[–] ProxyMusic 18 points Edited

Decades of research have shown that sex is far more complex than we may think.

Research done over many decades indeed shows that sex in humans and other mammals is complex. But such research also shows there are only two sexes, male and female; human beings can't change sex; people with disorders of sex development are still either male or female, not additional sexes, in between the two sexes or a combination of the two sexes; and there are innumerable physical differences between human males and females that make it unfair in nearly all sports for girls and women to compete against boys and men particularly once puberty of adolescence begins.

If the sport is a combat sport like wrestling, boxing, rugby, or American football; a close contact sport where there is frequent pushing, shoving, kicking, tackling, elbowing, pile ons and accidental collisions etc; or a sport involving hazards because of the laws of physics - as in the case of baseball, ultra high diving, automobile racing, singles tennis - then mixed-sex play and competition presents unconscionable safety risks for females too. There are ways to make some mixed-sex sports safe for females, but this always involves playing by a different set of rules.

Also, the past 30 years worth of research on physical sex differences in animals and humans only go to show that there are many more physical sex differences between human males and females than was previously presumed.

And though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential.

This is idiotic hogwash. It's also punching down and essentially blaming girls and women for the fact that female bodies are not built to be as good at most sports as male bodies. It suggests outright that if only more support were provided, then women could magically change our anatomy and physiology in innumerable fundamental ways so that we will be physically on par with men.

Guess this means that women of older generations are total ninnies for spending so much time and energy building rape crisis services, battered women's shelters, girls' and women's sports, and lobbying for laws, policies and provisions to protect women and girls from male violence and sexual abuse. When all we had to do was realize what so many in today's obviously much smarter and wiser younger generations apparently have been able to see from the get-go - which is that with a bit more support, all the world's women and girls could just mind over matter our way to being physically the equal of males.

“Science is increasingly showing how sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts; for example, social experiences can actually change levels of sex-related hormones like testosterone in our bodies in a second-to-second and month-to-month way!” Sari van Anders, the research chair in social neuroendocrinology at Queen’s University, in Ontario, told me by email.

Yeah, sex hormones fluctuate across ranges of time. But they fluctuate within the reference ranges for each sex - which are totally separate and never overlapping. Male T levels change from morning to night, but the T levels that male fetuses, infant boys in the first months of life, and adolescent and adult men never dip so low that they are anywhere near the levels that females have. Even when TIMs take powerful Big Pharma T suppressants like Spirolactone and huge amounts of exogenous estradiol for "gender affirmation," 75% of them still have T levels well above the female range.

In girls and women between the ages of menarche and menopause, sex hormones fluctuate over the course of the month, but never during the monthly ovulation-menstruation cycle do we ever make T in the male range. After menopause, women don't make T in the male range either. In fact, after menopause, it's not just women's T levels that are very low - after menopause, women have lower natural estrogen levels than adult males too.

She said that this complexity means it doesn’t make sense to separate sports by sex in order to protect women athletes from getting hurt. “If safety was a concern, and there was evidence to select certain bodily characteristics to base safety cut-offs on, then you would see, say, shorter men excluded from competing with taller men, or lighter women from competing with heavier women, across sports.” We do see weight-class separation in boxing, rowing, and wrestling, yet it’s far from the norm across all sports, and isn’t typically seen as a method of integrating athletes of different sexes—though it could be. Old notions of sex as a marker of physical capability are changing, and more research is making clear that sex differences aren’t really clear at all.

This is ignorant horse shit. Even when a man/boy and woman/girl are the exact same height and weight, they are not physically equivalent. At all.

Women and girls have much higher risks and rates of concussion and brain injury in sports than males do because of a host of physical differences in various body parts such as our blood vessels, necks, skulls, brain tissue and respiratory systems. No matter how big and brawny a woman or girl is, she can't change the structure and function of her blood vessels, CV system, skeleton. No amount of exercise, training, discipline, or can-do spirit enables a girl or woman to grow thicker facial bones and skulls, to change the size and nature of the blood vessels in her neck, to grow an extra layer of cartilage to protect her neck, or increase the protective tissue surrounding her brain.

[–] Lipsy 8 points Edited

It's also punching down and essentially blaming girls and women for the fact that female bodies are not built to be as good at most sports as male bodies.

Yeah... I got the same sort of "pfffft, just try harder" vibe from the piece in general.

I think they're misrepresenting the [in]significance of the coed lanes at the swim club (end of article).

What they've described is exactly how adult open swim works at community pools around here.
About half the pool is divided into lanes, classified from faster to slower, with the other half undivided so that people can use it for water aerobics, kickboard exercises, or just messing around.
The lanes are co-ed, though. Swimmers just self-assort, changing lanes if it turns out they're too fast or too slow compared to others in their lane.

It sounds as though they're just describing training sessions at that swim club—which would make total sense, because you can get a LOT more swimmers in the water simultaneously if you can pack each lane with a whole line that can stay single file in each direction.
Having multiple sex/age/skill levels able to practice/train all at once is no small thing.

Any writer who tries to use abnormalities in biological markers of sex or sexual development as a basis for claiming that "sex is more complicated than the trad binary" completely discredits herself/himself right out of the gate by not giving proper figures for the incidence of those abnormalities in the overall population.

I've swum competitively and hate training w/ men...they will push you down and grap you to move ahead.

sex is dynamic; it has multiple aspects and also shifts;

That's some vague descriptive language intended to obfuscate facts.

"Though school sports are typically sex-segregated, a new generation of kids isn’t content to compete within traditional structures."

That's why adult make the rules..

Kids don’t understand the physical differences between male and female bodies. The girls will understand when the boys hit puberty and suddenly the teams have no girls…

I remember thinking I could be as strong as a boy when I was young. It took actually playing sports for me to start understanding the reality of sex development, and when I started lifting weights I really started to understand the strength differences.

Apparently the same adults that have indoctrinated said kids into believing sex differences are illusory :(

[–] NoDayForADo 2 points Edited

"These rules, which were developed in part to protect girls from harm during competitions, required that Mandelzis submit a record of her past performance in physical-education classes, a doctor’s physical documenting her medical history, and assessments of her body type (height and weight, joint structure) and sexual maturity level (breast and pubic-hair development measured according to a medical guideline known as the Tanner Scale). "

I don't understand why they keep pulling out these fear-laden tidbits about sex based sports meaning kids are subject to genital exams.

Kids have always needed physicals for sports. And tanner stage assessment is part of any pediatric well visit. It takes the doctor like 5 seconds to assess these things. It's not like some in depth invasive exam. It helps to spot or rule out hormonal disorders, growth disorders, etc. If you take your kid to the doctor for routine physicals, this is already being done.

Noting your height and weight is not some weird critique of your body type.

Noting your joint structure can spot a higher liklihood of injury. None of this is meant to be sexist.

Shira had to have a physical for sports. The fact that she wants to play football doesn't change that. She would have needed the same physical for track, girls tennis, or bowling.

And as for the other stuff? Do you even know football? When we live, these kids cut their teeth on it. They start playing at 8-9-10 years old with the long term goal being to play on the high school team. I don't think our school district has tryouts so you could say we are also a "no cut" team but I assure you a 14yo boy who has been playing tackle football for 4-6 years is a different creature than a middle school girl who decides she likes the vibe of flag football. The boys may have not had to prove anything because they have been proving it all along. But we don't get an example of what would happen if a boy with no experience wanted to join. This is being painted as a gender differences thing but I would not be surprised to find that in most areas, the youth foothball program is so closely tied to the high school program that they are essentially one in the same. The coaches have been watching these kids play and planning what positions to put them in before they ever set foot in the high school.

It's not clear that other new students aren't held to the same standards, but I stil feel like the odds of a girl with no experience getting her ass kicked on the field is going to be a worse look for the school than a boy with no experience so I understand why they want to be able to say they did everything they could to be sure she was up to it. But I don't know what the odds are of a boy with no experience going out for football at this age. It would be unthinkable where I live. Why would you not want as much reassurance as you can get that your daughter is up to this?

I think the East Germans and Soviets did everything in their power to make female athletes reach their highest potential. Including a shit ton of anabolic steroids. Even then, no woman posted a time that would have won in Men's events.
People who want to make the "lack of support" claim need to look at totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union and China, where children are recruited at incredibly young ages, taken from their families and raised in schools that are dedicated to athletic achievement. I don't think there are female Chinese gymnasts who could beat Chinese men on the floor exercise. You could take a female Olympic gold medal gymnast like Nastia Lukin, the daughter of Olympians, coached by her parents since she could walk, and put her on the rings or pommel horse and she wouldn't make it through an Olympic level routine. And that has nothing to do with lack of support.

Unf*cking believable. The once-proud Atlantic sinks to the bottom with the rest. Not that this is the first transnonsense-spouting piece they've done, but judging by the quick skim that was all I could tolerate of it, it may be the most egregious.

...a swim team in California, for instance, whose athletes are separated by ability rather than sex (...) has changed how the kids view one another. “It wasn’t a big deal if they had to share lanes with one another or they were competing against one another during practice. Gender wasn’t the primary thing that was shaping the perceptions of who was a good athlete or not

Give us a break. Like no one's going to notice that all the members of the swimming "A" team are swinging dicks in the mixed sex changing rooms.

I'm still okay with the Atlantic since they publish competing viewpoints. Like they'll publish Ibram X Kendi and then John McWhorter back to back. They're a "both sides" platform.

It's fair to take issue with that approach, because (in certain cases) it's still misinformation being spread, but the fact that they keep submissions open means that people who come to read gender-identity articles like this get exposed to gender-critical ones as well.

(Also, I think articles like this are utter lunacy and can help normies peak.)

"separated by ability rather than sex". sounds like the participation medal mentality.

[–] TheWitch 2 points Edited

So I guess they're trying to lay the groundwork now to completely destroy and get rid of women's sports.

Next the liberals can come after women's voting rights. Who needs the right when we have the left? Who needs MRAs when we've got woke bros and handmaidens.

JFC...It is outrageous that she would so belittle women's athletic goals, ignore safety issues and belittle women's need for competition.