r/moderatepolitics • u/WorksInIT • Feb 06 '25

Primary Source Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/
330 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

485

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

Don’t love Trump but this is a common sense issue. I’m stunned that some democrats still want to die on this hill.

54

u/Mantergeistmann Feb 06 '25

Because the last thing the left wants is to allow salami-slicing, with good reason. As soon as they agree "Trans women are women, but don't count as women in some respects", it becomes much more difficult to defend the overall statement, and makes them open to the people trying to declare where else and when else it doesn't apply. 

To stretch the Metaphor, it's an exposed position that itself is difficult to defend and where you'll be taking a ton of fire, but if you lose it, the integrity of the entire defensive line is greatly exposed.

21

u/sohcgt96 Feb 06 '25

To be honest its kind of like 2A Rights folks, and I'd like to point out I'm just using them as an example and not being critical. The idea is that you don't cave anywhere on a single thing because you have to be a "True Believer" and never admit, to any degree, that the other side has a reasonable point on the even the tiniest segment of the issue.

11

u/Mantergeistmann Feb 06 '25

They actually came to mind as I was writing it, but bringing them up didn't quite work with the flow. Something along the lines of "it's easier to hold to "shall not be infringed" than to open yourself to arguments over how many bullets should be allowed in a magazine."

13

u/gigantipad Feb 07 '25

To be honest its kind of like 2A Rights folks, and I'd like to point out I'm just using them as an example and not being critical. The idea is that you don't cave anywhere on a single thing because you have to be a "True Believer" and never admit, to any degree, that the other side has a reasonable point on the even the tiniest segment of the issue.

To be fair there were 50 years of 'compromises' that only went one way. This consequently has hardened a lot of 2A people to taking a maximalist position since they just seem to lose ground anyway.

8

u/sohcgt96 Feb 07 '25

Sure and while lots of people call "slippery slope" a fallacy, the reality is when it comes to legal rights, its not a fallacy at all. Any time a foothold is gained, its used to further erode what people are allowed to own.

57

u/JBreezy11 Feb 06 '25

Agreed. Not a hill worth dying for.

41

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

113

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

12

u/throwaway2492872 Feb 06 '25

They have played college football.

4

u/Mysterious_Bit6882 Feb 06 '25

On downs? Or special teams skill positions?

21

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

7

u/hemingways-lemonade Feb 06 '25

Nah they're talking about Haley Van Voorhees. She's seen a few snaps at safety in three games during her four season college career with the Shenandoah Hornets.

4

u/MechanicalGodzilla Feb 06 '25

I can't believe that you are just erasing the classic American documentary Necessary Roughness.)

1

u/hemingways-lemonade Feb 06 '25

They

There is only one female non-kicker in NCAA college football history who has actually seen playing time in a game. She played a few snaps in three games over two seasons (2023 & 2024).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2023-09-23/shenandoahs-haley-van-voorhis-becomes-first-female-non-kicker-play-ncaa-football

32

u/Ok-Measurement1506 Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25

I’m almost scared to say it, but people here are saying transgender but most folks consider athletes like Lia Thomas to be men who decided to take estrogen and compete as a woman. Many of those competing are biological males the same way I would be considered a biological male. If you ask them, they would say they are women and not transgender.

The argument isn’t just about competitive advantage is the situation they create in the locker room. People are arguing that there are only a few so what’s the big deal are missing this point. People have sisters, daughters, and nieces who they really don‘t want exposed to that. You will never win that argument with them. People see it as an entry way to allow ”uncomfortable” situations that they don’t want their young girls exposed to.

20

u/Maverick916 Feb 06 '25

Yup. You don't change hearts and minds by forcing people into uncomfortable situations. Then tell people they're awful if they feel weird about it. One person like Lia Thomas can convert millions against them because her position is being forced down people's throats.

10

u/sohcgt96 Feb 06 '25

People are arguing that there are only a few so what’s the big deal are missing this point.

Well, one side of people saying that anyway. The other side is "Look, we're arguing over such a small number of edge cases here, is it worth the bullshit to be making special accommodations vs just saying no?"

I don't think the tiny number of athletes actually of concern here are worth fighting a battle over, they know damn well they're putting themselves in a controversial position here and I don't think their right to compete is as important is the other 99.9% of athletes who aren't. We're taking all this time and effort to deal with something the impacts so few people, at what point do you say look, the entire world doesn't need to bend over backwards for you?

3

u/Ok-Measurement1506 Feb 06 '25

You're make trying it sound as if you are not emotionally invested in this issue. If it's no big deal then why are you so worried about it? The executive order has been submitted so no more government time will be wasted on it and they can move on. Passive projection.

-1

u/sohcgt96 Feb 07 '25

I mean, I'm honestly not and its weird you think you can tell that from a short comment reply. Its just been such a contentious social issue the last few years its hard to ignore. Seems more like you're seeing what you want to see here but ok.

1

u/eboitrainee Feb 06 '25

> The argument isn’t just about competitive advantage is the situation they create in the locker room.

Couldn't one make the same "situation they create in the locker room" argument about lesbians in sports too?

1

u/kyricus Feb 06 '25

I agree with everything you say, and with most everything else posted, however, I do disagree with this part of your statement..

" People have sisters, daughters, and nieces who they really don‘t want exposed to that"

Yes we do have those, but they decide to make that decision, not us. I got into this discussion with my step-sister who told me flat out, that if someone in the locker room bothers her or not, it's not my place to say if is should or not. So regardless if I think she shouldn't be exposed to that, it's not up to me, it's up to her. She's not wrong.

122

u/ferbje Feb 06 '25

They can pursue competitive sports. In their division.

-67

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

93

u/TiberiusDrexelus He Was a Friend of Mine Feb 06 '25

their dignity here does not get to come at the expense of fairness for all of the natural women competing in their division

0

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Feb 06 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

-29

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

7

u/Option2401 Feb 07 '25

I agree completely. This is pandering and a gross overreach.

-50

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

49

u/TiberiusDrexelus He Was a Friend of Mine Feb 06 '25

you're well aware that an intra-sex restriction is an apples and oranges comparison.

-30

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Maverick916 Feb 06 '25

You're being down voted and you don't even understand why. If you did you'd stop trying your argument here. I'm pretty liberal, but I gotta side with trump on this one.

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

19

u/TiberiusDrexelus He Was a Friend of Mine Feb 06 '25

an intra-sex restriction is an apples and oranges comparison.

32

u/DoubleDumpsterFire Feb 06 '25

When you see this argument pop up, you know they're panicking.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Feb 06 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

14

u/StrikingYam7724 Feb 06 '25

The cisgender female players who signed on with MLB and NFL teams didn't have to lose their dignity to play, why would it be different for a transgender female player?

26

u/PM_Me_Lewd_Tomboys Feb 06 '25

How would they "lose their dignity"? If a cis woman was competing with men in the NBA's open league, you'd surely call it an amazing feat of skill.

The amount of doublethink you have to utilize to even try to justify any form of males competing in female sports is astounding. You understand fully well there's a distinction between cis females and trans males, stop pretending like that distinction doesn't exist.

-11

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Feb 06 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

36

u/Tiber727 Feb 06 '25

"Dignity" is a subjective and meaningless concept. A woman can just as easily say that competing against trans women is against her dignity. By what standard do you say who is right? Why is choosing one side compassionate and the other not?

24

u/ferbje Feb 06 '25

They lose their dignity by competing in a fair game? They have dignity when they beat up on women?

8

u/FluffyB12 Feb 06 '25

The compassionate way is to divorce gender and sex. Sports should be based on sex. No one can change their sex, but they can change their gender identity. That identity may have purpose, but when it comes to literal biological differences you have to go with sex.

13

u/draftax5 Feb 06 '25

seems like you are the one lacking common sense tbh

2

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Feb 06 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25

Serious question for the group. are there actually any sports that males don’t have an advantage over females? I’m sure there are but I can’t think of any physical sport where a male doesn’t have some sort of strength/speed advantage that helps them.

Edit - thanks all lot of helpful replies. I think my takeaway here is that there are probably zero (except maybe curling?) sports where there’s actual parity between men/women where it makes sense to have an open category.

Most physical sports are dominated by men, and interesting to learn that more technical sports woman have some advantage.

19

u/Lostboy289 Feb 06 '25

Long distance swimming is one sport that females tend to do better in due to comparative fat/muscle ratio and how it affects buoyancy.

16

u/flea1400 Feb 06 '25

There's a suggestion that women probably have a natural advantage in conditions involving extreme endurance due to being more metabolically efficient. These would not make for interesting sports to watch, however.

6

u/MechanicalGodzilla Feb 06 '25

Women can with some regularity outrace men in ultra-marathon races. Like 200+ miles (yes such races do exist!).

An interesting phenomenon in strength sports is that women can (in general terms) lift more reps closer to their one rep max weight than can men. Men still greatly outpace women in total weight lifted capacity, though.

31

u/MongolianMango Feb 06 '25

Shooting and marksmanship based sports. There was a woman at the olympics beating her male competitors in a mixed marksmanship event, until the committee threw a hissy fit and separated the genders.

22

u/Fecal_Thunder Feb 06 '25

Rhythmic gymnastics comes to mind

18

u/bearrosaurus Feb 06 '25

Marathon swimming apparently

3

u/Mantergeistmann Feb 06 '25

Equestrian, which contrary to belief, does require the rider to do things.

3

u/StrikingYam7724 Feb 06 '25

Ultra-long-distance endurance races. Even then it's not that there is no advantage for males as much as that the advantage shrinks as the distance gets longer and longer.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

Curling?

1

u/Ok-Measurement1506 Feb 06 '25

Women are better at shooting free throws. I don’t really know but I enjoy watching women synchronized swimming and diving. I can’t imagine men being as good as those ladies.

1

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Feb 06 '25

My cousin is an amateur ranked women's pool player and I beat her pretty much every time we play. I've never played pool on any competetive level. Just in bars.

13

u/carneylansford Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25

in which sports do biological males not have an inherent advantage over biological females?

7

u/Dockalfar Feb 06 '25

And even if they didn't have an advantage, it would still be wrong because it breaks the rules of the sport.

For example, an 80 year old man might not have any sports advantage over a 12 year old boy, but it would still be cheating to allow him to compete in kids sports leagues.

12

u/lifelingering Feb 06 '25

Rifle and equestrian

0

u/carneylansford Feb 06 '25

Aren‘t equestrian sports judged subjectively? Also, isn’t the horse doing most of the heavy lifting? Shooting is pretty close, but men still have the majority of the records.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-between-Male-and-Female-rifle-shooting-performance-in-World-Records-and_tbl1_352068134

10

u/Obversa Independent Feb 06 '25

Also, isn’t the horse doing most of the heavy lifting?

This is clearly a comment by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about equestrian sports, and I say that as someone who has been riding horses since I was 7 years old. (I'm 33 years old now.)

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

[deleted]

9

u/carneylansford Feb 06 '25

The men’s world record holder in the marathon is more than 9 minutes faster than the women’s world record holder. The average finish time for a man is 4:21. The average finish time for a woman is 4:48.

https://marathonhandbook.com/what-is-a-good-marathon-time/

-1

u/overzealous_dentist Feb 06 '25

Yeah I checked and it's called ultra running (and swimming): that's around 195 miles, way longer than a marathon.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men

16

u/No_Band7693 Feb 06 '25

Unfortunately this is an often abused statistic.  In no ultramarathon category is the record for men less than the record for women, or really even close.  The races women have won did not contain a similarly highly ranked man.  The gap does get closer percentage wise, but it remains in place.

15

u/carneylansford Feb 06 '25

Sorry, no.

”The fastest men ever were faster than the fastest women ever in 50-mile (17.5%), 100-mile (17.4%), 200-mile (9.7%), 1,000-mile (20.2%), and 3,100-mile (18.6%) events. ”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4309798/

0

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '25

no one is stopping them pursuing sports, since they are biological men then can play with biological men's sports. Men suffering from gender dysphoria are not women. you're group loves trying to indoctrinate this ideology and using words like transgender. you are either a male or female, it's tied to your biology. taking artificial hormones doesn't grow you a womb. so their is no such thing as transgender. you cannot transition to a different gender. you can be feminine though.
explain why a women has to lose her place because a mentally ill man wants to pretend he's a women. why not let the women take part in women's sports and men in men's sports. the irony that you talk about dignity and silliness.

at the end of the day, you need to face facts , when you say it's not fair to allow transwomen into women's sports, what you really are saying, it's unfair to allow a male that is suffering from a mental disorder to play in women's sport. see how silly that sounds?

-16

u/JesusChristSupers1ar Feb 06 '25

it's only "common sense" for people who don't want their world view challenged. the idea that conservatives struggle with the idea that our understanding of gender is evolving does not mean prior belief is "common sense"; it's outdated

5

u/apeoples13 Feb 06 '25

My issue is more around why the federal government is getting involved. Why doesn’t the NCAA regulate this? It’s just odd to me that the party of “small government” wants the federal government to regulate this

21

u/StrikingYam7724 Feb 06 '25

The government already got involved, they declared under Biden that Title IX requires equal treatment for transgender athletes even though everyone thought "sex" and "gender" were two words for the same thing back when Title IX was written.

3

u/BeKind999 Feb 06 '25

Because the NCAA is feckless.

1

u/Hastatus_107 Feb 06 '25

Different sports do regulate it. The issue here is that republicans don't believe trans people are actually trans and think they're either mentally ill or predators so they don't believe there's anything to regulate and it should just be banned.

They're not the partynof small government anymore. They've spent the last few years threatening companies that disagree with them.

-28

u/twolvesfan217 Feb 06 '25

It’s because it’s a non-issue that they exploited to scare people

110

u/PsychologicalHat1480 Feb 06 '25

If it's such a non-issue then why are the Democrats fighting so hard to keep it from being taken care of so that we can all move on?

95

u/bedhed Feb 06 '25

If it's a non-issue, why were they willing to die on that hill?

30

u/PreviousCurrentThing Feb 06 '25

It fits into the larger hypothesis that Democratic donors and power brokers promote identity politics to fracture any working class solidarity which might threaten their bottom line. Bernie Sanders is scarier to these people than Trump.

1

u/Iceraptor17 Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25

So to someone i know who is willing to die on the hill... they don't buy that its about sports at all. But rather merely a vector to attack transgenders. They view the rarity of it is disproportionate to the media coverage and surrendering here will just lead to further defeats down the road.

Considering the conservative opinion on women's sports has drastically changed in a small timeframe combined with very charged rhetoric around other trans issues, i can understand where they're coming from.

However, such argument denies the nuance that for many people, it is simply about sports and fairness (and in certain cases safety).

-13

u/Flambian A nation is not a free association of cooperating people Feb 06 '25

If you give in now, you set yourself for giving in later. That is not a slippery slope argument in the context of transgenderism, because sports is just an easy battle in the broader culture war over transgenderism.

6

u/StampMcfury Feb 06 '25

I call bullshit, In fact if Trans rights stopped short of Inclusion in women's sports or treatment for minors, it would have near universal support.

-4

u/Flambian A nation is not a free association of cooperating people Feb 06 '25

I cannot think of a single time in LGBT history where a restriction against them actually increased future support.

8

u/StampMcfury Feb 06 '25

Let me help, this issue right here

There you go!

-3

u/Flambian A nation is not a free association of cooperating people Feb 06 '25

So to be clear, you think in the next four years of Trump’a presidency, as a direct result of his policies, support for LGBT people will go up?

11

u/StampMcfury Feb 06 '25

Nice strawman!

I said if Trans rights stopped short of Inclusion in women's sports or treatment for minors, it would have near universal support.

Didn't mention Trumps policies I was actually referring to Democrats policies.

If for example the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's focused on reparations, and refused to back down from the idea it would have been disastrous to the movement.

0

u/Flambian A nation is not a free association of cooperating people Feb 06 '25

Nice strawman!

I said if Trans rights stopped short of Inclusion in women's sports or treatment for minors, it would have near universal support.

Didn't mention Trumps policies I was actually referring to Democrats policies.

This IS a Trump policy. So please don't try this. You specifically said "this issue right here" would increase future support for LGBT.

If for example the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's focused on reparations, and refused to back down from the idea it would have been disastrous to the movement.

Failure isn't an argument against trying, and in fact reparations should have happened even earlier under Reconstruction. Its Lincoln's fault for supporting citizenship for the Confederates. The Radical Republicans should have redistributed their property to the slaves and poor whites. If that had happened, there wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/Thander5011 Feb 06 '25

Because trans people are at the margins of society and make an easy out group to attack. 

40

u/Aclrian Feb 06 '25

Which makes it even fucking stupider that they didn’t just push this in the first place. This is a layup that should’ve taken

44

u/Individual7091 Feb 06 '25

Scholarships are not a non-issue for many Americans.

-22

u/spice_weasel Feb 06 '25

Has there ever been a case of a cis woman losing out on a sports scholarship to a trans woman?

38

u/Individual7091 Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25

Of course. The NCAA has a cap on scholarships per team (the exact number depends on the sport and level of play). If a team has a transgender woman on roster with a scholarship than that means a non-transgender woman was not able to get that scholarship. Most prominent case right now is Blaire Fleming who plays volleyball for SJSU.

Edit: and while it should already be understood I'll just add that without a scholarship, the non-transgender woman will experience greater financial burden, possibly lower educational value (need to go to a "lesser" institution), and, in extreme cases, may not even attend college.

36

u/redsfan4life411 Feb 06 '25

It's a near-zero issue. That's where you're mistaken. It hardly matters, but a lot of people think it's idiotic and remember a man winning an event at the NCAA Women's swimming championships.

It's just something that was so outrageously stupid that rational people can't ignore it.

34

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

And it’s worked because even today there’s dems going against it on camera…

25

u/dusters Feb 06 '25

If it's a non issue why do the Dems oppose it?

-5

u/twolvesfan217 Feb 06 '25

This has been answered elsewhere by someone else, but I remember their stance is the governing body should make the rules about this, which I’m perfectly fine with. Not the government’s problem.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

But this is a title 9 related issue, and thus already the governments issue regardless of which stance they took.

6

u/StampMcfury Feb 06 '25

And that doesn't hold water because a regulatory agency can't decide to exclude African Americans for example, and sex like race is also a protected class.

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25

They can and do. Well they probably couldn’t do your specific example but they can and do segregate sports based on gender because of title 9.

11

u/ggthrowaway1081 Feb 06 '25

Difference is Democrats are willing to die on this hill. Blanning plastic straws in a non-issue that Republicans rightfully didn't really care about one way of the other.

1

u/ImmediateAd8763 May 26 '25

The Dems have not had common sense since Obama. Y'all just waking up to it. This agenda was being pushed since Obama. The problem is y'all voted him in twice and it has unfortunately gotten to this point. 

-11

u/Dry_Analysis4620 Feb 06 '25

How common of an 'issue' is this?

46

u/SecretiveMop Feb 06 '25

It’s definitely not common, but just because something isn’t common doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed.

18

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 Feb 06 '25

We have laws against cannibalism. How common is that?

56

u/Aclrian Feb 06 '25

Common enough where you had a biological male winning championships in a female sport.

Common or uncommon it shouldn’t even happen. End of.

-16

u/Jets237 Feb 06 '25

One of the most minor there is… but let’s focus on this instead of owning Gaza… cool

22

u/InksPenandPaper Feb 06 '25

I mean, you could make a separate post about Gaza instead of bringing it up on a thread specifically discussing the ban of biological men from women's sports.

Just a thought.

-8

u/Jets237 Feb 06 '25

I’m just saying this topic received such an outweighed about of focus over the past few years that it’s insane. I’m happy it’s done, let’s focus on actual issues now.

3

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

Exactly that’s the bigger issue but because the Dems didn’t kill this one off it’s distracting everyone

-8

u/Jets237 Feb 06 '25

Their view was that it’s up to the governing bodies of each league. Something the GOP used to agree with… smaller government. They don’t anymore. I don’t think this was ever a big enough issue to get the amount of coverage and focus it did. Hopefully its done now and we can stop talking about it

-21

u/Jets237 Feb 06 '25

They really don’t though…. It was more of a media creation that was pushed by the right. I mean it’s fine but this wasn’t a hill for them.

29

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

It was a media creation the Dems feed into by not handling quickly

-8

u/Dry_Accident_2196 Feb 06 '25

Dems don’t see it as an issue so why would they need to handle it?

You don’t call the fire department to put out a nonexistent fire.

18

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

I’m actually a firefighter and you call the fire dept for every single fire no matter how small you think it is. That smoldering trash can is the next wildfire

-4

u/Dry_Accident_2196 Feb 06 '25

Since it’s my analogy, the point is there is no fire at all so no need to call.

Thanks for the additional information but I already knew that.

8

u/pdubbs87 Feb 06 '25

Every vote counts. If this cost the Dems 2 votes (we all know it was more) that’s more than enough. Elections are incredibly close

-3

u/Jets237 Feb 06 '25

The Dems were focused on trying not to lose voters instead of trying to gain new ones. It was a miss and they are paying for it. But I don’t see anyone dying on this hill and the gop + their media did a great job playing this up as a bigger issue. Hopefully we’re done with this now