"I know! I know! Ask me!!!"
Posted on 04/08/2024 11:38:06 AM PDT by NohSpinZone
Today, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics approved an unprecedented ban on the participation of transgender women, in a move that could pressure other major governing bodies of athletics, including the National Collegiate Athletics Association, to follow suit.
According to the official press release, “Only NAIA student-athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in NAIA-sponsored female sports.” The policy does not specify how it defines biological sex, nor does it clarify its implications for intersex athletes. It also excludes athletes who have begun “any masculinizing hormone therapy.”
This ban comes amid increased scrutiny over trans bodies in sport and an explosion of anti-trans legislation across the country. To date, at least 24 states have enacted policies restricting transgender participation in sports, 18 of which restrict participation in college sports in particular.
Harsher policies have been on the rise in state legislatures since 2020, but today’s ban appears to be the first of its kind from a national college governing body. Though the NAIA, which includes mostly smaller colleges, is not as large a body as the NCAA, its decision sets a dangerous precedent and could augur a striking shift for collegiate athletics.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecrimson.com ...
Uh, trans-women...aka men can participate in MENS sports.
What’s unprecedented is allowing guys to play women’s sports.
L
“an unprecedented ban on the participation of transgender women”
— Not too long ago the participation of biological males in women’s sports was what would have been considered “unprecedented.”
Actually I don’t think the NAIA “banned trans athletes”. I think they banned biological males from competing against biological females. I’m not sure, but I doubt that they banned biological males from competing against other biological males, even if the aforesaid males prefer women clothes, women’s hair styles, and women’s hormone injections.
And I suspect there was no problem of biological females competing as biological males that required any legislation.
Add Harvard to the institutions that do not believe in science.
According to many soyboys and obese feminists who struggle to walk across a room, female athletes just need to work harder.
"I know! I know! Ask me!!!"
because you need a biologist to do that...
Turn Harvard Crimson!
didn’t it just ban from External sports?
Seems strange
It has become undeniably clear that attending a college even of the historical quality of Harvard actually makes a person dumber than when they entered. The personal cure will involve decades of real-world experience to reverse the damage caused by a Harvard education. Sadly, many graduates never fully recover and spend the rest of their lives in a delusional state of mind; hence, the preponderance of Harvard graduates in politics and entertainment (arguably, two versions of the same affliction).
from the article: “The policy does not specify how it defines biological sex”
Actually not all that complicated. In most cases, simple determination of whether the individual carries XX or XY chromosomes will do. In the very rare cases (such as “intersex”. XXY’s as an example) what works 100% of the time is determination of what sort of gametes the individual produces.
If the person produces a small number of large, relatively immobile gametes (called “eggs”) or has or has had the biological apparatus to do so, she is a female.
If the person produces a large number of small, very mobile gametes (called “sperm”), or has or has had the biological apparatus to do so, he is a male.
No human being has ever been able to do both, and no human being has ever been able to transform from an egg producer to a sperm producer (or vice-versa).
That’s the science, which a couple of years ago I was told I have to respect.
Banned mentally ill men. NOW it reads correctly. SCIENTIFICALLY correctly.
Because screw women! sez the pinko commie limp-wrist noodle-necked pukes.
^
exactly And that anyone could think it was ok
Yeah..seems “unprecedented” has new meaning now....like CRAZEE!
The policy does not specify how it defines biological sex..
Seriously? How F’n stupid do you have to be?
Dangerous? Dangerous to whom?
I think 'inconvenient' would be a better adjective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.