Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 1:05am

Danzy wrote: »

.

I'd be beating trained and highly dedicated athletes, so with years of experience and much younger that's me.
.

Thats it. The other women will have trained extremely hard for most of their lives to get to that level. Funnily enough, she wasnt winning world championships as a man.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:08am

2 Scoops wrote: »

A transgender Woman winning a cycling event who's been tweeting at news outlets all day for recognition. This person is a professor of psychology.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051495467979173888

She's a big 'un.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:11am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I saw this yesterday and remembered this thread. I think this disgraceful tbh. How could anyone look at that photo and not see a male, complete with larger body, bigger muscles, more strength than any female could naturally have. It's unfair.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/15/trans-woman-rachel-mckinnon-cycling-world-championship/

Most people will agree with you, but fear the social media mob is they dare actually say something.

The new rule is "just accept it and shut up", or else you'll be shouted down as a bigot or a 'phobe of some sort.

ChikiChiki · 16-10-2018 5:12am

Its an unfair advantage for someone who is bilogically a bloke to be competing in womens events. Science says so as fact and even in our overly PC world of 2018 it cannot be denied.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:33am

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Its an unfair advantage for someone who is bilogically a bloke to be competing in womens events. Science says so as fact and even in our overly PC world of 2018 it cannot be denied.

"but she's not a bloke, she identifies as a woman"

Hector Savage · 16-10-2018 8:15am

NIMAN wrote: »

"but she's not a bloke, she identifies as a woman"

And I identify as a Costa Rican tree frog.

FutureGuy · 16-10-2018 9:27am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Just after reading an article about a transgender cyclist in NZ who won a womens race after competing as a man only 3 weeks ago. In the men's version of the race last year, this person finished 35th with a time that was still 10 seconds faster than the women's winner. Now here they are winning the women's event . How is this fair? Does anyone actually think this should be allowed?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12002309

Here is an article specifically about the difference between the sexes when it comes to cycling. How can 3 weeks change any of this? don't even think 3 years of transition is going to change skeletal structure, lung size or blood volume

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/cycling-and-gender-how-and-why-male-and-female-cyclists-need-to-train-differently-344365

I've seen several stories recently about biological males competing in women's sports and not surprisingly trouncing the competition or even severely injuring their opponents (MMA fighter Fallon fox). Should MTF transgender athletes accept that they should be unable to compete against members of the opposite sex in the name of fairness? I totally get that they want to be and should be treated the same as any other other woman in everyday life but in some situations there are clear advantages. Is there a solution that is fair for everyone?

Shouldn't be allowed. Simple as that. Purely biological.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:34am

Noveight wrote: »

Remember Bruce Caitlyn Jenner won some Woman of the Year award too?

Fairly laughable and a complete injustice to the exceptional females worldwide.

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Lau2976 · 16-10-2018 9:43am

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Let’s not forget being a good person? This is the person that said the hardest part of being a woman was picking what to wear or the colour of their nail polish.

But yep give them the same award as a girl who was shot going to school. That’s totally a similar struggle.

seamus · 16-10-2018 9:51am

NIMAN wrote: »

Most people will agree with you, but fear the social media mob is they dare actually say something.

The new rule is "just accept it and shut up", or else you'll be shouted down as a bigot or a 'phobe of some sort.

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:53am

Lau2976 wrote: »

Let’s not forget being a good person? This is the person that said the hardest part of being a woman was picking what to wear or the colour of their nail polish.

But yep give them the same award as a girl who was shot going to school. That’s totally a similar struggle.

I didn't say she was a worthy recipient of the award did I ?

Just that she was qualified to enter over someone who threw on nylons and a frock and did a Mrs Brown.

Personally I'm not a feminist and can't remember the last time I wore nail varnish, I'm not sure I see the point tbh!

Besides the hardest things about being a woman are not having your sporting interests taken seriously and modern day feminists trying to remove our achievements by demanding easier standards for today's women.

OT I know but there you go!

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:55am

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male.

And don't be snidy about Twitter - yes it's a pathetic medium but good people have been fired/ruined due to a "tweetstorm" or whatever they call it.

ThunbergsAreGo · 16-10-2018 9:56am

They should remove the Gender Division from sport and move towards true equality

seamus · 16-10-2018 9:57am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male.

You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:58am

naughtb4 wrote: »

They should remove the Gender Division from sport and move towards true equality

Never going to happen - the minute women got "equal" pay for Wimbledon for less work the die was cast.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:59am

seamus wrote: »

You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.

Can't prove that men are biologically stronger ? Are you for real ?

Lau2976 · 16-10-2018 10:01am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I didn't say she was a worthy recipient of the award did I ?

Just that she was qualified to enter over someone who threw on nylons and a frock and did a Mrs Brown.

Personally I'm not a feminist and can't remember the last time I wore nail varnish, I'm not sure I see the point tbh!

Besides the hardest things about being a woman are not having your sporting interests taken seriously and modern day feminists trying to remove our achievements by demanding easier standards for today's women.

OT I know but there you go!

I was simply pointing out that gender wasnt the only criteria

Who’s demanding easier standards for women?

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 10:04am

Lau2976 wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that gender wasnt the only criteria

Who’s demanding easier standards for women?

https://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/03/sas-may-make-entry-tests-easier-for-women-report

And many others - like my own workplace, sadly.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 10:07am

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

Top athletes have a short window of opportunity when they are at the peak of their physical fitness to garner awards and victories. This ''plenty of scope'' you speak of may be the equivalent to a few generations of female athletes who may prove yet to have been seriously disadvantaged and thus lose access to education scholarships, earnings, accolades, motivation, and the ability to inspire and nurture future generations of female athletes.
A better way by far to ''observe and gather data'' is to have separate competitions or to separate out results, either by athletes performing in their own genetic gender category but declaring as trans and their timings etc being assessed and recorded, or by trans athletes performing in the gender they identify with but their scores, timings etc being separate for tye purposes of declared results, until such time as sufficient data is accrued to decide if there is advantage or otherwise.
This may take quite a number of years. It has to respond to many variabilities, some of which may be ongoing in terms of any modernisation of cross sex hormones etc.
In the meantime the sporting activities of biological females should not be subject to any PC guinea pig experimentation that may demoralise the athletes and destroy the biological female's competitive fields.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 10:18am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

It means though that women's sports will become dominated by trans women and that biological women will relegated to permanent second.

It is not what she is now. Even with testosterone done brought down to female levels the fact of puberty as a male leaves a life long advantage.

In decades that advantage will still be there.

Just in relation to lung capacity alone, it is enough to make a life long difference.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 10:25am

Danzy wrote: »

It means though that women's sports will become dominated by trans women and that biological women will relegated to permanent second.

It is not what she is now. Even with testosterone done brought down to female levels the fact of puberty as a male leaves a life long advantage.

In decades that advantage will still be there.

Just in relation to lung capacity alone, it is enough to make a life long difference.

I'd not argue with you on sports to be honest.

Even though the hill has become a valley, the biological capacity is still the same and - generally speaking - boys are physically stronger than us!

seamus · 16-10-2018 11:20am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can't prove that men are biologically stronger ? Are you for real ?

No, you can't prove that this athlete won based on her physiology. All you have is speculation. Aside from photographs you know absolutely nothing about her.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 11:21am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd not argue with you on sports to be honest.

Even though the hill has become a valley, the biological capacity is still the same and - generally speaking - boys are physically stronger than us!

The body differences are too immense.

I'm no traditionalist on gender, think if people want to trans, fine.

In sport it gives a massive advantage. There are 17 year old boys, great runners, who would set world records for women athletics. Against women who'll run in the Olympics.

The biological capacity is very different and strength is only one manifestation.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 11:24am

Quote: PlaneSpeeking"
By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male."

"seamus;108362652"]You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.[/quote]

The most excellent jesuitical answer I have seen in years.

You'd make Abbott in months.

Wibbs · 16-10-2018 11:27am

seamus wrote: »

You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.

Jesus, how far down this nonsense rabbit hole do we have to go where the bloody obvious is denied on the altar of the Right On?

This is basic biology backed up by science. Men on average have 40% more upper body strength and 30% more leg strength, higher bone density, faster reflexes and more muscle mass and less fat. Never mind narrower hips which is a huge advantage in track and field events. Take pretty much any sport that requires strength, stamina and coordination and the very top percentile of women athletes will be seriously pressured and usually beaten by mid tier or lower men from the same sport. Consider the Mile record in running. No woman has broken the four minute mile barrier that Roger Bannister broke in the 50s. The women's current record is IIRC four minutes and twelve, the men's three minutes forty odd seconds.

These differences between the sexes kicks off in early puberty and continues diverging throughout puberty. If a biological male takes female hormones and blocks the male hormone in their late teens those differences will be already set. They will be taller, broader, with higher bone density and higher muscle mass. If a biological boy was hit with hormone blockers before puberty - which to me is beyond a horror and I make no apologies for believing that - then there would be a case for it being a level playing field. Otherwise it's beyond daft and makes a mockery of women's sports.

silverharp · 16-10-2018 11:29am

seamus wrote: »

No, you can't prove that this athlete won based on her physiology. All you have is speculation. Aside from photographs you know absolutely nothing about her.

"You're saying that " steroids should be allowed in sports as its only pure speculation that they have an effect. :pac:

16-10-2018 11:37am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Really? If she has ovaries, maybe. If she has XY chromosome, not.

seamus · 16-10-2018 11:39am

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus, how far down this nonsense rabbit hole do we have to go where the bloody obvious is denied on the altar of the Right On?

This is basic biology backed up by science. Men on average have 40% more upper body strength and 30% more leg strength, higher bone density, faster reflexes and more muscle mass and less fat. Never mind narrower hips which is a huge advantage in track and field events. Take pretty much any sport that requires strength, stamina and coordination and the very top percentile of women athletes will be seriously pressured and usually beaten by mid tier or lower men from the same sport. Consider the Mile record in running. No woman has broken the four minute mile barrier that Roger Bannister broke in the 50s. The women's current record is IIRC four minutes and twelve, the men's three minutes forty odd seconds.

These differences between the sexes kicks off in early puberty and continues diverging throughout puberty. If a biological male takes female hormones and blocks the male hormone in their late teens those differences will be already set. They will be taller, broader, with higher bone density and higher muscle mass. If a biological boy was hit with hormone blockers before puberty - which to me is beyond a horror and I make no apologies for believing that - then there would be a case for it being a level playing field. Otherwise it's beyond daft and makes a mockery of women's sports.

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

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

FTA69 · 16-10-2018 11:52am

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

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

Yeah the same we can't prove that Fallon Fox was flatlining women fighters knocking them completely out in seconds cos she was just really, really good at fighting. No siree bob.

Taking one look at that person who won the cycling it's clear that they retain their male physique and with a male physique comes advantages that have been outlined by Wibbs. It's preposterous, and you can be sure that every female competitor in that race will feel cheated but is probably too afraid to say it in case they get denounced by the mob that tends to circle around these issues.

Omackeral · 16-10-2018 11:54am

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Head in sand, fingers in ears.

seamus wrote: »

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

Perceived feelings over facts.

Typical really.

Biological males in women's sport

Comments