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

You know you are basically wasting your time getting trapped in this extremely pedantic form of argumentation, right?

Literally just wasting your energy on it.

Everybody knows that men outperform women in the majority of sports. This is because males and females are different and sports is one area where those differences are particularly noticeable.

So if a male decides "hey I actually identify as a woman so I'd like to compete against the females" any sensible person would agree that this is unfair.

Unfortunately there are less and less sensible people around.

Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a middle ground reached on this subject years ago. Male sports for males. Female sports for females. A third mixed category for anyone who wants it.

Doesn't matter what you "identify" as in public. If you're male you compete against other males, if you're female you compete against other females. If you don't feel like your identity matches your biology then there's your 3rd category.

But the data from looking at men's results and comparing that to the data from women's results would tell you something. What conclusions might someone draw from comparing those 2 sets of data?

The Olympic games alone is enough of a dataset for pull from.

Add in soccer, rugby, and tennis, there is more data to shake a stick at. And that doesn't include the very obvious and clear physical differences between males and females, larger lungs, larger heart, thicker bones and stronger tendons etc.

Anyone who says there isn't data to pull from has their head in the sand.

yes, I gave up posting here after not getting a straight answer from the usual suspects as to whether men don’t have an advantage over women in sports even if they decided they identify as women in later life. Continue to argue basic biology with the lads here who say there’s no difference between athletes born male who go through puberty and decided in later life they are female and they should be allowed to compete with biological females

You wouldn’t even have to look at historical records. Men have several advantages over women in today’s sports, that it would be reasonable to assume that if there were a flat 100m sprint competition between a man and a woman, it would be the man would win.

Provided he didn’t get too cocky for his own good, of course 😏

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=849771253243492&vanity=SPORTbible&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc3NTY4OTc5MzAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D

The truth is that they really can't give you a straight answer because they are deep, deep, into this thing ideologically.

Nobody is going to spend many, many, hours of their life arguing on this point to just abandon it and accept they have been on the wrong side all along.

The whole basis of these arguments is the pedantic insistence that "woman does not equal female" when society has been using woman and female interchangeably for decades, if not centuries.

The "women's" washroom or changing room or shelter or sports or services always really did mean female. However, recently people have focused in on this idea that they can identify as a women while not being female and are using that pedantic distinction to gain access to women's/female spaces. Basically the argument is "but it says women on the sign it doesn't say females!"

This whole conversation is going completely differently if back in the 1920s the Olympics had said "female" events instead of "women's" events. Despite the fact that in the 1920s they obviously just meant the same thing.

Same as in the 1880s with the introduction of women's public toilets. Nobody at the time thought "better call these female toilets to avoid confusion" because the "women's WC" or "ladies restroom" or "little girls room" meant female.

How could they forsee that over a century later some extremely pedantic people would come along saying "gender is a social construct and although I am a male it says women, not female, on the sign so let me in"?

Even if the sign says female it wouldnt matter. Trans women are literally female now dont you know because words have no meaning anymore. Reminds me of a breakfast place I used to go to that had the toilets labeled as "eggs" and "sausages". Maybe something so literal really is necessary lol. Although if the activists heard about it I'm sure they'd have something to say about it. What a bunch of transphobic bigots!

No, there’s no ‘probably’ about it. It’s absolutely not down to me to name specific sports which other people have in mind when they complain of the issue of men competing in women’s sports.

I’m not in the business of trying to read other people’s thoughts.

I knew you'd you'd avoid answering the question. You are so entrenched in your ideology that you can't admit men have physical advantages over women when it comes to sport. You are a coward. Just admit facts beat your feelings.

A high level, league of Ireland? Either way, I'm sure you still have a decent touch. They would not be as sharp as when you trained 4 times a week. And if you went back training after 15 years, you have zero chance of getting back you you level at 22 (or whenever you quit).
As you said, your pace is gone. You are not physically what you were. We all are.
Physically we muscle power over time - that's obvious in most physical sports. Pretty key in weight lifting.

So based on the performance of Hubbard, we can draw very accurate picture on whether she carried an XY advantage over to the Women's Weightlifting division. And the beautify of an performance based assessed, its entirely objective. Opinions on Trans people in general (both positive and negative) do not factor in.

Men are stronger than women. I think that's an established fact.
If trans women had no XY advantage, then the process of transitioning (over time) should show strength drop off equal to that advantage.
Hubbard should have experience that drop off, plus a lack of training drop off, plus an generally aging dropp off. That did not happen.

Hubbard's performance during Olympic qualification would have been impressive, had they never transitioned and were still living as a man (with male biological benefits)

Objectively, Hubbard results show a performance advantage.

I was asking you. If you’re not willing to answer it (we all know why), just say so.

I know you were asking me, and it’s not that I’m unwilling to answer your question. I can’t answer your question, because I’m not a mind reader. I can’t answer a question which is predicated on knowing what someone else is thinking. You appear to think you’re capable of doing so, but that’s entirely your own business.

You clearly have objections…

I don’t. By all means you do you, and do your comparisons and what not.

What I object to is your attempt to suggest that your argument should be taken seriously because it is based upon data which you deem relevant to what are an entirely different set of circumstances. In simple terms - it’s a non sequitur. You call it science, and because I don’t share your views, you accuse me of denying science, as though science is a belief system.

I don’t know what to do with that, to be honest.

I do know however, that I need to be up in the morning, so I’m going to bed now. I know, I know - running and hiding. Feel free to have the last word.

There’s no side-stepping on my part I can assure you, because the concept of trans whatever is meaningless to me personally. Men do have physical advantages in comparison to women, and what I’m looking to determine is the impact of men in women’s sports. Fairly bloody simple request I would have thought, but instead all I get is the effect of “look at this data which doesn’t show anything relevant”, and when I point out an example of relevant data, well, they could’ve been a contender. The newest one is asking ME, for what sports I think men shouldn’t be permitted to compete against women, when I don’t have an issue with it in the first place, yet I’m expected to answer on behalf of people who do?

As for the prostate cancer, well, that’s an entirely different thing, with some people claiming that the equivalent of the prostate in women are the skenes glands -

https://www.ourcancerstories.com/prostate-cancer/general/women-prostate-cancer

Am I going to take it up with those people? No, because I don’t care. It’s stupid, there’s no need whatsoever to get remotely worked up about something which is so insignificant.

Well at least you’ve moved on from “Trans women are women”

I can agree that transwomen are transwomen, a sub set of males.

And again, all transwomen are men, not all men are transwomen.