First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118293232#Comment_118293232

The subject of the thread, is transgender athletes. It doesn’t specifically refer to either women or men. The second paragraph couldn’t be more straightforward - objections to transgender athletes participation in sports isn’t based on science, it’s based entirely upon scaremongering.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118292865#Comment_118292865

Don’t explain how you imagine it’s completely different anyway, that might demonstrate you have some knowledge which thousands of elite athletes don’t, making you somewhat unique, unless your objections have something to do with knowledge you don’t have, in which case you’re certainly not unique.

EDIT: Having given it some more thought as to where you might possibly be coming from that you imagine the domains of sports and employment aren’t comparable (you’re never specific, you just ask questions and tell me I have no idea what I’m talking about and then fcuk off again), this is what I mean when I suggest they aren’t just comparable, they are complementary (notwithstanding the fact that many elite athletes are multi-disciplinarians anyway) -

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/aug/21/jessica-mccaskill-boxing-champion-katie-taylor

https://www.skysports.com/amp/boxing/news/12183/12199184/jessica-mccaskill-went-from-homelessness-to-undisputed-champion-i-became-fearless

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/aug/16/jessica-mccaskill-cecilia-braekhus-fight-katie-taylor

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/14/mccaskill-braekhus-estrada-chocolatito-fight-report

You clearly have your own ideas of what a WUM is too - anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, which is not the same definition as I understand it. The best way I can demonstrate is by example - I just had a post moved to a forum which I go out of my way to avoid, precisely because it’s choc-a-bloc with WUMs. I had a quick gander at some of the other threads and fcuk me, it’s nuts. But like I said earlier about anyone who doesn’t want to participate in sports - at no point have I ever suggested that anyone be forced to participate against their will, and I apply that same standard to myself in that I choose not to participate in that particular forum. You also aren’t forced to participate in any discussion you don’t want to. I would only have an issue with anyone who tries to block other peoples participation in something for no legitimate reason.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118293721#Comment_118293721

LOL

Words, so many together. Sense much? Zero.

Genuinely don't know what you are trying to covey. The best explanation I can come up with is that you enjoy taking contrary view points and get tied up in knots in response.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118293973#Comment_118293973

You claim you GENUINELY don’t know what I’m trying to convey, and then claim I get tied up in knots? Frankly, I don’t think you’re actually as stupid as you want me to believe. Don’t try and engage in good faith discussion anyway whatever you do, I might think you actually give a shìte.

FWIW though -

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118291609#Comment_118291609

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118293733#Comment_118293733

Like I said, I'm out. I ask questions to get you to think. It doesn't work and there's no point debating with stupid.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118293721#Comment_118293721

Transgender men partaking in male sport is not a fairness/competitive issue for a million obvious reasons.

Also its entirely based on science. Transgender women retain significant athletic advantages over natal women. It is incredibly basic science and to refute it is to refute the reality of the world we live in.

Patrick2010

I don't know why people engage with that particular poster, once I read the below from him I realised theres no point. From other threads you can see he just enjoys taking a contrary view.

Do I believe that more girls would want to participate in sports if they were competing against boys? Absolutely.

newhouse87

100% they are trolling, alot of effort and time to troll though. Posts make zero sense, off on tangents constantly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118294962#Comment_118294962

So, not just me? Was wondering if I don't know English good.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118294193#Comment_118294193

It’s not a fairness/competitive issue for one simple reason - they’re not perceived as a threat.

Also, it’s not based upon science. Even the authors of the study you rely on to make the point have come out and said that the results shouldn’t be misinterpreted. That’s notwithstanding all the other considerations of the political, cultural, ethical, legal and social issues involved which are a reflection of reality which the IOC guidelines are intended to address, precisely because they are a global organisation concerned with the development of sports and the continuing relevance of the IOC.

It’s for these reasons that the science director of the IOC came out with this -

But he added: “The other important thing to remember is that trans women are women. You have got to include all women if you possibly can.”

That statement, while I don’t agree with it’s fundamental premise, IS a reflection of the reality of the world in which we live, a world where they are undoubtedly aware of not just the current generation of athletes, those people who were not born athletes (which is the point you keep missing), and those future generations who will become athletes.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/30/ioc-admits-guidelines-for-transgender-athletes-are-not-fit-for-purpose

One doesn’t have to be hugely cynical either to grasp that it also makes good business sense.

Podge_irl

It’s not a fairness/competitive issue for one simple reason - they’re not perceived as a threat.

Because they're not. It's not that complicated.

Political, cultural, ethical and social issues are not science. The science is clear - you simply reject it or try to obfuscate it. There is nothing to misinterpret - males are better athletically than females by a significant margin. This is absolutely accepted science, there is untold mountains of evidence for it and no evidence to suggest it is wrong. You either accept this or you choose to be wilfully ignorant of the realities of the world.

The IOC have chosen some kind of moral standpoint and ignored this. I could at least accept this decision if they didn't lie about there being no advantage. If the viewpoint is that trans women should be allowed into female sports and to hell with the consequences at least there is an honesty to that position. Suggesting that there is no advantage is, simply, a lie.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118295637#Comment_118295637

I agree, it’s definitely not so complicated that one actually requires a million reasons when the reason doesn’t even require a modicum of scientific endeavour to answer the question as to why there is no issue with women who want to compete with men (I’m all for no obfuscation).

The science ISN’T clear, it’s why research is still ongoing. You choose to reject that reality and substitute it with your own, which is Lisa Littman levels of scientific credibility, I’d be mortified for any student if it was submitted as a research project at the Young Scientist Exhibition it’s that bad. It served it’s purpose for the WA though, so let’s not pretend that it wasn’t influenced by politics. Well, I suppose you can still do that if you want to, it’s not as though anyone can actually stop you from believing whatever you want to believe.

Give up Podge. You could not make yourself more clear. Everyone that reads this can see (that's where he ultimately fails). You will not wear One Eye Jack down. He's even taking the piss to new levels using the word obfuscation in the above sentence. What a piece of work that sentence is. I'd say he works to a set formula - he has it down to a fine art. The purpose, presumably, to get the last word in. Let him - small victories.

Your position. There's scientific proof that men are more athletic on almost all parameters.

His. Nope. Many more words... just words. But... believe what you want.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118295871#Comment_118295871

Well no actually, there’s no obfuscation in that sentence. It’s entirely consistent with the fact that there are men who want to compete with women, and there are women who want to compete with men.

It doesn’t suddenly change from referring to men who want to compete with women, to refer to women as “transgender men” when it suits, because those are two different concepts.

A better example of obfuscation was the reference to men as “androgenised people”, but to their credit I see that Podge has since dropped that nomenclature when it was pointed out that the term was scientifically inaccurate.

newhouse87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118295756#Comment_118295756

Are men stronger then women in the vast vast majority of cases?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296246#Comment_118296246

Is it possible for you to make your point without beginning with a loaded or leading question?

newhouse87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296276#Comment_118296276

It was a simple question, i like to get to the crux of things rather then waffling on, dont see how it was loaded.

So Are men stronger then women in the vast vast majority of cases?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118291839#Comment_118291839

You've been down this road before and backed out of it. McGregor would cause serious lasting damage if such a fight was to go ahead, even McGregor himself would refuse such a fight as it would be a very dangerous and stupid fight to arrange.

Males perform better than females at virtually all sports in the same weightclasses, I'd go as far to say that a lower weight male could compete at the high level female weight classes without a problem.

Similar in the Biles case, male gymnasts perform much more strength based routines than females who focus more on form due to lack of strength (i.e. a male could compete there and easily dominate).

The question is whether testosterone reduction is enough to allow trans to compete, not if any biological male should be allowed to compete in any female category with an identity change.

It also seems that you haven't really competed in many sports yourself from your writing (it shouldn't matter much but does betray your inexperience of the situations).

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296415#Comment_118296415

The question isn’t whether testosterone reduction is enough to allow trans (trans what? Men, women?), to compete. Your question lacks specificity for one thing, which allows for you to present circumstances which suits your particular purposes.

The question of expecting athletes to undergo medical interventions to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in athletic events is just a non-starter for ethical reasons. It’s why Caster Semenya is taking her case to the ECHR.

Now, here’s where you might want to sit down because this is the part where people tend to get lost - the FUTURE of sports competitions

We know that one of the treatments for people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria is hormone treatments. If the rules in competition as they were, were to remain the same, then that excludes men who as children underwent hormonal therapies, who compete in in sports. It would also exclude women who as children underwent hormonal therapies. This is happening, we know it’s currently happening. So does the IOC, who are cognisant of the reality that this is happening, and they’re thinking about future generations and the future of competition.

If you’re still reading and haven’t fcuked your laptop out the window, fair play! 😂

Now, as competitions currently stand, you’re correct (even allowing for the idea that a thug like McG would refuse such a match, I can’t say I share your certainty), but competitions as they currently stand, are designed with sex stereotypes built in, you gave the example of gymnastics which you’re correct - womens gymnastics scores for what is expected of women, mens gymnastics scores for what is expected of men. It’s also true in boxing, essentially that less is expected of women than men (in terms of number of rounds and minutes per round, not an exhaustive list). The same is true of gymnastics (an exhaustive list, you get the idea where this is going).

The IOC had no real option but to review the guidelines considering all these factors. They are aware of all these factors which are happening not just in sports, but in wider society, on a global scale, as opposed to just the limitations of some peoples perception from their perspective. Essentially, they know that the future of the Olympics is going to look very different, it HAS to, in order to stay relevant and viable in a global commercial economy.

That’s upsetting for some people now, in the same way as other forms of discrimination which, when they were removed, was upsetting for some people then, and they argued vehemently against it. The kind of discriminations which people didn’t really bat an eyelid at then because it rarely came up, due to the fact that the people who were the targets of that discrimination stayed well under the radar, or people just weren’t exposed to it (more difficult if the discrimination was based upon physical characteristics obviously, not so obvious if the discrimination was based upon things people couldn’t see with their own eyes).

If you made it down this far, congratulations, science has determined that only men could make it down this far, unless you’re a female triathlete… awkward, check your balls haven’t disappeared… it could be the cold, right? 😬

Rothko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297409#Comment_118297409

"Are men stronger then women in the vast vast majority of cases?"

Answer the question, Jack. A simple yes or no is all you need. No meandering paragraphs that say nothing.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298011#Comment_118298011

He can't answer as his view on this topic will implode.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298158#Comment_118298158

It imploded the same way last time, there is some good points but this will all be sunk when someone sets an impossible female record or someone gets very badly injured in a contact sport.

At the top level of sport the differences between competitors can be minute, biological male vs. biological female is a chasm of difference and it's not anybodies fault.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298935#Comment_118298935

I could answer the question easily astro, but the askers already have drawn their own conclusions regardless of my answer, so what would be the purpose or point in entertaining a question I know is being asked in bad faith? I wouldn’t mind the question if I didn’t know it was being asked in bad faith, my answer would be that I simply don’t know.

I would then go on to point out that the question is irrelevant for the very reason as you make the point that we’re not talking about the vast majority of cases, we’re talking about a tiny tiny minority of the world’s population who are at the level in their chosen sports where they are at the top of their game at national competition level, to qualify for international competition level, and there are still a bucketload of qualifying criteria for each nation entering a competition like the Olympics. It’s how they were able to achieve gender equality at this years Olympics for example, and I expect that will continue into the future too.

There will be new sports introduced, new events introduced, better technology, more technology, more politics, more money, more sponsorship opportunities… and oodles and oodles of merch -

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/tokyo-2020-team-gb-althete-sells-olympics-merchandise-to-raise-funds-for-commonwealth-games-12374946

EDIT: As to the idea that ‘this’ will all be sunk when someone either sets an impossible record or someone is badly injured - the whole principle of setting new records is that the impossible has been overcome, and as for the idea that it will be sunk when someone is badly injured in a contact sport - injuries in contact sports happen all the time, and either greater safety measures have been incorporated into the sport, or it’s simply the case that the injury, even fatal, was seen as an unfortunate tragedy, but not tragic enough to put a stop to it. To me that sort of fatalistic argument just comes off as spiteful tbh. It’s not going to do anything for any sport and it’s not going to discourage anyone who actually wants to, from participating in something they’re actually passionate about.

If Bruce Jenner had competed in the mens events as Caitlyn Jenner, what do you think his chances would have been of appearing on cereal boxes on every breakfast table in the US, and then to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair some 30 years later? I would suggest he wouldn’t even have gotten as far as the Olympics at the time. He likely knew it too, but he was the ONLY person that knew it. Nobody else could have predicted it, because they didn’t know about him what he knew about himself.

You keep making the point too that I don’t appear to have any experience of sports at any level, and as far as I’m concerned, you’re just stating a fact. It doesn’t need me to answer to it because I’ve never claimed to speak with any sort of authority in the first place. I would suggest to anyone who I didn’t perceive was putting the question to me in bad faith that they should assume I know nothing, about anything. I’d be the first person to tell them I know nothing about anything. It makes things a hell of a lot easier in my experience, because pissing contests wreck my brain, to say nothing of the amount of times people appear to go out of their way to take me up wrong. I just can’t be dealing with that. I don’t think I’m in any way unusual in that regard.

Rothko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298984#Comment_118298984

So, you can't answer it, then? Great.

BattleCorp1

One Eyed Jack.

I'm hoping that this is isn't a leading question seeing as you don't like answering them.

In sporting events such as athletics, weight lifting etc., in general, are the men's world records higher than the women's world records. And by that I mean is the men's 100m world record higher than the women's 100m world record. Is the men's pole vault world record higher than the women's pole vault record and so on and so on.

And if the men's records, in general, are higher than the women's, can you possibly give me the ladybird version of why that is or isn't so?

@One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298011#Comment_118298011

The debate about whether men are stronger than women etc. / bone mass etc., and all the rest, is a total and complete distraction.

What matters is the chromosomes - and this is the basis upon which sport is divided by sex.

When we start debating the right levels of testosterone and bone mass and lung function etc., it serves as nothing more than debating fodder to the other side who refuse to accept that sport is differentiated based on XX and XY and nothing more. Physiology varies, sex doesn't.

You can already see how @One eyed Jack is taking advantage of it - with reams of meaningless paragraphs that refuse to admit the simple truth: that men and women are different, and that these differences can be traced back to XX and XY and nothing more.

All else by that poster is a deliberate and conscious attempt at obfuscation, because - deep down - even that poster doesn't really believe what he's saying; "So, perhaps let's break down the meaning of everything and maybe then I'll have a ghost of a point"-kind of approach.

It's nothing more than semantic word-play, post-modern, deconstructionist babble; arguing for the sake of arguing.

The Quintessence Model

He'll be talking about intersex people now you've mentioned chromosomes. Wait and see!

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298984#Comment_118298984

It is a bit disingenuous not to give the answer though even though you and everybody knows the answer but it will trap your argument (again) until enough time goes past that it can be brought to the fore again.

And technology changes sports all the time, swimming records have been undone due to the once legal, now illegal swimsuits, the Javelin record is based on the javelin being used (as they had to make it harder to throw as far as it was getting to the point the stadiums wouldn't be big enough). But those pale in comparison to the advantage that a biological male competing as a female has over a biological female in every sport. There is no great solution to inclusivity here barring possibly a third intersex category or you begin to decimate female sport (which will in turn decimate trans sports anyway as there will be an ever decreasing circle to compete against). Women's sport is finally making in-roads (beyond tennis), football is getting sponsorship, the ladies GAA is getting funding and advertised, the lack of funding for the women's rugby team is big news (not sure if the IRFU has responded to it properly yet), females are finally getting recognition at elite levels in a number of sports.

Now, the trans number is too low at the moment to really effect it any meaningful way, but it will grow and authorities will be forced to handle it in a fair way.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300705#Comment_118300705

It’s not disingenuous not to give an answer to a disingenuous question though. That’s my point. The person asking the question, as far as they’re concerned, already KNOWS the answer. MY answer though, is that I don’t know - I don’t share their confidence in the answer they just pulled out of their arse and I don’t even think in those terms because it would be impossible to test before we could actually answer the question with any degree of confidence. I’m just not as confident because I know that a guess which says yes, could easily be wrong, in much the same way as it was assumed that it was obvious the earth was flat… until it wasn’t. An answer they pulled out of their arse, to a question they asked, tanks a hole in an argument I never made? Does not compute.

The one thing I do know for certain, is that there will always be losers who will accuse the winners of cheating, in any sport, regardless of their sex or anything else. The losers will always find some way to explain away something which to them doesn’t make any sense - the idea that they lost, they were sure they had it in the bag, they were so confident that they were certain, there was no question they would win.

There will of course be more men competing in the womens category in weightlifting if it’s still in the next Olympics and not removed as an Olympic sport due to it being rife with drugs, and they’ll be half Hubbards age, and people will assume that they have the odds unfairly stacked in their favour and cry foul, doesn’t matter if they win or they don’t win, the fact they’re there at all, is simply offensive. That’s what it stems from as far as I can see, because there would be no way of actually KNOWING the result before the event, and anyone who claims to be able to predict the results is being dishonest, as they can’t predict the outcome. As many things that are humanly possible, being able to tell the future is not one of them, to the best of my knowledge anyway! Anyone who says things like they knew this was going to happen, or they knew that was going to happen, well Captain Hindsight now has the same information as everyone else after the event, and there’s nothing special about confirmation bias.

As to any impact on womens sports, the effects would at least have to be measurable, and then any difference would have to be significant, in order to provide supporting evidence that the rules need to be changed in some way or another. As it stands though, womens sports aren’t going anywhere, like, literally, they aren’t going anywhere. Mens sports will always be streets ahead of womens sports, no matter how they try and stack the deck in womens favour to produce the outcome that some people want. People gravitate towards what they want, unless it’s rigged in such a way that people are FORCED to watch something they wouldn’t normally watch, like Netflix does with its funky algorithms! 😂

In reality though, there are plenty of outstanding issues in sports already that have a much greater influence on the participation of women in sports, than proportionately speaking, the handful of men around the globe competing in the womens events -

https://theconversation.com/amp/the-tokyo-olympics-are-billed-as-the-first-gender-equal-games-but-women-still-lack-opportunities-in-sport-165280

I have no doubt there will be a thread to highlight every single instance of the unfairness of it all, scouring the Internet to highlight this particular issue, and still I don’t imagine a tsunami of public support for women off the back of this issue, because the vast majority of people, both men and women, just don’t care. Just look at any other thread on here that encapsulates the gender wars, and tell me men aren’t just better at playing the victim! 😏

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301464#Comment_118301464

You don't believe a word of that; you're just playing the contrarian at this stage and we can all see through it. Not even going to bother reading it; same old meaningless babble.