Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Your own words


The medical community think surgery (that medical transition) makes a female, they who are experts in biology are wrong too in your view?

No they don't. The words male and female refer to sex, which is unchangeable . They will still treat that person as male when it comes to certain medical issues. Prostate checks etc.. Also there are differences in how males and females present with various medical conditions - heart attacks for example that still make their actual sex relevant.

Franz Von Peppercorn

klaaaz wrote: »

Apparently that poster has strict definitions on what a woman should be. By the way, there are women who have XY chromosomes, are they not women either?
If your meat and veg were hacked off in that unfortunate drone accident, no you will not automatically become a woman, you become a castrated man.



That's her dolled up on a night out. I cannot post links to images yet(boards rule), there are quite a few pics of her without makeup in less feminine attire. Interesting definition you have there of what a woman should look like, thou shall not judge?

These arguments are trending towards a denial of any differences in sex or gender. You are I think making the arguments that people will make when transgender athletes start to win everything, even without any attempt at a transition at all.

That view may be woke now but it won’t be popular then.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

That's her dolled up on a night out. I cannot post links to images yet(boards rule), there are quite a few pics of her without makeup in less feminine attire. Interesting definition you have there of what a woman should look like, thou shall not judge?

I have never seen her before as I have not seen Game of Thrones if that is what she is in. She is lovely. She doesn't look in the least bit manly, her arms and skin are gorgeous. If it is a question of height does that mean short fellas have female physicality?

GreeBo

^ She is also missing a penis and an Adams Apple

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

Apparently that poster has strict definitions on what a woman should be. By the way, there are women who have XY chromosomes, are they not women either?

They suffer from a congenital developmental fault. It's a medical condition, that usually results in restricted growth and delayed or absent puberty.

If your meat and veg were hacked off in that unfortunate drone accident, no you will not automatically become a woman, you become a castrated man.

But if I then felt relief that said bits were gone and self identified as female, lived the life of same, then I would cease to be a castrated male and become a woman, even though my biology hasn't changed?

That's her dolled up on a night out. I cannot post links to images yet(boards rule), there are quite a few pics of her without makeup in less feminine attire.

She still has the small ribcage, narrow waist and wide hips and small joints and jaw and mid face.

Interesting definition you have there of what a woman should look like, thou shall not judge?

WTF does that even mean? Well, I know it's a deflection in lieu of an argument, but still. I hate to break it to you, but across time and culture there are some pretty steady widely agreed points that say "feminine" or "masculine". In women the hip waist ratio is a major one. From Palaeolithic through Classical representations down through the years to today that remains a near constant. The various Palaeolithic Venus' have similar ratios to the Venus deMilo, Botticelli's Venus, Rubens more ample women, Marilyn Monroe to Sports Illustrated models of today. Overall sizes may change but the proportions don't. In men, a V shaped torso, larger joints, taller, more muscled, larger mid face and jaw etc are also similarly constant.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No they don't. The words male and female refer to sex, which is unchangeable . They will still treat that person as male when it comes to certain medical issues. Prostate checks etc.. Also there are differences in how males and females present with various medical conditions - heart attacks for example that still make their actual sex relevant.

Disagree, it's changeable. On health issues, the prostate shrinks in transitioned women due to hardly any testosterone present to help generate that dreaded prostate cancer. Hence no prostate checks needed.
Regarding heart attacks in a body full of estrogen, do you have some medical study to support your view of heart attack symptoms for trans women ?

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Disagree, it's changeable. On health issues, the prostate shrinks in transitioned women due to hardly any testosterone present to help generate that dreaded prostate cancer. Hence no prostate checks needed.
Regarding heart attacks in a body full of estrogen, do you have some medical study to support your view of heart attack symptoms for trans women ?

Really? No prostate checks needed? Is that medical advice? Shrivelled should not affect possibilities of disease, I would have thought anyway

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

They suffer from a congenital developmental fault. It's a medical condition, that usually results in restricted growth and delayed or absent puberty.

You never answered if they are women or not!

Wibbs wrote: »

But if I then felt relief that said bits were gone and self identified as female, lived the life of same, then I would cease to be a castrated male and become a woman, even though my biology hasn't changed?

Do you have gender dysphoria? Do you want your body full of estrogen with it's subsequent consequences? Me thinks that drone accident was fortunate? :pac:

Wibbs wrote: »

She still has the small ribcage, narrow waist and wide hips and small joints and jaw and mid face. WTF does that even mean? Well, I know it's a deflection in lieu of an argument, but still. I hate to break it to you, but across time and culture there are some pretty steady widely agreed points that say "feminine" or "masculine". In women the hip waist ratio is a major one. From Palaeolithic through Classical representations down through the years to today that remains a near constant. The various Palaeolithic Venus' have similar ratios to the Venus deMilo, Botticelli's Venus, Rubens more ample women, Marilyn Monroe to Sports Illustrated models of today. Overall sizes may change but the proportions don't. In men, a V shaped torso, larger joints, taller, more muscled, larger mid face and jaw etc are also similarly constant.

A lovely description which sounds like your ideal woman! Guess that rules out those women with pronounced jawlines, they never made your cut!
News for you, women come in all shapes and sizes, even some born females look a tad masculine, you'd be horrified if you saw them!

klaaaz

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

These arguments are trending towards a denial of any differences in sex or gender. You are I think making the arguments that people will make when transgender athletes start to win everything, even without any attempt at a transition at all.

That view may be woke now but it won’t be popular then.

Franz, I don't agree with the view that trans athletes who have not undergone any surgical/hormonal changes should be able to compete in their transitioned gender in sport. That self ID stuff is indeed dangerous to women's sporting competition.

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

You never answered if they are women or not!

OK. Not. They're biologically intersex. If they feel themselves to be women I respect that. That's not the issue in play when it comes to the subject of the thread.

Do you have gender dysphoria? Do you want your body full of estrogen with it's subsequent consequences? Me thinks that drone accident was fortunate? :pac:

You didn't answer my question. But let's say for argument's sake I did however unlikely come down with gender dysphoria, would that diagnosis alone change me from male to female?

A lovely description which sounds like your ideal woman! Guess that rules out those women with pronounced jawlines, they never made your cut!
News for you, women come in all shapes and sizes, even some born females look a tad masculine, you'd be horrified if you saw them!

Indeed they do. They're still, if not suffering from congenital or genetic conditions(the vast majority) XX, with female reproductive systems and primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

:


A lovely description which sounds like your ideal woman! Guess that rules out those women with pronounced jawlines, they never made your cut!
News for you, women come in all shapes and sizes, even some born females look a tad masculine, you'd be horrified if you saw them!

And you apparently would be horrified if you saw their chromosomes

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I physically winced at the thought that I would ever the thought of as a supporter of the blank slate theory, let alone *shudders*... the ‘p’ word I’d be of the opinion that nurture has an influence on nature. In other words for me it’s fundamentally biological, but the way the underlying biology is nurtured would influence the outcome of how a person perceives themselves and their place in society. How a person is nurtured would influence brain development is what I’m suggesting, and in those studies, the baselines they’re measuring from are based upon stereotypes observed of the types of people they’re ascribing their findings to.

For example the best example I can think of is I’d once worked with a girl who explained to me that she had a ‘male’ brain, and her boyfriend had a ‘female’ brain, and that’s how they had such a good relationship. I thought at the time “Christ she’s talking a load of shìte”, but when I actually met them out together and had a chance to observe their interactions, it wasn’t that I thought she might be onto something, it was that I thought that was simply her way of explaining their different personalities and characteristics that simply complemented each other. She imagined her own behaviours and demeanour were stereotypically male, and she imagined her boyfriends demeanour and behaviours were stereotypically female. She obviously lacked sufficient data to support her own conclusions as I’d observed plenty of people of either sex who displayed the characteristics of either of them. I didn’t particularly care one way or the other if I’m being completely honest, they seemed happy and more power to them.

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.

Transgender individuals were rare in the population previously simply because the criteria for identifying transgender individuals was defined by limited criteria. Them feeling in the wrong body is entirely a construct predicated upon what they observe of their own bodies, and what they observe of other people’s bodies. In that sense they’re no different than anyone else with body dysmorphia. Some people who are transgender don’t want to transition, they’re perfectly happy as they are and that’s as far as they’ll ever go once they are socially accepted, they experience no distress or discomfort or feeling that they are born in the wrong body. For some, there are various degrees of dysmorphia like bottom or top dysmorphia. Their dysmorphia is entirely based upon how they perceive themselves and other people, and how they’re defining themselves is expanding, rapidly, and the 72 genders stuff is peeing off people who are transgender who want everyone to stick to the two genders paradigm. It isn’t just the language that’s changing, it’s the definitions too, a bit like how the diagnosis of autism changed and was redefined and now people are a bit skeptical of what appears to be a phenomenal rise in the diagnosis of autism. Well there would be, because the criteria we used to determine the diagnosis for autism changed, and now we’re discovering that according to the new definition, autism is just as prevalent in girls as it is in boys! I know it’s an entirely sceptical point of view but as you’ve often said - follow the money.

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".

I’d regard those identifications as sex, as opposed to gender. That’s why I don’t get particularly hung up on if someone chooses to identify themselves as an attack helicopter. It’s largely irrelevant outside their own heads. Their sex on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of how they are identified from an objective perspective, and if I’m observing someone, while I may not have the greatest of eyesight, I can still spot the odd one out on that podium of cyclists. It’s the one that look like her training regime consists of cracking coconuts between her thighs they’re that muscular. I understand of course she’s a sprint cyclist, but her thighs compared to her competitors? I don’t even have to go above the waist to know something ain’t kosher there!

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Really? No prostate checks needed? Is that medical advice? Shrivelled should not affect possibilities of disease, I would have thought anyway

Yes. To fight prostate cancer, an anti-androgen is used to reduce testosterone significantly as T(testosterone) is a significant factor in the development of prostate cancer, the side affects of such therapy in men are similar to castration.
As for trans women who have medically transitioned, their prostate shrinks due to near zero levels of T in their system, no prostate checks are needed.

Zorya wrote: »

And you apparently would be horrified if you saw their chromosomes

Ideal chromosomes or not, some women do not have the typical physical characteristics as stated by the poster.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Transgender individuals were rare in the population previously simply because the criteria for identifying transgender individuals was defined by limited criteria. Them feeling in the wrong body is entirely a construct predicated upon what they observe of their own bodies, and what they observe of other people’s bodies. In that sense they’re no different than anyone else with body dysmorphia. Some people who are transgender don’t want to transition, they’re perfectly happy as they are and that’s as far as they’ll ever go once they are socially accepted, they experience no distress or discomfort or feeling that they are born in the wrong body. For some, there are various degrees of dysmorphia like bottom or top dysmorphia. Their dysmorphia is entirely based upon how they perceive themselves and other people, and how they’re defining themselves is expanding, rapidly, and the 72 genders stuff is peeing off people who are transgender who want everyone to stick to the two genders paradigm. It isn’t just the language that’s changing, it’s the definitions too, a bit like how the diagnosis of autism changed and was redefined and now people are a bit skeptical of what appears to be a phenomenal rise in the diagnosis of autism. Well there would be, because the criteria we used to determine the diagnosis for autism changed, and now we’re discovering that according to the new definition, autism is just as prevalent in girls as it is in boys! I know it’s an entirely sceptical point of view but as you’ve often said - follow the money.





I’d regard those identifications as sex, as opposed to gender. That’s why I don’t get particularly hung up on if someone chooses to identify themselves as an attack helicopter. It’s largely irrelevant outside their own heads. Their sex on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of how they are identified from an objective perspective, and if I’m observing someone, while I may not have the greatest of eyesight, I can still spot the odd one out on that podium of cyclists. It’s the one that look like her training regime consists of cracking coconuts between her thighs they’re that muscular. I understand of course she’s a sprint cyclist, but her thighs compared to her competitors? I don’t even have to go above the waist to know something ain’t kosher there!

I'm gonna go ahead in just assume perhaps you're not a big believer in gender dysphoria not being a mental health issue?

I'll try to phrase this carefully and tactfully cause I'm not actually trying to piss anyone off but could someone try to explain to me the thinking behind the decision to classify it as 'not a mental health issue'?

Is there any scientific reason for this? Or is it an ideological and activism driven decision?

I've read some of the (hotly debated apparently) materials stating that a transgender person is likely to show brain patterns of the sex they feel themselves to be which perhaps could go some way towards explaining this, but from what I understand it's now pretty much universally accepted that it's not a mental health issue.

Whereas I for the life of me can't figure out how it could possibly be anything but a mental health issue.

And I hope I've phrased this suitably sensitive because I have seen people infracted (I believe it may actually have been you OEJ) for daring to suggest that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

OK. Not. They're biologically intersex. If they feel themselves to be women I respect that. That's not the issue in play when it comes to the subject of the thread.

So a bunch of women with the xy chromosome are not women in your view.

Wibbs wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. But let's say for argument's sake I did however unlikely come down with gender dysphoria, would that diagnosis alone change me from male to female?

You'd have gender dysphoria then, it's up to you whether you want to change your body to make it female to match your mind. If you don't, you might continue as miserable in castration land with its significant side affects.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed they do. They're still, if not suffering from congenital or genetic conditions(the vast majority) XX, with female reproductive systems and primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

Those women who do not match your ideal physical characteristics of a woman do not have a DNA affect, they just look a bit masculine when you meet them. They just did not develop those 100% female characteristics to meet your strict physical criteria of what a woman should look like.
Does it matter that they can reproduce or not? Perhaps that's another of your requirements for that ideal woman! (please do not disregard women who cannot reproduce)

Zorya

You're in sooooo much trouble, wexie

The very concept of being born in the wrong body seems such a stretch to me. If you feel feminine or masculine but are in a different body I think it would be better to stay healthy, accept the body and be as masculine or feminine as you feel like being. It's not as if men and women are different species or anything, there is loads of crossover in behaviour etc. It's not such a big deal to be different.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes. To fight prostate cancer, an anti-androgen is used to reduce testosterone significantly as T(testosterone) is a significant factor in the development of prostate cancer, the side affects of such therapy in men are similar to castration.
As for trans women who have medically transitioned, their prostate shrinks due to near zero levels of T in their system, no prostate checks are needed.



Ideal chromosomes or not, some women do not have the typical physical characteristics as stated by the poster.

Google tells me checks are still needed.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Google tells me checks are still needed.

What did you find?

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

You're in sooooo much trouble, wexie

Meh, I've never cared too much about being in trouble with the kind of people that would expect blind acceptance without offering a sensible explanation. In my experience that's indicative of the kind of person supporting or pushing a point of view they don't fully understand or even believe.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

What did you find?

Lookit, I'm on a fecking windows 7! Phone that barely works so there is no hope of linking - it's all over the first few pages of google results to query "prostate risk for trans women"

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

Franz, I don't agree with the view that trans athletes who have not undergone any surgical/hormonal changes should be able to compete in their transitioned gender in sport. That self ID stuff is indeed dangerous to women's sporting competition.

So both physical and hormonal changes are required in your opinion?

So if I had hormone 'therapy' and grew breasts, increased by fat% and shed some muscle mass, Im still a man until I chop my bits off, even if I think Im a woman?

and vice-versa, if I chop my bits off and grow my hair, Im still a man, even if I identify as a woman, because I havent had any hormone changes done?


Do you not see how prone to issues that is.

You are going to end up revising who is male or female based on quality of their surgeon. I guarantee someone who changes from male to female now will have a much better job than someone who did it 20 years ago and likewise in 20 years time it will be 'better' again.

How do your requirements work in that case? Do these "women" need to keep upgrading their surgery less they revert to being male in your eyes?

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

So a bunch of women with the xy chromosome are not women in your view.

Biological women, no. Biological intersex, yes.

You'd have gender dysphoria then, it's up to you whether you want to change your body to make it female to match your mind. If you don't, you might continue as miserable in castration land with its significant side affects.

Again you ignored my question. I'll answer it for you going by your posts. I'd be a woman, if I felt I was a woman. Biology and inconvenient lie. We'll ignore the side effects of taking artificial hormones.

Those women who do not match your ideal physical characteristics of a woman do not have a DNA affect, they just look a bit masculine when you meet them. They just did not develop those 100% female characteristics to meet your strict physical criteria of what a woman should look like.
Does it matter that they can reproduce or not? Perhaps that's another of your requirements for that ideal woman! (please do not disregard women who cannot reproduce)

They're not "castrated"(or not) males on hormone therapy, ergo they are biological women. Those "ideal physical characteristics"? I never said were mine BTW. I'm no Rubenesque admirer for a start. I did say that they are ideals across the majority of cultures and times. I also never said that women who can't(or indeed chose not to) reproduce aren't women. I'm sure you'd only love that if I did. You'll be waiting until satan skates to work in the mornings. But ignore cultural ideals, again we look to biology and actual science... oh wait, you ignore them wholesale.

mzungu

klaaaz wrote: »

Disagree, it's changeable. On health issues, the prostate shrinks in transitioned women due to hardly any testosterone present to help generate that dreaded prostate cancer. Hence no prostate checks needed.
Regarding heart attacks in a body full of estrogen, do you have some medical study to support your view of heart attack symptoms for trans women ?

Very bad advice. Transwomen have gotten prostate cancer, sometimes decades after the transition has taken place.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Biological women, no. Biological intersex, yes.

So another group in your view is excluded from the definition of what a woman is.

Wibbs wrote:

Again you ignored my question. I'll answer it for you going by your posts. I'd be a woman, if I felt I was a woman. Biology and inconvenient lie. We'll ignore the side effects of taking artificial hormones.

You inserted the word 'felt' there, that's a change of tack trying to use the self ID option. You cannot ignore the side affects of taking hormones or having no hormones in your system, they do have effects!

Wibbs wrote:

They're not "castrated"(or not) males on hormone therapy, ergo they are biological women. Those "ideal physical characteristics"? I never said were mine BTW. I'm no Rubenesque admirer for a start. I did say that they are ideals across the majority of cultures and times. I also never said that women who can't(or indeed chose not to) reproduce aren't women. I'm sure you'd only love that if I did. You'll be waiting until satan skates to work in the mornings. But ignore cultural ideals, again we look to biology and actual science... oh wait, you ignore them wholesale.

Hold on, you gave a detailed description of what a woman is

Wibbs wrote:

She has quite the "womanly" figure as it happens. Very rounded arms, small in proportion rib cage and joints, wide of hip and long of leg. Her face shows the typical almost neotenous proportions we think of as female. Small in jaw, and overall face, high wide forehead etc.

Alot of women(born female for your sake) do not fit your ideal description. By your logic, those women are male!

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Lookit, I'm on a fecking windows 7! Phone that barely works so there is no hope of linking - it's all over the first few pages of google results to query "prostate risk for trans women"

mzungu wrote: »

Very bad advice. Transwomen have gotten prostate cancer, sometimes decades after transition took place.

Maybe indeed it happens to late transitioners as prostrate cancer does tend to affect those in the age range 60+ as significant levels of testosterone has been present in the body for decades.

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

Maybe indeed it happens to late transitioners as prostrate cancer does tend to affect those in the age range 60+ as significant levels of testosterone has been present in the body for decades.

Hang about, I thought all that testosterone was irrelevant and could be overcome and hence trans-women had no advantage from being 'previously' male?

Did no one tell the prostate?

Or is it actually a fact that if you have testosterone sloshing about your body during your formative years it does indeed leave an indelible mark that trans-women in sport are taking advantage of?

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

Hang about, I thought all that testosterone was irrelevant and could be overcome and hence trans-women had no advantage from being 'previously' male?

Did no one tell the prostate?

Or is it actually a fact that if you have testosterone sloshing about your body during your formative years it does indeed leave an indelible mark that trans-women in sport are taking advantage of?

Who told you that testosterone is irrelevant? It does indeed promote male characteristics during puberty, thing is that in this thread there has been people who have judged the pictures of people based upon their physique which is wrong.

We were told by posters in this thread that physique was a very important factor yet those same posters backtracked when the GOT actress was mentioned with her male type physique despite her being born female.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Hold on, you gave a detailed description of what a woman is


Alot of women(born female for your sake) do not fit your ideal description. By your logic, those women are male!

Fexake, he was giving a generalised description of female typical traits such as would be accepted in any anthropological context, it would be impossible to create a single descriptor that would cover every gal in the world. Some women have fabulous moustaches, many more would have them without removal cream, but the vast, vast majority of them have female chromosomes and those that don't have a medically defined condition. We have boobs, round bums, extra curves, vulvas, and occasionally moustaches. Although I hasten to add I do not.:pac:

Zorya

Er....have a moustache, I mean

Lash Into The Pints

A man who undergoes surgery is not a woman. He will remain a man until the day he dies.

Mod-Banned