TX: Transgender teen boy wins girls high school state wrestling title

[K_Z]

Mack Beggs is a transgender boy (biological girl transitioning to male). As part of the transition from female to male, Mack takes testosterone, which is considered a Performance Enhancing Drug (PED) under many sports regulations. Mack wanted to compete in wrestling as a male, but the UIF (University Interscholastic League) ruled that Mack must compete as a female.

Asked if he was taking the amount of testosterone he wanted while transitioning to male, Beggs said he was "holding back because of wrestling."

"I want to do it fairly," he said. "I don't want to cheat. That's not something I do. I don't cheat."

The 17-year-old Beggs won the 110-pound girls title as a junior at Euless Trinity High School in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. He could face a legal challenge during his senior wrestling season.

University Interscholastic League rules allow Beggs to compete while taking testosterone, but school superintendents and athletic directors voted overwhelmingly last year on the gender requirement.

"We asked them is it OK if this transgender, this trans male were to take testosterone while transitioning and that's what we got, 'They can take it, but they can only compete on what's on their birth certificate,'" Beggs said. "That's when we were like, 'Well, then, there goes us asking if I can compete on the males.'"

Jim Baudhuin, an attorney and Dallas-area wrestling parent, has filed a lawsuit seeking to keep Beggs from competing against girls. The lawsuit mostly takes aim at the UIL for allowing Beggs to face girls while on testosterone.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...ling-title-i-dont-cheat/ar-AAnONLD?li=BBnb7Kz


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...hool-wrestling-trump-administration/98592436/

The provisions issued under the Obama administration were not legally binding, but they provided a blueprint for schools to follow to avoid violations of Title IX, a federal law banning sex discrimination in public and private educational institutions. Title IX has gained the greatest visibility for its impact on athletics in high schools and colleges, which must abide by Title IX regulations because they receive federal funding. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX as covering discrimination based on gender identity but a federal judge put the guidelines on hold in August because several states sued to challenge them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.b35177c221d2

*This is a very comprehensive article ^^, but here are a few snips:

Two years ago, Mack Beggs began taking supplements to begin his physical transition. In the video, he predicted a complicated future regarding UIL rules but nonetheless declared that he wanted to go on participating in the sport he had fallen in love with. He began taking testosterone in 2015.

As time passed, attorney Baudhuin said, Beggs requested to wrestle against boys, though because UIL guidelines determine athletes’ gender based on their birth certificate, that request was declined (citing privacy, the UIL would not discuss that request or Beggs’s specific case); in a brief interview before the championship final, Nancy Beggs would not comment on whether her grandson hoped to eventually participate in the boys’ division.

Last year, coaches in the Dallas-Fort Worth area began hearing about changes in Beggs’s physique. He was strong and lean, and coaches noticed an unmistakable strength advantage that hadn’t been there even a year earlier.

A few coaches and parents became concerned their girls wouldn’t compete on equal terrain. Other coaches disagreed, more impressed by Beggs’s commitment to improvement and his mental preparation. Sides were established. Discussions became increasingly tense. Questions became more difficult to answer.

More discussion:

http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/ar...stler-mack-beggs-access-sports-trans-athletes

It's an interesting conundrum. Mack was a "good" wrestler before the testosterone, but became markedly "better" and stronger after beginning testosterone.

What do WS's think about this?

Should Mack have been allowed to compete as a female, while taking testosterone?

Should Mack, a biological female transitioning to male, have been allowed to wrestle and compete as a male?

Or do you think the UIF made the correct decision, and required a female to male trangender athlete taking testosterone to compete as a female?

Should Mack have been declared ineligible to wrestle at all, as a male or female, because of taking exogenous testosterone?

Is Mack's win "legitimate"? Is it fair?

Should the rules be different at the high school state level, versus university, professional sport, and Olympic level?

 

[animlzrule]

It's pretty obvious to me. Due to his transition and the presence of testosterone, he should be wrestling as a male. The UIL is wrong, and needs to change their policy. This is only going to be a more frequent scenario and trans people expect to and should be recognized as the gender with which they identify. Biological advantages will be tempered by the hormones necessary for transition for both trans girls and trans boys. People need to calm down and let trans people live their lives. I'd hate to have trans kids have to have blood tests for hormone levels as a prerequisite for participation, but maybe that will need to be a determination for eligibility. Hormone levels are monitored already. Trans people are aware that with transition there are going to be sacrifices. It seems that eligibility and/or participation in gender specific athletic endeavors may be one of those things for which transgender people will have to accept a limitation. But in this particular case, I believe he should have competed as a male.

 

[Shin Masamura]

Should Mack have been allowed to compete as a female, while taking testosterone? Depends on what the rules state and safety of other athletes

Should Mack, a biological female transitioning to male, have been allowed to wrestle and compete as a male? Depends on rules

Or do you think the UIF made the correct decision, and required a female to male trangender athlete taking testosterone to compete as a female? It should have been let her compete with men or not at all. Not let an advantaged athlete hurt and create liability for other females.

Should Mack have been declared ineligible to wrestle at all, as a male or female, because of taking exogenous testosterone? If the rules are if X athlete cant take steroids, then no .. if all in division can then sure.. but I think the underlying question is what these hormones do to an undeveloped child during this time. A pediatrician friend of mine thinks its madness and they should wait to transition for health reasons after 19

Is Mack's win "legitimate"? Is it fair? Um no on the fair part.. see brock lesnar UFC 2016

Should the rules be different at the high school state level, versus university, professional sport, and Olympic level? dont know the rules, sorry

I would say though, if one case choose their gender, how do you weed out the fakes that want to do girls basket ball as a male? Wouldn't any limits or discrimination marginalized their gender identity?

 

[K_Z]

It's my opinion that the error that was made is in regard to allowing the testosterone use in determining eligibility. I think that is the much bigger issue, rather than Mack's gender.

That apparently would require changing the high school rules in TX to make exogenous testosterone disqualifying/ ineligible for competition, but I think it has to be done. (Including specifying how long after ceasing testosterone supplementation, and what blood levels could potentially render the student eligible again-- or whether any use of exogenously administered testosterone is permanently disqualifying.)

I think that any high school student who is taking exogenous testosterone (legally/medically prescribed, or not) should be ineligible for competition in sports, as either a male, or a female.

I think Mack should be ineligible for all high school sports. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, and Mack may be disappointed, but I think it's the only fair and reasonable solution for all the athletes. Lots of kids with disabilities, etc., are ineligible or unable to participate in high school sports. I don't think there is any "right" under Title IX laws that mandate any and all students must be allowed to compete. IMO, Mack's situation is a medical condition (a very serious medical condition, IMO) for which the therapy renders Mack ineligible.

I personally see transgenderism in the K-12 public school environment as a disability/ medical condition that should be accommodated under IDEA, rather than a "civil rights" issue. IMO, classifying transgenderism as a disability provides all of the protections and accommodations needed by law for these students. These students should be placed on 504's with accommodations. That protects the students, as well as the district, admin, teachers, and the state.

Remember back to the East German Olympic scandal where it was discovered that East Germany was forcing female athletes to take testosterone for a competitive advantage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany

We must eliminate the potential for competitive advantage with PED, whether nefarious PED use, or "legitimate" transgender therapy. If this same East German scandal happened today, East Germany would probably claim all their female athletes had "medical necessity" to take testosterone-- that they all "aspired" to transition to men, and just were females "in transition".

In very rare circumstances of intersex conditions (Caster Semenya), where the testosterone is produced endogenously (not administered exogenously), we need to come to an international agreement about classification and definition of these individuals as male or female, and their eligibility for national and international competition.

Here's a discussion of 10 intersex ("hermaphrodite") athletes in history:

http://listverse.com/2015/10/25/10-famous-intersex-athletes/

 

[Woodland]

It's my opinion that the error that was made is in regard to allowing the testosterone use in determining eligibility. I think that is the much bigger issue, rather than Mack's gender.

That apparently would require changing the high school rules in TX to make exogenous testosterone disqualifying/ ineligible for competition, but I think it has to be done. (Including specifying how long after ceasing testosterone supplementation, and what blood levels could potentially render the student eligible again-- or whether any use of exogenously administered testosterone is permanently disqualifying.)

I think that any high school student who is taking exogenous testosterone (legally/medically prescribed, or not) should be ineligible for competition in sports, as either a male, or a female.

I think Mack should be ineligible for all high school sports. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, and Mack may be disappointed, but I think it's the only fair and reasonable solution for all the athletes. Lots of kids with disabilities, etc., are ineligible or unable to participate in high school sports. I don't think there is any "right" under Title IX laws that mandate any and all students must be allowed to compete. IMO, Mack's situation is a medical condition (a very serious medical condition, IMO) for which the therapy renders Mack ineligible.

I personally see transgenderism in the K-12 public school environment as a disability/ medical condition that should be accommodated under IDEA, rather than a "civil rights" issue. IMO, classifying transgenderism as a disability provides all of the protections and accommodations needed by law for these students. These students should be placed on 504's with accommodations. That protects the students, as well as the district, admin, teachers, and the state.

Remember back to the East German Olympic scandal where it was discovered that East Germany was forcing female athletes to take testosterone for a competitive advantage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany

We must eliminate the potential for competitive advantage with PED, whether nefarious PED use, or "legitimate" transgender therapy. If this same East German scandal happened today, East Germany would probably claim all their female athletes had "medical necessity" to take testosterone-- that they all "aspired" to transition to men, and just were females "in transition".

In very rare circumstances of intersex conditions (Caster Semenya), where the testosterone is produced endogenously (not administered exogenously), we need to come to an international agreement about classification and definition of these individuals as male or female, and their eligibility for national and international competition.

Here's a discussion of 10 intersex ("hermaphrodite") athletes in history:

http://listverse.com/2015/10/25/10-famous-intersex-athletes/

Addressing the post and opinions and not the poster.

It saddens me to see such negativity and exclusionary thoughts from a health care professional regarding a segment of society. Are these views shared by American health care professionals in general? I'm curious to know the answer.

Example -

I would never have guessed transgender is a disability.
I would never have thought a health care professional would deem a student to be ineligible for all school sports - and call it fair.
I didn't know physically disabled students were excluded from sports.
I didn't know a segment of a school population should be addressed as 'these' students.

Paralympics didn't always exist - why not advocate for a new class of competition - translympics? Transcomp? Transports? Something like that?

Also, introducing past competition scandals or what happened to other athletes in the past seems to muddy the waters - not getting why I should have that as part of my view on todays issue of transgender competition where testosterone is present - what is to be gained? What exactly is the point to be compared?

 

[K_Z]

Currently, Gender Dysphoria is the preferred term for these individuals in medical literature. There is discussion among psychiatric/ mental health professionals about changing the terms to "Gender Incongruence Disorder", but that is still in the talking about it phase. The terms and terminology continue to evolve. The DSM 4 was "Gender Identity Disorder"; the DSM 5 is "Gender Dysphoria". The billing codes in the ICD 10 are different yet-- see below.

Gender identity disorder (Gender Dysphoria) is classified as a disorder in both adults and children, and is listed in the latest DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders), which classifies psychiatric and psychological disorders, as well as being listed in the ICD 10 (billing codes). It is most definitely a medical disorder/ disability-- unless an individual does not seek or present for any care or treatment, of course. (No diagnosis, nothing to bill
for.)

More info:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder under dual role transvestism in the 2017 ICD-10 CM.[7] GID was reclassified to gender dysphoria by the DSM-5.[8] Some transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender,[9] and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals.[8] The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues.[8] The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."[10]

**The sentence in the quote above about gender nonconformity not being a "mental disorder" refers to individuals who do not experience "dysphoria" or stress that requires medical or psychological intervention. That is a very important distinction.

What that means is that an observed set of behaviors, such as a girl who is described as a "tomboy" BY OTHERS, does not necessarily have a mental disorder, or gender identity disorder herself. But if the "tomboy" girl HERSELF experiences stress and dysphoria because of her desire to BE a male, AND seeks medical and psychological treatment because of that stress and gender dysphoria, then she "has" gender identity disorder.

It's also important to understand the difference in classification in the DSM between a personality disorder, and a primary "organic brain functioning disorder", such as dementia or schizophrenia.

Medical or psychological treatment/ care for gender identity issues is a "billable" code under both the ICD 10, and the DSM 5. This is considered a very serious multifaceted disorder that affects every aspect of the individual's functioning (medical, social, psychological, biological, etc), and requires a well-coordinated team of interdisciplinary professionals for long term care.

That is the same definition of any other "disorder", disability, or condition that is considered a disability in the K-12 system under IDEA that requires a formal plan for accommodations in the school environment (an IEP, or a 504 plan). A disorder/ disability could be temporary--such as a child who needs accommodations at school following an extensive surgery. Or it can be chronic, such as a child who uses crutches or a walker or wheelchair "forever", or a child with an "invisible" disability, such as a heart or lung condition, or severe dyslexia.

Mack Beggs clearly meets the criteria for IDEA accommodations, in my opinion, and I believe Mack has a disability/ disorder. I think the school is open to legal liability if they do not treat Mack as a student with a disorder/ disability that requires accommodations, and a 504 plan at a minimum.

Having gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition that requires lots of multidisciplinary ongoing care-- often life long. It involves serious medications that permanently change the body, along with surgery, and complex genitourinary ongoing care for post surgical complications. It's a disorder and a disability, IMO. It's not at all the same thing as having an immutable characteristic such as blue eyes, or curly hair, or pigmented skin. Elective transgenderism involves changing a basic genetic biological normally functioning person, into the external appearance and functioning of the opposite biological gender, using medications and multiple transformative and reconstructive surgeries. It's pretty extreme, IMO. Just like, for example, a person with a serious cancer, or a survivor of extreme trauma.

I've worked closely with 2 people who transitioned (both had horrible chronic and permanent complications after their surgeries), and I've also had several patients in the OR with chronic post surgical complications. Anything that requires surgery and care that permanent and extensive is a disability, IMO.

 

[animlzrule]

Addressing the post and opinions and not the poster.

It saddens me to see such negativity and exclusionary thoughts from a health care professional regarding a segment of society. Are these views shared by American health care professionals in general? I'm curious to know the answer.

Example -

I would never have guessed transgender is a disability.
I would never have thought a health care professional would deem a student to be ineligible for all school sports - and call it fair.
I didn't know physically disabled students were excluded from sports.
I didn't know a segment of a school population should be addressed as 'these' students.

Paralympics didn't always exist - why not advocate for a new class of competition - translympics? Transcomp? Transports? Something like that?

Also, introducing past competition scandals or what happened to other athletes in the past seems to muddy the waters - not getting why I should have that as part of my view on todays issue of transgender competition where testosterone is present - what is to be gained? What exactly is the point to be compared?

As an American healthcare professional, no. I can tell you we don't all think that way. :seeya: As with any minority or deviation from what has traditionally been considered the "norm", there is always an instinct to "other" those individuals and attempt to make them conform to traditional societal standards, whether it flies in the face of human rights, bodily autonomy, science etc. I'm hopeful that in time, just as it is becoming more accepted that sexuality actually lies on a spectrum, that transgenderism will lose the taint of titillation, suspicion and fear that it engenders (tee hee, see what I did there? No? I'll see myself out) today. The issue of competitive sports is an issue that does need to be addressed, but I hope common sense prevails and transgender people are not victims of further discrimination and ugly morality based pseudoscience.

 

[Woodland]

Currently, Gender Dysphoria is the preferred term for these individuals in medical literature. There is discussion among psychiatric/ mental health professionals about changing the terms to "Gender Incongruence Disorder", but that is still in the talking about it phase. The terms and terminology continue to evolve. The DSM 4 was "Gender Identity Disorder"; the DSM 5 is "Gender Dysphoria". The billing codes in the ICD 10 are different yet-- see below.

Gender identity disorder (Gender Dysphoria) is classified as a disorder in both adults and children, and is listed in the latest DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders), which classifies psychiatric and psychological disorders, as well as being listed in the ICD 10 (billing codes). It is most definitely a medical disorder/ disability-- unless an individual does not seek or present for any care or treatment, of course. (No diagnosis, nothing to bill
for.)

More info:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria



**The sentence in the quote above about gender nonconformity not being a "mental disorder" refers to individuals who do not experience "dysphoria" or stress that requires medical or psychological intervention. That is a very important distinction.

What that means is that an observed set of behaviors, such as a girl who is described as a "tomboy" BY OTHERS, does not necessarily have a mental disorder, or gender identity disorder herself. But if the "tomboy" girl HERSELF experiences stress and dysphoria because of her desire to BE a male, AND seeks medical and psychological treatment because of that stress and gender dysphoria, then she "has" gender identity disorder.

It's also important to understand the difference in classification in the DSM between a personality disorder, and a primary "organic brain functioning disorder", such as dementia or schizophrenia.

Medical or psychological treatment/ care for gender identity issues is a "billable" code under both the ICD 10, and the DSM 5. This is considered a very serious multifaceted disorder that affects every aspect of the individual's functioning (medical, social, psychological, biological, etc), and requires a well-coordinated team of interdisciplinary professionals for long term care.

That is the same definition of any other "disorder", disability, or condition that is considered a disability in the K-12 system under IDEA that requires a formal plan for accommodations in the school environment (an IEP, or a 504 plan). A disorder/ disability could be temporary--such as a child who needs accommodations at school following an extensive surgery. Or it can be chronic, such as a child who uses crutches or a walker or wheelchair "forever", or a child with an "invisible" disability, such as a heart or lung condition, or severe dyslexia.

Mack Beggs clearly meets the criteria for IDEA accommodations, in my opinion, and I believe Mack has a disability/ disorder. I think the school is open to legal liability if they do not treat Mack as a student with a disorder/ disability that requires accommodations, and a 504 plan at a minimum.

Having gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition that requires lots of multidisciplinary ongoing care-- often life long. It involves serious medications that permanently change the body, along with surgery, and complex genitourinary ongoing care for post surgical complications. It's a disorder and a disability, IMO. It's not at all the same thing as having an immutable characteristic such as blue eyes, or curly hair, or pigmented skin. Elective transgenderism involves changing a basic genetic biological normally functioning person, into the external appearance and functioning of the opposite biological gender, using medications and multiple transformative and reconstructive surgeries. It's pretty extreme, IMO. Just like, for example, a person with a serious cancer, or a survivor of extreme trauma.

I've worked closely with 2 people who transitioned (both had horrible chronic and permanent complications after their surgeries), and I've also had several patients in the OR with chronic post surgical complications. Anything that requires surgery and care that permanent and extensive is a disability, IMO.

Where does the common sense regarding playing/competing in sports play into this?

 

[animlzrule]

It's also worth noting that the term "elective" transgenderism is a signifier of a resistance to accepting the reality and current best practices of addressing transgenderism itself. For many, undergoing sex reassignment surgery is absolutely a medical necessity; there's nothing "elective" about it. If interested, here is a link to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, with their position statement regarding the medical necessity of sex reassignment surgery, as well as cited research studies, journals and commercial insurance medical necessity criteria. http://www.wpath.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=1352&pk_association_webpage=3947 The fact that many commercial insurance companies, as well as the government, cover the treatment and surgeries associated with transgenderism is a huge signal that evidence based best practices and clinical guidelines have shown that these treatments and surgeries are necessary and beneficial for whom they are proposed.

 

[K_Z]

As an American healthcare professional, no. I can tell you we don't all think that way. :seeya: As with any minority or deviation from what has traditionally been considered the "norm", there is always an instinct to "other" those individuals and attempt to make them conform to traditional societal standards, whether it flies in the face of human rights, bodily autonomy, science etc. I'm hopeful that in time, just as it is becoming more accepted that sexuality actually lies on a spectrum, that transgenderism will lose the taint of titillation, suspicion and fear that it engenders (tee hee, see what I did there? No? I'll see myself out) today. The issue of competitive sports is an issue that does need to be addressed, but I hope common sense prevails and transgender people are not victims of further discrimination and ugly morality based pseudoscience.

A bit of clarity about terminology in the "transgender" socially progressive world.

Gender identity is completely separate from sexual preference. Gender identity "first"; sexual preference "second". An example: Caitlyn Jenner is a male to female transgender, who "identifies" as female, and currently "prefers" female pronouns. CJ is attracted sexually to women. Social progressives do not refer to CJ as a "gay woman", nor is CJ a "straight man". Apparently, CJ was attracted to women when she "identified" as Bruce, and continues to be attracted to women as she now "identifies" as Caitlyn. Gender identity changed; sexual attraction did not.

Mack Beggs sexual attraction is not at issue, and is frankly irrelevant. Mack's gender identity for competition purposes, and use of PED/ testosterone is very relevant.

 

[K_Z]

Addressing the post and opinions and not the poster.

It saddens me to see such negativity and exclusionary thoughts from a health care professional regarding a segment of society. Are these views shared by American health care professionals in general? I'm curious to know the answer.

Example -

I would never have guessed transgender is a disability.
I would never have thought a health care professional would deem a student to be ineligible for all school sports - and call it fair.
I didn't know physically disabled students were excluded from sports.
I didn't know a segment of a school population should be addressed as 'these' students.

Paralympics didn't always exist - why not advocate for a new class of competition - translympics? Transcomp? Transports? Something like that?

Also, introducing past competition scandals or what happened to other athletes in the past seems to muddy the waters - not getting why I should have that as part of my view on todays issue of transgender competition where testosterone is present - what is to be gained? What exactly is the point to be compared?

BBM for focus.

So, are you advocating that Mack Beggs should compete in a "new" category that does not "fit" the binary gender classification? Isn't that marginalization? Discrimination?

Exactly how many wrestlers in the state of TX would comprise this "new" gender category?

Despite all of the media attention and social progressive angst, transgenderism is exceedingly rare. This is not a relatively common condition, like being gay.

I think it is possible to establish a set of OBJECTIVE rules for eligibility for high school sports that apply to ALL students, gay, straight, pink, purple, transgender, normal, and peculiar! And a set of rules for how we define "males" and "females" at the high school level for competition in sports. I don't think it's at all reasonable to make up some kind of new categories for intersex and electively transgendered individuals at the high school level.

I happen to think that exogenously administered testosterone should be disqualifying for eligibility and competition for all students.

There are a lot of students who can't compete in wrestling, for one reason or another. Let's be real about high school sports-- sports are an extracurricular activity. Fun, yes. Perhaps even a passion. But not a "necessary" part of getting an education in the public schools. If Mack were being kept out of math class because of his transgenderism, that would be a whole different situation. Mack can still be part of virtually every other extracurricular activity-- chess club, choir, school musicals/ drama, speech and debate, clubs for foreign languages and hobbies, etc. It's only sports that are a huge problem because of his medical therapy for his gender dysphoria. And while that "feels" emotionally disturbing to some people, I'd urge everyone to look at the big picture. For example, perhaps Mack is a math whiz, and has a much brighter future trajectory in life, education, and work if he focuses on Math Club. Why not focus on what he CAN do, rather than make a ridiculous fuss about what he can't do fairly?

Good grief-- the situation is so uncomfortable he can't even sit out with the other athletes at competition-- he has to be "sheltered" in a hidden room till his turn.

I just don't understand why some people have this compulsion to constantly buck the system and insist on special treatment. The adults in this teen's life are not doing him a favor by making this such a big deal. They should encourage him to pursue other interests, other ways of competing in athletics, other hobbies, that will nurture him in positive ways, and build his esteem. He has a difficult enough future ahead of him-- why support him in this wrestling mess? What is to gain? So much to lose. I feel very sad and sorry for this teen. I think he is being mislead and guided in a very hurtful and wrong path. He is not a "normal" teen, and never will be. Transgenderism is already accepted by most people, in the same way we accept amputees, cancer victims, and others who have life altering disabilities. But it will never be "normal". I totally believe and accept that Mack feels he is in the wrong body, and has extreme dysphoria about that. I just think he is being mentored and encouraged in completely the wrong direction. I have great compassion for him. He has a very hard life ahead. Now is the time to build him up and nurture him in the directions that will be positive and productive for him as a trans male. I hope the adults in his life will come to that place.

 

[animlzrule]

A bit of clarity about terminology in the "transgender" socially progressive world.

Gender identity is completely separate from sexual preference. Gender identity "first"; sexual preference "second". An example: Caitlyn Jenner is a male to female transgender, who "identifies" as female, and currently "prefers" female pronouns. CJ is attracted sexually to women. Social progressives do not refer to CJ as a "gay woman", nor is CJ a "straight man". Apparently, CJ was attracted to women when she "identified" as Bruce, and continues to be attracted to women as she now "identifies" as Caitlyn. Gender identity changed; sexual attraction did not.

Mack Beggs sexual attraction is not at issue, and is frankly irrelevant. Mack's gender identity for competition purposes, and use of PED/ testosterone is very relevant.

Are you seeking validation of your "clarification"? I haven't seen anyone on this thread claim that sexual identity is not separate from sexual orientation. That's elementary human sexuality. That is not the subject at hand, but if that's what you are asking, I concur. But we're talking about whether or not an individual undergoing hormone therapy as a part of gender reassignment should compete athletically with the gender with which they were assigned at birth, or, the gender to which they identify and are being hormonally and/or surgically reassigned. As I said, it seems pretty clear to me that Mack should have been allowed to compete as a male, and should not have been mandated to compete with females versus not competing at all. Mack just may find out that he is no longer athletically gifted enough to compete with males, and that's ok. It's all part of the process, and sacrifices will have to be made. The UIL is going to have to consult with experts and come to a better understanding of the science. They're out of their depth.

 

[K_Z]

It's also worth noting that the term "elective" transgenderism is a signifier of a resistance to accepting the reality and current best practices of addressing transgenderism itself. For many, undergoing sex reassignment surgery is absolutely a medical necessity; there's nothing "elective" about it. If interested, here is a link to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, with their position statement regarding the medical necessity of sex reassignment surgery, as well as cited research studies, journals and commercial insurance medical necessity criteria. http://www.wpath.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=1352&pk_association_webpage=3947 The fact that many commercial insurance companies, as well as the government, cover the treatment and surgeries associated with transgenderism is a huge signal that evidence based best practices and clinical guidelines have shown that these treatments and surgeries are necessary and beneficial for whom they are proposed.

I understand your explanation, but I substantially disagree.

I understand that others believe that surgical and pharmacological intervention is somehow "imperative" for those who believe that they are in the wrong body. I just do not agree with that philosophy at all-- and my disagreement with that philosophy is not rooted in religion, FWIW.

My viewpoint is a conservative secular humanist-- very rare perspective, indeed! From my perspective, only those who are born with intersex conditions have a moral and ethical "imperative" to choose and transition to a specific gender. For those who have a normally formed and developed body, a switch to the opposite biological gender is "elective". I do understand that some imaging may be interpreted as to define these individuals as the "opposite" gender based on brain structure or functionality-- but I believe that the science in this area is definitely not established.

So, in a normally functioning biological "entity" (person), to radically and permanently change the external appearance, and permanently interfere with a substantial biological system such as the genitourinary system,using pharmacology and radical elective surgery, in the absence of disease or dysfunction, is "elective" in my view.

Again, intersex individuals are in a different category, IMO. They have a substantial birth deformity/ defect that must be addressed surgically, pharmacologically, and psychologically, so that they may function "normally". To not address their deformity/ defect is immoral and unethical, IMO.

 

[leelee114]

I understand your explanation, but I substantially disagree.

I understand that others believe that surgical and pharmacological intervention is somehow "imperative" for those who believe that they are in the wrong body. I just do not agree with that philosophy at all-- and my disagreement with that philosophy is not rooted in religion, FWIW.

My viewpoint is a conservative secular humanist-- very rare perspective, indeed! From my perspective, only those who are born with intersex conditions have a moral and ethical "imperative" to choose and transition to a specific gender. For those who have a normally formed and developed body, a switch to the opposite biological gender is "elective". I do understand that some imaging may be interpreted as to define these individuals as the "opposite" gender based on brain structure or functionality-- but I believe that the science in this area is definitely not established.

So, in a normally functioning biological "entity" (person), to radically and permanently change the external appearance, and permanently interfere with a substantial biological system such as the genitourinary system,using pharmacology and radical elective surgery, in the absence of disease or dysfunction, is "elective" in my view.

Again, intersex individuals are in a different category, IMO. They have a substantial birth deformity/ defect that must be addressed surgically, pharmacologically, and psychologically, so that they may function "normally". To not address their deformity/ defect is immoral and unethical, IMO.

Well in the event that you wake up tomorrow suffering and trapped like most transgender people feel without medical intervention then by all means choose to stay that way. Or pursue the outdated non-surgical treatments which have been abandoned by psychiatrists.Suffer to your hearts content. Just don't insist that total strangers should have to suffer the debilitating mental anguish without seeking relief just because you don't agree with what they need to change in order to be able to function. I find nothing ethical in insisting people should suffer from an issue which can drive them to suicide just because you think they should. Especially when there are options which can end much of their suffering.
I couldn't fathom insisting a transgender person suffer because of a stranger's belief anymore than I could fathom telling a depressed person they should just suck it up and get on with their lives because I think I know what they can handle. We don't get to decide someone else's breaking point.

 

[Woodland]

BBM for focus.

So, are you advocating that Mack Beggs should compete in a "new" category that does not "fit" the binary gender classification? Isn't that marginalization? Discrimination?

Exactly how many wrestlers in the state of TX would comprise this "new" gender category?

Despite all of the media attention and social progressive angst, transgenderism is exceedingly rare. This is not a relatively common condition, like being gay.

I think it is possible to establish a set of OBJECTIVE rules for eligibility for high school sports that apply to ALL students, gay, straight, pink, purple, transgender, normal, and peculiar! And a set of rules for how we define "males" and "females" at the high school level for competition in sports. I don't think it's at all reasonable to make up some kind of new categories for intersex and electively transgendered individuals at the high school level.

I happen to think that exogenously administered testosterone should be disqualifying for eligibility and competition for all students.

There are a lot of students who can't compete in wrestling, for one reason or another. Let's be real about high school sports-- sports are an extracurricular activity. Fun, yes. Perhaps even a passion. But not a "necessary" part of getting an education in the public schools. If Mack were being kept out of math class because of his transgenderism, that would be a whole different situation. Mack can still be part of virtually every other extracurricular activity-- chess club, choir, school musicals/ drama, speech and debate, clubs for foreign languages and hobbies, etc. It's only sports that are a huge problem because of his medical therapy for his gender dysphoria. And while that "feels" emotionally disturbing to some people, I'd urge everyone to look at the big picture. For example, perhaps Mack is a math whiz, and has a much brighter future trajectory in life, education, and work if he focuses on Math Club. Why not focus on what he CAN do, rather than make a ridiculous fuss about what he can't do fairly?

Good grief-- the situation is so uncomfortable he can't even sit out with the other athletes at competition-- he has to be "sheltered" in a hidden room till his turn.

I just don't understand why some people have this compulsion to constantly buck the system and insist on special treatment. The adults in this teen's life are not doing him a favor by making this such a big deal. They should encourage him to pursue other interests, other ways of competing in athletics, other hobbies, that will nurture him in positive ways, and build his esteem. He has a difficult enough future ahead of him-- why support him in this wrestling mess? What is to gain? So much to lose. I feel very sad and sorry for this teen. I think he is being mislead and guided in a very hurtful and wrong path. He is not a "normal" teen, and never will be. Transgenderism is already accepted by most people, in the same way we accept amputees, cancer victims, and others who have life altering disabilities. But it will never be "normal". I totally believe and accept that Mack feels he is in the wrong body, and has extreme dysphoria about that. I just think he is being mentored and encouraged in completely the wrong direction. I have great compassion for him. He has a very hard life ahead. Now is the time to build him up and nurture him in the directions that will be positive and productive for him as a trans male. I hope the adults in his life will come to that place.

Fwiw, I would never marginalize or discriminate against anyone - I'm an atheist so have an advantage in viewing the world and the people in it.

 

[jjenny]

Testosterone is a steroid. Females have much lower levels compared to males. A biological female taking steroids would therefore have an advantage over other females not taking steroids.

 

[K_Z]

Well in the event that you wake up tomorrow suffering and trapped like most transgender people feel without medical intervention then by all means choose to stay that way. Or pursue the outdated non-surgical treatments which have been abandoned by psychiatrists.Suffer to your hearts content. Just don't insist that total strangers should have to suffer the debilitating mental anguish without seeking relief just because you don't agree with what they need to change in order to be able to function. I find nothing ethical in insisting people should suffer from an issue which can drive them to suicide just because you think they should. Especially when there are options which can end much of their suffering.
I couldn't fathom insisting a transgender person suffer because of a stranger's belief anymore than I could fathom telling a depressed person they should just suck it up and get on with their lives because I think I know what they can handle. We don't get to decide someone else's breaking point.

Wow! It's unfortunate that you misinterpreted my position and opinions!

My post is addressing another poster who criticized my use of the term "elective." I never offered a position as to whether or not anyone "should" or "should not" seek out this collection of medical services-- that's up to them to weigh the risks and complications against the potential psychological benefits. It's not a "done deal" that these procedures fix or cure the psychological suffering of the patients, and often contribute another layer of ongoing stress and pain that has to be dealt with in addition to their gender dysphoria and social functioning challenges. It's not like "poof" they have the surgery and take the hormones, and everything is "fixed" and perfect. That is the myth that all of the media coverage doesn't touch in their promotion of transgenderism and medical intervention. It goes right along with the surgeon's motto "to cut is to cure", which we all know isn't completely true much of the time.

My criticism is that many people discuss transgender surgeries and hormone therapy as though these therapies are medically "essential", which I disagree with. They are elective, and can be scheduled, or not, at the desire and timing of the patient and docs. They are as elective as a facelift, breast enhancement, or nose job, IMO. Meaning, the surgeries may or may not substantially "relieve" the psychological "dysphoria" of the patient, and are not necessary to restore or correct deformity, disability, or dysfunction.

Certainly, the surgeries and pharmacological therapies allow the patient to present themselves DIFFERENTLY to themselves and the rest of the world, and may help them to feel "better" about their appearance. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" depends a lot on context and a raft of other issues.

These procedures are not "perfect" or without serious potential for complications-- including permanent deformity, permanent dysfunction, and death.

People choose to have elective surgeries every minute of the day, all over the world. I think what a few posters are having difficulty with is the definition of "elective". People with gender identity disorders or gender dysphoria are not "compelled" to have ANY medical procedures. They might CHOOSE to, but the surgeries and hormone therapies are not curative or essential for their health and biological functioning.

Bringing this back to Mack Beggs, Mack and his parents CHOSE to undergo testosterone therapy while he is in high school. They could just as easily choose to STOP the testosterone therapy. Presumably, they believe the testosterone therapy is beneficial for Mack, that the benefits outweigh the risks.

But that ELECTIVE decision is not without consequences. Testosterone (exogenously administered) is a PED, and is widely banned in sports. I strongly believe Mack should not be eligible to wrestle as "either" a male or female in high school sports. And to be clear, I think Mack has lots of other options for exercise and sports, just that he should not be eligible in the high school system. It is profoundly unfair to the other students, IMO. For example, he could join a private gym or club and continue to pursue his interests in sports. He could pursue MMA, or other sports where his gender and testosterone use isn't an issue in competition. He could seek out eligibility to compete in that arena.

 

[K_Z]

Here’s a thought experiment.

Let’s say we have a student named Ron who is a biological male, 16 years old, and most of the way thru puberty as a genetically normal male. Ron is 6’2”, and weighs 260 lbs. Ron has well developed masculine muscles, and heavy bones. Ron is a superb athlete, and has competed in several high school sports, including wrestling. Ron is an award winner and star athlete in several sports.

Ron has always felt inside that he was a female born in the wrong body, so he and his parents pursue medical therapy for gender dysphoria. He begins hormone therapy, and begins living and dressing as a female-- the first steps in transitioning as a transgender girl.

Ronda begins the new school year as an 11th grader. She and her parents announce to her school admin that she now wishes to be identified as a female, use female pronouns, and is in the process of medically transitioning to be a transgender girl.

Ronda wants to be on the female wrestling team. Her endogenous testosterone is now suppressed, but she is still 6’2” and 260 lbs from her journey through puberty as a biological male. She still has facial and body hair in a male pattern, and male genitals.

Should Ronda be allowed to compete this season as a female?

Should Ronda be allowed to compete this season as a male?

Why, or why not?

 

[Woodland]

Here’s a thought experiment.

Let’s say we have a student named Ron who is a biological male, 16 years old, and most of the way thru puberty as a genetically normal male. Ron is 6’2”, and weighs 260 lbs. Ron has well developed masculine muscles, and heavy bones. Ron is a superb athlete, and has competed in several high school sports, including wrestling. Ron is an award winner and star athlete in several sports.

Ron has always felt inside that he was a female born in the wrong body, so he and his parents pursue medical therapy for gender dysphoria. He begins hormone therapy, and begins living and dressing as a female-- the first steps in transitioning as a transgender girl.

Ronda begins the new school year as an 11th grader. She and her parents announce to her school admin that she now wishes to be identified as a female, use female pronouns, and is in the process of medically transitioning to be a transgender girl.

Ronda wants to be on the female wrestling team. Her endogenous testosterone is now suppressed, but she is still 6’2” and 260 lbs from her journey through puberty as a biological male. She still has facial and body hair in a male pattern, and male genitals.

Should Ronda be allowed to compete this season as a female?

Should Ronda be allowed to compete this season as a male?

Why, or why not?

Isn't this post #1 with a new set of criteria or facts?

 

[Woodland]

Mack Beggs is a transgender boy (biological girl transitioning to male). As part of the transition from female to male, Mack takes testosterone, which is considered a Performance Enhancing Drug (PED) under many sports regulations. Mack wanted to compete in wrestling as a male, but the UIF (University Interscholastic League) ruled that Mack must compete as a female.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...ling-title-i-dont-cheat/ar-AAnONLD?li=BBnb7Kz


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...hool-wrestling-trump-administration/98592436/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.b35177c221d2

*This is a very comprehensive article ^^, but here are a few snips:



More discussion:

http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/ar...stler-mack-beggs-access-sports-trans-athletes

It's an interesting conundrum. Mack was a "good" wrestler before the testosterone, but became markedly "better" and stronger after beginning testosterone.

What do WS's think about this?

Should Mack have been allowed to compete as a female, while taking testosterone?

Should Mack, a biological female transitioning to male, have been allowed to wrestle and compete as a male?

Or do you think the UIF made the correct decision, and required a female to male trangender athlete taking testosterone to compete as a female?

Should Mack have been declared ineligible to wrestle at all, as a male or female, because of taking exogenous testosterone?

Is Mack's win "legitimate"? Is it fair?

Should the rules be different at the high school state level, versus university, professional sport, and Olympic level?

Agree with post #2 - compete at this time as male.