Biological males in women's sport

Omackeral

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Btw - if the person in question wishes me to address her as "she, her, etc" then absolutely fine.

I will call her a woman to her face should she ask. I will acknowledge she has the right to "identify" as whatever gender she wishes.

I'm the exact same. Not everyone is a -phobe but you're still entitled to hold your own views, even if they are scientifically based.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

I wouldn't expect everyone reading to know about the sport of cycling, but the winner's jersey is a UCI World Champion's one for cycling. QV the banner above the podium. That's top of the heap. Hardly "niche".

Women's masters track cycling? Sure RTÉ have it on every year, the heats and everything, right?

Even from a cycling perspective, the masters race of any discipline is pretty niche. Throw in "women's" and "track" and you're getting really specific.

This is an attempt by a few snowflakes to equate this win, to a man in a dress winning the the women's title at Wimbledon or something.

And I'm really bloody tired of this nonsense trotted out as a defence. More like an attack and an attempt to shut down any debate on the matter.

It's not really a defence. You've picked your assertion that "call yourself what you like, but I'm not going to recognise it because <insert biology blatherings>" and entrenched yourself in there.

I am completely open to the possibility that transgender may require two new categories in sport. Or not.

But for any of us to declare one way or another that a trans woman is definitely the same as a man (or definitely the same as a woman) based on a relatively rudimentary understanding of biology that one has picked up through the years, is gone beyond arrogance into blind irrationality.

Zorya wrote: »

20 or 30 years is a long time for women to be competing against transwomen if it is proven in several decades to be disadvantageous to them. It's potentially a form of extreme gender bias that would put past racial and gender biases to some shame. Do you think that possibility is worth the risk?

It's also a long time for women to be competing against trans men, like the 18 year old wrestler in Texas who's annihilating the competition because he's not allowed wrestle in the men's category.
Yes it is "possibly" worth the "risk". Because as you point out, it's a massive amount of uncertainty, which has so far failed to bear any fruit.

PlaneSpeeking

wexie wrote: »

I think there's a world of difference between accepting that someone wants to live as a woman, would like to be treated as a woman, addressed as a woman......aaaaand actually believing they are a woman.

Completely!! You could dress up and ask me to call you Secret Squirrel if you want and I'll go along with it!

If you were seen hiding in the woods looking for nuts and scratching your nose it would be less cute and more creepy!!!

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

<insert biology blatherings>

Way to dismiss millennia of intellectual information to fit a backwards idea dude.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

But for any of us to declare one way or another that a trans woman is definitely the same as a man (or definitely the same as a woman) based on a relatively rudimentary understanding of biology that one has picked up through the years, is gone beyond arrogance into blind irrationality.

Precisely.
And yet that is exactly what IS being done. As you yourself say, beyond arrogance into blind irrationality....

Omackeral

seamus wrote: »

This is an attempt by a few snowflakes to equate this win, to a man in a dress winning the the women's title at Wimbledon or something.

seamus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Way to dismiss millennia of intellectual information to fit a backwards idea dude.

I knew Wibbs was old, but "millennia" might be a bit much

Gravelly

seamus wrote: »

Come back when we have 10 or 20 years worth of data on the physiological effects of transitioning and things might be clearer.

That'll be great for those who deny what is before their eyes, but not much good for women's sport. If this idiocy continues, there won't be a real woman champion in any sport in 20 years.

Debate as Transgender weightlifter wins world championship medal.

UFC Women's Champ Refuses to Fight Trans Athlete Fallon Fox

World record powerlifter is trans

Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs wins Texas girls title again

Students and parents demand 'unfair rule' change after two transgender teen sprinters come first AND second in the girl's state championship, months after one competed as a boy

PlaneSpeeking

Gravelly wrote: »

That'll be great for those who deny what is before their eyes, but not much good for women's sport. If this idiocy continues, there won't be a real woman champion in any sport in 20 years.

Debate as Transgender weightlifter wins world championship medal.

UFC Women's Champ Refuses to Fight Trans Athlete Fallon Fox

World record powerlifter is trans

Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs wins Texas girls title again

Students and parents demand 'unfair rule' change after two transgender teen sprinters come first AND second in the girl's state championship, months after one competed as a boy

That last one ??? "Built like a brick s**thouse" comes to mind.

Very unfair on the genuine female athletes. To quote Chris Rock in Dogma "t**s don't make a woman, even the tubby, coat wearing motherf***er has t**s!"

Gravelly

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That last one ??? "Built like a brick s**thouse" comes to mind.

Very unfair on the genuine female athletes. To quote Chris Rock in Dogma "t**s don't make a woman, even the tubby, coat wearing motherf***er has t**s!"

Hilarious that anyone could claim he, sorry, she, has no physical advantage over a female athlete. Pure denial of reality.

Imagine the numbers of young female athletes who will lose out on scholarships over this, and the effect it will have on female participation in sport.

Gimme A Pound

I don't dispute that being transgender is valid, however... "arrogant" to question a trans woman who has not undergone gender reassignment surgery (therefore still a man biologically) taking part in women's events due to the physical advantage... I mean that's just delusion and devil's advocacy gone a bit too far.

Zorya

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious that anyone could claim he, sorry, she, has no physical advantage over a female athlete. Pure denial of reality.

Imagine the numbers of young female athletes who will lose out on scholarships over this, and the effect it will have on female participation in sport.

One of the things I find unsettling about this is that one is supposed to deny the simple evidence before one's own eyes. Because, uh, bone density, bruh... What, they are huge but, don't mind that, they are made of jelly?

s7ryf3925pivug

Blatantly unfair, and saying you need to be a biologist to assess it is utter nonense.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Women's masters track cycling? Sure RThave it on every year, the heats and everything, right?

Even from a cycling perspective, the masters race of any discipline is pretty niche. Throw in "women's" and "track" and you're getting really specific.

The sports governing body the UCI recognise this as a world championship event. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

It's not really a defence. You've picked your assertion that "call yourself what you like, but I'm not going to recognise it because <insert biology blatherings>" and entrenched yourself in there.

I did not say that, so you can g'way outa that for a start. I did say I recognise trans individuals as the gender they identify with. Basic manners and feelings on the matter. I also said that physiologically no matter how much me or anyone else feels on the matter, the basic biological facts remain. Would it be "transphobic" of me to state that male to female trans can't get pregnant and carry a foetus to term, or that a female to male trans is incapable of becoming a biological father?

But for any of us to declare one way or another that a trans woman is definitely the same as a man (or definitely the same as a woman) based on a relatively rudimentary understanding of biology that one has picked up through the years, is gone beyond arrogance into blind irrationality.

This is not a "relatively rudimentary understanding of biology", these are provable scientific facts. Maybe I should fire in another warning on that last point. Biological men are on average taller, stronger, faster, with higher bone density, more lean mass, larger more stable joints, stronger sinews, faster recovery rates, higher VO2 max's and larger hearts and lungs than biological women. This is a scientific fact. These differences are there by the mid teens. If someone transitions from male to female at 18 most of those differences remain and more differences remain the older they transition.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

It's also a long time for women to be competing against trans men, like the 18 year old wrestler in Texas who's annihilating the competition because he's not allowed wrestle in the men's category.
Yes it is "possibly" worth the "risk". Because as you point out, it's a massive amount of uncertainty, which has so far failed to bear any fruit.

You ad I both know that there are not going to be loads of transmen dying to get into men's sports. It may happen from time to time, but the river is generally running the one direction in this matter.

I honestly do not think it is worth the risk. Overall.
Let sports come out with separate categories and duke out the numbers without risking trashing a couple of decades of female sports.

Is That It?

I, a fully abled body man, have decided I now identify as a disabled man (yes bigots it's a real thing, look it up).

Therefore I assume no one will object to me entering the Paralympics?

keano_afc

https://twitter.com/jkwagnermd/status/1051794655698976773

This is the rider who finished 3rd. Fair play to her for rising above the parapet.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

The sports governing body the UCI recognise this as a world championship event. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

Cut your losses here Wibbs. You've tried to argue that this isn't a niche event. Nobody on this thread would even know that a cycling championship had occurred, or that a Master's category existed in women's track cycling, had they not tried to jump on the outrage bandwagon.

This is not an event with widespread appeal. It is a niche event.

I did not say that, so you can g'way outa that for a start. I did say I recognise trans individuals as the gender they identify with. Basic manners and feelings on the matter. I also said that physiologically no matter how much me or anyone else feels on the matter, the basic biological facts remain.

Some of the basic biological facts remain. Lots of other ones are way up in the air. To claim that trans women are biologically indistinguishable from a men, especially in the area of athletic performance, is to make claims for which you have no data. It's not even an assumption you can reasonably make, given what we know about the impact of hormones on said performance.

Would it be "transphobic" of me to state that male to female trans can't get pregnant and carry a foetus to term, or that a female to male trans is incapable of becoming a biological father?

It's beneath you to play the victim card and pretend you're being attacked. We can note right now that you're the person who introduced this term to the thread and applied it to yourself.

If someone transitions from male to female at 18 most of those differences remain and more differences remain the older they transition.

Citation needed. Especially in regards to the impact of these "remaining differences" on athletic performance between transitioned and non-transitioned persons.

seamus

Zorya wrote: »

You ad I both know that there are not going to be loads of transmen dying to get into men's sports. It may happen from time to time, but the river is generally running the one direction in this matter.

Pure supposition. Again, you've no evidence to make this assertion.

Figures aren't clear in this regard, but suggest that the number of men and women who reassign are roughly equal.

Wibbs

keano_afc wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jkwagnermd/status/1051794655698976773

This is the rider who finished 3rd. Fair play to her for rising above the parapet.

She'll get some static for that from the usual loudhailers on the interwebs. Hopefully she'll get more widespread support, because at this stage this is more than farcical and needs to be called out for the ideological bullshit it is.

seamus

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

She'll get some static for that from the usual loudhailers on the interwebs. Hopefully she'll get more widespread support, because at this stage this is more than farcical and needs to be called out for the ideological bullshit it is.

I honestly think it is too late. There is already far too much that would have to be rolled back at this stage if even some elements of what is essentially the social and cultural enactment of identity politics begin to lose ground. The rolling back process would also be so severe that I would not relish that either - it would take an authoritarian backlash. At this stage I am resigned, the world will just go on getting weirder and weirder; we are past the point of return. Might as well sit back now and watch it unfold. Black is white, grass is blue, and I will be among the mad yokes muttering in the shadows by the fire.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

How do you know exactly who is ''going mad about it?'' You know everyone who is responding in any way to it? As it happens polls are showing that ordinary harmless folk are fed up to the gizzards with PC truthspeak.

Gimme A Pound

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

"The most beautiful part" - I think you're enjoying going against the grain for the craic and implying people are transphobes simply for recognition of biology, even denying scientific fact. There is a word for that, begins with t...

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I think the most beautiful part of this whole thread is the repeated mantra about how some social media brigade is going to go crazy and shout down and criticise anyone who disagrees with this win...while in fact the only ones making any noise about this and shouting down people...are the ones who disagree with it.

This woman herself is pretty deeply embedded in transgender activism (naturally), so she's been pushing her win quite heavily.

But from what I can tell, very few "right-on" type of publications are picking it up and applauding. It's mostly the "grr, liberal snowflakes" types who are going mad about it.

The self-awareness levels in this post are through the floor.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Cut your losses here Wibbs. You've tried to argue that this isn't a niche event. Nobody on this thread would even know that a cycling championship had occurred, or that a Master's category existed in women's track cycling, had they not tried to jump on the outrage bandwagon.

This is not an event with widespread appeal. It is a niche event.

You didn't answer my question. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

Some of the basic biological facts remain. Lots of other ones are way up in the air. To claim that trans women are biologically indistinguishable from a men, especially in the area of athletic performance, is to make claims for which you have no data. It's not even an assumption you can reasonably make, given what we know about the impact of hormones on said performance.

Again your ideological position is getting in the way of your logic. Take that last sentence: In female to male transexuals where testosterone is prescribed, testosterone, an anabolic steroid as far as all sports governing bodies are concerned is banned, does that increase the individuals strength and stamina and bone density? Now you can go off yet again on a "we have no proof" run, but every single sports governing body and doctors and biologists will tell you it does. Yet you feel happy enough to let female to male competitors juice up with an otherwise banned anabolic?

It's beneath you to play the victim card and pretend you're being attacked. We can note right now that you're the person who introduced this term to the thread and applied it to yourself.

your ideological position is also affecting your memory it seems.

You. Earlier. wrote:

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

You are the one who first insinuated that anyone questions this nonsense is displaying bias against transexuals. Oh and just because you seem quite into the ideology of the "victim card" mindset, don't assume others are. I asked a simple question. I won't see a simple response as an "attack". Not that you gave one so we might judge.

Citation needed.

Are you really going to stand there and with a straight face claim that transitioning male to female's at 18 or 25 or 40 will somehow grow shorter, shrink ribcages, joints and bones and drop lung capacity to biological female levels? And you reckon others have a "rudimentary understanding of biology"? OK...

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Maybe you have some cutoff in mind before questions are asked?

Again your ideological position is getting in the way of your logic. Take that last sentence: In female to male transexuals where testosterone is prescribed, testosterone, an anabolic steroid as far as all sports governing bodies are concerned is banned, does that increase the individuals strength and stamina and bone density? Now you can go off yet again on a "we have no proof" run, but every single sports governing body and doctors and biologists will tell you it does. Yet you feel happy enough to let female to male competitors juice up with an otherwise banned anabolic?


your ideological position is also affecting your memory it seems.



You are the one who first insinuated that anyone questions this nonsense is displaying bias against transexuals. Oh and just because you seem quite into the ideology of the "victim card" mindset, don't assume others are. I asked a simple question. I won't see a simple response as an "attack". Not that you gave one so we might judge.

Are you really going to stand there and with a straight face claim that transitioning male to female's at 18 or 25 or 40 will somehow grow shorter, shrink ribcages, joints and bones and drop lung capacity to biological female levels? And you reckon others have a "rudimentary understanding of biology"? OK...

Unless I've been using "rudimentary" wrong all these years and it actually means "non existent".

SOCIALLY, you can dress, appear, act - whatever as a woman.

BIOLOGICALLY, you cannot.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

If a man transitions to a woman in adulthood, he will have gone through puberty and picked up some irreversible male traits. Like, I’d really hope we wouldn’t be trying to reduce the bone density of someone who is transitioning from male to female. That sounds plain dangerous. So that’s one advantage that remains. And that’s just one example.

I have a good biology degree. No PhD or anything and I don’t consider myself an expert. But I’m confident enough in my ability to parse biology-related information. Maybe my post will be taken seriously? Somehow I suspect not...

Oh and I’m all for people transitioning. I very much believe that some people feel that they were born the wrong sex. But we can’t ignore that men transitioning to women will retain some advantages that can’t be erased.

Skyrimaddict

Its a small bit like that film with Johny Knoxville, the ringer isnt it?

jmayo

Is That It? wrote: »

I, a fully abled body man, have decided I now identify as a disabled man (yes bigots it's a real thing, look it up).

Therefore I assume no one will object to me entering the Paralympics?

Didn't some Spaniards already do that in the basketball competition