Starting Strength Radio: A Lie Agreed Upon: Trans-women in Women's Sports

[clarkbmiller]

If Rip says he personally wouldn’t deny service to a transgender person but other businesses can do so (you know, the libertarian view...businesses and customers both determine who they want to do business with), he’ll be criticized for allowing that in principle. If Rip says he disapproves of denying a transgender person a membership, he’ll be criticized for not putting it in a formal written policy. If Rip puts it in a formal written policy, he’ll be criticized for not extending that principle to competition. And all this without a single example of a transgender person being denied coaching by any SSC, at any time.

It's possible you've never been in this position before. But there are lots of people who for lots of reasons have to look into a gym, restaurant, bar, club, hotel, resort, city, or state and ask themselves the question:

Am I going to get my ass kicked for going in there?

A reasonable person could watch this video and decide that it's not worth the risk. So even if a Starting Strength gym never gives a red letter ban to someone, the video itself (and the comments attached to it from Rip's fans) make it clear that it's not worth it.

Sucks for the gym, the sport, and most especially for the person who is left out.

As far as the libertarian view... neither you nor I are foolish enough to believe that. If a starting strength gym sells all of their barbells and focuses on pillow-fight-based-functional-fitness, I suspect they would lose the right to put "Starting Strength" on their business cards. If Rip says it's ok for a gym to ban people on the basis of their sexual, gender, racial, or religious status then that means he's ok with it.

The libertarian view would be something akin to "I don't think it should be the law." The sane moral addendum is "I don't think it should be the law, but I wouldn't contract with racists, misogynists, etc." Rip is hiding his lack of morality under the guise of libertarianism (a pretty common sleight of hand).

[Ray Gillenwater]

It's possible you've never been in this position before. But there are lots of people who for lots of reasons have to look into a gym, restaurant, bar, club, hotel, resort, city, or state and ask themselves the question:

Am I going to get my ass kicked for going in there?

A reasonable person could watch this video and decide that it's not worth the risk. So even if a Starting Strength gym never gives a red letter ban to someone, the video itself (and the comments attached to it from Rip's fans) make it clear that it's not worth it.

Sucks for the gym, the sport, and most especially for the person who is left out.

As far as the libertarian view... neither you nor I are foolish enough to believe that. If a starting strength gym sells all of their barbells and focuses on pillow-fight-based-functional-fitness, I suspect they would lose the right to put "Starting Strength" on their business cards. If Rip says it's ok for a gym to ban people on the basis of their sexual, gender, racial, or religious status then that means he's ok with it.

The libertarian view would be something akin to "I don't think it should be the law." The sane moral addendum is "I don't think it should be the law, but I wouldn't contract with racists, misogynists, etc." Rip is hiding his lack of morality under the guise of libertarianism (a pretty common sleight of hand).

Clark, a couple of things:

1) Take a look at this video. Does this begin to illustrate the depth of the problem? There's a radical faction growing in our society that is making it risky to state facts about biology. The slippery slope, chilling effect, and other risks associated with this should be clear. Speech is a big deal. So are ideas. Bad ideas need to be fixed by clearly articulating good ideas. If you watch Rip's podcast again, with this in mind, I imagine you'll be less combative. This is about trying to course correct the state of affairs in an area where Rip is uniquely qualified to talk about it. Yes, you can take his intentions in bad-faith, but why give him such uncharitable treatment? The reason we are all on this board is because of Rip's ideas. Do you assume his intentions are bad and immoral with regard to programming advice, for example?

2) You accused Rip of hiding his lack of morality under the guise of libertarian-ism. I realize this is an internet forum, so common decency (you know, the type one would adhere to in a face to face conversation) can't be expected. But why ascribe intent? Why devolve this conversation into an ad-hominem logical fallacy? If you take issue with one of Rip's idea, post it specifically, make your case, and let's have an open, respectful discussion about it. If you want to attack Rip's character, take an uncharitable view of the meaning he was trying to convey, and fail to accurately summarize the real costs and benefits of posting a podcast like this, there are other forums on the internet that are better for this.

I suggest we wind this back. If we are all after achieving a better understanding via discourse, we should stop attacking people personally. Stop telling people what they mean (instead of letting them say what they mean). Interpret each other's views with as much benefit of the doubt as possible. And make this a place of information exchange (instead of accusations) - so we can actually make progress around important topics like free speech and fairness.

With that in mind, question for you (which I'm asking genuinely in an attempt to get this conversation back on the rails): what did you think of the USSF solution to this problem? More specifically, do you think this trans-woman should be setting world records in the women's division? Or competing in something like an open division?

[Mark Rippetoe]

As far as the libertarian view... neither you nor I are foolish enough to believe that. If a starting strength gym sells all of their barbells and focuses on pillow-fight-based-functional-fitness, I suspect they would lose the right to put "Starting Strength" on their business cards. If Rip says it's ok for a gym to ban people on the basis of their sexual, gender, racial, or religious status then that means he's ok with it.

Let it go, Clark. Stop the tantrum.

[Jr_Geezer]

With that in mind, question for you (which I'm asking genuinely in an attempt to get this conversation back on the rails): what did you think of the USSF solution to this problem? More specifically, do you think this trans-woman should be setting world records in the women's division? Or competing in something like an open division?

Kudos to former British Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies for speaking up against this: Transgender Weightlifter Mary Gregory, a Male Identifying as a Woman, Sets New World Records. Olympian Sharron Davies Condemns the ‘Pointless, Unfair Playing Field'

[Mark E. Hurling]

As much as I dislike the way progressives have broadened and overused the word and concept of victims so as to render it nearly meaningless, there are those who do indeed get the short end of the stick from this latest "evolved' state of "enlightenment." Those people are the women and girls who trained for years sometimes in the hopes of getting an athletic scholarship for higher education. They are getting knocked out of their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd placement by athletes with a biological advantage. So what about them? Or are they merely the latest to be tossed on to the slag heap of history?

I've recently gotten involved in training Special Olympians. The folks who administer this use a lot of the same language the progressive left is so fond of like inclusion. Last night I was training one of the men in powerlifting and between sets I asked his father if the trans-athlete thing had manifested itself in the Special Olympics as of yet. Not so far, he said. He and his wife are the leaders of a fairly sizable team of Special Olympians, male and female, and have competitors who run the gamut of sports, both team and individual. Neither of us are looking forward to the day we might have to explain to the learning disabled women athletes why it's OK for that person who doesn't appear to be a woman to compete against them and beat them.

What a person does with or to the plumbing they were born with is none of my business. But when logic is stood on it's head, as it is in this mish-mash relating to athletics, it does take me aback more than a little. But then I'm old, having been born in 1950 when things were not made quite so intentionally complex.

[Barry Charles]

Coach, it seems that there is a fairly clear distinction between true team sports and individual sports. A team sport requiring a roster/positions, such as baseball, and individual sport, such as high jumping, where a “team” is constructed extraneous to the specific activity.

It further seems that solutions like yours lend themselves (fairly) easily to individual sport competition, but not so easily to team sports. For example a powerlifting competition can have have as many subdivisions as desired without drastically changing the logistics. Consider a meet with a hard limit of 100 entries.

On the other hand, it is not clear how a High School could manage, logistically, much more than Male/Female divisions.

Any insights for team sports w.r.t this topic?

[Reaper]

Let’s have a rational discussion about fairness in competition. This topic is about fairness and not discrimination, right? Rip and others have expressed a strong concern about our daughters and young women training hard and facing unfair competition in the Women's Division. I have carefully reviewed the 16 pages of technical rules for the US Strengthlifting Federation and I have failed to find any rules prohibiting congenital females from competing while taking performance enhancing drugs, testosterone, steroids, etc.

Question for Rip: Is it OK for congenital females to take performance enhancing drugs and compete in the Women’s Division or must they compete in the Open Division along with transgender females?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Coach, it seems that there is a fairly clear distinction between true team sports and individual sports. A team sport requiring a roster/positions, such as baseball, and individual sport, such as high jumping, where a “team” is constructed extraneous to the specific activity.

It further seems that solutions like yours lend themselves (fairly) easily to individual sport competition, but not so easily to team sports. For example a powerlifting competition can have have as many subdivisions as desired without drastically changing the logistics. Consider a meet with a hard limit of 100 entries.

On the other hand, it is not clear how a High School could manage, logistically, much more than Male/Female divisions.

Any insights for team sports w.r.t this topic?

Why not Open and Women's teams? I see nothing inherent in these divisions that would be a problem, other than the need to qualify for the team under these divisions.

Question for Rip: Is it OK for congenital females to take performance enhancing drugs and compete in the Women’s Division or must they compete in the Open Division along with transgender females?

I'm not in charge of the USSF in any capacity, but the organization does not condone the use of androgens or PEDs by any competitor in either division.

[Chris McCarthy]

With that in mind, question for you (which I'm asking genuinely in an attempt to get this conversation back on the rails): what did you think of the USSF solution to this problem? More specifically, do you think this trans-woman should be setting world records in the women's division? Or competing in something like an open division?

She's totalling almost a 100kg less than Ileja Strijk in the IPF M1 Women's Classic Division, so the World Record thing is kinda a Red Herring here I think...the Women's Sub Junior Record is also 40kg more...

[Mark Rippetoe]

You're right, Chris. World records are not the point of this discussion. They can be used to illustrate a point, as Ray has done, but world records are not relevant to your daughter's track meet.