Archives for category: Sports

Renee Richards shocked the sports world in 1977 when she she sued for the right to play in the U.S. Open; she was a trans woman. She had been a successful opthamologist and an amateur tennis player. After she transitioned, she became a professional tennis player. Some events barred her, and she sued to participate in others. Now, in her 90s, she looks back with regret at some of her decisions, and she explains why. As a fully developed man, she now believes she had an unfair physical advantage. She rationalized her advantage because she was so much older than most if the women she played.

She was interviewed by Leah Asmelash of CNN:

In 1977, Dr. Renée Richards — a well-regarded ophthalmologist who’d spent most of her life as a very good amateur tennis player — sued for her right to play in the US Open.

Richards had played some competitions locally and throughout the country. She had the backing of tennis great Billie Jean King. And she had a tricky left-handed serve.

But Richards was a transgender woman, the first in the sport. Some tournaments allowed her to play, and opponents dropped out in protest. Others, like the Italian Open, accepted her at first only to change their minds days before the tournament’s start. And the US Open barred her completely.

A judge ruled that the US Open had violated New York State’s Human Rights Law, and that Richards could play. Though she was knocked out in the first round that year in singles, she was a finalist in women’s doubles. She went on to play in other tournaments and in 1981, at the age of 47, she retired from professional tennis.

Richards, now 92, describes herself as a steadfast supporter of trans rights. She also calls her own lawsuit “selfish” and says she opposes trans women and girls participating in women’s sports.

A new biography published this week, “Finding Renée Richards: The Groundbreaking Story of Tennis’s Trans Pioneer,” by the trans and nonbinary sportswriter Julie Kliegman, chronicles the challenges and contradictions of Richards’s life and career. Richards won acceptance in part because she was seen as a “one-off,” Kliegman said in an interview.

Competitors like Martina Navratilova, who is now a vocal opponent of trans women playing women’s sports, liked Richards as an individual, Kliegman said: “It’s often sort of easier to accept someone from a marginalized group when you have a personal relationship with them, as opposed to the abstraction of trans people who might be seen as coming to steal scholarships or prize money from cisgender women.”

While Richards is a strong supporter of trans rights, she now opposes the entry of trans women into women’s sport. She believes that she had an unfair physical advantage.

She thinks that the debate about bathrooms and trans people is ridiculous. People don’t make the momentous decision to transition so they can use bathrooms of the other sex.

Why does she now oppose trans women in women’s sports?

She said:

If a male who becomes a female went through male puberty, that person has an advantage over other females who were never males in the beginning and didn’t develop larger long bones and bigger chest cavities and larger hearts and a greater amount of muscle mass and bigger cardiac output and lung capacity. Even if they are deprived testosterone by their transition, that’s only part of the story. It’s not enough.

She added:

I thought I was being fair in competing with cisgender women because the competition was pretty close. I won some matches against top players. I lost some matches against poorly ranked players.

I thought that because I was older than the other players, that negated any advantage I might have had by having formerly been a male. I thought that it was a pretty equal playing field until I played in one match in 1979. I played in the women’s 35-and-over championship at Flushing Meadow, and I beat Nancy Richey, a Hall of Fame player. She won the French Open and a few other big tournaments. I beat her in the finals, and I was only 10 years older than she was.

And after I beat her in the finals, I said to myself, “I don’t think it’s fair. It’s not enough of an age difference.” So that got me to think that my opinion about allowing transgender women to play on the tour was inaccurate. I’ve been saying that it’s been fair because I’ve been playing against women that are 20 or more years younger than I am…

I didn’t think that the age would make such a difference. When I played that match against Nancy, I hadn’t conceived of it until then. I’d been playing against Chrissie (Evert) and Martina (Navratilova) and Tracy (Austin), and they had an advantage over me for sure because of the age difference. No matter the size and the muscle mass and so on, I was at a disadvantage playing Martina and Chrissie and Tracy, and I knew it, and they knew it…

Being a trans woman is something that is a right and should be respected. And if you’re a trans woman congressman, you don’t have any physical advantage over other congressmen or women.

Competitive sports are a totally different entity. Why do you think we have juniors and seniors and junior seniors and 35-and-overs and 150 pounders and lightweights and middleweights and bantamweights and heavyweights? Because sports is different.

Steffen E. Polko is a retired professor of education at TCU in Texas. He wrote the following commentary for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Vouchers, he says, will doom community rituals, like Friday night football. Dividing students up by religion and other grounds will divide our communities and our country even more than at present.

He writes:

There appears to be some confusion regarding rural Texans’ opposition to school choice and vouchers. I think I may know why.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s espoused principal reason for promoting vouchers is to protect Texas children from the “woke” propaganda being disseminated by public school teachers. Let me assure the governor that teachers in upstanding, God-fearing communities such as Mineral Wells and Hico are not subjecting their students to “woke” ideology. In these communities, “woke” still means not asleep. This is not something that’s broken in small-town Texas, so it doesn’t need fixing.

Now, onto the most important reason. Vouchers pose a threat to high school football and could turn out Friday Night Lights. An education savings account program will reduce funding levels for public schools as students leave. The first thing to be hit will be athletic budgets.

Proponents note that there are few private school options in rural Texas. So, where will these students go? There are no options yet, but this will change with vouchers. Many churches face declining attendance and financial difficulty. If $8,000 per year vouchers are available a minister with 20 or more school-age children in the congregation will find it rational and financially prudent to start a school.

Let’s say I have 40 such children. If the state sends me $320,000 per year and I can keep expenses at $160,000, I will net $160,000 for my church. How do I keep my expenses so low? The key is technology. High-quality learning systems produced by nationally recognized educational providers such as Pearson are readily available over the Internet. The cost of learning management systems currently averages around $5 per student per month.

The state will require me to have two “teachers” for 40 students. No problem; this can be anyone in my congregation with a college degree and some time on their hands. Getting alternative certification from the state is relatively easy. My teachers need not be education experts because the learning management system does the heavy lifting. It provides instruction and creates and grades the homework and tests. The latest systems even use artificial intelligence to answer student questions.

The only job for the “teachers” would be to manage classroom behavior and help students use the software. A student leaving the public schools will probably get a fairly good Christian education. The public school will lose funding for athletic programs and perhaps a potential star quarterback. Ouch! For-profit schools will emerge employing a similar model. Using a hybrid instructional model and current costs, I calculate that a 200-student high school would bring cashflow of about $800,000 a year. Start 10 of

those and you have a nice chain of businesses. Could this be the real driving force behind vouchers? To recruit students, such schools could promise to teach artificial intelligence and the Python programming language to prepare students for a promising future in technology — or use some other clever hook. Texas has about 8,000 schools. The Texas Education Agency employs 1,000 people and spends around $2 billion per year to monitor the schools and hold them accountable.

I predict that vouchers will increase the number of schools in Texas four-fold. Will the Legislature increase funding by a factor of four to monitor this many schools? I think not. It will be a long time before state officials figure out if for-profit schools are delivering on their promise, and the owners will be very rich before they do. Good luck getting them and their money back from Barbados. Not only would church and for-profit schools poach rural athletes, but specialized voucher- and donor-funded sports academies could emerge. Let’s say someone starts a Dallas Football Academy. It could use an entrance exam similar to the NFL combine to assure it got the best athletes. The best coaches, fitness trainers, and other staff would be recruited.

These schools would have a direct connection to universities to give their athletes the best shot at a top-level scholarship. Such schools would dominate small-town teams and end the reign of, for example, the Aledo Bearcats. The state championship game would probably feature the Dallas and Houston football academies.

Rural Texas is our best bet to keep the state from making a huge mistake that is little more than a political stunt to get votes. Small communities have nothing to gain from vouchers and a lot to potentially lose, as does the rest of the state.

Steffen E. Palko is a retired associate professor of education at TCU. He lives in Fort Worth.

Read more at: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article277689198.html#storylink=cpy

The BBC reported that British sports officials have proposed that transgender women (born male) compete in the men’s division in sports, to protect women’s sports.

UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women’s category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth.

The governing body says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.

Chair Ian Beattie said the governing body wanted athletics to be a “welcoming environment for all”, but added it had a responsibility to “ensure fairness” in women’s competition.

However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it was “disappointed” UKA chose to publicise “inaccurate advice” and questioned its interpretation of the Equality Act 2010.

UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women, saying there is “currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated”.

UKA added it has seen “no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression”, and that there is “insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly”.

Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition.

UKA does not believe the ‘sporting exemption’ introduced in the Equality Act 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.

However, the UK government disagrees with UK Athletics’ stance that the law does not allow it to ban transgender women from female events on fairness grounds.

It believes the 2010 Equality Act does allow sports to protect the female category by putting restrictions on the participation of transgender athletes.

What do you think? My view is unformed. I don’t know enough. My bedrock view is that the tiny number of people who are transgender should not be demonized nor used as a political pawn.