50 Year Old Man Competing with Teen Girls in Swimming Competition
"As hard as it might be to believe, in Canada a 50-year-old man really is being allowed to compete in swimming competitions alongside 13- and 14-year-old girls."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/29/why-is-a-full-grown-man-competing-against-teenage-girls-in-swimming/
"In December last year, parents again raised the alarm when Wiseheart competed in the Trojan Cup event in Ontario. This time, he was seen using the girls’ changing rooms."
It's hard for me to believe this is true, but it sounds like it might be. If it's true, does anyone here NOT have a problem with a 50 year old man competing with teen girls and using their changing rooms?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/29/why-is-a-full-grown-man-competing-against-teenage-girls-in-swimming/
"In December last year, parents again raised the alarm when Wiseheart competed in the Trojan Cup event in Ontario. This time, he was seen using the girls’ changing rooms."
It's hard for me to believe this is true, but it sounds like it might be. If it's true, does anyone here NOT have a problem with a 50 year old man competing with teen girls and using their changing rooms?
Comments (48)
Should trans women be allowed to compete as women? This is the big question, and I think it's a fair question to ask. There are studies that show that in some realms of competition, trans women have a lasting, perhaps life long, advantage over non trans women.
I have what I think is a simple low-controversy solution: in whatever realm of competition the question is being asked, "should we allow trans women / trans girls to compete with the other females?", it should be done by anonymous vote, and only the current female competitors should have a vote.
Nobody else should be allowed to vote. Not officials, not parents, not spectators, only competitors.
And the vote should be renewed every 5 years or so, in case they change their minds in the mean time.
The reason only competitors should be allowed to vote it's because it's ostensibly only them who have something to lose. If trans people do have an advantage, it's of course only the female competitors who are losing spots to trans athletes. If they decide, as a group, that they're okay losing spots to trans athletes, then why stop them? And if they come to regret that decision because they find that, WHOOPS, now every event is being won by a trans woman, they can reverse that choice in 5 years.
This is, I think, the fairest option for all female competitions to take. Let the people who are going to be affected most by it choose.
But it seems some open tournaments are effectively almost exclusively frequented by young girls, with some participants in their 20s and last age group from 16. So he's an outlier in age and trans on top. Maybe he had a good reason but this isn't reported on.
As to whether trans women are allowed to compete, that depends on the rules. I think it's perfectly logical to demand trans people only get to compete in their original sex.
Perhaps OP neglected, perhaps for an unavoidable reason such as time or other constraints, what his philosophical views or belief(s) as to why this ties into philosophy. Allow me to do so.
Since the dawn of man, there has been woman. The social order, simply if not tragically simplified into two: patriarchy and matriarchy. It is a known fact, as things are now (though perhaps may have been different in the past) the average male is of higher muscle mass, higher endurance, and, this is where scholars differentiate, of higher mental fortitude or ability to handle stress and anguish, whether or not due to the proven fact menstrual cycles affect the brain and induce higher levels of rage, aggression, or perhaps on the opposite end, lower levels of tolerance and the chemicals (dopamine, serotonin) that make a person feel "okay" or "at ease".
These facts in mind, what are the social consequences of allowing someone who is advantaged by never having to ever once experience such a scientifically noted phenomenon? Any at all?
Perhaps even more importantly, how will this affect society, the social construct we call "the world", and what potential for abuse (or perhaps benefit?) is allowed or denied as a result? These are the questions people wish to know, yet often fail to ask. So, lead on OP, what do you think?
Edit: And even further, I suppose one could extract the following debate. Does one who naturally has greater ability hurt or perhaps strengthen and encourage those who, on average, have less? (Allegedly)
An excellent question, OP! Excellent indeed.
Quoting RogueAI
What is true is that a 50 year old transgender woman was allowed to compete in the women’s events for athletes 16 and older.
Because I just now saw it.
I'm unsure this makes it any better... The idea that 50 year old male is given unfettered (in context) access to vulnerable young females undressing and competing is... extremely uncomfortable and you've got to question motive.
The problem is that this is a transphobic thing to do. No one is allowed to speak about the experience, place, or social impact of trans women except trans women.
Bigot.
Quoting flannel jesus
In reality though, because it is extremely clear that people are unable to make sound decisions in an ideological whirlpool. I note you've said anonymous - this does not preclude the over-all or general criticism (which is almost always vitriolic and aimed at destruction) having a serious effect on anyone who voted 'No'. It is not a burden females should have to bear - deciding whether or not to allow males to take from them.
Keep in mind that the majority of trans support in society, up to and including the idea that they should be allowed to compete, comes from females.
I agree that it's an unfortunate reality that people would be criticised for "no" votes, and that it would not be fair to female competitors for them to put up with that. On the flip side, a bunch of men deciding for women something that those women don't want seems unfair as well, in case those women DO want to allow trans to compete with them.
Perhaps the majority of women's soccer, for example, want to allow trans athletes. Why should a bunch of men in a board room decide, and not the women themselves for whom the league was created?
Is your concern her age, that she's trans, that she's competing, or that she uses the women's changing room?
Regarding the competition, it is an open age category. Anyone over the age of 16 could compete. There is never a maximum age for these things. In fact, in terms of competitiveness, it is better for the other participants that she is 50 rather than say 18, as a 50 year old is much less fit.
Regarding the changing room, would you care if it was a 50 year old cisgender woman, or an 18 year old transgender woman?
Quoting AmadeusD
She wants to compete in swimming competitions, like everyone else competing.
Your apparent suggestion that transgender people have some nefarious motives for being transgender is straight up transphobia.
That biological men are more likely to have nefarious motives than biological women isn't that there is a good reason to believe that a transfemme swimmer has nefarious motives for competing in women's swimming competitions.
AmadeusD doesn't have a good point, it's simply transphobia. Much like it would be homophobia to suggest that a gay swimmer has nefarious reasons for competing in a men's swimming competition for anyone over the age of 16.
You think a 50 year old biological male should be sharing a changing room with teenage girls? You don't see any problem with that? What if the girls are 13? 8?
Is your concern their age or that they're transgender? Would you mind if it were a 50 year old cisgender woman, or a 16 year old transgender woman?
I don't have a problem with biological women sharing a changing room with little girls. I have a serious problem with a biological men sharing a changing room with little girls. Also, the fact that he's 50 makes me suspect he's perving on them.
Do you think grown men should be allowed in changing rooms with pre-teen girls?
So you're a transphobe, got it.
Would you assume that a 50 year old gay man using the men's changing room is perving on any 13 year old boys who also happen to be changing? Or a 50 year old lesbian in the women's changing room?
I would say it's a definite possibility. I don't entirely trust men to be around little kids. I'm a teacher and I'm always a little suspicious of male teachers in elementary school settings (and the priesthood). I think the reasons are obvious. I would not let a man or teenage boy babysit my daughter. I am equally suspicious of gay and straight men.
I have no problem with women who identify as men, they can go wherever they want. Biological men, however, cannot be trusted around kids to the same degree.
So just sexism. Biological men must be assumed to be child-molesting paedophiles. :roll:
No, but we're about nine times more likely to sexually abuse children.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens#:~:t
Until that changes, men should not be trusted to be around kids as much as women. I know as a male teacher I am regarded with much more suspicion than my female coworkers. I don't have a problem with that. It's certainly justified. I have a problem with my gender being so violent and rapey.
:rofl:
Oh no, my inexperienced friend, let me assure you, men are simply more physically, and as a result socially, capable of carrying out nefarious desires. Perhaps it can be argued men are traditionally greater thinkers (though the margin between those who are and aren't is quite large) ie. more likely to get away with immorality thus lessening the fear of getting caught thus increasing the desire to act on said desires, be it so out of intrinsic biological nature/adaptation or simple social status and resulting education.
Unfortunately this thread is likely doomed to be a political discussion instead of an actual philosophical one, so I will bow out.
I find this whole topic incredibly divisive and prone to abuse, intentional and otherwise. Some men are more "traditionally masculine" than others, often physically, sometimes in other ways. Just because someone is an "effeminate" male in contrast to another male does not mean they need to start thinking if they're actually a female and need to consider having their genitals removed and taking permanently mind and body altering drugs. That's predatory abuse, bullying, and frankly downright ridiculous at face value.
It is documented many trans people, before any procedure, suffered from some sort of mental illness. No one just woke up one day and said to themself "Wow I just realized I was supposed to be born with a vagina". Not a one. My point is sometimes people with a documented high risk of mental illness who are burdened with self-diagnosing any alleged "ailment" or whatever the scholarly medical term is for "being born the wrong gender" are reasonably likely to possibly be incorrect. Therefore it can be argued blind, forceful pushing of the idea on someone who later chose such an operation is abusive and illegal.
I'm a bit of an alternate thinker mind you so I believe when there's money to be made, it shall be. Insurance scams run rampant in the 21st century. At the expense of innocent, vulnerable people.
That biological men are nine times more likely than biological women to sexually abuse children isn't that biological men are likely to sexually abuse children.
Quoting RogueAI
Even if they shouldn't be trusted as much it doesn't then follow that they shouldn't be trusted.
I'm much more likely to die in a car crash than being eaten by shark, but I'm not going to assume that I'm going to die in a car crash. In fact, I'm very unlikely to die in a car crash.
I didn't say we were. I said we should not trust men to be around kids as much as we trust women.
That's a good point. But you think physicality is a big factor in the vast discrepancy between the numbers of men and women sexual predators? How does that work? Are women physically less able to chase down and/or overpower a little kid?
You didn't just say that. You also said:
Quoting RogueAI
Quoting RogueAI
That's a good point, but as mentioned, people are very finicky and likely dishonest in such a culturally tense arena. I have two female friends who have abstained from opinions on a trans woman joining their Stand-up paddle boarding team (lmao) and have just quietly exited the team insteaed, to avoid 'offending' a clearly mentally unstable male from living out some twisted delusion (that's not derogatory - that's what it is. I have sympathy).
I suppose one of hte main things we can see is that it is clearly open for manipulation. Lia Thomas seems an absolutely prime and perfect example. From 400-something in male swimming to top 5 or 1 in female. Her detractors have suffered to the point of being physically assaulted and detained by fellow citizens. This case is another example of it being far beyond 'being kind' to allow this to happen. it is, in fact, infringing on the rights of children and women that we protect in every other avenue.
We also know, as the comments subsequent show, that males are far, far, far more likely to abuse children and women sexually and otherwise. Obviously, other males are more often the victim - but then we get odd statistics that seem to show trans women are more likely than non-trans males to abuse. In the UK, the population of trans women convicted of sex crimes represents a 0.16% portion of their overall population (in and out of prison) versus 0.4% for non-trans males. We can calibrate for the obvious distinction between abuse and arrest for, lets say prostitution. Call it 50%. That's extremely generous.
That's still a 2:1 ratio. It's a tricky subject for all of these reasons. I just find it way too hard to think its 'fair' that a male who is by their very nature highly, highly likely to have immutable attributes conferring disproportionate advantage in comparison to an over-developed female can in fact compete with females.
To some degree, yes, that's the case. This is why fathers tend to be disciplinarians. But, this is changing. It's, imo, a socialisation issue. Women are far less likely to be prepared to do this. Its not necessarily a difference of immutable capacity.
Quoting RogueAI
I think that's a little unfair. I very much enjoy spending time with children because I am a father and have learned to appreciate so much of what I see in children - though, i have the added psychology of missing a lot of that in my own childhood. As a made-up analogy, 1/1000 isn't a high-enough ratio to have my ears up to every male teacher - but compared with like 1/100000 for women, it seems to be a red flag. I just don't know that it is - kind of like the Satanic Panic.
Quoting Michael
It's not in any way 'transphobic' (though, ill be honest - i don't take that term very seriously). I noted that a 50 year old male wanting to swim with, and change with, 16 year old girls (or younger, as the case often is) is concerning. Never mentioned transness. If you don't think so - I am unsure you're in a position to have this conversation. Your response to a concern which is live in every other situation in which this occurs, other than when 'trans' is claimed is basically 'bigot'. This indicates to me you are not being honest or reasonable. I have also outlined, fairly clearly, why its concerning, with no reference to the transness. Its the maleness. If you can't see the stark difference between those two concepts, we can just stop here. You've embodied a cliche determined by stupid people trying to impress other stupid people with their virtue.
If you are someone who blindly believes that a 'claimed identity' is more important than safety, historical knowledge and statistical consideration, we plum live in separate worlds. A man claiming to be a women is incoherent to me, and a seriously indication we have other things to discuss than their identity. Call it what you will - i just don't care.
if those things arent the case, I'd appreciate not having you misread my position and then charge me with some kind of bigotry. Because that indicates the above descriptions.
As to the first question, a 50 year old person, born as a man, with all genetic coding consistent with being a male, is at a distinct advantage physically in that sort of competition.
Policy does not dictate science and science does not dictate policy.
By comparison, the fact that climate change might cause environmental change that cannot be changed without affecting the economy does not mean we can just deny the science away so that can maintain the status quo. The policy we want cannot change the science we have.
By the same token, science does not tell us that we can't let the environment change and it does not tell us how we ought to react. That is, the science can be as it is, but we can still decide to maintain the status quo, but we just have to decide that's the policy we wish to advance, taking into consideration all the pros and cons of what we want to acheive.
Moving back to the transsexual question:
That we want transsexual MtF women to be physically the same as CIS women doesn't make the science mean that they are. They aren't, so let's stop (just as the climate change deniers need to stop) pretending the science is different from what it is.
By the same token, science does not dictate policy. That is, just because MtF women are distinct in important ways when it comes to competing physically, science cannot demand policy. That is, if you want to say that MtF women get to compete with CIS women, you can, but just realize the impact of what that policy will be.
That is, if I'd rather maintain the economy as it is and let the tides rise, then that's my judgment call. If I want to let MtF transsexuals compete against CIS women and let the winners and losers be as they are, then that's my judgment call.
All of this is to say, admit what your goal is and stop trying to proclaim what science requires us to do. It requires nothing of us, but just informs us so we can decide what we want to do.
As to the second question, sure, in a world of billions of people there are no doubt a handful of nutjobs that would put on a dress to catch a glimpse of something otherwise off limits to them. But that's too uncommon an exception to build a policy around and is a ridiculous red herring that gets everyone running around.
My opinion is that MtF women should not compete with CIS women and that's my vote. It's my vote because I want to preserve CIS female sports so that CIS women can continue to win. Allowing in MtF women won't do that. If that doesn't bother you, vote the other way.
And this is a sport where it is conceivable women could compete equally with men on some apparatuses, like the high bar, parallel bars, floor exercise, and side horse and vaulting horse. The still rings would not be feasible for women.
As things stand now, USA Gymnastics allows participation to all trans, non-binary, and CIS males and females in the category they identify. Except at the Elite and Olympic levels, where different, more stringent rules apply.
However, I have thought for years males vs females is perfectly reasonable provided grading policies are altered a little to diminish the value of pure upper body strength. That's the reason the still rings would not apply.
I'm not seeing any irony lol
Quoting jgill
It is not particularly conceivable, imo, having done Gymnastics for some years and continue to do fairly high-level calisthenics. There is absolutely no comparison.
Quoting jgill
Would that be one where there's a handicap for doing well? I ask as there is no possible way women are doing the same skills men are in on pommel horse, floor routines, high bar.
There is also the issue of team results. The fact a team has no born males shouldn't handicap them. But it will.
males vs females in physical sports would result in a top 500 of males and hten some females in the next couple hundred and parity only appearing through either misuse of hte word 'female' to denote trans women, or around the 1000 mark. This seems clear in almost every sport ever looked at. High school males destroy most world-level female athletes.
Quoting AmadeusD
Simon Biles on the uneven bars, or is she on two high bars? I say she could compete with men on the high bar.
At the U of Chicago in 1959 I worked out with the men's team and attended (watched) the Pan American Games at Navy Pier. I was astounded at the strength moves the Canadian female gymnast did on the balance beam.
My friend, never say never.
Uneven bars - different set of skills imo, rather than just two high bars. Very different, imo. Though, I would personally assume females would clean up on UEB against males at least half the time. High bar, though? Requires far too much explosive power to be compared, imo.
Quoting jgill
Absolutely. I have never intended, and should not be taken as, in any way knocking elite female skills per se. But the average strength of an elite female gymnastic is just not on the same level of an elite male. They just aren't at all comparable pound-for-pound. My point has more to do with disparity than anything else. They are all incredible athletes.
Though, as you say - never say never. But, until the time its not obviously an extreme disadvantage to females, I'm going to probably be fairly hard-line on this i'd say.
My event was the 20' rope climb, which disappeared from competitive gymnastics in the USA during the 1960s. It had vanished from the Olympics during the 1930s. The record is 2.8 seconds (from seated on floor, pull hard - explosive power - generating momentum for the climb using arms only). Rope climbing is coming back now in various countries, but its 15' for women. I worked the rings - even the flying rings before it was deleted. No country for women. I would do 15 consecutive muscle-ups as practice for that explosive power (dynamics, which I eventually introduced to rock climbing).
Very good call. I got my 'athletic start' with Rock Climbing. The explosive power there is absolutely immense (bouldering particularly). It has translated into Gymnastics, parkour and Jiu Jitsu very, very well and we essentially did rope climbs as warm ups for rock climbing when i was a kid :) Unsure of the length but my guess is 20' as it was a warehouse building.
tangentially, RC is now in the Olympics :) Very much hoping Adam Ondra doesn't drop the ball this time around.
Back on the topic, though, I just cannot see how its possibly fair to pit females who are at a considerable disadvantage, against males at a significant advantage, in any athletic sports beyond social/grassroots sports.
Quoting jgill
My mistake. It was 10, not 15. Don't know why I wrote that down. 5 in chin-up mode(palms facing body).
I watched women come into their own in climbing over the years here in the USA. In the 1950s only a few here and there who got up to 5.8 and 5.9, top of the (Sierra Decimal System) scale back then. Then as Title IX changed gymnastics from mostly men to mostly women, the fairer sex began to appear on hard climbs. They have done very well since. But still a notch or two below the top men.
(ask your internet AI source, "Who brought dynamic movement into climbing?". Curious what you might get) :cool:
If you mean the 'dyno', this originated most likely in California in the 70s where some of the newer boulders at the time required these dyno moves. In sport climbing, Patrick Edlinger is generally considered the originator of 'dynamic movement', though, through the 80s. DeepAI confirms this, for completeness ;)
Was there another inference you meant to ... infer?
Thanks. I was curious if AI varied from nation to nation or was international in scope.
I met John Long and John Bachar in the 1970s when they came to Colorado to visit me and explore the idea of dynamic movement on the rock. They were both in their early 20s I think. Long is probably the person who shortened dynamic move to dyno. He also created the Stonemasters, a Yosemite group of climbers. He went on to become a successful author of many articles and books, including the storyline for the movie Cliffhanger. Bachar became the foremost free soloer of his era - beautifully smooth to watch. He fell to his death some years back.
There are transsexual climbing groups now. Problems within the climbing community.
It is utterly insane to me that anyone takes seriously the concept of males crying victim because they're prevented from victimising females. I can't take it seriously. I just can't. Call me whatever you want. Its laughable that this is an issue.
Regarding men and women "competing" against each other, Lynn Hill succeeded in doing one of the world's greatest rock climbs when a number of men had tried and failed. Lynn had been a gymnast when younger, and moved from that sport to climbing. After her famous ascent of the Nose of El Cap in 1993 she and I talked over the phone and she said she was disappointed that she had taken a fall on the route. Perhaps at Changing Corners.
It took a while for a man to duplicate her feat.
I also note Angela Eiter as an exceptional contemporary female climber. Again, I am not knocking female climbers. But they are just plain and simple on different levels to males, and they know this. Female bouldering problems are notoriously easier than males in competition.
Quoting AmadeusD
A lot has changed in the climbing world over the years. In 1985 I was in England and was taken to one of the first climbing gyms, in Manchester, by Dennis Grey, I think. It was pretty barren. Now they are spectacular. And when I watched the Olympic Games I enjoyed the bouldering, both men and women, especially since parkour has been added. 65 years ago I thought bouldering had real prospects and would become popular, but not to the extent it has.
I admit, you are right about male vs female. But I still think high bar is a possibility. We'll see.