Biological males in women's sport

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My understanding is just fine.

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

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

This coming from a poster who has a fear of a bra hanging on a balcony?

I trust the view of the medical community(psychiatrists, psychologists, the endocronologists etc) who deal with the trans issues face to face on a daily basis over some random poster on boards!

Danzy

mzungu wrote: »

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.


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.

The advantage of testosterone as a child,puberty, never leaves . Can't be fully wound back.


You are talking about changes at the edges, significant but not in regard to athletes

bodice ripper

How could this possibly be fair?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

This coming from a poster who has a fear of a bra hanging on a balcony?

You’re starting to sound like my next door neighbour

No, the rule is that nobody is permitted to hang their laundry on their balcony as it brings down the tone of the property. Her underwear isn’t the issue, it’s the fact that she is in breach of the rules which apply to all residents equally. She’s not being picked on, the same criteria apply to all residents, whether it’s their bra or their bedsheets. The point is - no laundry on the balcony. It’s a fairly simple rule, it’s basic consideration for your neighbours. She’s intelligent enough to understand that, but much like you’re trying to do, she tries to strawman the point into something else as though she is being discriminated against, or your idea that her neighbours must have a “fear” of seeing her underwear.

I trust the view of the medical community(psychiatrists, psychologists, the endocronologists etc) who deal with the trans issues face to face on a daily basis over some random poster on boards!

You’re just a random poster on boards too? What’s your point? Your attempt at an argument from authority doesn’t carry any weight when what we’re talking about here are individuals individual perspectives. Yours is just as equal as mine, and neither of our opinions counter the other, as we’re both random posters on boards?

(Unless you’re my neighbour, in which case, *waves* :pac:)

Elmo Murphy

bodice ripper wrote: »

How could this possibly be fair?

It's clearly not fair which is why something needs to be done shortly before an event that people actually care about is won by a transgender athlete.Nobody really cares about this event but if someone is denied an Olympic medal by a transgender athlete it will get a much stronger reaction.

One of 2 things needs to happen.

All transgender athletes compete in mens events and have to follow the same drugs restrictions the me have to.

Or

Separate transgender categories, just like there are separate categories for events in the Paralympic's depending on the type of handicap an athlete has.

wexie

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

It's clearly not fair which is why something needs to be done shortly before an event that people actually care about is won by a transgender athlete.Nobody really cares about this event but if someone is denied an Olympic medal by a transgender athlete it will get a much stronger reaction.

I would imagine the rest of the competitors and their parents might disagree with you. Especially considering how athletic performance in the states can lead to scholarships. Getting or not getting those are literally life changing moments for some people.

wexie

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

It's clearly not fair which is why something needs to be done shortly before an event that people actually care about is won by a transgender athlete.Nobody really cares about this event but if someone is denied an Olympic medal by a transgender athlete it will get a much stronger reaction.

I would imagine the rest of the competitors and their parents might disagree with you. Especially considering how athletic performance in the states can lead to scholarships. Getting or not getting those are literally life changing moments for some people.

(btw am I the only one to see a moustache on one of those 'girls'?)

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

How could this possibly be fair?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

Is it fair to let them compete, and only when they win, people cry foul?

It’s like that girl says in the article -


“These girls, they’re just coming in and beating everyone. I have no problem with them wanting to be a girl.”

She seems to have no problem with them being a girl, as long as they’re not beating her in competitions. Not a peep out of her as long as she wins, and that’s exactly where the issue lies. The organisers of the race decide what’s fair and what isn’t, not the competitors.

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it fair to let them compete, and only when they win, people cry foul?

It’s like that girl says in the article -


“These girls, they’re just coming in and beating everyone. I have no problem with them wanting to be a girl.”

She seems to have no problem with them being a girl, as long as they’re not beating her in competitions. Not a peep out of her as long as she wins, and that’s exactly where the issue lies. The organisers of the race decide what’s fair and what isn’t, not the competitors.

The winner has an unaltered male physique. No hormones, nothing. And was the winner last year also.

Elmo Murphy

wexie wrote: »

I would imagine the rest of the competitors and their parents might disagree with you. Especially considering how athletic performance in the states can lead to scholarships. Getting or not getting those are literally life changing moments for some people.

I guess the nobody really cares part is based on the interest of the general public.

If this were to happen in a big event I imagine the story would get a lot more attention and something might be done to stop it happening again.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it fair to let them compete, and only when they win, people cry foul?.

Of course not, but if they compete and come last it doesn't affect anyone else.
I'd imagine if they had come in last (or not first and second) perhaps it wouldn't have been in the news, but that wouldn't make it any less unfair to let them compete in the first place.

Are you really honestly telling me you don't see a problem letting teenage boys (which is essentially what we're talking about here, regardless of how they identify) compete against teenage girls in track and field?

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

The winner has an unaltered male physique. No hormones, nothing. And was the winner last year also.

That still doesn’t alter the point that it’s the organisers of the competition who set the criteria, not the competitors. The competitors may well see it as unfair that they lost out to someone who was faster than them, but then so does everyone else who doesn’t get a medal, or feels they weren’t rewarded for their efforts. That’s how competition generally tends to work. The winners are never the first to point out how it was unfair that they won; sore losers on the other hand will look for any excuse rather than accept their defeat gracefully.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That still doesn’t alter the point that it’s the organisers of the competition who set the criteria, not the competitors. The competitors may well see it as unfair that they lost out to someone who was faster than them, but then so does everyone else who doesn’t get a medal, or feels they weren’t rewarded for their efforts. That’s how competition generally tends to work. The winners are never the first to point out how it was unfair that they won; the losers on the other hand...

But I don't think anyone is saying it's unfair they won....they are saying it's unfair they got to compete in the first place.

What is it you're trying to say? That it's not unfair?

Elmo Murphy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That still doesn’t alter the point that it’s the organisers of the competition who set the criteria, not the competitors. The competitors may well see it as unfair that they lost out to someone who was faster than them, but then so does everyone else who doesn’t get a medal, or feels they weren’t rewarded for their efforts. That’s how competition generally tends to work. The winners are never the first to point out how it was unfair that they won; the losers on the other hand...

What a load of absolute nonsense.

In pretty much every single sporting contest in the world people accept they were beaten by the better person/team and can accept that it is perfectly fair that they were beaten, this case is clearly different than any other case of people being beaten in a sporting contest.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

But I don't think anyone is saying it's unfair they won....they are saying it's unfair they got to compete in the first place.

What is it you're trying to say? That it's not unfair?

They’re saying that it’s unfair they got to compete in the first place only because they won. If they had come paddy last, the same people who are complaining would have had to find another excuse for why the winner won and they didn’t, and there wouldn’t have been a peep out of them if they had won. That’s essentially my point.

One eyed Jack

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

What a load of absolute nonsense.

In pretty much every single sporting contest in the world people accept they were beaten by the better person/team and can accept that it is perfectly fair that they were beaten, this case is clearly different than any other case of people being beaten in a sporting contest.

Most common refrain among the losers in sport, any sport - “I/We was/were robbed”.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re saying that it’s unfair they got to compete in the first place only because they won. If they had come paddy last, the same people who are complaining would have had to find another excuse for why the winner won and they didn’t, and there wouldn’t have been a peep out of them if they had won. That’s essentially my point.

You don't know that, there is every chance there would have been complaints either way and you well know it. The only thing we can be reasonably certain of here is that if they had come dead last it wouldn't have been news.

Here's a straight question for you :

Do you think letting highschool boys compete in competitions for highschool girls is fair?

It's an easy one word answer.

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote:

That still doesn’t alter the point that it’s the organisers of the competition who set the criteria, not the competitors. The competitors may well see it as unfair that they lost out to someone who was faster than them, but then so does everyone else who doesn’t get a medal, or feels they weren’t rewarded for their efforts. That’s how competition generally tends to work. The winners are never the first to point out how it was unfair that they won; sore losers on the other hand will look for any excuse rather than accept their defeat gracefully.

What are you even on about? Are you against female sports in general?

mzungu

Danzy wrote: »

The advantage of testosterone as a child,puberty, never leaves . Can't be fully wound back.


You are talking about changes at the edges, significant but not in regard to athletes

Not quite. I do recognise that not all masculine anatomic advantages will be eradicated, it's really about what is left and how it shapes up to the competition. McKinnon is one of these cases where she does not size up all that well against her competitors.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

You don't know that, there is every chance there would have been complaints either way and you well know it.

I don’t know it though, I know that some people will claim the competition was unfair when they lose, but there wasn’t a word out of them about unfairness when they thought they had a chance at winning.

Here's a straight question for you :

Do you think letting highschool boys compete in competitions for highschool girls is fair?

It's an easy one word answer.

It’s not a one word answer, unless you’ll accept “depends” as a one word answer. If I were a girl and I didn’t consider them a threat to my chances of winning the competition, I wouldn’t have any issue with them competing. If they were a threat to my chances of winning, then it’s as unfair as the beanpole running next to me that’s a ringer for Sonia O’ Sullivan

Dyr

If gender is a social construct, then surely we should simply to do away with gender segregation in sports. And then watch the epic whinging when poor old Serena Williams suddenly becomes a fourth tier tennis player and Katie Taylor is being pucked around the ring by journeymen.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

If gender is a social construct, then surely we should simply to do away with gender segregation in sports. And then watch the epic whinging when poor old Serena Williams suddenly becomes a fourth tier tennis player and Katie Taylor is being pucked around the ring by journeymen.

We could indeed do away with gender* segregation, it would still mean that there would be qualifying criteria which are inarguably constructed by the governing body of any sport. Serena Williams and Katie Taylor would still be assigned the same categories as men who qualify for the same category.




*FWIW, with regard to how your proposition is phrased “If gender is a social construct...”, there isn’t much of an argument to counter the fact that gender is indeed a social construct. In Western society in particular, we generally recognise only two genders. However, in other societies, they recognise more than two genders, and the idea that there are only two genders would be met with as much scepticism as we would the idea of any more than two genders. Therefore, gender is indeed a social construct, as it’s entirely constructed by society, concepts which are communicated through a common language. Ours just happens to be english. In other languages there are as many as eight classifications of gender.

Biological sex on the other hand, that’s not socially constructed, but rather observed in humans as a sexually dimorphic species. Often the arguments are made about people who are intersex, that they are either/neither/ or an entirely other classification of sex, but the fact is that they still fall into either sex category, while in possession of their opposite sex organs. Intersex is a developmental condition in the same classification as other developmental conditions.

ingalway

This is what we've been told to do by the LGBTs, the feminist ally...

There is actually now quite a rift appearing between many lesbian women and gay organisations eg Stonewall in UK. If any lesbian dare question transgenderism they are immediately labelled a 'terf'. If a lesbian states they are not interested in having sexual relationships with trans women, or a man who self ID's as a woman, then they are transphobic.
It is getting very aggressive in places.

klaaaz

Bambi wrote: »

If gender is a social construct, then surely we should simply to do away with gender segregation in sports. And then watch the epic whinging when poor old Serena Williams suddenly becomes a fourth tier tennis player and Katie Taylor is being pucked around the ring by journeymen.

Maybe use sex segregation instead of gender in sport? Only allow athletes who have changed sex through surgery to compete.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Maybe use sex segregation instead of gender in sport? Only allow athletes who have changed sex through surgery to compete.

Shouldn’t the eligibility and qualifying criteria be up to the competition organisers though, or the governing body of the sport? If they determine that someone meets the criteria, then regardless of any other traits of the competitor, the competition is fair. If participants disagree with the criteria, they are under no obligation to compete and it should be their loss, rather than the loss being transferred to any other competitors who meet the eligibility and qualifying criteria.

GreeBo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I assume they're entering the race they are categorised for. Her identifying as female she would enter a female category.

Not that I agree, or disagree, with it. I'm just pointing out the, I suppose, logic to it.

What was "her" cycling record when she still accepted she was a man?
I tried looking but can't find anything about het before the change

GreeBo

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?

That was a nonsense point in the cycling forum and its a nonsense point here too.

statesaver

It’s only when a woman ( woman = adult human female ) is seriously injuryed by a transwoman ( male ) in some sport that the general public will sit up and say this shít is just wrong.

GreeBo

I was looking at other sports and my own (golf) has voted to allow trans women to play on the ladies tour.

Found an interesting quote from one trans-woman (63 years old)

" She opted against the women's seniors Legends Tour because, despite her age, she believed the LPGA would be more fair after decades of being exposed to testosterone."

For reference the Legends Tour is for ladies 45 and older, and yet this player thought it would be unfair of her to play against biological women who were nearly 20 years younger than her due to her initial life as a man.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Her peers are over 35 males.
She cant beat them so now races against over 35 females and still isnt that good.

However, as long as she is beating 1 single biological female then, in my opinion at least, its wrong. Just as wrong as me entering the para-olympics.

Sure I might not win gold, but I'm sure I will beat someone and hence deny them the opportunity they have earned.