@fractionalgirl.bsky.social

@fractionalgirl.bsky.social

224 Followers 41 Following

Trans girl, all grown up now. I talk primarily about issues affecting trans youth, both from personal experience and in general.

The Panel notes, in this regard, that the performance advantage of approximately 3% suggested by Dr Bermon is significantly smaller than the 10% - 12% difference between elite male and elite female athletic performance referred to by the IAAF in its appeal brief, the 10% difference in male/female performance referred to by Professor Ritzen and Professor Hirschberg in their joint expert report, and the 12.64% difference in male/female performance referred to in Di Bermon's report. The Panel does not place great weight on the 3% figure referred to by Dr Bermon; however, it does demonstrate that the IAAF recognises that the performance advantage that hyperandrogenic females enjoy over normal females may be of a different order to the performance advantage that males enjoy over females.
The Panel concludes that, on their face, the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are discriminatory. It follows that the onus shifts to the IAAF to establish that the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are necessary, reasonable and proportionate for the purposes of establishing a level playing field for female athletes. Such an approach is consistent with the countervailing requirements for sport and is recognised in a wide range of domestic and international laws, including laws directed to the prohibition of discrimination generally. The Panel will address the question of justification below under Issue 3: Proportionality.
The Policy Interpretation addresses many issues relating to Title IX compliance, but its biggest contribution to the development of the law is a three-part test that has been used by courts ever since to preserve and expand sports offerings for women. Under this test, an athletic program may comply with the equal-accommodation requirement in the Title IX regulations by satisfying any one of three tests. To comply, a school must either: 1. provide “intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments”; 2. “show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of [the underrepresented] sex”; or 3. demonstrate that “the interests and abilities of the members of [the underrepresented] sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.” To comply with part one, the “substantial proportionality” prong, a school must provide women with sports opportunities roughly proportionate to their enrollment. To meet this test, if a school’s enrollment is 50 percent female, for example, women must make up close to half of the varsity athletes at the school.
Now, when I first did this—and I’ll tell you about the details in a minute—I was asked to give a talk at a linguistics convention. I decided I would talk about this discovery. In the audience were two members of the Christian Coalition who were linguists and good friends of mine. Excellent linguists. And very, very good people. Very nice people. People I liked a lot. They took me aside at the party afterward and said, “Well, this strict father model of the family, it’s close, but not quite right. We’ll help you get the details right. However, you should know all this. Have you read Dobson?” I said, “Who?” They said, “James Dobson.” I said, “Who?” They said, “You’re kidding. He’s on three thousand radio stations.” I said, “Well, I don’t think he’s on NPR. I haven’t heard of him.” They said, “Well, you live in Berkeley.” “Where would I . . . does he write stuff?” “Oh,” they said, “oh yes. He has sold millions of books. His classic is Dare to Discipline.” My friends were right. I followed their directions to my local Christian bookstore, and there I found it all laid out: the strict father model in all its details. Dobson at the time was an influential figure in conservative politics, with a 100-to-200-million-dollar-a-year operation, a widely distributed and read column in newspapers all over America, as well as his own zip code because so many people were writing to order his books and pamphlets. He was effectively teaching people how to use the strict father model to raise their kids, and he understood the connection between strict father families, right-wing politics, evangelical religion, laissez-faire economics, and neoconservative foreign policy.
In this model there is also a definition of what it means to become a good person. A good person—a moral person—is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient to legitimate authority, to learn what is right, to do what is right and not do what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant. A good child grows up to be like that. A bad child is one who does not learn discipline, does not function morally, does not do what is right, and therefore is not disciplined enough to become prosperous. She cannot take care of herself and thus becomes dependent. When the good children are mature, they either have learned discipline and can prosper, or have failed to learn it. From this point on the strict father is not to meddle in their lives.
Children 39) Respondent engaged in inappropriate and hurtful treatment of the Girls. 40) The Girls were good, sweet, hardworking well-mannered children. 41) Respondent forced the Girls to do plank push up for extended periods of time while reading the "house rules" until the Girls cried. 42) Respondent would lock down the Girls* room and remove all their possession from their rooms and would not let them participate in family activities. 43) Respondent would put the Girls in "silent treatment" and they could not talk unless spoken to for many, many days. 44) Respondent's actions caused barm to the Girls. 45) One of the Girls developed a suicide plan 46) The other Girl was cutting herself