even if you could theoretically tell a story that sounds somehow “unfair” depending on your storytelling skills.

Yeah, they sure do love pulling the Riley Gaines card even though she came in fifth, making it a total nonsequitur.

And I totally agree that this debate is too big considering it only targets a tiny handful of athletes. I say it’s complicated because some arguments used feel, circumstantial? As in, “Trans women should play with women because there’s only a couple of them anyway?” Would acceptance of that argument lead to tokenism? BWhat if, for whatever reason, a sports team happened to take on a lot of trans woman? I think that would be okay, but I worry it would dredge the debate up all over again.

Or, people often say, “Trans women should be allowed to play with women because they rarely win anyway.” But what if a trans woman ends up on a winning streak and then another controversy erupts? I feel uncomfortable that our condition for entry is framed as our failure to win, and that if we win, then by implication we get othered as opposed to just being a woman who won a sports game one time. This recently happened, actually. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ca-school-sports-authority-panders

This is to say, I’m just thinking aboug how we come to a supporting argument that ages with grace? And what argument should that be? Not that I think any pro-trans argument would satisfy some people, with it being the wedge issue that makes TERFS out of people originally left of center. I guess I don’t know the answer at this point.

deleted by creator

It’s a complex issue for sure, but I’m really proud of this thread for consistently using the term “trans women” when talking about the differences between trans women compared to cis women and cis men in sports.

On Reddit, most people on this debate just say “biological males,” “males,” or “men” in situations where they’re clearly talking about trans women, which is a clear tell that it was never about fairness in sports for them.

deleted by creator