Biological males in women's sport

The Crowman

I remember the controversy over "female" athletes from the Eastern Block countries in the 80's though in those cases they had biological females who they pumped full of male growth hormones. It clearly gives a physical advantage.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

in my opinion McKinnon is holding back compared to the other cyclist. They pretty much walk away from them at the end.

I'd be interested to the the losses to compare because it does look like someone toying with an opponent.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

To be completely physically harmless children and adults with gender dysphoria should not be treated chemically at all - it is a bad idea. There should be adequate mechanisms for social transition that enable psychological comfort. In the trans community this point of view is emerging, because they above all will have seen the effects of chemicals on their bodies. This is among the reasons why self ID without any gender affirmation procedures is important to them.

Are you a spokesperson for the trans community?

P_1

P_1 wrote: »

Look if she had an advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. She isn't. What does that tell us?

How long has she been cycling properly? It would take me a few years of the kind of training needed to beat a decent-standard woman at it.

Wibbs

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

On testerone she distinguishes between naturally having it and doping it.

When people think of testosterone and athletic performance, they think of doping with exogenous testosterone — testosterone that comes from outside the body. Compare that to endogenous testosterone, which occurs in the body. While chemically they perform roughly the same way, there is ample evidence that shows exogenous testosterone, compared to what you naturally have, produces big performance advantages. That’s why it’s considered doping. There is no evidence that having a higher produced value of endogenous testosterone has any performance advantages at all. The evidence does not bear that out. So that is the second myth: the more testosterone you have, naturally, the better you are. So trans women might be male early on, and that on average such bodies have more endogenous naturally testosterone, therefore they’re stronger because of that. We have evidence that is just not the case.

That's working from the position of biological men(or women) doping with testosterone will see advantages. Ignoring the plain fact that men are on average stronger, faster broader and taller than women because of natural testosterone. The reason that McKinnon physically looks like a man, even with subsequent hormone blockers and female hormones is because they went through male puberty, with its endogenous testosterone flooding the body. And it's an extremely powerful hormone.

Case in point and relevant to the Trans debate. Trans men, men that were and remain under the skin biologically female nearly always end up with external results that "pass" far more for their preferred gender, when compared to transitioning the other way.









They're all people who went through puberty as women and transitioned as adults. If the above folks decided that they wanted to return to their previous biological physiology, they would have a lot of difficulty doing so. That's how powerful testosterone and blocking female hormones is.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Are you a spokesperson for the trans community?

Quite the opposite. I am attempting to follow the logic and thereby to show the inconsistencies. There is no point in shouting at ideologically possessed people.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Quite the opposite. I am attempting to follow the logic and thereby to show the inconsistencies. There is no point in shouting at ideologically possessed people.

You stated your reason why self id was important for them, not their reason then. Understood

Franz Von Peppercorn

The interview I referenced with her before is here.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/10/news/qa-dr-rachel-mckinnon-masters-track-champion-and-transgender-athlete_480206

Here’s her sporting background.

My sport background is in badminton. I moved to Charleston, South Carolina, to take up my job at the College of Charleston and there isn’t any elite badminton down here. I needed a new sport. I wasn’t good at running and I took spin classes and really fell in love with cycling and decided on a whim to buy a bike. I started racing on the road and turned out I was actually good at it, much better than I was at badminton.

ligerdub

ingalway wrote:

Why just feminists? This affects all women, feminists or not - your sisters, daughters, mother, friends. Don't leave it to only women to fight this man made mess...

Hold on a second, I understand men are taken as the guilty party in pretty much every debate, but the rich irony here is that this phenomenon is right in the wheelhouse of the socially lefty kind so prevalent with modern feminists. I'd say a whopping percentage of men think this is ludicrous but perhaps a necessary evil.

The modern feminists don't have enough power on their own to take down their evil overlords, the white, straight, culturally Christian, (most importantly) male types.....so they need a coalition of similar groups who have the same common enemy to attack. So they pile in with the eco-warriers, the commies, the "tolerance" and promotion of religions with low compatibility with Judeo-Christian societies......i.e. Islam, and of course then the LGBT groups.

If they all support each other then all their interests can prosper. They are the coalition of the "downtrodden". For the moment at least the very fact that there are some massive contradictions, and illogical supports in there has been massively glossed over.

The LGBT crowd have their own coalition of sorts, in that they have co-opted trans groups into their acronym. The LGB groups were traditionally about sexuality I understand, so why are they linking in with trans people, that isn't necessarily about sexuality? Well (in my opinion) it's because once you're fighting for rights and are seen as socially outcast then you can become aligned with a victim mentality. Now that being a homosexual is a bit vanilla, boring and of almost no novelty anymore, they need to do something to stay as outcasts. Enter the "T". The "T" folk are where the G's were 20 years ago. So now a gay person can still claim to fight the good fight for fighting for LGBT rights now. They have the benefits of being a fairly standard member of society while also being part of a marginalised group, mustn't lose that status, because the T's are just like them.

So there is the landscape we're faced with. The feminists and the LGBTs are promoting gender quotas, pride days, diversity in the workplace etc. So long as it's the standard bearers of power it doesn't really matter to them how much cost a member of the straight, white, christian, male groups loses under this change of policy. It's only when women.....i.e. you know, actual females, are seeing some sort of cost to this movement, that they want to put the brakes on. The problem then is that the trend has already gone so far that it has possibly reached the point of no return. Also then the feminists are left without their fellow coalition groups i.e. the LGBTs to bail them out. Their only tactic is a civil war of sorts, or to reach out to their standard opponent groups for help (good luck with that).

As a sidenote, there was a F to M transgender audience contributer on Question Time on Thursday evening. He had been living as such for over 50 years. His appearance was pretty much a man with long white hair wearing womens clothes. There was no way I could have thought anything else but that the person was i.e. is male. We're expected to turn a blind eye and keep our mouths shut. This is what we've been told to do by the LGBTs, the feminist allys....and now we are asked to speak up when women, and only women, are negatively impacted? Don't expect a stampede of guys to rush to their aid on that score.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

You stated your reason why self id was important for them, not their reason then. Understood

Incorrect. I stated the reason I have read in multiple places from transactivists as to why self ID is important to them - they are trying to move to a more tenable position (for them) regarding gender that does not involve mucking about with the biology. If you trek back a bit I linked a conversation between Rachel McKinnon and Kirsti Miller about the big diffficulties attached to hormonal manipulation for trans people. Kirsti Miller - a transperson - states that

No sport should enforce any athlete to reduce their naturally occurring testosterone levels as a prerequisite to compete in sport this is unhealthy for the athlete & IMO a serious human right breach

Here, I'll link it for you and you can read back yourself. It is in the more full conversation rather than just this status sample.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051507432847884289

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

Incorrect. I stated the reason I have read in multiple places from transactivists as to why self ID is important to them - they are trying to move to a more tenable position (for them) regarding gender that does not involve mucking about with the biology. If you trek back a bit I linked a conversation between Rachel McKinnon and Kirsti Miller about the big diffficulties attached to hormonal manipulation for trans people. Kirsti Miller - a transperson - states that

No sport should enforce any athlete to reduce their naturally occurring testosterone levels as a prerequisite to compete in sport this is unhealthy for the athlete & IMO a serious human right breach

I'm quite alright with that to be honest, provided they're willing to compete in the category that has the gender with similar naturally occurring testosterone levels?

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Incorrect. I stated the reason I have read in multiple places from transactivists as to why self ID is important to them - they are trying to move to a more tenable position (for them) regarding gender that does not involve mucking about with the biology. If you trek back a bit I linked a conversation between Rachel McKinnon and Kirsti Miller about the big diffficulties attached to hormonal manipulation for trans people. Kirsti Miller - a transperson - states that

Here, I'll link it for you and you can read back yourself. It is in the more full conversation rather than just this status sample.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051507432847884289

So you quote some obscure north american athlete as a representative of all trans views in the world! :rolleyes:
Please explain then why the waiting lists for surgery at home, the UK, mainland Europe and the good ole USA have been consistently long for many years ? There is still obviously a high demand among trans people for surgery, nothing to do with the self-id movement.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

So you quote some obscure north american athlete as a representative of all trans views in the world! :rolleyes:
Please explain then why the waiting lists for surgery at home, the UK, mainland Europe and the good ole USA have been consistently long for many years ? There is still obviously a high demand among trans people for surgery, nothing to do with the self-id movement.

Sigh, it is a record of a conversation between one of the world's most known trans athletes as of now, given that they have just won an International Female competition, and another trans person. It's not some random obscure Tumblr exchange between unknowns.

As data accumulates regarding the problems with pubertal blockers, cross sex hormones and, yes, even surgery, it is becoming more important for trans persons to investigate the cost benefit analysis of medical affirmation and self ID is part of that interrogation.

Franz Von Peppercorn

klaaaz wrote: »

So you quote some obscure north american athlete as a representative of all trans views in the world! :rolleyes:
Please explain then why the waiting lists for surgery at home, the UK, mainland Europe and the good ole USA have been consistently long for many years ? There is still obviously a high demand among trans people for surgery, nothing to do with the self-id movement.

The obscure athlete is the subject of this thread.

Edit: no it’s the other thread in the cycling forum.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Sigh, it is a record of a conversation between one of the world's most known trans athletes as of now, given that they have just won an International Female competition, and another trans person. It's not some random obscure Tumblr exchange between unknowns.

As data accumulates regarding the problems with pubertal blockers, cross sex hormones and, yes, even surgery, it is becoming more important for trans persons to investigate the cost benefit analysis of medical affirmation and self ID is part of that interrogation.

I(like many) have never heard of this athlete who others say won an over 35 cycling event until this thread appeared. They are still obscure athletes with their peculiar views, they are not widely known and do not speak for trans people who have their own representative organisations in each country.

"Cost benefit analysis", what are you on about? What problems do adults have when using cross sex hormones and having their surgery?

Zorya

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The obscure athlete is the subject of this thread.

Edit: no it’s the other thread in the cycling forum.

McKinnon falls within the ambit of the thread.

To Klaaz, I know about the unilateral dictum that only trans persons and their allies have the right to enter trans / queer spaces and hold any opinions on trans matters, but here I am stubbornly holding on to my right to have an opinion on matter that affect society at large, regardless.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

So you quote some obscure north american athlete as a representative of all trans views in the world! :rolleyes:

Nobody did that. I followed the way your interaction went and first of all you asked was Zorya a spokesperson for the trans community (Zorya never claimed they were), then when provided with an example, you attempted to move the goalposts again to suggest that Zorya was using one person as a representative sample, when that’s not what they were doing at all. I understood their point, you clearly just didn’t want to.

Please explain then why the waiting lists for surgery at home, the UK, mainland Europe and the good ole USA have been consistently long for many years ?

Because the surgeries aren’t free, and the people who want to have gender affirmation surgery done, want the best surgeons to do it, they don’t want to have to get it done in the public healthcare system if they can at all afford to get it done privately with private practitioners who can charge what they like for their services, because they’re regarded as the best at what they do, they literally come highly recommended among people in the trans community, and before you put me on the spot, don’t bother your hole, I’m not a spokesperson for the trans community either. Closest I bother with it nowadays is my next door neighbour who hangs her foam filled padded bra out on the balcony, and when told to remove it as it’s against the management company’s rules to hang laundry out on the balcony, she imagines she’s being discriminated against :rolleyes:

There is still obviously a high demand among trans people for surgery, nothing to do with the self-id movement.

There isn’t a high demand among trans people for surgery if we were to take account of the extrapolated figures for trans people in Western society (because the fact that in Middle East gay men are forced to undergo feminisation surgery skews the global figures), and within that number account for the number of people who opt for surgery. As a subset of trans people as a whole, the numbers of trans people who opt for surgery is minuscule. I do see the numbers of people opting for surgery increasing though, but that’s because the numbers of people who identify themselves openly as transgender is also increasing, and many more of them are simply opting for self-identification rather than the more extreme surgical treatments which are more and more coming to be regarded as completely unnecessary.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

I(like many) have never heard of this athlete who others say won an over 35 cycling event until this thread appeared. They are still obscure athletes with their peculiar views, they are not widely known and do not speak for trans people who have their own representative organisations in each country.

"Cost benefit analysis", what are you on about? What problems do adults have when using cross sex hormones and having their surgery?

McKinnon feels very strongly about their role as advocate and social transformer.

I'm not going to reiterate the issues that are arising regarding cross sex hormones and surgery - they are becoming well documented.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody did that. I followed the way your interaction went and first of all you asked was Zorya a spokesperson for the trans community (Zorya never claimed they were), then when provided with an example, you attempted to move the goalposts again to suggest that Zorya was using one person as a representative sample, when that’s not what they were doing at all. I understood their point, you clearly just didn’t want to.

Zorya made that point as if speaking on behalf of the trans community which in the end was just their own personal view which seems to be quite common in this thread.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Because the surgeries aren’t free, and the people who want to have gender affirmation surgery done, want the best surgeons to do it, they don’t want to have to get it done in the public healthcare system if they can at all afford to get it done privately with private practitioners who can charge what they like for their services, because they’re regarded as the best at what they do, they literally come highly recommended among people in the trans community, and before you put me on the spot, don’t bother your hole, I’m not a spokesperson for the trans community either. Closest I bother with it nowadays is my next door neighbour who hangs her foam filled padded bra out on the balcony, and when told to remove it as it’s against the management company’s rules to hang laundry out on the balcony, she imagines she’s being discriminated against :rolleyes:

There isn’t a high demand among trans people for surgery if we were to take account of the extrapolated figures for trans people in Western society (because the fact that in Middle East gay men are forced to undergo feminisation surgery skews the global figures), and within that number account for the number of people who opt for surgery. As a subset of trans people as a whole, the numbers of trans people who opt for surgery is minuscule. I do see the numbers of people opting for surgery increasing though, but that’s because the numbers of people who identify themselves openly as transgender is also increasing, and many more of them are simply opting for self-identification rather than the more extreme surgical treatments which are more and more coming to be regarded as completely unnecessary.

Some of this is contradicting itself, some go privately, some go public(usually the financially poor ones), there is still huge demand for surgery in both spheres. If the numbers are miniscule as you say, how come the waiting lists for surgery are still huge? It's obvious that you don't admit that there are still new patients wishing to have surgery both public and private.

And how are the surgeries unnecessary when the patients want them?

Zorya wrote:

I'm not going to reiterate the issues that are arising regarding cross sex hormones and surgery - they are becoming well documented.

So those anonymous issues remain anonymous as you won't disclose them!

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Zorya made that point as if speaking on behalf of the trans community which in the end was just their own personal view which seems to be quite common in this thread.

They didn’t, that’s just how you chose to interpret what they wrote. That’s entirely on you.

Some of this is contradicting itself, some go privately, some go public(usually the financially poor ones), there is still huge demand for surgery in both spheres. If the numbers are miniscule as you say, how come the waiting lists for surgery are still huge? It's obvious that you don't admit that there are still new patients wishing to have surgery both public and private.

Because the waiting lists for surgery aren’t huge, and because someone has to pay for the surgeries, whether it’s the Government, or the private individual. Government currently don’t have a pot to piss in and don’t have money to be funding trans healthcare, so that’s why there are huge waiting lists to see anyone regarding trans healthcare in Ireland, the UK, or as you put it - in the good ol’ US of A where they trans people face the same double edged sword as advocates of circumcision - if it isn’t considered medically necessary any more, then the surgeries aren’t covered by medical insurance companies.

Secondly, how is it obvious that I don’t want to admit that there are more people presenting as transgender who want to opt for surgery? That’s exactly what I did? I pointed out specifically that as the numbers of people who are transgender openly identify themselves as transgender, and gain social acceptance, more people who are transgender won’t have any need to hide it, and the idea of surgery will be confined to history as a barbaric practice akin to treating mental health issues with a lobotomy. There will always of course be people who opt for surgery, always, but the numbers of them as a percentage of the number of people who identify themselves as transgender, will be minuscule.

And how are the surgeries unnecessary when the patients want them?

What’s one got to do with the other? Do you understand the difference between necessity and desire? I want a Lamborghini, but it’s not necessary, nor is surgery necessary to address what is and has always been regarded as a mental health issue. It’s been a couple of years since I heard the “It’s not what’s between my legs that matters, it’s what’s between my ears that matters!”, and that’s making a comeback in the face of some stiff competition (pardon the pun) from some transgender advocates who argue that people who haven’t had surgery shouldn’t call themselves transgender, or they aren’t really transgender, etc.

Elmo Murphy

I have no problem with transgender people going about their lives and being whatever they want to be.As long as they don't do any harm to anyone else then they are fine to do as they please.

However in sport it is quite obvious that from the point where it is "decided" (don't know how better to phrase it) in the process of a baby being created whether you are going to be a born male or female the "decision" of the child being born male provides significant advantage on the child physically. for the child
The person will be taller.
They will have a bigger heart and lungs.
They will have longer arms and legs.
They will have greater bone density

All of the above give a person a significant advantage in competing in sport.

She has all of those advantages from being born a man and it is completely unfair on female athletes to be forced to compete against somebody who has those natural advantages of being born male.It doesn't matter what someone wants to identify as it doesn't matter what the legal situation is , if you want a fair sport you cannot have people who were born men competing in a womens sport.

All transgender athletes should have to compete in the mens sport and at least they do not gain an unfair advantage by being born a man , this is fair to women and it's fair to transgender athletes as they can still compete in their chosen sport.

Whether or not someone wins all the time is irrelevant it makes no difference Rachel MacKinnon has gained a completely unfair advantage by not being born a woman and therefore regardless of how successful she is she should not be allowed to compete in womens cycling events nor should any other transgender athlete.

Recently the world seems to have given up on common sense for fear of being labelled transphobic.

mzungu

Zorya wrote: »

I can appreciate your points, and you seem to be in step with the reality of the situation - ie there is not likely to be a row back. A row back would require wholesale negation of the ideology that is coming to be accepted as true. I can't actually see how this could be dealt with - I am not with you when you minimise advantage plus as FvP said circumstances now have to logically extend to include self ID non-hormone or surgical treated athletes. It's a big problem - talk about it and you are a transphobic w*nker, do nothing and biological females are erased gradually in sport. Perhaps some clever idea will emerge. Don't know.

The thing is though, I accept that there will be advantages, but the thing is nobody will know for sure how they are going to play out. There needs to be some level of consistency across the board. For example, if a M2F athlete is just average and never gets near a podium that most likely won't be a problem, but as soon as there are podium finishes then things start to get heated. Like I said, there will probably be cases of clear cut advantages that emerge in the years ahead, but given McKinnon's stats, there is not much difference with fellow cyclists.

I do agree that it is a conundrum, and the current one size fits all approach may not suit and will most likely be revisited many times over the coming years. However, sport is to be enjoyed by everybody and it brings people together, and not including people born into the wrong body is a dangerous road. I have always liked to believe there is a place for everybody in sport. The transgender community do not wish to erase biological women from sport, it is a tiny minority like McKinnon that seem to be coming out with the bullying tactics to silence opposition. The only way that this will be reconciled is through proper dialogue and not Twitter sniping.

One eyed Jack

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

The person will be taller.
They will have a bigger heart and lungs.
They will have longer arms and legs.
They will have greater bone density

All of the above give a person a significant advantage in competing in sport.

Really though it depends entirely on the sport we’re talking about. Any of the above can confer both advantages and disadvantages. Ms. MacKinnon for example wouldn’t be able to compete on any level in women’s gymnastics, and while she might set a new World record in a cycling competition for the over-35’s (when most athletes would be beyond their prime anyway), her record didn’t stand for long -


McKinnon set a new World Record during the women’s 34-39 Sprint Qualifying Flying 200m, with a time of 0:00:11.92, which was broken during the subsequent heats. During the women’s 35-44 sprint gold-medal final against Van Herrikhuyzen, McKinnon won the first two rounds to take the world title. Jennifer Wagner (USA), won the final for bronze against fourth-placed Linsey Hamilton (USA).

She has all of those advantages from being born a man and it is completely unfair on female athletes to be forced to compete against somebody who has those natural advantages of being born male.It doesn't matter what someone wants to identify as it doesn't matter what the legal situation is , if you want a fair sport you cannot have people who were born men competing in a womens sport.

Here’s the thing though - women aren’t being forced to compete against her. They can simply turn around and say they don’t want to compete against her. She’s not particularly good at the sport anyway which is why she can be and was easily beaten, and there are no doubt better athletes than her competing in the sport. As it turns out, you can be absolutely fair and have women who were born men competing in women’s sports. They’re just as good, or indeed as poor, as women competing in the sport. It also does matter what the legal situation is because the governing body of the sport which sets the criteria for competing in the sport will be limited by the legal situation under which they can operate - in other words, the governing body will be restricted by law in what criteria it can use to determine eligibility to compete in the sport. If they decided that Ms. MacKinnon could not compete in the competition solely on the basis of her gender, the governing body may well find themselves on the end of a potentially bankrupting civil action case.

Whether or not someone wins all the time is irrelevant it makes no difference Rachel MacKinnon has gained a completely unfair advantage by not being born a woman and therefore regardless of how successful she is she should not be allowed to compete in womens cycling events nor should any other transgender athlete.

On the contrary, in fact it’s the only thing that’s relevant, particularly in Ms. MacKinnon’s case as it’s quite obvious she’s pretty useless at everything. She’s an assistant professor of philosophy, who won in a cycling competition for women over 35. None of that screams a particularly outstanding individual. She’s just less useless than her peers. The phrase “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king” comes to mind.

Recently the world seems to have given up on common sense for fear of being labelled transphobic.

I think you’re being a tad hyperbolic there, the antithesis of common sense.

mzungu

Zorya wrote: »

One of the cruel ironies of the trans stuff is that children are being prescribed puberty blockers at young ages (eg 9 years old) and it is being increasingly understood that these drugs have hugely adverse effects on their bodies - in other words they should not take them, if medics are motivated by the essential doctrine of ''first do no harm''.
Effects include - reduced bone mineralisation (density loss) and growth, increased risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and diabetes, and as yet unmeasured effects to cognitive and brain development, among others. Serious bone, blood and joint disorders are emerging in children treated in the 90s with GnRH analogues for precocious puberty.
Cross sex hormones further advocated presently for gender affirmation result in the same side effects plus induced menopause, stunted phallus and clitoris, atrophied uterus and vagina, impaired fertility (sterility, in fact) and others I'm sure.

To be completely physically harmless children and adults with gender dysphoria should not be treated chemically at all - it is a bad idea. There should be adequate mechanisms for social transition that enable psychological comfort. In the trans community this point of view is emerging, because they above all will have seen the effects of chemicals on their bodies. This is among the reasons why self ID without any gender affirmation procedures is important to them.
Such an approach would/will inevitably mean the future trans-identifying athletes would be fully as biologically capable as their birth gender permits.

Perhaps one solution would be participation in non-contact sports alongside one's self ID gender, with results and achievements categorised differently. IE McKinnon gets 1st medal in trans category, but the biological female who came 2nd gets 1st medal in female category, even though they raced alongside each other.
This possible solution could not happen in contact sports though.

That might be one route worth considering. It means everybody can compete, but results are allotted differently based on age/gender lines. Much the same as marathons do, everybody runs then finishes and results are categorised accordingly. Combat sports is a different matter entirely and this is where having different rules and regulations depending on the sport might come into play in future. Maybe I will stand corrected on this, but I can never see a transgender woman with a fully biological male body (with no testosterone reductions etc) competing in women's sport. If anything, as science improves, things might even start getting more strict as opposed to an open sesame situation.

mzungu

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If the law accepts, like trans activists do, that a woman with a penis is a woman indistinguishable from any other woman then any testosterone law is discriminatory. Until now high testosterone was probably added, to force legal women to reduce could well be problematic legally.

I thought the law accepts that gender is psychological and sex is biological? This should be consistent with making allowances for the advantages a male body brings to level off the playing field?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Here’s McKinnon on transgender advantages

Is being trans just another natural physical characteristic that, if — and this is a gigantic “if” — it provides an advantage, should we treat it like just being tall? We do not regulate height. In many sports height provides a massive competitive advantage. I’m six-foot. I’m too short to be an elite volleyball athlete. If you compared a five-foot woman to a 6-foot-4 woman, the tall woman will have such a competitive advantage that the shorter woman won’t be able to compete in volleyball or basketball. But we don’t consider that massive advantage unfair. Is being trans just another way to be a natural person who maybe gets an avenge for it that we should treat like being tall?

It is a chalk and cheese comparison from McKinnon and the thought experiment does not cut the mustard. I think Serena Williams had an unfair advantage over all her opponents as she was gifted with athletic ability and all that goes with it, speed, power, shot making, great touch etc. Any time she lost was usually when her head was not in it. Most of the time she steamrolled over everybody making women tennis less of a competition IMO. Not her fault, but there you go. The only players capable of beating her retired early. Ergo, she had quite the advantages and good fortune to boot. She was still a phenomenal player, though. However, her abilities were consistent with the abilities of a woman's body. If Federer or Nadal decided to play on the women tour there would only be one result every time as their abilities on their less than average days would far exceed what Serena Williams could muster even on her very best day.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

On testerone she distinguishes between naturally having it and doping it.

When people think of testosterone and athletic performance, they think of doping with exogenous testosterone — testosterone that comes from outside the body. Compare that to endogenous testosterone, which occurs in the body. While chemically they perform roughly the same way, there is ample evidence that shows exogenous testosterone, compared to what you naturally have, produces big performance advantages. That’s why it’s considered doping. There is no evidence that having a higher produced value of endogenous testosterone has any performance advantages at all. The evidence does not bear that out. So that is the second myth: the more testosterone you have, naturally, the better you are. So trans women might be male early on, and that on average such bodies have more endogenous naturally testosterone, therefore they’re stronger because of that. We have evidence that is just not the case.

This is a bit disingenuous again from McKinnon as there are studies that back up this claim, but there are just as many others that refute it.

Elmo Murphy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Really though it depends entirely on the sport we’re talking about. Any of the above can confer both advantages and disadvantages. Ms. MacKinnon for example wouldn’t be able to compete on any level in women’s gymnastics, and while she might set a new World record in a cycling competition for the over-35’s (when most athletes would be beyond their prime anyway), -


McKinnon set a new World Record during the women’s 34-39 Sprint Qualifying Flying 200m, with a time of 0:00:11.92, which was broken during the subsequent heats. During the women’s 35-44 sprint gold-medal final against Van Herrikhuyzen, McKinnon won the first two rounds to take the world title. Jennifer Wagner (USA), won the final for bronze against fourth-placed Linsey Hamilton (USA).





Here’s the thing though - women aren’t being forced to compete against her. They can simply turn around and say they don’t want to compete against her. She’s not particularly good at the sport anyway which is why she can be and was easily beaten, and there are no doubt better athletes than her competing in the sport. As it turns out, you can be absolutely fair and have women who were born men competing in women’s sports. They’re just as good, or indeed as poor, as women competing in the sport. It also does matter what the legal situation is because the governing body of the sport which sets the criteria for competing in the sport will be limited by the legal situation under which they can operate - in other words, the governing body will be restricted by law in what criteria it can use to determine eligibility to compete in the sport. If they decided that Ms. MacKinnon could not compete in the competition solely on the basis of her gender, the governing body may well find themselves on the end of a potentially bankrupting civil action case.





On the contrary, in fact it’s the only thing that’s relevant, particularly in Ms. MacKinnon’s case as it’s quite obvious she’s pretty useless at everything. She’s an assistant professor of philosophy, who won in a cycling competition for women over 35. None of that screams a particularly outstanding individual. She’s just less useless than her peers. The phrase “” comes to mind.





I think you’re being a tad hyperbolic there, the antithesis of common sense.

There is pretty much no sport in the world where having a female body is an advantage to having a male body, even in gymnastics there are maneuvers that only men have been able to complete and women haven't been.

Your line here is ridiculous" Here’s the thing though - women aren’t being forced to compete against her. They can simply turn around and say they don’t want to compete against her. "

So women not competing is better than allowing a tiny minority who have a massive advantage being allowed to compete.

I don't care about the legal rights and wrongs of this situation I care about simple fairness regardless of the legal rights and wrongs.

mzungu

FTA69 wrote: »

So what? McKinnon is getting beaten because she is competing against elite women and the only reason she can match those elite athletes is because she has the residual benefits of a male physique.

Lets be fair here, McKinnon does train pretty hard so it's not a case that she was sitting on the couch eating McDonald's and decided to transition and all of a sudden finds herself top of the podium. Her body has gone through a lot of change. You make the point about residual benefits of the make physique, however after a reduction of testosterone there is a loss of muscle and (presumably) a loss of bone density to go with. At what point is the line being drawn? If she never won another race again we probably won't hear of her again. We didn't hear when she came 11th. Far more transgender athletes do not make it to the podium than those that do. One slips under the radar, the other doesn't. Even though the ones that don't are average enough compared to their peers. That is the case here anyway.

FTA69 wrote: »

To give an example, I boxed in the Irish Novices years ago, if I transitioned to a woman and kept my physique I’ve no doubt I could have boxed to a higher level in the women’s. Would I have beaten Katie Taylor? Not in a million years, but the bottom line is that someone with a physique like mine shouldn’t be boxing in the local women’s amateurs.

If you transitioned, then you most certainly would not have kept your physique. If you were taking estrogen you would have noticed quite a change to your physique. That said, we are talking about contact combat sports here, and I do believe there needs to be strict guidelines here for the safety of everybody. There may very well need to be a different set of guidelines that need to be set up here. I know that in MMA they require full transition before competing and not just self ID. I do accept your point that nobody with a fully male physique should compete in women's sports, and have said so myself previously here. Really what we keep coming back to is how you weigh up the advantages (not like McKinnon did above) and disadvantages that testosterone reduction has. It can't be a case of kicking out the good M2F athletes and leaving the below average ones in. Is kicking them both out a good idea? I don't think it is.

One eyed Jack

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

There is pretty much no sport in the world where having a female body is an advantage to having a male body, even in gymnastics there are maneuvers that only men have been able to complete and women haven't been.

The point I was making is that Ms. MacKinnon in particular, because of her physique, wouldn’t come within an asses roar of competing against other women in gymnastics competitions. In that context she would be like an elephant trying to pass herself off as a gazelle.

Your line here is ridiculous" Here’s the thing though - women aren’t being forced to compete against her. They can simply turn around and say they don’t want to compete against her. "

So women not competing is better than allowing a tiny minority who have a massive advantage being allowed to compete.

That’s not what I was implying at all. My point is that I don’t see that she has any particular advantage when it’s quite obvious she isn’t competing against the elite in the sport. She’s literally decided to compete against women who aren’t particularly good at the sport in the first place, and she’s still being beaten by her competition. However, we aren’t analysing what advantages those who beat her have, nor are we analysing the advantages the women who came in second and third place had over the field of competitors who chose to participate in the race. Women will still compete, and those who don’t want to, won’t.

Those women who don’t want to compete, if they don’t want to compete, are perfectly entitled to set up their own competitions and governing bodies. The point is that those women who want to compete won’t care whether they’re competing against a man or a woman as long as they think they have a chance of winning the race!

I don't care about the legal rights and wrongs of this situation I care about simple fairness regardless of the legal rights and wrongs.

And that’s entirely your prerogative. The governing body of this particular competition don’t have the luxury of your individual arbitrary considerations. They set the rules and the qualifying criteria of the competition, and as long as all competitors meet the qualifying criteria, they are eligible to participate. Given the criteria of this particular competition are that competitors must be between the ages of 35 - 39, it would be unfair if a 30 year old woman were allowed to compete as she would likely wipe the floor with the competition, even Ms. MacKinnon.

Consider for example the World Transplant Games. I’ll bet you can’t guess what the qualifying criteria are? :pac: It would be unfair for example if Usain Bolt were eligible to compete against someone who had a double lung transplant, but that same person would likely run rings around me who is just unfit. Kate Moore for example is someone I would consider inspirational -


Inspirational Irish woman runs three marathons to combat her Cystic Fibrosis


Rachel MacKinnon? Not so much :rolleyes:

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s one got to do with the other? Do you understand the difference between necessity and desire? I want a Lamborghini, but it’s not necessary, nor is surgery necessary to address what is and has always been regarded as a mental health issue. It’s been a couple of years since I heard the “It’s not what’s between my legs that matters, it’s what’s between my ears that matters!”, and that’s making a comeback in the face of some stiff competition (pardon the pun) from some transgender advocates who argue that people who haven’t had surgery shouldn’t call themselves transgender, or they aren’t really transgender, etc.

Don't think you understand. When they say "its not between their legs" they mean what's between their legs does not define them. It's what between their ears(brain) that defines them, they want a match between their brain and what's between their legs hence surgery as they hate what's between their legs in the first place.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Don't think you understand. When they say "its not between their legs" they mean what's between their legs does not define them. It's what between their ears(brain) that defines them, they want a match between their brain and what's between their legs hence surgery as they hate what's between their legs in the first place.

My understanding is just fine.

I’m guessing you’re not the spokesperson for the trans community either. As you said yourself earlier -

klaaaz wrote: »

You stated your reason why self id was important for them, not their reason then. Understood

That came back to bite you in the ass pretty quickly :pac: