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 and sports

Ush1

With a couple of transgender threads doing the rounds and the whole concepts of there being little deliniation anymore, it got me thinking about where men and women are seperated for reasons of equality in of themselves.

The first story is one from California:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/17011957-419/transgender-player-attains-college-basketball-first.html

This is a 50 year old, desert storm veteran who is six foot six and two hundred and twenty pounds, playing college basketball against girls in or around their early twenties.

This next story is even more intriguing:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Transgender-MMA-Fighter-Fallon-Fox-Hopes-to-Compete-at-Highest-Level-50759

An MMA cage fighter, born a man but now recognised as a woman and fighting other women. She obviously has to conform to a weight class but is this fair?

She will have the bone density and structure of a man and be able to legally beat up women. One of her first fights she knocked the other woman out brutally in 39 seconds.

My personal opinion is that it's not fair and can see it causing problems in many sports.

At a recent athletics competition there was a female runner who had a lot of muscle and masculine features, winning many events. When tested, she was chromosomally actually male, but she had female organs and so I don't think it's as cut dry.

Opinions?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

Any I've seen looked like men,can you prove they don't?

Sure:
http://img.karaoke-lyrics.net/img/artists/28413/kim-petras-40285.jpg

Balmed Out

I dont think theres any one out there who would get a sex change for any sporting advantage and I cant say im an expert on the subject but my thoughts....

So far as I know male to female is more common then female to male, but still it seems when it comes to sports its all you hear about. Are there female to male transgendered people who are very sucessful against male athletes?

If not then surely male to females despite hormone therapy etc have an advantage while female to males have a disadvantage?

Do skeleton size, joint differences etc not give men an advantage that cannot be altered by any amount of hormone therapy etc?

I wouldnt have a problem when it comes to just for fun sports but on a professional level or an elite amateur level I dont think it should be allowed. Perhaps a seperate classification in the paralympcis? I dont think the likes of Oscar Pistorius should be allowed either to be honest. If theres a possibility of an unnatural advantage then I dont think you should be allowed.

token101

Balmed Out wrote: »

I wouldnt have a problem when it comes to just for fun sports but on a professional level or an elite amateur level I dont think it should be allowed. Perhaps a seperate classification in the paralympcis? I dont think the likes of Oscar Pistorius should be allowed either to be honest. If theres a possibility of an unnatural advantage then I dont think you should be allowed.

How exactly is having no legs an unnatural advantage?

Ush1

With regards the hormone therapy reducing bone structure, I've just read this:

Even short-term hormone therapy (HT) use can improve a women’s bone structure, so that other medications can then be used to sustain bone health over the longer-term. The Women’s Health Initiative in the United States, a randomized clinical trial involving menopausal women, found that HT was clearly effective in the prevention of hip fractures, vertebral breaks and other injuries. The SOGC Consensus Report, and the Menopause and Osteoporosis Update 2009 however, does not recommend HT solely for purposes of addressing osteoporosis.

http://menopauseandu.ca/faqs/hormoneTherapy_e.aspx

That is using ET or EPT.

suicide_circus

Any examples of f->m athletes?

Tombi!

On average men are bigger than women I thought so wouldn't a 6'2 woman have an advantage over a 5'4 woman in terms of skeletal size? Not sure about bone density though.

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Sure:
http://img.karaoke-lyrics.net/img/artists/28413/kim-petras-40285.jpg

A ramdom picture is proof?

Tombi!

suicide_circus wrote: »

Any examples of f->m athletes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/sports/for-transgender-triathlete-a-top-finish-is-secondary.html?_r=0
That's one guy there.
I'm not sure of any others (mtf or ftm, TBH).

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

A ramdom picture is proof?

I wouldn't say she looks like a fella.

Oranage2

yeah but its photo shopped quite a bit

Tombi!

Oranage2 wrote: »

yeah but its photo shopped quite a bit

Are you going to say that about every picture I post of her or just that one?
Because if it's the former, then there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind.

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Are you going to say that about every picture I post of her or just that one?
Because if it's the former, then there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind.

It's just a picture,who is she,where's she from,is she a hemaphrodite or just in fact a girl off the web.

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

It's just a picture,who is she,where's she from,is she a hemaphrodite or just in fact a girl off the web.

Her name was in the link.

She's a German singer that's MtF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Petras

Sorry, I thought you read the name, searched it up and were just trying to be annoying/argumentative for no reason.

Oranage2

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Are you going to say that about every picture I post of her or just that one?
Because if it's the former, then there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind.

ah no ofcourse there are transgenders out there that look good. I wouldn't dispute that.

Hande hoche!

Whenever transgender and sport are mentioned together, I think East Germany.

OldGoat

Oranage2 wrote: »

How would this be easier?

OK, currently we have two identifiers for gender, male (M) and female (F).
If we were to add new identifiers as you suggest we would have to add
M to F and F to M.

Then of course we would have to take the actual surgical process into account so that we should have
M to F pre op, M to F post op, F to M pre op and F to M post op.

Phew.

So, as you can see it becomes quite cumbersome. I suggest that it would be easier to stop refering to people as male, female, shemale or any other portmanteau. Find a gender neutral word instead.

Back on topic, one of my transgender friends played golf with me both before and after the op. She's still crap. Now she won't let me share the showers with her.

Tiddlypeeps

Oranage2 wrote: »

I think the time has come that transgenders and the like should have their own legally recognised gender status.

Oranage2 wrote: »

There is noway a transgender women and an actual woman are physically the same, I think common sense has is well gone if anyone believes that. I've done no research but I'm sure a trans woman would have bigger physical features like bigger hands, longer reach, more powerful skull and stronger bone density, also internal organs would be different giving a trans woman a lot more advantages over a I don't know the pc term but I'll use the word actual woman.

Such ignorance, you say yourself that you have done no research yet you make such big claims with such conviction.

I personally hate the term "common sense". All it means is that's what the majority believes, it doesn't dictate what's actually true. The notion that something is true just because it's what most people believe is a logical fallacy.

You must have totally missed the post on the front page that offers lots of reading material on the science of the subject, it was a great post I suggest you go back and read over it. The science seems to disagree with your common sense so if you have a read over it and find any flaws then come back and counter with that instead of "common sense tells me it's not right". Here is a link http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83624852&postcount=5

kneemos wrote: »

Any I've seen looked like men,can you prove they don't?

This is a pretty silly thing to say, of course the only transgender people you have noticed are noticeably transgender otherwise you wouldn't have noticed them. The ones that you didn't notice weren't noticeable, so you have no way of knowing their numbers and wether they are in the majority or not.

Jimoslimos

No, it's not fair.

Regardless of any muscle loss as a result of hormone treatment, transgender women will be on average taller than genetically born women. Body shape, especially with relation to pelvis width will also be significantly different. These are clear advantages that can never be reversed.

I cannot agree with the stance taken by the IOC on this. How they can justify telling one group of athletes that doping with hormones is morally wrong (and dangerous) and against the rules, yet allow it for another group is beyond me.

It is overly simplistic to determine male from female purely on testo/estrogen levels.

Ush1

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Such ignorance, you say yourself that you have done no research yet you make such big claims with such conviction.

I personally hate the term "common sense". All it means is that's what the majority believes, it doesn't dictate what's actually true. The notion that something is true just because it's what most people believe is a logical fallacy.

You must have totally missed the post on the front page that offers lots of reading material on the science of the subject, it was a great post I suggest you go back and read over it. The science seems to disagree with your common sense so if you have a read over it and find any flaws then come back and counter with that instead of "common sense tells me it's not right". Here is a link http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83624852&postcount=5

What science in that post is pertinent to the argument at hand exactly?

It's first saying that hormone treatment reverses any potential advantages a man would have with NO citation or evidence.

It's then saying a woman can be any shape or size a man can be anyway and that were were all born women?

It's actually arguing with itself.

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Her name was in the link.
She's a German singer that's MtF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Petras

Sorry, I thought you read the name, searched it up and were just trying to be annoying/argumentative for no reason.

Apparently she took hormone blocking drugs at age twelve which meant she didn't go through puberty and develope male features.A pretty extreme example in fairness and without the hair and makeup who knows.

Oranage2

[QUOTE=Tiddlypeeps;83625970]Such ignorance, you say yourself that you have done no research yet you make such big claims with such conviction.

I personally hate the term "common sense". All it means is that's what the majority believes, it doesn't dictate what's actually true. The notion that something is true just because it's what most people believe is a logical fallacy.

You must have totally missed the post on the front page that offers lots of reading material on the science of the subject, it was a great post I suggest you go back and read over it. The science seems to disagree with your common sense so if you have a read over it and find any flaws then come back and counter with that instead of "common sense tells me it's not right". Here is a link http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83624852&postcount=5

science?

I've read very little science or links from science journals from that post.

What that was is propaganda saying trans women and women are physically the same.

I don't disagree that trans women should have the same rights as women and they should not be discriminated against, but physically they are not the same.

also you can prove anything with stats.

This is a pretty silly thing to say, of course the only transgender people you have noticed are noticeably transgender otherwise you wouldn't have noticed them. The ones that you didn't notice weren't noticeable, so you have no way of knowing their numbers and wether they are in the majority or not.[/QUOTE]

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

Apparently she took hormone blocking drugs at age twelve which meant she didn't go through puberty and develope male features.A pretty extreme example in fairness and without the hair and makeup who knows.

Not really. She still had a penis. As a fella, if I went through hormone treatment (forget the proper name of it), I'd grow a pair of boobs.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. It's "easier" sure and might take less time than someone who's finished puberty to begin the process and complete it but it still works the same way.

kneemos

mango salsa wrote: »

Still arguing nonsense with no proof?

Everybody has seen transgenders that look like men,mind some of those lady boys would come as a surprise.

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

Everybody has seen transgenders that look like men,mind some of those lady boys would come as a surprise.

Yes bu the girl I showed you doesn't actually look like a bloke.

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Not really. She still had a penis. As a fella, if I went through hormone treatment (forget the proper name of it), I'd grow a pair of boobs.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. It's "easier" sure and might take less time than someone who's finished puberty to begin the process and complete it but it still works the same way.

The point is she didn't go through puberty and so has no male features.

krudler

OldGoat wrote: »

OK, currently we have two identifiers for gender, male (M) and female (F).
If we were to add new identifiers as you suggest we would have to add
M to F and F to M.

Then of course we would have to take the actual surgical process into account so that we should have
M to F pre op, M to F post op, F to M pre op and F to M post op.

Phew.

So, as you can see it becomes quite cumbersome. I suggest that it would be easier to stop refering to people as male, female, shemale or any other portmanteau. Find a gender neutral word instead.

Back on topic, one of my transgender friends played golf with me both before and after the op. She's still crap. Now she won't let me share the showers with her.

Why? a minority have gender issues so we should all stop identifying ourselves by gender?

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

The point is she didn't go through puberty and so has no male features.

I think your missing the entire point.

Pace2008

super_furry wrote: »

Has it ever gone the other way? I mean has a female-to-male transexual ever attempted to compete against men? I could see that being problematic with testosterone injections and the rest.

The World Anti-Doping Agency test for elevated levels of endogenous compounds like testosterone. Testosterone levels four times greater than those expected from a normal test indicate a positive result. So I'd imagine that if a female-to-male subject undergoing HRT had test levels that would confer them an unfair advantage, they would not be allowed to compete.

Jimoslimos

OldGoat wrote: »

OK, currently we have two identifiers for gender, male (M) and female (F).
If we were to add new identifiers as you suggest we would have to add
M to F and F to M.

Then of course we would have to take the actual surgical process into account so that we should have
M to F pre op, M to F post op, F to M pre op and F to M post op.

For competitive sport once anyone, male or female, start taking hormones (of any sort), then they shouldn't be allowed compete*. That is unless the IOC want their policies on doping to be undermined.

*Note: I said compete not participate

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think your missing the entire point.

Do tell.