited March 18, 2022 by clapclapclap

[Js1 85384]

Oh boy here we go again

[AUS-97HORN 11808]

Southpark said it best.

 

 

[The_Great_Hornsby 3236]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

I’m cool if someone is transgender. Honesty it’s more that I don’t really care what other people want to do.

But I don’t see the fairness in letting a trans woman compete with biologically born women in sports. And it’s not about just requiring her to be on hormones for a certain amount of time. She has an inherent advantage that can’t be overcome.

 

[Captainant 27680]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m cool if someone is transgender. Honesty it’s more that I don’t really care what other people want to do.

But I don’t see the fairness in letting a trans woman compete with biologically born women in sports. And it’s not about just requiring her to be on hormones for a certain amount of time. She has an inherent advantage that can’t be overcome.

Yeah, if you grew up with testosterone in your body during puberty, you're going to have better bone and muscle density and joint strength. Completely unfair for the biological female athlete, no amount of training will ever span that physical difference.

I do think this problem is unique to M2F transitions, which is doubly unfortunate since that group tends to be the most stigmatized 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10300]

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

[Don Johnson 4754]

[Hpara759 1780]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

 

ok, would you say males genes have a advantage over female genes (when it comes to athletic ability)?

[Newdoc 3448]

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

That would be a slippery upslope. But it hasn’t been a problem in a hundred years of modern sports. Some people win the genetic lottery and as a society we value (way too much) an individual’s ability to hit, throw and run for entertainment. Basketball is a good example. 99.999 percent of men under 6’0” aren’t making it into the NBA mo matter how good they are at dribbling or passing. 

[JesusSweatDuck 17784]

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

[UTGrad98 2280]

10 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology 

Not a slippery slope at all. This is as black and white, cut and dry as it can be. 

[CooterBrown 18014]

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.
It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

That already happens. At least in track, women that have too high of natural testosterone are banned. The highest profile example is Caster Semenya who is technically intersex and was assigned female at birth. It did take years for that ban to occur after she’d won multiple Olympic and World Championships medals.

The disparity between male and female performance is vast. World class female performances are at the level of average high school boys. Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team. Odds are very high that any transitioned male>female is going to own their selected sport.

[Don Johnson 4754]

5 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

That would be a slippery upslope. But it hasn’t been a problem in a hundred years of modern sports. Some people win the genetic lottery and as a society we value (way too much) an individual’s ability to hit, throw and run for entertainment. Basketball is a good example. 99.999 percent of men under 6’0” aren’t making it into the NBA mo matter how good they are at dribbling or passing. 

The we should eliminate separation between men's and women's athletics and 99.99% of women will just have to deal with the fact they didn't win the "genetic lottery."

Edited March 18, 2022 by Don Johnson

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

[52-80 19162]

why are there actual competitions anyway.  cant a person simply identify as an olympic gold medalist?

[midtown 3346]

You don't go from being an average male athlete to one of the top female athletes without a massive physical advantage.   Let her compete but its insane that she should take a place away from a female athlete.   Award two firsts if you have to.   

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

14 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

Beat a few olympians 

 

awesome. bet it was exciting to see live.  everyone there was able to see history broken. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by ONE YARD

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

12 hours ago, Js1 said:

Oh boy here we go again

I identify as a mod and you are banned. 

[BabaYaga 15301]

23 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team.

Yep.  To be fair, it was a nationally ranked FC Dallas boys academy team, playing against the wimenz team minus a number of their key starters for a "friendly" scrimmage as they prepared for match play.  Either way, they beat the brakes off them 5-2.  My daughter plays on a nationally ranked ECNL '08 team in the metroplex.  They scrimmage boys here age that are in classic league (a much lower tier) and they get smoked.  

 

[phdhorn 6224]

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

Longhorn robbed of silver. 
 

Common sense should prevail, but we live in anti-common sense times. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

Yeah.....even among the most progressive folks I know, they see and have an issue with the approach of "changed gender, now compete in the other gender's sports."  Acknowledging the cold hard fact that in most athletic endeavors, males have a material advantage, it is simply unfair to allow a person who is male in the ATHLETIC respect (testosterone during developing periods, muscle development, etc.) compete in women's sports.  I think most are okay with it the other direction -- a biologically born woman transitioning to male and competing in male events, because that person has not extra advantage.

None of this takes away from empathy for the challenges of being trans, having to live your life in that circumstance, and wanting to compete.  I understand -- and again, the most progressive folks I know understand -- how much you want to "live a normal life."  But in matters that measure biological feats (and that's what athletics is), it is illogical and unfair to deny the role of biology in setting the bar.

We acknowledge inherent biological factors in sports like wrestling and boxing, where there are weight classes.  Male or female, we don't allow a 6 foot tall heavyweight to identify as a bantamweight and beat the fuck out of a 5 foot tall boxer.

Maybe the solution is -- where it's possible -- to have an "open" division.  Male, female, trans, anyone who wants can swim the 100m freestyle in the "open" division.

Ultimately, this issue is HARMFUL for the trans community, because while a great many people have real empathy, and want to make their path as easy as possible, fundamental ideals of fairness tells people that you don't remedy a situation by creating a counter fundamental unfairness, particularly one that shits on a group (women) who have had to fight for a long-ass time just to get something approaching parity in athletic opportunity.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

100% that top athletes are almost always born with some advantage that few of us have. Hard work can definitely overcome some deficiencies but a 6' hard-working, average high school bball player isn't going to make the NBA. And even the handful of 6' NBA players probably have other advantages like speed.

Sports has pushed back when someone uses an unnatural advantage. I'm not saying that the trans woman is unnatural. I agree that her gender was always female but her sex/body was by all definitions male. We actually divide men and women's sport by sex not gender.  We may say gender with sports because historically most people used gender and sex synonymously but today we don't.

I don't have any idea what how these scenarios should be handled. I don't think a 3rd or 4th category of divisions is good.

[Don Johnson 4754]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe the solution is -- where it's possible -- to have an "open" division.  Male, female, trans, anyone who wants can swim the 100m freestyle in the "open" division.

In this case, who exactly would be doing that?  Thomas.  That's probably it.  I don't know what motivation a female or male swimmer would have to compete in anything other than their division.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10300]

Pretty sure the mens division could be considered the "open" division in most sports

[52-80 19162]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

fundamental ideals of fairness tells people that you don't remedy a situation by creating a counter fundamental unfairness,

bookmarking this quote for posterity

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

In this case, who exactly would be doing that?  Thomas.  That's probably it.  I don't know what motivation a female or male swimmer would have to compete in anything other than their division.

Yeah, like I said.....where possible.

That said....maybe some really competitive male swimmers would sign up for the "open" 100m free as well.  Fastest human wins.  If it happens to be a biological male whose gender remains male, cool.  If it happens to be a biological male whose gender is now female, cool.

I just see two incompatible social goods at odds here:

1) athletic competition is about fairness.  That's why steroids are banned, etc.  Using only a) what God gave you and b) your hard work and training, you be the best you can be.

2) trans people should be allowed to participate in society as a member of their gender.  Purposefully excluding them from participating as a member from their gender should not happen.

I think that as we watch these things in action, item 2) will get the modifier of "whenever possible."  It's not possible to have fair athletic competition when you allow a person born and developed as a biological male compete as a woman.  The entire purpose of athletics -- fair competition, may the best athlete within the bounds of fairness win -- is defeated when you allow the born male to compete as a woman.

[Brisketexan 105154]

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Pretty sure the mens division could be considered the "open" division in most sports

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

[Don Johnson 4754]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what some states did last year?  Which lead to widespread criticism and threats from the NCAA?

They just didn’t change the name “Mens” to “Open.”

Edited March 18, 2022 by Don Johnson

[immamac 42864]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yeah, if you grew up with testosterone in your body during puberty, you're going to have better bone and muscle density and joint strength. Completely unfair for the biological female athlete, no amount of training will ever span that physical difference.

I do think this problem is unique to M2F transitions, which is doubly unfortunate since that group tends to be the most stigmatized 

 

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Aren't most all top athletes born with a biological advantage? I'm not saying it's fair in the swimmer case as it's obvious its an advantage, but the top athletes do have biological advantages. It's not all about who trained harder or better.  Science has been saying 30-80% can be attributes to genes for a while now.

It seem like this is a very slippery slope where quickly we will have born "women" who get classified as "non-women" for sports based on biology.

 

1 hour ago, UTGrad98 said:

Not a slippery slope at all. This is as black and white, cut and dry as it can be. 

 

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

That already happens. At least in track, women that have too high of natural testosterone are banned. The highest profile example is Caster Semenya who is technically intersex and was assigned female at birth. It did take years for that ban to occur after she’d won multiple Olympic and World Championships medals.

The disparity between male and female performance is vast. World class female performances are at the level of average high school boys. Look at track world records for an apples to apples comparison or the USWNT getting destroyed by a random U15 boys team. Odds are very high that any transitioned male>female is going to own their selected sport.

 

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

The we should eliminate separation between men's and women's athletics and 99.99% of women will just have to deal with the fact they didn't win the "genetic lottery."

 

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

why are there actual competitions anyway.  cant a person simply identify as an olympic gold medalist?

 

1 hour ago, midtown said:

You don't go from being an average male athlete to one of the top female athletes without a massive physical advantage.   Let her compete but its insane that she should take a place away from a female athlete.   Award two firsts if you have to.   

what if I told you this same person was competing for the MENS SWIMMING TEAM AT PENN last year? 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10300]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

[Brisketexan 105154]

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what some states did last year?  Which lead to widespread criticism and threats from the NCAA?

They just didn’t change the name “Mens” to “Open.”

Not sure -- honestly haven't followed the issue that closely.

My bet -- or perhaps my hope -- is that the NCAA (and some other athletic bodies that have acted similarly) have tried to "do the right thing" in responding to the expanding notion of treating trans people equally and fairly.  It was a well-intentioned approach.  But, after putting it into practice, we now see some rather glaring flaws, and we have sacrificed the fairness and equity that women have fought for for decades.  That's not the right outcome.  So, we'll need to re-evaluate and adjust the approach.  I hope that can happen.  It's not wrong to try try something with good intentions and a goal of fairness.  What's wrong is to stick with something when the data shows you that it hasn't worked out that way.

[Blotto 23557]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's true.

Hell, look at football.  There are a handful of women who want to play football (more at younger levels, trickling way down as you approach college level).  So, society lets them play, on the football team.  It's not a men's team.  It's a football team.  If Jane can kick 70 yd field goals, she'll play.  If really BIG Jane can pancake pass rushers, she'll play (she probably wont get a lot of dates, but she'll play).

Maybe that's a solution -- call the men's division the "open division" -- anyone who wants to compete in it can.  If there's a female swimmer who thinks she can beat every other human, come on in, the water's fine.  But only biologically born females can compete in the women's division.

Somehow, I don't think the transgender community will sign off on that. Just a guess. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10300]

Thomas is planning to swim at the 2024 Olympic trials so USOC... you are on the clock

[Brisketexan 105154]

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

How about.....women?  The standards to enter women's athletic competitions should be decided by female athletes, coaches, etc. -- the people with a working stake in the deal.

[crash_davis 23113]

even Michael Jackson doesn't approve.

Bitch, please.

[midtown 3346]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

what if I told you this same person was competing for the MENS SWIMMING TEAM AT PENN last year? 

I think thats pretty well known by everyone.   Where are the womens rights groups on this one?  

Edited March 18, 2022 by midtown

[crash_davis 23113]

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I think this is really the solution, redefining or defining with greater specificity the women's division and everything else is the "open" division. But what group is going to take on defining what it is to be "born a woman".

that's pretty fucking easy. only takes on question.

were you born with a penis or vagina?

[troph 24840]

there's a lot of bullshit in this thread.  there's a fair amount of reasoned thought too.  I was planning to stay out of it because this is a dog whistle issue for the haters and my comments will be parsed, taken out of context and the most extreme examples will be used against me.

But I'll play.  If a fair discussion can be had, I'll provide an anecdote and then some additional commentary.

I play tennis. Men at my USTA rating smoke me every time - every time. My coach almost laughs when I say something like I could keep up with him. I win and lose against other women. I work harder than most and pay more to learn than most, I'm improving and moving up. When I move up a level, I lose most matches. Once I figure it out, adjust, learn the new skills and strategies, I start to compete.  18 months after moving up, I start winning more.  Then I move up again.  I'm at my ceiling almost and will be an above average club tennis player.  Mostly because I obsess over it and I work my ass off.  I still face women - stay at home moms - that hit harder than I do. Some have more mental toughness than I do.  Many don't.  What's the point here? Almost all non-professional, non-world class athletics are about competing, playing, learning physical skills, learning life skills, metaphor for life (RIP Augie), and having fun.  you can't take that away from people, and that's exactly what a lot of you want whether you admit it or not.

second, politics. you can't say on the one hand a trans kid can't transition and has to wait until they are older, then say oh sorry, you didn't transition early enough, you can't play.  that's infuriating bullshit.  complete fucking bullshit.  fuck every last politician doing this.  this is the webster definition of fucked up discrimination, othering, systematic discrimination, exclusion, and attempt to erase and eliminate. hell is waiting for all in power that take this position.

from there, I think trans folks can compete in their gendered class but I think the organizations in charge are probably not stringent enough on who should be able to compete. I think it's even more of an issue in the individual sports that are purely physical and less mental/strategic.  singles tennis has so much more than strength (I've been smoked by a team with two ladies over 65 years old more than I care to count (doubles)), but the core Olympic sports like running, jumping, throwing, swimming, cycling, not so much.  It's hard not to see that.  not sure what to do about it.  I don't think it's an outright ban, I think it's something else. But again, this is totally fucked up unfair when coupled with the red meat politics of banning early transition.

finally, it sucks but no trans athlete can ever win for any reason other than they are trans.  I play on losing tennis teams so I can avoid this issue. despite the fact that I'm a middle of the road competitor - winning and losing in my competitive bracket. my worst nightmare is being on a winning team. 

in the end, most of this is about letting kids ... and middle aged adults have fun.  if you want to dog whistle I can't do anything about that.  but if you want to look at this issue for what it is, we are talking a very small percentage of cases that might need to be dealt with, and I don't have the answer but can support a closer look at it.

Edited March 18, 2022 by troph

[Samson's Wig 3192]

I think the larger issue underlying all of this is the presumption that anyone has a right to compete in sports to begin with.  I can't, no matter how far I stretch the intent of federal law, wrap my head around an inalienable right to play competitive sports.  That's where we went off the rails. We place an insane amount of value on athletics to the point we treat organized competition as if it actually has a bearing on fundamental freedom and existence.  This trans argument is just an extension of a false premise.

I understand the other underlying issues such as funding and its interplay with Title IX, but I see those as extensions of the same false premise.  It's all born of an overblown notion of the importance of competitive sports.  The benefits of competitive sports are very real, but if we actually gave a shit about citizens partaking in these benefits, we would have intramural teams at each school that everyone participates in.  The amount of tax dollars spent on stadiums, arenas, etc. is mind numbingly stupid, but also traces back to that same false premise.  We don't think everyone should exercise and engage in cooperative/competitive character building activities.  We believe that everyone has a right to become a superstar athlete.  It's some kind of collective mental illness.

Sports and athletic competition are great.  I love(d) participating in them and I loved watching those much better than me compete professionally.  Do I think competitive athletic endeavors and my right to participate in them is fundamental to my existence, citizenship, or happiness?  Fuck no.  And anyone who does is fucked in the head.

[Brisketexan 105154]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Somehow, I don't think the transgender community will sign off on that. Just a guess. 

They may not.  Many of them certainly will not.

We can't make everyone happy.  There are competing ideals here: 1) sports should be fair/level playing field, and 2) we should allow trans people to live life as their identified gender.  We are seeing that those ideals cannot co-exist in the same space.  One of them has to give.  My suggestion is that while we should endeavor to live out ideal 2) wherever possible, it is not possible without contradicting ideal 1), destroying a foundational element of athletic competition, and thus we do not follow ideal 2) in the context of athletics.

We can't make everyone happy.  We should be kind, accommodating, etc.  But we can't always reach an ultimate decision that makes everyone happy.  My proposal is not a knock against the trans community, or an action intended to deny them their place in society.  Rather, it is a decision based on ideal 1).  Note that the parallel ideal of "fundamental fairness/level playing field" also dictates that in matters where biological sex does NOT make a difference, discrimination is prohibited.  That same ideal and value means that a generic employer (tech company, etc.) cannot discriminate based on gender - whether that be biological sex-based, preference, etc.  And by the way, I also think that should be applied to gender and sexual preference -- I think that it should be illegal to discriminate in employment decisions based on someone's status as gay, trans, etc.

[midtown 3346]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

I think it's even more of an issue in the individual sports that are purely physical and less mental/strategic.  singles tennis has so much more than strength (I've been smoked by a team with two ladies over 65 years old more than I care to count (doubles)), but the core Olympic sports like running, jumping, throwing, swimming, cycling, not so much.

LOL!

[troph 24840]

2 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I think the larger issue underlying all of this is the presumption that anyone has a right to compete in sports to begin with.  I can't, no matter how far I stretch the intent of federal law, wrap my head around an inalienable right to play competitive sports.  That's where we went off the rails. We place an insane amount of value on athletics to the point we treat organized competition as if it actually has a bearing on fundamental freedom and existence.  This trans argument is just an extension of a false premise.

I understand the other underlying issues such as funding and its interplay with Title IX, but I see those as extensions of the same false premise.  It's all born of an overblown notion of the importance of competitive sports.  The benefits of competitive sports are very real, but if we actually gave a shit about citizens partaking in these benefits, we would have intramural teams at each school that everyone participates in.  The amount of tax dollars spent on stadiums, arenas, etc. is mind numbingly stupid, but also traces back to that same false premise.  We don't think everyone should exercise and engage in cooperative/competitive character building activities.  We believe that everyone has a right to become a superstar athlete.  It's some kind of collective mental illness.

Sports and athletic competition are great.  I love(d) participating in them and I loved watching those much better than me compete professionally.  Do I think competitive athletic endeavors and my right to participate in them is fundamental to my existence, citizenship, or happiness?  Fuck no.  And anyone who does is fucked in the head.

I'm sorry, but don't you get it? this isn't about baseball, this is about life. don't you fucking get it? /Augism.

more seriously, sports is everything to a lot of people. I'm an aging 46 year old with a bum shoulder, tendonitis in my elbow, I have lower back pain and am resigned to the fact that tennis will probably lead me to knee replacements and worn out elbows when I'm older. and you know what?  my pursuit of happiness demands I keep playing. Everyone has a right to play.  EVERYONE.  There is a solution here, an easy one and for most trans athletes the answer is LET THEM FUCKING TRANSITION AS KIDS EARLY AND COMPETE. 

[troph 24840]

3 minutes ago, midtown said:

LOL!

they'd whip your ass too brother.

[troph 24840]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They may not.  Many of them certainly will not.

We can't make everyone happy.  There are competing ideals here: 1) sports should be fair/level playing field, and 2) we should allow trans people to live life as their identified gender.  We are seeing that those ideals cannot co-exist in the same space.  One of them has to give.  My suggestion is that while we should endeavor to live out ideal 2) wherever possible, it is not possible without contradicting ideal 1), destroying a foundational element of athletic competition, and thus we do not follow ideal 2) in the context of athletics.

We can't make everyone happy.  We should be kind, accommodating, etc.  But we can't always reach an ultimate decision that makes everyone happy.  My proposal is not a knock against the trans community, or an action intended to deny them their place in society.  Rather, it is a decision based on ideal 1).  Note that the parallel ideal of "fundamental fairness/level playing field" also dictates that in matters where biological sex does NOT make a difference, discrimination is prohibited.  That same ideal and value means that a generic employer (tech company, etc.) cannot discriminate based on gender - whether that be biological sex-based, preference, etc.  And by the way, I also think that should be applied to gender and sexual preference -- I think that it should be illegal to discriminate in employment decisions based on someone's status as gay, trans, etc.

you aren't saying this. but the start of the solution is with the politics of transition. Fix that and most of these issues will go away. Right now it's 50/50 on which is easier - transitioning earlier or later. for me it was 0/100 I had to be an established adult then destroy my life to do it.  that needs to be 90/10 in favor of early transition.  maybe when society isn't fucked up about transition we can say sorry, you transitioned too late.  But until we fix the root cause, this talk about athletics comes across as nothing but more discrimination.