Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin.

Just after reading an article about a transgender cyclist in NZ who won a womens race after competing as a man only 3 weeks ago. In the men's version of the race last year, this person finished 35th with a time that was still 10 seconds faster than the women's winner. Now here they are winning the women's event . How is this fair? Does anyone actually think this should be allowed?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12002309

Here is an article specifically about the difference between the sexes when it comes to cycling. How can 3 weeks change any of this? don't even think 3 years of transition is going to change skeletal structure, lung size or blood volume

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/cycling-and-gender-how-and-why-male-and-female-cyclists-need-to-train-differently-344365

I've seen several stories recently about biological males competing in women's sports and not surprisingly trouncing the competition or even severely injuring their opponents (MMA fighter Fallon fox). Should MTF transgender athletes accept that they should be unable to compete against members of the opposite sex in the name of fairness? I totally get that they want to be and should be treated the same as any other other woman in everyday life but in some situations there are clear advantages. Is there a solution that is fair for everyone?

pjohnson

Will this thread make it to page 2?

Hande hoche!

From what I understand, they test the level of testosterone. Still imagine there is some advantages post transition in terms of bone density and muscle mass owing to their previous gender.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

pjohnson wrote: »

Will this thread make it to page 2?

Depends on if it drifts to discussing the weather or sliced pans.

judeboy101

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pTejRBxSc

Ajsoprano

I’d stay away from this thread. The cards will fly no matter what happens.
I’ve probably already said too much. I’m out of here.

ED E

If I were her(his) competitor I'd be fierce pissed thats for sure.

Tenigate

Fallon Fox broke a woman fighters skulls thanks to her masculine physique.

International female running events are dominated by women who were born men.

In US college sports women are losing to MTF transsexuals and female pre-op FTM who are allowed to use testosterone.

It's a circus but it's only temporary. People are seeing the truth.

kneemos

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I’d stay away from this thread. The cards will fly no matter what happens.
I’ve probably already said too much. I’m out of here.

Should be OK.

I'll hang back,make sure you're not followed.

Guy:Incognito

Going by the articles posted, men have somewhere between a 10 and 12.5 % advantage over women. So unless a transgender athletes results drop by 10% at least post change, then they have an ongoing unfair advantage.

Hande hoche!

See that one transgender competitor in a Texas wrestling match was booed.

robyntmorton

In this case, it was not 3 weeks and suddenly there’s a man competing in women’s cycling. She was required to meet requirements for testosterone levels over a minimum of 12 months before she could make the switch. This is in line with standard rules for UCI sanctioned events, and there are others who have done this before. Further MtF trans athletes tend to be paranoid about making sure they are within the rules, as a single failed test for testosterone can give a hefty 2 year ban.

She complied with the rules, was allowed to compete within those rules, and this time won.

If a question must be asked, it is whether the rules are correct or need to be tweaked? It is very difficult to do scientific testing on this though, for the simple reason of there being so few transgender elite athletes.

todders

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Going by the articles posted, men have somewhere between a 10 and 12.5 % advantage over women. So unless a transgender athletes results drop by 10% at least post change, then they have an ongoing unfair advantage.

Do you usually form your opinions on a single article?

ceadaoin.

Hande hoche! wrote: »

See that one transgender competitor in a Texas wrestling match was booed.

Well it's also unfair that a female transman using testosterone is allowed to compete when others would be banned for doping. I don't have the first clue about wrestling so I'm not sure if it would be safe for him to compete in the male division?

Hande hoche!

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well it's also unfair that a female transman using testosterone is allowed to compete when others would be banned for doping. I don't have the first clue about wrestling so I'm not sure if it would be safe for him to compete in the male division?

Yeah as someone with very little knowledge about wrestling, it seems unfair.

Ronin247

There should be no women only events because that is sexism.

MilesMorales1

Nayeli Fancy Between wrote: »

Depends on if it drifts to discussing the weather or sliced pans.

I can't find any bloody sliced pans what is there to discuss.

Guy:Incognito

todders wrote: »

Do you usually form your opinions on a single article?

It sites a couple of different studies.

Even a basic look at world records or winning times for each gender across individual sports will show big differences.

ceadaoin.

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Yeah as someone with very little knowledge about wrestling, it seems unfair.

Well the very fact that the he is allowed to take a substance that gives athletic advantage and that is prohibited for other competitors is unfair. Do I need to be an expert on wrestling to see that?

Hande hoche!

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the very fact that the he is allowed to take a substance that gives athletic advantage and that is prohibited for other competitors is unfair. Do I need to be an expert on wrestling to see that?

We might be about to see a golden era in women's' sport or something else...

Tenigate

todders wrote: »

Do you usually form your opinions on a single article?

A junior cert biology book won't see ya too far wrong.

Or that famous quote from kindergarten cop.

There's 2 sources.

ceadaoin.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It sites a couple of different studies.

Even a basic look at world records or winning times for each gender across individual sports will show big differences.

Women's world records are generally 90% that of men's according to this article

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/the-golden-ratio-the-one-number-that-describes-how-mens-world-records-compare-with-womens/260758/

Ajsoprano

Tenigate wrote: »

A junior cert biology book won't see ya too far wrong.

Or that famous quote from kindergarten cop.

There's 2 sources.

Who is your daddy and what does he do.

Malayalam

This situation was always going to arise. It is a clear demonstration of the difficulties in real time of a modern ideology based in denying the biological basis of gender. By that I mean gender at the X and Y chromosone cellular level. There will be many more real time situations when the ideology meets the trickiness of gendered life and causes problems, like in women's prisons, women's shelters, women's changing rooms, and so on. It will be interesting to watch. As far as I can see right now women's sport is over. I have read the research about hormones negating birth gender advantage - I don't believe it, not from the physiques I am seeing. Trans Female to Male will rarely best a birth male. Trans Male to Female is very likely to best a birth female in most sports. Females from birth will simply have to remove themselves from the arena to avoid injury at the very least.

The crazy thing is in stating my opinion thus I have probably offended trans-activists and supporters so deeply on many levels, and will be called trans-phobic and a hate-speaker, and that is not my intention at all. I am simply reporting how I see it on a simple physical, biological level.

Tenigate

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Women's world records are generally 90% that of men's according to this article

Well it's simple.
Simply reduce an XY female's testosterone level, and her muscle will deteriorate and bone density will reduce. That's part of it.
Now file down her bones and destroy part of her lung capacity. And pop in a female reproductive system.
And hey presto..
You got yourself a bonfide female.

My view. Either abolish female categories altogether, or redefine the category to exclude anyone and everyone with Y chromosomes. You don't need to specify their gender or sex or anything else. We're just talking about a genetic advantage and a separate division for people without that advantage.

todders

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It sites a couple of different studies.

Even a basic look at world records or winning times for each gender across individual sports will show big differences.

Studies you've read and verified separately to this one article?

Galwayguy35

This can only be a good thing, it will encourage the women to up their game.

While they are female i am surprised it doesn't fall under doping rules

pleas advice

If there are gold medals won, or records broken, I can see these being stripped by ruling bodies in the future

todders

bluewolf wrote: »

While they are female i am surprised it doesn't fall under doping rules

Why?

Noveight

Reminds me of the story of Laurel Hubbard (formerly Gavin), a trans weightlifter from New Zealand.

She'll be competing in the 2018 Commonwealth games in April. The results of those events should be interesting to see.

pumpkin4life

It's funny, boards.ie has in my view, been reasonably good, from my experience at letting lads talk.

I've talked about race/IQ/feminism/multiculturalism/the alt right/white nationalism/libertarianism/Trump/abortion/Tommy Robinson being not the bad lad that he is made out to be/the public sector and how shìte they can be, and with all of those topics, I never got so much as a warning from a mod. That's great, freedom of speech and all all of that.

With one exception. Anything LGBT discussed in a negative or not even that, critical manner, and this website comes down on people like a ton of bricks. You can't criticize the LGBT lads.

Why LGBT? Why out of all the horrible and mad controversial topics, does that one really piss a number of people off?

It seems to be the big topic that you can't discuss on boards.ie.

Edit: I haven't actually got a warning for LGBT yet. It just seems to be the topic that gets shut down the quickest.

Tenigate

pumpkin4life wrote: »

It seems to be the big topic that you can't discuss on boards.ie.

I reckon there's a certain baby kangaroo lobbying..


Mod-Banned

ceadaoin.

robyntmorton wrote: »

In this case, it was not 3 weeks and suddenly there’s a man competing in women’s cycling. She was required to meet requirements for testosterone levels over a minimum of 12 months before she could make the switch. This is in line with standard rules for UCI sanctioned events, and there are others who have done this before. Further MtF trans athletes tend to be paranoid about making sure they are within the rules, as a single failed test for testosterone can give a hefty 2 year ban.

She complied with the rules, was allowed to compete within those rules, and this time won.

If a question must be asked, it is whether the rules are correct or need to be tweaked? It is very difficult to do scientific testing on this though, for the simple reason of there being so few transgender elite athletes.

The level of testosterone allowed (10 nmol/L) is still higher than the average for female athletes (3 Nmol/L). It would be rare for a female to have a level that high without a medical condition or doping. It's not just testosterone though, there are other differences in the sexes that transition does not reverse.

Look at this picture of NZ weight lifter Laurel Hubbard. She might fall into the acceptable levels of testosterone but can anyone look at that and think she doesn't have an advantage? I think she has set records since moving into the women's sport and is going to the Commonwealth games

SSr0

Tenigate wrote: »

I reckon there's a certain baby kangaroo lobbying..

...or parrot .

riffmongous

pumpkin4life wrote: »

It's funny, boards.ie has in my view, been reasonably good, from my experience at letting lads talk.

I've talked about race/IQ/feminism/multiculturalism/the alt right/white nationalism/libertarianism/Trump/abortion/Tommy Robinson being not the bad lad that he is made out to be/the public sector and how shìte they can be, and with all of those topics, I never got so much as a warning from a mod. That's great, freedom of speech and all all of that.

With one exception. Anything LGBT discussed in a negative or not even that, critical manner, and this website comes down on people like a ton of bricks. You can't criticize the LGBT lads.

Why LGBT? Why out of all the horrible and mad controversial topics, does that one really piss a number of people off?

It seems to be the big topic that you can't discuss on boards.ie.

Edit: I haven't actually got a warning for LGBT yet. It just seems to be the topic that gets shut down the quickest.

Sounds more like the problem (or lack of) is with you if you are not getting warnings while everyone else is

robyntmorton

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The level of testosterone allowed (10 nmol/L) is still higher than the average for female athletes (3 Nmol/L). It would be rare for a female to have a level that high without a medical condition or doping. It's not just testosterone though, there are other differences in the sexes that transition does not reverse.

That’s the difficult one. It’s an arbitrary figure, but some women would naturally have a figure higher than that, while some men may naturally have a level lower. So, how do you set the level?

On the other, and staying with cyclists, look up Jillian Bearden, who has competed as an elite male and elite female cyclist, and serves as a scientific test case for the IOC. She’s shown that over time that advantage diminishes to nothing. This is in part the reasoning for having to supply proof of qualifying levels of testosterone over a minimum of 12 months (longer can be requested at the discretion of the governing body).

It’s a minefield trying to be fair to all though, that’s for sure!

robyntmorton

robyntmorton wrote: »

That’s the difficult one. It’s an arbitrary figure, but some women would naturally have a figure higher than that, while some men may naturally have a level lower. So, how do you set the level?

On the other, and staying with cyclists, look up Jillian Bearden, who has competed as an elite male and elite female cyclist, and serves as a scientific test case for the IOC. She’s shown that over time that advantage diminishes to nothing. This is in part the reasoning for having to supply proof of qualifying levels of testosterone over a minimum of 12 months (longer can be requested at the discretion of the governing body).

It’s a minefield trying to be fair to all though, that’s for sure!

Now that is interesting, over how much time did any advantage diminish?

ohnonotgmail

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The level of testosterone allowed (10 nmol/L) is still higher than the average for female athletes (3 Nmol/L). It would be rare for a female to have a level that high without a medical condition or doping. It's not just testosterone though, there are other differences in the sexes that transition does not reverse.

Look at this picture of NZ weight lifter Laurel Hubbard. She might fall into the acceptable levels of testosterone but can anyone look at that and think she doesn't have an advantage? I think she has set records since moving into the women's sport and is going to the Commonwealth games

she doesn't look significantly different to the two next to her

Malayalam

robyntmorton wrote: »

That’s the difficult one. It’s an arbitrary figure, but some women would naturally have a figure higher than that, while some men may naturally have a level lower. So, how do you set the level?

On the other, and staying with cyclists, look up Jillian Bearden, who has competed as an elite male and elite female cyclist, and serves as a scientific test case for the IOC. She’s shown that over time that advantage diminishes to nothing. This is in part the reasoning for having to supply proof of qualifying levels of testosterone over a minimum of 12 months (longer can be requested at the discretion of the governing body).

It’s a minefield trying to be fair to all though, that’s for sure!

It will probably take several years of properly analysing the results of sporting events where trans-athletes compete especially at elite levels to see if there is consistent advantage or not. It is just too early in the game to rule out any scenario. Testosterone may not be the only factor conferring advantage or otherwise - who knows. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

robyntmorton

bluewolf wrote: »

Now that is interesting, over how much time did any advantage diminish?

I’ll need to dig for figures when I’m on the laptop.

koumi

I accidentally tackled a mtf footieplayer in an all female five a side once. I genuinely didn't mean to but my foot caught the ball as she was taking a run and she took a tumble. I'm not sure how proud I am of that, but it happened. She was a good half foot taller than me too but like, it's football. (if you're reading this, sorry! )

robyntmorton

Malayalam wrote: »

It will probably take several years of properly analysing the results of sporting events where trans-athletes compete especially at elite levels to see if there is consistent advantage or not. It is just too early in the game to rule out any scenario. Testosterone may not be the only factor conferring advantage or otherwise - who knows. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

It will be interesting to see how it develops, but that won’t happen without the data points, and you can’t get them without people taking part in events at an elite level.

eurokev

Must've had some sore balls from sitting on a saddle so long

robyntmorton

koumi wrote: »

I accidentally tackled a mtf footieplayer in an all female five a side once. I genuinely didn't mean to but my foot caught the ball as she was taking a run and she took a tumble. I'm not sure how proud I am of that, but it happened. She was a good half foot taller than me too but like, it's football. (if you're reading this, sorry! )

Are you admitting to a transphobic attack on a footballer? :P (FAO: Mods, I’m joking)

Sure part of the fun is going up against the bigger player and coming out of it with the ball.

Tenigate

koumi wrote: »

I accidentally tackled a mtf footieplayer in an all female five a side once. I genuinely didn't mean to but my foot caught the ball as she was taking a run and she took a tumble. I'm not sure how proud I am of that, but it happened. She was a good half foot taller than me too but like, it's football. (if you're reading this, sorry! )

Very virtuous of you to post

david75

OP. From this and your other posts today it seems you either have some deep seated issues and need to talk to yourself or come out as trans, and get over it or just admit you’re a bot and a dick.


Mod-Banned

Noveight

Here's an interesting article on the topic by the Washington Post.

“People come in all shapes and sizes,” he said. “We don’t disqualify Michael Phelps for having super-long arms; that’s just a competitive advantage he has in his sport. We don’t regulate height in the WNBA or NBA; being tall is just an advantage for a center. For as long as sports have been around, there have been people who have had advantages over others. A universal level playing field does not exist.”

I don't think I agree with the idea that being transgender is merely a biological advantage which can be likened to being a tall basketballer or a swimmer with a longer reach.

koumi

Tenigate wrote: »

Very virtuous of you to post

you've posted in the lgbt forum making light of criminal issues, started a thread here on boards about trans issues and are in the midst of championing your very particular cause. Thought it was only appropriate. You appear to have been taking issue with me, or at least some of my posts and god only knows what for but I expect it's just somewhere for you to take your homophobic or trans angst out.

Let me make it clear. One or two issues of antagonism does not a bully make, once it becomes sustained then it constitutes harassment.
Why don't you just get it over with, what's your problem? Was it my defending the issue of gender fluid toilet facilities at UCD? Does that kind of stuff make you feel offended?

Malayalam

Noveight wrote: »

Here's an interesting article on the topic by the Washington Post.



I don't think I agree with the idea that being transgender is merely a biological advantage which can be likened to being a tall basketballer or a swimmer with a longer reach.

And if gender is only another anomaly like long arms then why have we bothered with separate male and female sports categories thus far?

Tenigate

koumi wrote: »

you've posted in the lgbt forum making light of criminal issues, started a thread here on boards about trans issues and are in the midst of championing your very particular cause. Thought it was only appropriate. You appear to have been taking issue with me, or at least some of my posts and god only knows what for but I expect it's just somewhere for you to take your homophobic or trans angst out.

Let me make it clear. One or two issues of antagonism does not a bully make, once it becomes sustained then it constitutes harassment.
Why don't you just get it over with, what's your problem? Was it my defending the issue of gender fluid toilet facilities at UCD? Does that kind of stuff make you feel offended?

Sorry, but I don't know you and didnt recognise the username.

I didn't make light of crime.. i made light of thought crime.

My previous trans post you're referring to was not about transgenders. It was about trans species, race and age.

And yep.. my particular cause is a conservative viewpoint that respects women.