Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Transgender tennis

As I've remarked before, one of the things I appreciate about the transgender movement is its chaotic potential to destroy liberal ideology from within. For instance, what happens when second-tier male tennis players who aren't good enough to win major championships decide to play the transgender card and invade the women's tennis circuit? What happens when they "discover" their inner womanhood and take over women's tennis? A man who isn't quite good enough to beat the very best male tennis players may well be good enough to beat the all the top female tennis players. 

And that's just one sport. That's just for starters. 

Who can stop them? What's the argument? 


  1. What's to stop them from simply opening up new categories? They'll separate out the "transgendered women" from the "natural women" or something like that. A separate question might be, "how many transgendered women tennis players will there be?" and "Are there enough transgendered women tennis professionals to open a new category?" But there are really seems to be no downward limit on stupidity.

    1. They could, but I don't think the transgendered view themselves as a third category. Rather, they still operate with binary categories of male and female. It's just that if you're physiologically male, but psychologically female (or vice versa), then you're *really* female–genetics and physiology notwithstanding.

    2. Steve, I google'd "transgender sports policy" and came up with this from ESPN:

      The NCAA says athletes who have testosterone in their systems from medical treatment will not be allowed to compete against women's teams in gender-specific sports at NCAA championships. They will be allowed, however, to compete against men.

      The exception is if a male is transitioning to being a female. The athlete would then have to provide documentation showing they had testosterone suppression treatment for one calendar year. The athlete would then have to continue to document the medical treatment each successive year to remain eligible for a women's team in postseason play.

      The NCAA says individual schools can continue to make their own decisions about eligibility during regular-season play.

      So as you say, they're not coming up with a third category. But they are adding more regulations and more paperwork. (And of course, the admission, "women can't compete with testosterone".

      You can also still see questions coming up "during regular-season play".

    3. I'm sure that officials will try to draw lines and hold the line as best they can. However, transgender logic is all-or-nothing. To make any accommodations is to concede the principle. They can't be consistent short of wholesale capitulation. Moreover, their policies must comply with nondiscrimination laws.

      The transgender movement is a wedge issue. In that respect it's unintentionally useful, because it has the potential to alienate so many voters.

  2. Don't worry. Most sports governing bodies have policies already in place. Just google "transgender sports policy" to find out.

    1. This is above and beyond "policies."

      Besides, it's not as if policies are set in stone.

    2. So if a male tennis player decides to self-identify as a woman, he can join the WTA tour. And if he beats Serena Williams, he will be acknowledged as the #1 ranked champion in women's singles tennis. Is that what you're saying, Jon.

    3. "Don't worry. Most sports governing bodies have policies already in place. Just google "transgender sports policy" to find out."

      Are you saying those policies aren't discriminatory?

  3. LOL. Issue identified and addressed. Liberal ideology was not destroy. Move on

  4. Since gender is now completely fluid, why can't other factors be treated the same way?

    For example, why can't a person select an AGE other than the one given them by accident of birth? Plenty of 15-year-olds would rather be 21-year-olds so that they can purchase certain items. Maybe they are actually 21 in their hearts and should be treated that way.
    Why can't a person select a RACE other than the one given to them by birth? I might be "psychologically" Native American and therefore deserve my fair share of the gambling profits, right? Or perhaps I am "inwardly" African American and have a right to Affirmative Action.
    For that matter, why can't a person select a BIRTHPLACE of their own choosing? Some would certainly prefer Honolulu to, say, Kenya or Indonesia. Everyone's birth certificates should be subject to edit. Perhaps Mars or Alpha Centauri could be listed, as long as the person knows in their heart that they were born there.
    Why can't a person select an INTELLIGENCE LEVEL other than the one they were born with? He may be as dumb as a rock, but he should still be able to be an accountant, regardless of his inability to comprehend the simplest math. He truly believes he is a genius, and has always felt that way for as long as he can remember. Why force him to deny what he "knows" to be true about himself?
    Why can't I select my own set of TALENTS? From now on, I am more inventive than Leonardo Da Vinci and a better painter than Picasso. Awesome.
    Come to think of it, why can't we select our own PARENTS??? She can claim Donald Trump as her Daddy and Oprah as her Mommy and get some sweet child support, right?

    At what point does all of this gender bending become a matter of fraud, deception and insanity, just as these other issues would be? Liberals seem to actually believe that it would be "dishonest" for some people not to change their gender identity. What could be more ironic?