You are in the vast majority on this. Until such time as a transgender woman isn’t competitive, the presumption will remain that her participation is unfair.
Did anyone notice that Lia wasn’t the only transgender athlete in the 100 finals yesterday? The 5th place finisher is transitioning to be a man and uses he/him pronouns. Lia was 8th.
But no hormone treatments for that competitor. That’s why he was allowed to compete. Testosterone is still at biological female levels.
Yes. And to me this demonstrates that it is not anti-trans sentiment that was driving the push for new rules. Nobody was protesting Iszac Henig because he did not have an unfair advantage; he had to go through estrogen-dominant puberty (5 inches of height stunting, 5 inches of loss to wingspan, smaller hands and feet, permanently smaller lungs and shoulders) like all the other competitors in his race.
She does still compete in those events. She still competes in the 500, and she still competes regularly in the 1650. In fact, it was her performance earlier this season in the 1650 that was used to drum up much of the fervor against her competing, as well as hatred and disgust directed toward her and the transgender community.
Misleading press reports in conservative media outlets across the globe sparked outrage and bigoted anti-transgender backlash when they reported that at one meet, Ms. Thomas won the 1650 free by 38 seconds over a teammate, as if a 38 second victory in a 15+ minute race at a regular season meet was worthy of global attention. The margin of victory was used to create the perception that she had an insurmountable unfair advantage and would forever rewrite the record books, crushing the souls of the poor swimmers she left in her wake. If you don’t believe me review the comments earlier in this thread.
The reality is that Ms. Thomas wasn’t even among the very best collegiate female 1650 swimmers. This was one race against against a relatively weak field, and such margins of victory are not unheard of in 15+ minute races. But of course that was lost in the outrage.
As for the NCAA Championship, Ms. Thomas qualified for both the 100 free and the 1650 free and ultimately chose to swim the 100 free over the 1650 free at the NCAA finals. (Swimmer often face such choices.) But the reality is that she wasn’t among the very best female swimmers at either distance. Thus her 8th place finish in the 100.
Yes, context is important. And when one looks at the larger context one can see that her statistics are been cherry-picked to create a false impression about Ms. Thomas both before and after her transition.
For example, looking at the overall context, she was not a “mediocre” swimmer who “cracked the top 500 NCAA for men in only 1 event” like you claimed she was. Both of these claims are extremely misleading, and while I guess the former could be viewed as opinion, the latter claim is outright false.
Likewise, the claims of her dominance after transition have also been greatly exaggerated to create a false impression of her dominance. She broke no collegiate or national records that will never be matched. She won a single event in the college championships and was an also-ran in two others. In some of her events she doesn’t rank much higher than she did prior to transitioning.
As for the rest, your puberty numbers (five inches in height?) are wholly irrelevant on an individual level.
To me, thinking back to the way the controversy as been covered by the conservative media (and to all the posts that the moderators have had to delete or modify here), it seems more than a stretch to deny that there is a strong “anti-trans sentiment” underlying much of this discussion. That doesn’t apply to everyone, but it does apply.
Also, it seems to me that there is a more subtle and subconscious “bias” (for lack of a better term) that is evidenced by the way even well-meaning individuals have understood and portrayed this controversy. For example, look at how the facts have been distorted and misunderstood to create false impressions about Ms. Thomas before and after her transition.
I stand corrected on my claim that she was ranked higher than 500 NCAA for only one event. The correct statement should have been that her overall ranking was #462 among men and went to #1 among women(this is not taken from right-wing media but rather from the letter that 16 of her teammates signed saying she had an unfair advantage, as reported by CNN.) I still stand by my assertion that she was mediocre prior to transition. I wonder why you feel my use of the term is “misleading” ? You yourself called her “an also-ran” due to coming in 5th and 8th in the women’s 200 and 100 free NCAA championship. Seems like a double standard to me. (by the way, I think I replied to the wrong person here, sorry.)
It was misleading because it was based on and justified by false information. You wouldn’t have to keep altering your justification if the original claim wasn’t misleading.
Provided to offer un biased (I don’t think of “Swimming World” as political) summary of Ms. Thomas’s historic times Pre nationals.
The only article I read about Lia was the one she participated in published by SI. That article states she is a top national swimmer now and she wasn’t before.
It made no mention of her swimming the 200 or 100, so I may have mistakenly inferred she didn’t swim those races.
I did?
Oops saw your note. My apologies.
Bias doesn’t always mean bigotry, and it doesn’t always line up neatly with a certain political position (although even apolitical bias may be exploited by political propagandists.) Sometimes bias just means interpreting the world with a conscious or subconscious predisposition to favor a desired outcome. And when the only facts considered all tend to support one side of the argument and all the facts ignored tend to support the opposite side of the argument, then that is strong evidence of bias.
While Swimming World may not be a political magazine, its Editor-in-Chief John Lohn (the author of the article you posted) is strongly predisposed to banning Lia Thomas and all other transgender female swimmers. He has been one of the most outspoken advocates on the issue and has been actively campaigning all season to ban her during the season, despite the clear rules allowing her to compete (all the while trying to sell his new book.) To this end, Mr. Lohn has repeatedly underplayed her abilities before transition and exaggerated her dominance since transition in order to make is “unfairness” case. That to me is bias.
For example, he has repeatedly referred to her early season times in the 200, 500, and 1650 as “phenomenal” (IMO a drastic overstatement) and argued that immediate action was necessary to stop her, predicting that if she was not banned she would break American records set by all time greats in the 200, 500, and 1650. In reality, she wasn’t even the top swimmer in all these events. She didn’t even compete in the 1650 at NCCA’s because her times (which Lohn had called “phenomenal”) made it clear she had no chance! She won the 500 and took 5th in the 200, 8th in the 100, and didn’t even come close (in swimming terms) to any American records.
Likewise, the article you linked is hardly an unbiased summary of her past results. It is an incomplete list of carefully selected facts meant to support his case. No mention is made that as sophomore competing in the mens division, she was the second best swimmer in the Ivy League in her three main events. No mention that she qualified for the NCAA’s in two events. No mention that, while she wasn’t at the top of the rankings for the nation, her rankings were solid in her events. No mention that some of her rankings aren’t too far out of whack with her current rankings. Surely these things are relevant if we are to understand whether she was truly a “competitive male swimmer.”
But instead of including these relevant facts in his “summary,” he tries to making his case by reference to her “mid-500 ranking” as a “competitive men’s swimmer” without any mention that he had cherry-picked a distance that wasn’t even her focus at the time, and ignored the distances in which she actually competed. To put it in perspective, it is like discounting the ability of a middle distance runner by comparing her 200 meter time to top sprinters.
I would agree as I have seen this exemplified by both sides throughout this entire thread particularly amongst those most passionate and polarized.
Sometimes numbers are just numbers and facts are just facts and the person referencing them is trying to come to terms with an issue they are personally conflicted about. I will side on giving people the benefit of the doubt in the hope of finding a solution that is fair to all. Oddly I wouldn’t have thought that a controversial stance but I suspect for some it will be.
I keep saying I won’t post on this thread anymore, and I keep posting on this thread given the remarkable circularity.
Is there ANYONE that can make a credible claim that Lia violated any currently existing rule in winning the NCAA championship for the women’s 500-yard freestyle?
If not, I would strongly suggest raising your issues with the NCAA or the Ivy League to make changes going forward. You can post all you want in CC and other sites, but it’s not going to make a bit of difference as to what’s being posted on this thread.
As I said, is there anyone here who can say that Lia did not win her championship under the existing rules? I would LOVE to hear from you.
Thanks.
Why are you directing this towards me?
Nope. Not at you or at anyone.
It’s to everyone, myself included.
If "finding a solution that is fair to all” involves allowing transgender females such as Ms. Thomas to compete as women under any circumstance, then I am afraid that many here and elsewhere want no part of that solution.
No one is claiming Thomas won illegally. Not sure why you’re stuck on that point. The issue isn’t whether or not Thomas broke the rules. She wouldn’t have been competing if she didn’t qualify under the rules. The issue is whether the rules were/are appropriate and fair.
At least partially in response to all the negative press coverage of Thomas, the NCAA changed their transgender rules mid-season, kicking actual rule making to the governing sports body, and then the NCAA decided to not bother applying the newly promulgated rules to this season. Sounds about right for the NCAA….give the impression you’re trying to do something but since the underlying motivation was to get the bad press spotlight off them (which it didn’t) it just made them look like indecisive idiots when they decided not to use the new rules. Maybe they hoped it would take US Swimming longer to figure it out.
Most of the discussion has centered around whether it’s fair to allow transgender women to compete against biological women. And the from what I’ve read is suggest the majority consensus in the country is no. Consequently there’s going to be a lot of backlash against Thomas because that same majority is irate that the rules weren’t dealt with sooner. This isn’t a new problem but the governing sports bodies, of which there are many, have been consistently reactionary rather than proactive in addressing it.
That is a wholly different question, and thanks much for agreeing that Lia won fairly and squarely based on the existing rules.
I am not highlighting ANYTHING except your agreement that Lia won. I am not stuck on any other point.
If someone wants to make change, go to the NCAA and advocate for that. What else is there to argue as it relates to Lia’s 2022 NCAA championship (Go Quakers!)?
That’s my basic point.
Based on a small sample (comments I see on social media), I think that she did the transgender movement a disservice. People that had a laisser-faire accepting attitude before now wonder where all this is going.
I have no ties to competitive swimming and I wonder why she chose to compete. She already had 4 years of collegiate swimming and used a covid-rule to come back for a fith year. What is she getting out of this? Is she getting a financial reward? Is she getting satisfaction of beating the girls? As far as I understood, she won’t be able to compete in Olympic trials or turn pro as the rules are different.
Because that hasn’t been the primary subject of this thread. There are people who aren’t happy with the rules and therefore are not happy with the outcome under those rules.
Why are you arguing on CC? Feel free to do so, as it’s not my website. I’m not going to tell you what to say.
But, as I mentioned, raising your issues with the Ivy League and/or the NCAA might be better?
But most of all, it’s great to celebrate an NCAA national championship at an Ivy! Glad we agree that Lia is indeed a champion.