Biological males in women's sport

Elmo Murphy

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

And if it's unfair in a skill based sport like golf imagine the massive advantage in more athletic sports that trans-women have.

Venom

statesaver wrote: »

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

Fallon Fox did just that in the UFC back in 2014.


http://whoatv.com/transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-sends-opponent-to-hospital/


"Now over the weekend the controversy is sure to flair up again after Fox, presumably, sent her opponent, Tammika Brents, to hospital to receive treatment for a “concussion”, “broken orbital bone”, and get “7 staples in her head”, following their fight which lasted 3 minutes at Capital City Cage Wars."


What's even worse, is that Fox had fought a few times before it came out she was a transgender.

GreeBo

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

Black man sprints faster then white women shocker!

GreeBo

Elmo Murphy wrote: »

And if it's unfair in a skill based sport like golf imagine the massive advantage in more athletic sports that trans-women have.

Actually golf is massively biased towards strength these days.
The bottom ranked man on the mens tour probably wins 90% of the events he enters on the ladies tour, senior or otherwise!

I cant get my head around those who think its fair/ok.

Would you be happy with your 18 year old daughter playing full contact rugby against a trans woman who was a 17 year old man the year before?

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

This anecdote is from a poster who compared trans people to lizards

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

This anecdote is from a poster who compared trans people to lizards

Wow, do you work for the Daily Mail or what?

I didnt compare anyone to a lizard (or a cat for that matter)

I simply asked why in one case do we accept change yet in the other two I presented we dont?

We treat cat man and lizard man as weirdos because we *know* they are not cats or lizards, just like *I* know trans women are not women based on the biological definition of the word.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer that question btw, feel free to take a shot at it rather than post emotive nonsense like I quoted above.

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

Wow, do you work for the Daily Mail or what?

I didnt compare anyone to a lizard (or a cat for that matter)

I simply asked why in one case do we accept change yet in the other two I presented we dont?

We treat cat man and lizard man as weirdos because we *know* they are not cats or lizards, just like *I* know trans women are not women based on the biological definition of the word.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer that question btw, feel free to take a shot at it rather than post emotive nonsense like I quoted above.

So much ignorance which was like a Daily Mail post, no wonder that hateful lizard post back then was ignored by many.

So *you* know that trans women are not women(which seems to be your strange obsession), how do you know?

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

So much ignorance which was like a Daily Mail post, no wonder that hateful lizard post back then was ignored by many.

So *you* know that trans women are not women(which seems to be your strange obsession), how do you know?

Still can't answer that simple question though I see?

As for your simple question, it has a simple answer.
Because they were born men.
If you are born a man, you die a man, irrespective of what procedures you undergo to make you appear to be a woman (or a cat or a lizard)

Oh look, we are full circle back to my simple question.
Care to answer now or just keep ignoring the awkward ones?

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

I’ve no doubt you’d beat plenty, and be beaten by plenty. Like, sure, I can understand where you’re coming from, but if people are going to compete in a sport, then they’re competing in the knowledge that they too are likely to beat plenty, and be beaten by plenty, and if they get to the level where they’re beating everyone else who qualifies to compete, then not only have they earned the same opportunity as every other competitor, but they’ve earned their win. It’s entirely up to the individuals themselves whether they want to improve their performance in order to win, or whether they want to claim the competition is unfair because they chose to compete knowing they never stood a chance against better competitors than they are.

As you point out, she still isn’t that good even among the people who are now her peers. She wouldn’t have come to prominence if she were competing and losing. It’s only because she won that people have become aware of her competing are suggesting she should never have been allowed to compete in the first place, even though she met the criteria to qualify in order to be entitled to compete in this particular class. When she ages out of her current class, she’ll be competing with another class of competitors based solely upon her age as the qualifying criteria. She will obviously be younger than the other competitors in the next class up, and then there will be another criteria to point out why she’s winning, if she wins. If she doesn’t, she will simply fade back into obscurity and she’ll likely be feeling the unfairness of it all, and it will be her who will have to decide whether or not she still wants to compete and risk losing to better competitors.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

*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,

The old blank slate nurture theory that is flavour of the day. Particularly among progressive philosophy, just as nature tends to be the go to for the Right. Both will find plenty of science to back their position, which should tell any casual observer that neither are correct as hard positions. Depending on the matter at hand it's more usually six of one, a half dozen of the other. For example, there are demonstrable differences between male and female minds across cultures and times where it comes to the big five personality traits. There are other brain differences too. Indeed research has shown that Gay male brains show more commonalities in certain areas with straight female brains than straight male brains. I would bet the farm that in Trans folks this holds even more true. Never mind that if gender was such a hard line social construct Trans individuals would be far rarer in the population. Tell a Trans woman or man that them feeling themselves in the wrong body is a social construct. Get back to me on that one.

Secondly of the cultures that have more than two genders, the majority have three. Basically male, female, intersex. A gender breakdown I'd agree with, while adding in straight, gay, bi as the three sexual orientations. Where more than three occur it's nearly always more a local cultural labelling for mixes of homosexuality in the mix. IE male and Gay would be another "gender".

klaaaz wrote: »

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

Because the plain biological fact is surgery can't change gender. Both surgery and hormones can imitate to one degree or other a gender, but even a first year medical student on their worst day could spot the difference.

statesaver wrote: »

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 shis just wrong.

Well it's already happened in MMA, where Trans competitor Fallon Fox fractured the skull of a female competitor in a bout. As she said afterwards: I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right… I still disagree with Fox fighting. Any other job or career I say have a go at it, but when it comes to a combat sport I think it just isn’t fair.

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Indeed. What is the point is that McKinnon wouldn't stand a chance in the male category, before or after transition, but is competitive in the female.

wexie

Bambi wrote: »

If gender is a social construct, then surely we should simply to do away with gender segregation in sports.

Yeah but you know what, while gender may well be a social construct, and I can certainly see some arguments for that. It's not gender that gives (or doesn't give if you believe that) physical characteristics.

It's sex, and no matter how hard anyone tries to believe it that is most definitely not a social construct.

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

Still can't answer that simple question though I see?

As for your simple question, it has a simple answer.
Because they were born men.
If you are born a man, you die a man, irrespective of what procedures you undergo to make you appear to be a woman (or a cat or a lizard)

Oh look, we are full circle back to my simple question.
Care to answer now or just keep ignoring the awkward ones?

They were not born men, they were born a baby. There you are off again comparing them to cats and lizards, so much hateful disrespect.

So you cannot answer how do you know that they are not women?

astrofool

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I think the point is that the criteria are wrong, and if left the way they are (after all, most of these cases, at the moment, are at the lower levels of the sports) will have the effect of rendering current elite biological female athletes useless, and also have the effect of reducing participation of biological females in sports.

The discussion is happening now about what the likely series of events will be if the rules aren't fixed, and is mostly coming from people who didn't compete at the events (those that did compete, seem to accept the rules and get on with it, likely as they hae no choice if they want to compete at all, at least for now).

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Because the plain biological fact is surgery can't change gender. Both surgery and hormones can imitate to one degree or other a gender, but even a first year medical student on their worst day could spot the difference.

Another one stating a "biological fact" without backup. So they're fake, is it? And what difference is that ?

JohnMc1

Regardless of how we stand on the Transgender issue we should be able to agree that these athletes should either compete at the Gender they were born as or don't compete.

astrofool

klaaaz wrote: »

They were not born men, they were born a baby. There you are off again comparing them to cats and lizards, so much hateful disrespect.

So you cannot answer how do you know that they are not women?

Well, they were born male or female, with the occasional hermaphrodite. The sporting categories are for male or female, not men and women.

statesaver

Venom wrote: »

Fallon Fox did just that in the UFC back in 2014.


http://whoatv.com/transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-sends-opponent-to-hospital/


"Now over the weekend the controversy is sure to flair up again after Fox, presumably, sent her opponent, Tammika Brents, to hospital to receive treatment for a “concussion”, “broken orbital bone”, and get “7 staples in her head”, following their fight which lasted 3 minutes at Capital City Cage Wars."


What's even worse, is that Fox had fought a few times before it came out she was a transgender.

That’s just crazy. How can anyone defend that ?

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

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

Yes , sports should be segregated by sex. But surgery doesn't literally change a person's sex does it? They will still be male and still have the advantages of going through puberty as a male. They should not be allowed to compete against females because they aren't one.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes , sports should be segregated by sex. But surgery doesn't literally change a person's sex does it? They will still be male and still have the advantages of going through puberty as a male. They should not be allowed to compete against females because they aren't one.

While I very much agree with you I have to warn you there are people out there that believe otherwise.

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

They were not born men, they were born a baby.

They were born boys, or girls, or in very rare circumstances intersex.

klaaaz wrote: »

Another one stating a "biological fact" without backup. So they're fake, is it? And what difference is that ?

I am not saying society should regard them as not the transitioned gender, but it is a biological fact and no amount of cultural definitions changing or loud hailing on any side can refute this. Someone born without genetic or developmental conditions with an XY chromosome, a penis and testicles is biologically male. Just as someone born without genetic or developmental conditions with an XX chromosome, vagina, uterus and ovaries is biologically female. When puberty hits, these changes diverge even more along a normal gender developmental path. This is extremely basic biology. Somehow suggesting this requires "back up" as a biological fact is akin to asking if birth, growth and death requires back up.

astrofool

statesaver wrote: »

That’s just crazy. How can anyone defend that ?

Read the article, while Fox did inflict those injuries, they're fairly common in MMA, and Fox has since lost a later fight, and last had a fight in 2014 (it seemed to be a fairly short lived carrer of 6 fights, for whatever reason).

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

I am not saying society should regard them as not the transitioned gender, but it is a biological fact and no amount of cultural definitions changing or loud hailing on any side can refute this. Someone born without genetic or developmental conditions with an XY chromosome, a penis and testicles is biologically male. Just as someone born without genetic or developmental conditions with an XX chromosome, vagina, uterus and ovaries is biologically female. When puberty hits, these changes diverge even more along a normal gender developmental path. This is extremely basic biology. Somehow suggesting this requires "back up" as a biological fact is akin to asking if birth, growth and death requires back up.

Was there not a tweet somewhere in one of these threads that stated something along the lines of : science is the enemy and needs to be rooted out and discredited? or some other drivel?

While they're doing that perhaps they can get rid of this whole 'can't travel faster than the speed of light business' cause that would actually be useful.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Another one stating a "biological fact" without backup. So they're fake, is it? And what difference is that ?

We need "back up" to show that surgery doesn't literally change a person's sex. Seriously?

Say a person had surgery and hundreds of years from now their remains were discovered and examined for some reason, would they be identified as their chosen gender or their actual biological sex?

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

We need "back up" to show that surgery doesn't literally change a person's sex. Seriously?

Say a person had surgery and hundreds of years from now their remains were discovered and examined for some reason, would they be identified as their chosen gender or their actual biological sex?

Who knows, perhaps there might be some giant leap in DNA analysis that will bring something new to light.

Barring that though I'm pretty certain I know what the answer will be.

ceadaoin.

astrofool wrote: »

Read the article, while Fox did inflict those injuries, they're fairly common in MMA, and Fox has since lost a later fight, and last had a fight in 2014 (it seemed to be a fairly short lived carrer of 6 fights, for whatever reason).

Fairly common? Maybe in men's MMA? A female had never been injured like that in a fight before

As far as I can recall women started refusing to fight Fox. Probably explains their career death

statesaver

astrofool wrote: »

Read the article, while Fox did inflict those injuries, they're fairly common in MMA, and Fox has since lost a later fight, and last had a fight in 2014 (it seemed to be a fairly short lived carrer of 6 fights, for whatever reason).

He lost one, brilliant. Hope she destroyed him

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if they get to the level where they’re beating everyone else who qualifies to compete,

I agree with everything you said, but this sentence is the bit we are all arguing about I guess.

"qualifies to compete"....it used to be qualification for a womens event mean you had been born a women, now it means you have decided that you identify as a women.

There was a reason men and women were separated in sport and it essentially boiled down to fairness.

That goes out the window if a person who was born a man and now decides they are a women gets to compete against other women.


Taking a somewhat extreme example.

Usain Bolt retires because he no longer can beat all his male peers.
Is it right that that he could then just decide to race against women and go on another unbeatable "run" for the next couple of years?

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Not sure I get that.

*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.

Very few societies are like that. Maybe two or three. However It seems to me that western transactivism runs rough shod over both biology and social constructed gender. After all if a 60 year old man is a woman neither biology or environment has much to do with it.

Plus many of us would be happy enough with an idea of 4 seperate genders, including transwomen and transmen but despite claiming support for multiple genders or fluidity etc the trans activist movement is really claiming two. Transwomen are not just transwomen but fully women. Indistinguishable in rights from biological women. There lies the problem.

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.

Again it’s the claim that the trans woman is indistinguishable from the biological woman is the problem. A self identified trans woman would under the new laws being discussed in Britain and existing here could see biological men compete against biological women.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes , sports should be segregated by sex. But surgery doesn't literally change a person's sex does it? They will still be male and still have the advantages of going through puberty as a male. They should not be allowed to compete against females because they aren't one.

Surgery does alter the sex as well as the hormones to make them female. The question on puberty is not straightforward, there are born females with large physical traits like that actress Gwendoline Christie from the tv series Game of Thrones, she's at 6ft 3 inches with the strong build to match. (she's the warrior Brienne in the series). According to some judges here, she would be banned from sporting competition because of her large physique and probably judged as being a man! :eek:

astrofool

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Fairly common? Maybe in men's MMA? A female had never been injured like that in a fight before

As far as I can recall women started refusing to fight Fox. Probably explains their career death

There's been plenty of awful injuries in female MMA, while the injuries that athlete received were really bad, it is part of the sport that they can happen, however, I don't believe it's fair that a born male should compete in a female sport (especially at professional level), but was putting forward why people might defend it (rather than shout hyperbole, as it is a nuanced argument, and dismissing an argument, rather than fighting it with facts will lead to losing the argument).