Nationals Kudos

yeah, one would hope..and a person can register with practcally any team and never go to a work out.

i believe the answer is a third group, their own heats, block of time in the session without encroaching on cis females or males for that matter. (and no they don't get to swim in the same heats even if there is room.)

I doubt SwimSwam would touch this. More folks from USMS would help a lot. plus, more positive guys would be nice..This is somewhat similar to the Lance Armstrong desire to swim Masters and his drug use called people off. Women were supportive of that issue.

It's also possible, of course, that she's a fun teammate and a dependable workout partner.

1. if she was confirmed in the past folks should have known that..

perhaps, but her situation should have been known. and she would have had to give her credentials to usms..if she didn't that is a different realm. 

Paul, I have missed your comments since the format changed and life shifted. Very glad to be reading you again. I do have a question about your last sentence. I hope you meant that it is important to be honest with folks and that boundaries need to be set for folks (as in any mental illness.) Thanks.

I hope you continue to swim.

Angie. write to the Rules committee 

rules@usmastersswimming.org 

• get a bunch of folks to write them..I did Many folks are really angry

Wrong! I said this "woman” highly affects the NQT…not women. But since you raise the issue, yes…if MULTIPLE athletes in ANY division or age group are using an unfair advantage of any sort, then do the math. There was no assertion and you should read posts more carefully before spouting off. Sure, in my example race the 10th place wasn’t “blazing”, but then how do you explain the 1:30 DROP on NQT? Did the other higher places over three years skew this? They HAD TO or there wouldn’t have been such a time drop. There’s another thread about testosterone and how men having prostate removal surgery are getting prescription T therapy and are swimming faster and setting records. To be clear, my point was and is there’s a LOT going on outside of the pool that USMS needs to start addressing if they really want to define inclusion and fairness properly.

If you are bound and determined to reverse-engineer a justification for your position, I can't stop you.

On the other hand, if you'd like to read about NQTs and how the Championship Committee actually determines them, you can read the FAQs that I linked for you. The whole point of the system that uses a three-year rolling average of the 10th place time (from the Top Ten, not from Nationals) is to make sure that one super-fast person, regardless of the life history explanation for the person's speed, doesn't skew the NQT to be so fast that it cuts off too many people.

You also can look up the 10th fastest times in, say, the W50-54 1000 for the past five or ten years, and see for yourself what time progression caused the NQT to get faster. No single person is responsible for that phenomenon. The only way you can call any trans women responsible for that phenomenon at all is to assume that not just one but multiple women in that age group are both fast and trans, which I maintain is a ludicrous assumption.

A person who was comparatively fast as a man is likely to be comparatively faster as a woman, true. But such people are very uncommon, both because trans women are not common and because trans women who went through boy-to-man puberty while training at a high level in swimming are even less common. USMS policy should reflect these facts, as well as our values of fair competition and inclusion, and I recognize and respect that someone whose priorities differ from mine might come to a different conclusion about what that policy should be. I don't respect exaggeration or scare-mongering. 

www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../