It’s not that I’m defending it. I’m showing you why they have it setup the way they have it.
I believe you said you’d rather throw out the baby and the bath water so basically keep SS only dealing with “minors”. Which I’m 90% agreement with you, but the adults who actually go through “emotional abuse” from coaches do actually deserve to be cared for as well. So then it gets into a slippery slope of “everything” is essentially covered now.
And no I don’t give 2 fucks to go opposite with you. I’ve learned long ago you have basically zeror respect for me or my coaching knowledge. I’m more in the camp of ignoring most of your posts these days.
But you made a point that I think needed clarification. If SS was only for minors, cases like Mary Cain would basically never have a chance to be protected. And so the real life downside to that is that false allegations can mostly certainly come into play (as evident by 2 coaching friends of mine going through this in the past 18 months). And yes those false allegations have real consequences to them as well. But I don’t think that means you throw it all out, athletes of any age still deserve protection. And again- while at times it’s “guilty until innocent” as you say, the good thing is that there is a real fair process that is involved. You are not autiomatically guilty, you are only guilty if the investigation finds you guilty. So in that aspect that’s probaly the fairest / best process you can ask for all parties.
at the end there would be one easy solution to make it easier.
who pays the coach. ie if the athlete pays the coach there cant really be abuse of power lets say above the age of 21.
very very different if the coach is payed by a federation the athelte is part of
or the coach is employed by the same sponsor as the athelte .
so it would not be to hard to make this clearer since you 90 percent agree with each other lol
Its a great idea, and one can always test it with reasonableness. In your extreme example, it could be who pays the most towards the coaching that sets the parameters…It’s just that something needs to be done, I would not coach under these conditions, just too scary.
That was me. Brooks is right (I think), I dug deeper - I just went through a re-cert too - the name is only added to the SS database once there has been a resolution issued. Being not guilty or innocent in a court of law does not necessarily mean you can’t be issued a SS resolution, but you can appeal it and if you win your name would be removed. SS can issue a resolution if they believe there is evidence an SS violation has occurred. It does appear they are doing a pretty good job at not erroneously getting people on the list, as trying to find names that have been removed is difficult.
So the easiest solution is to protect the athlete which is how the current rules are written. That way ALL athletes are protected in positions of power imbalance. What we are all basically agreeing mostly is that “safesport” is *mostly geared toward protecting minors v adults. And thus we are showing sorta the downside to adult v adult, but adult athletes have as much right to protection as kids do in these type of coach v athlete relationship. Which is why you basically as a coach have to CYA these days, but again to the point of being falsely accused. If you CYA yes it 100% sucks to be falsely accused and to go through all of that and have to be marked that way…but if your innocent, the process is pretty fair to all parties. Your not automatically guilty regardless of who is accusing you (minor or adult). Again it’s stressful as hell but you can win your name back so to speak which was sorta my point of the whole your name being removed.
And again within triathlon, because triathlon coaching is so “independent” that unless you basically are only coaching federation athletes, you have the opportunity to fight the charges and still coach. Again the biggest scum coach in triathlon ever was GUILTY and yet he still coaches in the sport for what 30 years post incident now. So it’s not an automatic career ender if you are falsely accused…It’s why you have to live by CYA at this point as a coach.
It’s also why I hate having conversations like this in a public forum with people who are posting anonymously while others aren’t. The public people can be so much more easily judged on their thoughts and views, while others can just sit back and no one knows who the hell that person really is.
By 2027 the IOC will have changed its policy on eligibility to compete in the female category to align with that adopted by World Athletics, FINA and UCI, et al. World Tri needs to recognise that its outlying (or going to be outlying) policy needs to get there. This revise (just published) lacked courage and vision.
What will be the IOC policy by 2027 and how does WT’s differ? I thought this new ruling basically puts the women’s category as biological women only which isn’t that what most sports are “correcting” to? (and/or creating higher “standards” to transition from 1 category to the next)
Lacked courage? I think it is the opposite, to champion for the biological women’s category in today’s climate…that takes a hell of a lot more courage. Just look at how many people view this as a anti inclusive move for transgender movement, who’s group seemingly a lot of people are wanting to champion for even at the beset of biological woman’s specific rights.
You keep saying this but over in the Lavender Room which has been called a “left wing circle jerk” more than once, it seems like nearly no one thinks transgender women should be allowed to compete with females. About the strongest argument you can find is that if it can be shown that a transgender woman’s male hormones and performance have decreased, suggesting she has no advantage, then she should be allowed. But even then, most poeple think she would still have some advantage and shouldn’t be allowed.
Huh? How many people in this very TG discussion say they should be able to compete in the category of their own choosing? Tons of people feel that way, even though yes they acknowledge that it’s “unfair” and the right rule to make it biological only.
Lol I’ve been “hated” on because I think it’s ok to be “non inclusive” and pro biological only within SPORT. It’s as if you have to suddenly be one or the other, and that’s what pisses me the most about conversations like this. If anyone is happy for biological women it’s suddenly your a “hater” for TG movement.
I didn’t say anything about everyone. It just seems to me that a pretty large majority of people don’t think trangender females should be able to compete in women’s categories, especially if anything meaningful is on the line.
Yes and then in the next setence they’ll also say this is being non-inclusive. Do we have to go back in history to actually see what actual non-inclusivity actually means. You the end user now just don’t get to choose what category you race in, that’s not automatically non-inclusive just because you say it is. Every person has an equal chance to race in this sport. And again it seems most people accept that the rule is correct, they just don’t then like what about the rule? That it doesn’t allow the end user to decide? It seems to me they actually went level 1 basics with the new rule. It’s no longer are you or aren’t you a gender (that end user gets to decide their gender). It’s more or less a science decision within said gender. It sorta takes out any “decision” for all parties, so it’s then sorta irrlevant of what the end user wants to be.
It’s also correct to not allow mTf to compete against females.
Not all instances of non inclusive and discrimination are technically wrong. It’s only recently that this idea of “discerning a distinction” between categories, ie discrimination, is a negative.
Unjust discrimination is not the same as discrimination although it’s become shorthand for the same. Again this goes back to my suggestion that calling the male category “open” does eventually change the way we view language. The word discriminating was not always and entirely negative, but now that’s the way we perceive the word. “He can’t discriminate between right and wrong” or “she has discriminating taste” etc were once very common expressions. If all boys everywhere start competing in the open category we are taking some kind of steps into erasing manhood, whatever that future looks like, and it’s different than what we have grown up with.
Regarding the earlier suggestion that IOC is going to get to World Athletics rules and triathlon ought to get there too, I agree they should have gotten there from the outset. The issue, which I understand but still disagree with, is that large big tent organizations don’t want to disrupt their membership too much and the fact is until somewhat recently there was some waffling ambiguity in this issue by many who dislike the idea of their actions being called “discriminatory”.
So the IOC will move in a slow way and triathlon will follow once the pendulum swings back, as the well meaning individuals in the middle ground have a chance to explore the issue and come around to the fact of distinct sex categories not being a creation of the partiarchy or culture hegemony. (And other well meaning individuals learn to respect people and their choices even if they disagree.) (And other bad meaning individuals will continue to rage and foment hatred as they seek to abuse others for personal gain)
It’s a conflict of rights, fundamentally. Do women have a right to compete in a women’s only category, or do transgender women have a right to compete as women? Only one can happen.
It’s reflected in other women’s spaces, prisons, shelters, locker rooms, bathrooms, etc. Is it the right of the woman to be in a woman’s only space, or the right of the transgender woman to enter the woman’s space? It of course varies, but without a blanket decision there is always going to be friction on the edge cases.
The other thing that comes up is bad actors. It’s a familiar anecdote, but a man undertakes required testosterone therapy in alignment with the rules but does nothing else to align as a woman, referring to himself as a man, dressing as a man, using men’s spaces, living wholly as a man with the exception of testosterone suppression. That person is still eligible to compete as a woman. I can’t imagine much public support for this person winning women’s competitions.
I know it’s a tad ridiculous, but it’s important to look for loopholes and ways rules can be “followed” in bad faith.
It’s interesting because a ruling like this in effect almost is anti-gender. I say anti gender because “gender” now in our society is sorta open interpertation to the invidiual, whereas mankind for zillion years knew what man v woman was. We’ve evolved/accepted (and at times not accepted staunchly and there are times where that behavior is wrong and never should be allowed) that now gender is sorta open to the individual. Which this ruling is sorta the anti of that. It’s not longer a choice (or as you put it a right), it’s more basic science. In a way they’ve almost anti-gendered it or at the basic level gotten back to the science of what a “woman” is and/or mankind accepted since the beginning of time before we evolved into having open interpertations of “genders”.
We are aligned. If you reread my post you may/will see that (sorry if open to misreading). I imply that IOC will adopt (effectively) the WA/FINA/ICU policy and I expect that will be complete in time for the run up to LA to avoid the imbroglio of boxers (et al) being subject to IOC rules (because the boxing fed was dysfunctional). And World Tri should have grasped the nettle (with courage) and aligned (as said) with SBR authorities. The policy described in the OP seems less than fully hearted.
I think in today’s world it’s critical to have two distinct definitions. The standard seems like sex=what your chomosomes say and gender=what you say. I don’t have an issue with a person deciding they want to live as a gender that doesn’t align with their sex, but that person needs to understand there are consequences to doing so.
My wife is adopted, her adoptive parents are amazing, wonderful people. But they are not her biological parents and she is not their biological daughter. They live their lives 99% as though they are, but if her (adoptive) parent showed a family history of heart disease we wouldn’t be concerned about her. They are not offended by the recognition that she’s not their biological daughter, it’s a fact that comes up rarely but is otherwise unimportant.
IMO this is where the transgender issue settles. Yes, this person is a man by birth, but they live as a woman and that’s ok too. There’s a few times where the difference comes up (sports, medicine), but otherwise it doesn’t change much.