nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Bannasidhe

We hear a lot how allowing transgender women compete in woman's competitions will result in biological (cis) women being disadvantaged to the point of destroying women's sport.

Yet, in a a swim meet between Yale, Penn State, and Dartmouth where two transgender athletes competed directly against each other the clear winner was biologically female who identifies as male but hasn't started any hormone treatment yet.

Iszac Henig is transitioning from female to male but apart from having a double mastectomy has not taken any other surgical or hormonal steps yet and is therefore allowed to compete in women's events. Hormonally Henig is still 'female' - her body is no different biologically from any other cis woman's - yet she beat a transgender woman, Lia Thomas, who began HRT in 2019.

The issue of transgender people in sport need to be discussed and all factors considered -but it does seem that the warning of the death of "women's (ie cis women only) sport" are premature.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-lia-thomas-two-races-tri-meet-transgender-yale-swimmer

https://nypost.com/2022/01/08/lia-thomas-defeated-by-fellow-transgender-swimmer-iszac-henig/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356194#Comment_119356194

It's like you've made no good faith effort to understand my position at all. 'Bizarre and insane!'

No I repudiate your summary, it does not characterize my position.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119355790#Comment_119355790

Is your position not that men and women are the same and transgender women athletes have no advantage as if they did it would be cheating. To claim otherwise is similar to racism. The science presented to to say that transwomen have an advantage is junk.

Now where have you presented evidence to back it up. As I said earlier I'm willing to change my position if you have data to support this because much of what you have presented is conjecture and deflection. You've gone from sport to war to gorillas and none of it supports your conjecture.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356217#Comment_119356217

Actually, all four points are accurate. You have backed up all of them throughout this thread.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356236#Comment_119356236

No I fundamentally disagree, especially with this nebulous and semantically feckless statement:

trans women are literally women and trans men are literally men

or this one @J.O. Farmer

men and women are the same and transgender women athletes have no advantage as if they did it would be cheating.

And to the contrary @eskimohunt , I've backed that up throughout this thread.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356266#Comment_119356266

I phrased that sentence in light of your repeated chanting that "trans women are women".

If you believe that to be true, then my phrasing is accurate.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356039#Comment_119356039

Yes. The female human with XX chromosomes, a woman. Jut as the male human with XY chromosomes is a man. Beyond that is intersex, including transgender, a suite of congenital and/or chromosomal and/or developmental "faults" or conditions. This is proveable by very simple repeatable criteria regardless of culture. It's reductive and impersonal, but that's what good science always is, otherwise it couldn't and wouldn't have progressed and we'd still be running off superstition, emotions and nebulous unproveable cultural imaginings. Oh but we've always had "trans" people in history... Well much of that can be attributed to a current re-interpretation of history, but even if we leave that aside; we've also always had prophets and demigods walking among us and do so even today. They are quite sure they are, their followers are quite sure they are. This does not mean they talk to god, are gods, or that god itself exists.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356071#Comment_119356071

It really isn't. It's obfuscatory rhetoric based on currently en vogue sociopolitics. Trans women, or men are definably different sets. Literally by definition. The difference between your vague "definitions" and my science is no matter where you go in the world or in time mine holds true and is repeatable. The results will always be the same, whereas your definitions wouldn't be even 30 years ago and might not 30 years hence, or in different cultures.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356274#Comment_119356274

Your phrasing is potentially misleading and I don't endorse that statement as is.

Trans women are women; they are not literally born-female women. Not sure if you were trying to conflate, but I wanted to make the distinction clear. Semantics obviously don't change the circumstances of one's birth. Womanhood seems like an important issue for feminists, women, and trans women, intersex persons, etc. who may all ascribe different value and self-attribution to it. I don't have the attribution to it to argue whether it is entirely a social construct or not, I can see how nurture/nature play roles, but I certainly don't want to fall into the trap of mansplaining womanhood, lol, I just know it exists and have seen a thing or two about it in my life.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356305#Comment_119356305

You believe that trans women are literally women; a subset of the wider category of what 'women' means. You can have biological women, and you can have trans women, and intersex women - and they're equally as women as each other in their variability, yes?

If yes, then that's what I meant by my statement.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356266#Comment_119356266

I can't be bothered looking for your posts but 1 said do women train to a target 10% lower than men. This would imply you think they have equal capability and in the context of the thread are the same would it not.

You also said that my position that transwomen having an unfair advantage was tantamount to saying transwomen are cheating.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356335#Comment_119356335

I'll rephrase: both genders, sexes, classes, have equal human potential. I'm convinced that ultimately (if things go well and we don't kill ourselves) Men and Women will achieve equal if not far greater parity in acumen and aptitudes the longer we foment a civilization on Equality. I'm not convinced the modern snapshot of contemporary athleticism is the final word on the superiority of one sex over the other.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356319#Comment_119356319

Yes, and trans women are not literally female-born or biological cis women etc. etc.; all would be classified as women.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356378#Comment_119356378

For sure, that's what you believe and that's fine. I disagree with that, but that's what I meant to convey in my summary post.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356364#Comment_119356364

Okay that's a future state probably hundreds or thousands of years away.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356477#Comment_119356477

Maybe and I'd like to usher it in but maybe I'm far ahead of my time.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356477#Comment_119356477

It won't happen, even in thousands of years time. It's a total and utter delusion.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356484#Comment_119356484

IDK...

https://news.osu.edu/men-from-early-middle-ages-were-nearly-as-tall-as-modern-people/#:~:text=According%20to%20Steckel's%20analysis%2C%20heights,the%2017th%20and%2018th%20centuries.

Seems like it's been debated how fast we change with our environment

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356493#Comment_119356493

Nope. There is no debate of the sort you think there is, or wish there was. You really don't do the basic science or have a blind clue on the basics of this kinda thing, do you? More food, particularly protein in the diet makes people taller. It can happen in a generation. QV the Asian disapora living in the west eating western type diets. The men and women in that diaspora still show the biological sex differences and their shorter male relatives in their homelands eating the local diets are still stronger with bigger lung capacities, more muscle and bone density and all the other markers than their taller female diaspora. In the same medieval the rich were taller and more robust than the poor, to the degree that one's station in life can usually be read from their bones. The medieval commoner man was still stronger etc than the ruling class medieval woman.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119355635#Comment_119355635

You didnt do any lifting, you just did nothing. 5 mins looking at the results would back up the post I made. There's no study or dissertation to be done on if race is the deciding factor in sporting performance as it just takes 5mins of looking through results to see it is not.

Anyway to summarise

109Kg weight lifting

The winners of the long jump

First and second in the 200m freestyle

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356943#Comment_119356943

are these photos from an open category or a mens category

CatFromHue

They're the top performers in any category of their sport at the last Olympics.

Remember you were asking should we segregate on race while posting a pic of an all black race.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357053#Comment_119357053

That doesn’t answer the question really. Clearly these photos are from the mens and don’t tell us a thing about the distinction between the athletes men vs women.

Yes I posted a photo from the 2012 100 m final. Mens.

CatFromHue

They're the top performers.

Each of their lifts, jumps, and times was the best out of all competitors male or female, Black, Asian, or White.

In the 100m and marathon it's predominantly black athletes who are the top performers.

The one thing the top performers have in common is not race, but biological sex. They're all male.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357081#Comment_119357081

And back to where we started:

'All Trans women are men. Men. menmen. Nothing will stop them being men. They are manly manly biological men. In frocks.'

Therefore posting information about men's performance at elite level is 100% relevant. - as long as you completely dismiss the effect of hormone blockers.

Which you continually do.

It's such a strange position as it undermines the whole "puberty blockers are bad bad bad" trope.

Either hormone blockers work or they do not.

If they do not (meaning elite trans women athletes are 100% biologically male and perform as such i.e. your apparent position) then logically puberty blockers do not work and there is nothing to complain/worry about.

If puberty blockers do work ... then so do other hormone blockers - can you see where this is going ?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357477#Comment_119357477

They're responding to someone who suggested there should be no segregation in sports full stop. They aren't even specifically discussing trans participation in that post. Which is the ultimate end goal for many. Trans participation/sport segregation by gender with no hormones or intervention is also the end goal for many.

Your endgoal is participation at elite level with medical intervention, but that is far from the consensus view.

Either hormone blockers work or they do not.

This is not simplistically true of anything really, or at least without a definition of "work" is utterly meaningless. Hormone blockers and taking replacement hormones have an effect. We already know from studies that the effect is less than the pre-existing advantage. If the gap is 8% and you reduce it by 4% then its still 4%.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356814#Comment_119356814

Sorry Wibbs, but as a historian I have to say that has to be some of the biggest load of pick and mix, out of context, rubbish I have read apart from on certain 'patriot' twitter accounts.

Rich 'Medieval' Women were culturally barred from physical labour - this was to demonstrate how rich her family was. How do you expect them to gain muscle mass in those circumstances? The 'Medieval' commoner, on the other hand, was primarily engaged in physical labour - women too!

What exactly does 'medieval' mean in your post? Are you talking about a Europe under the Feudal System - which is generally what people mean? Well, neither Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc had the Feudal System. If a place had not been part of the Roman Empire it developed along different cultural lines - in a European context that was usually less misogynistic lines.

Are you going to argue that a male monk was physically stronger than a Shield Maiden simply because of being a man? Monks were involved in food production so did do physical labour - shield maidens came from farming families and also trained extensively to do battle. I know who I would put my hack silver on to win.

The inhabitants of Gaelic Ireland were noted, by the people trying to conquer them, as being particularly healthy and physically fit. Including the women.

It was also a society far far removed, in cultural terms, from the Feudal Medieval.

Women had significant rights, wealth was not displayed by keeping them inside and docile. In point of fact Women controlled the flow of money - and could legally veto her husband's decisions, divorce him, take lovers, own land, ... and fight. I could point you to several reports from Tudor tax collectors explaining to Elizabeth I's administrators (who were also experienced soldiers - we are literally talking about people like Drake, Raleigh, Bingham, Mountjoy) why they ran away from Gráinne Ní Mháille as she was a) closer to intercepting them than her husband, and b) far more dangerous then her husband in a fight. And he was, in modern parlance, the kind of man who would fight with a feather. Both her husbands were. But she was the wealthy pirate. And Gaelic Ireland had no issue with that. How de we know? Because the English were shocked at how she was respected and considered a spokesperson for her people... as if she was equal to a man.

But you would have us believe that any man could have beaten this experienced sea captain, with a fleet under her command, who is recorded as fighting (successfully) on land and sea at the head of her often significant army numbering thousands because 'medieval'.

You have taken the cultural/dietary conditions from one group of people (Asian - but which 'Asians', it's not clear) and extrapolated that to be global. Then made an argument about 'Medieval' society without clarifying what exactly you mean by that term.

Completely ignoring that many many cultures across the ages have accepted that there are people who's gender does not align with their biological sex.

If you are going to attempt to use 'history' as some kind of justification for the GC position kindly do not insult us by trotting out some mish mash of out of context, faux history based on ill defined terms and vague references to large geographic regions that were in reality culturally diverse.

BTW I can supply the names of women military leaders from various parts of China and India, not to mention Onna- Mush from Japan.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357668#Comment_119357668

I do so enjoy being told what 'my end goal' is - or what 'I know is true'. So kind. Like I can't express myself or something.

My 'end goal' is to counteract the utter scutter being spouted by people whose 'end goal' is to restrict Trans Women from participating in society as women - sport is just one of the battle fronts.

Is that clear enough for you or do you need to clarify for me what I am doing in case I don't understand my own posts?

As for the poster I was responding to - their position varies from "trans women will dominate" to "so few trans women athletes that less than 20 in 45 years across a plethora of sports is over representation" - I think under those circumstances questioning their position on the effect of hormones on athletic performance - when they continually refer to non-hormone reduced biological male athletes - is relevant.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357749#Comment_119357749

I do so enjoy being told what 'my end goal' is

I am referencing something you have said repeatedly, not telling you anything. I would have thought that distinction was pretty clear.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357700#Comment_119357700

I'm not going to address the history point, but I'd be curious to know if your position aligns with @Overheal, who argues that there should be no segregation in sport whatsoever, either with regard to sex or self-identified gender?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357700#Comment_119357700

Are you arguing that hormone blockers are unneeded because a pirate was a woman and a man was a monk?

Be clear in your intent. Is it more important for sport to be fair or to be inclusive?

Independently, it is odd that discussion has headed towards the evolution of the species and elimination of gender roles and differences entirely, as if its something that would happen within a generation.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357780#Comment_119357780

What I have repeatedly said is that if levels of testosterone is the bench mark applied to participate in women's sports - and it is, we have seen many women unexpectedly (to them) fail the gender verification tests - then if Trans Women meet the criteria they should be allowed to compete.

That does not mean that I am advocating for or against those tests - it means that I am saying either those tests are the bench mark or they are not.

So my 'end goal' is literally not what you claim. My 'end goal' is what I keep saying it is.