Bill To Ban Trans Athletes In Girl's/Women's Sports:

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Of course. Who indicated anything otherwise?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I meant average female athletes.

@eladar said
I am amazed at how ignorant people can be. They apparently believe that testosterone is the only advantage male bodies have over female bodies when it comes to athletic competition.

Transgender rights appears to be defined by all transgender people compete in the female category.

You calling anyone else ignorant is liable to get you a Nobel prize for irony.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I’m going to have to call you out on that one.
The difference, according to wiki (and they recite their sources, but since it’s a non-issue to me, I’m not going to study this any further) is whether the transitioning happens before or after male puberty.

And I hope to God that all transitioning happens after puberty. Because I oppose child mutulation of any kind.

Seems to me, that even after years of hormone therapy, etc. that the bone and muscle ratio of transwomen are still significantly greater than of ciswomen.

And that the findings from the rugby report undermine your position that the comparison should be made with cisfemale athletes only.

Here’s what it states:

There is ongoing debate over the impact of biological sex differences in humans on sports abilities. People who oppose transgender women competing in women's sports say that they are given an unfair advantage over cisgender women due to higher testosterone levels and skeletal, muscle and fat distribution differences. Testosterone regulates many different functions in the body, including the maintenance of bone and muscle mass.[23] It is also argued that athletes who transition to a woman after puberty will have a greater muscle-to-fat ratio compared to female athletes.[6] A September 2019 study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm found that a year of hormone therapy decreased muscle mass in transgender women only modestly.[24]

Even after 24 months of testosterone suppression, bone mass may be preserved over 12 years.[25] Further, no study has reported muscle loss greater than 12% with testosterones suppression even after three years of hormone therapy. Males have approximately 40% greater muscle mass than females, so even with testosterone suppression, transgender women athletes have a muscle mass advantage over females. This is evidenced by transgender women being in the top 10% of females regarding lean body mass and possessing a grip 25% stronger than most females.[25]

A 38-page draft document from World Rugby's transgender working group in 2020 acknowledged that cisgender female rugby players, when tackled by a player who has gone through male puberty, are at a significantly greater risk of injury.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports

@averagejoe1 said
Let me enlighten you about college money. Good football teams, say Alabama. garner HUGE contributions from alumni who are nuts about football. It is true that when teams falter, alumni contributions, grants, etc go down. We are talking millions and millions here.
So you decide, but if you get your way, then while money is given out by the college for students in academia, and not for athletes, those contributions will dwindle.

Blah blah blah try addressing my pints though

@kevcvs57 said
I’m not interested in most scholarships ALL scholarships should be given to the disadvantaged students who can make the best use of them not the ones who can kick a ball the furthest.
All scholarships should be based on the recipients academic abilities and their level of financial disadvantage. It’s not rocket science.

OK. See yuour post here. ALL scholarships should be given to (everyone who is deserving, but not to athletes).
I endeavored to tell you why that would be a bad idea. It has to do with money.