Biological males in women's sport

Zorya

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

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

Come on now! You must be lashing into the pints!

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

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 wrote: »

Er....have a moustache, I mean

Generalisation indeed. Many women do not fit that generalisation of what a woman should look like as per that poster's post so that post he posted is grossly unfair to alot of women.
As to having a moustache, I just hope those people who are judgemental(some are on this thread) do not give you grief for it.

klaaaz

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

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

And when you die, your bones will have been riddled by osteoporosis due to alcoholic abuse. Tis a pity that the alcohol you abuse affects your education of the subject in question.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

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

It depends really, like say I gave the example already of people who are transgender who don’t experience any distress or feelings of being born in the wrong body or anything that might even suggest to an outside observer that they may be transgender. They identify themselves as transgender and they instantly transform into the pronoun police. Grand, let them off as far as I’m concerned at an individual level, no skin off my nose whatsoever.

However, when it comes to policy making decisions regarding legal situations and so on, then I’m more likely to sit up and take notice, because I may well find myself in a position like Ashers bakery where I may be compelled to act or express an opinion which is in violation of my conscience. Before, I would politely refer to someone by their preferred pronouns as a matter of courtesy and an observation of cultural and social graces. Now however, I may be legally compelled to refer to someone by their preferred pronouns, and that is a violation of my freedom of expression. Now they’ve gone and made it a political issue, and as far as I’m concerned I would not adhere to such a policy were it ever introduced. I don’t have any issues on a personally interactive level, I have an issue with a policy which compels me legally to violate my conscience and my freedom of expression.

It basically comes down to whether it’s their condition is the source of their distress, or whether it’s social factors are the source of their distress, such as indeed the lack of compliance with their political and social beliefs. If the source of their distress is gender dysphoria, then it’s a mental health issue. If the source of their distress is a lack of compliance with their political and social beliefs, then they’re simply just being as stubborn an asshole as I am - not a mental health issue as far as I’m concerned, but a personality clash.

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.

Politics has always informed and influenced the social sciences in a big way, in fact I would go so far as to say that the entire body of the social sciences are ideologically driven. It’s simply a matter of who’s in the driving seat. The decision to reclassify transgenderism was entirely a political decision, as the condition is actually still recognised medically as transexalism. I say reclassify because it wasn’t entirely declassified as a mental health condition or disorder. The reason for this as I alluded to earlier is because if it were ever declassified in the same way as homosexuality has been declassified as mental health condition, that would mean it was no longer a condition considered a healthcare concern, and the treatments wouldn’t be covered by medical insurance.

Advocates need to argue that it is a legitimate condition that is a health risk and they aren’t too happy about those people who identify as transgender who may only ever socially transition and see no need to medically or surgically transition. It blows a gaping great hole in arguments for funding that consist of the risk to their lives of people who argued for a long time that the only treatment is to surgically transition to allieviate their gender dysphoria. The more research is being done, the more it’s becoming understood that this simply isn’t the case, and there are people who live with gender dysphoria who enjoy a high standard quality of life and aren’t particularly experiencing any ill mental health or distress as a direct result of their gender dysphoria. That doesn’t play well with some people’s political and social belief systems.

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

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.

So you agree that trans-women have an unfair advantage over, lets call them 'natural' rather than 'real' women due to the fact that they have experienced numerous years under the physiological boost of testosterone?
Great, so it appears we are all on the same side.

Trans-women shouldnt compete in womens events as its not fair.

klaaaz wrote: »

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.

Erm, no one backtracked at all my dear chap.
In fact many bent over backwards to show you that the actress in question was very much a female, with a striking female form.
Much as The Mountain is a male, with a striking male form.

and as you so easily just proved to use, a life of testosterone means that no matter how striking a form a woman may possess there will ALWAYS be a bigger, stronger, faster man to beat her in whatever event they engage in.

klaaaz

GreeBo wrote: »

So you agree that trans-women have an unfair advantage over, lets call them 'natural' rather than 'real' women due to the fact that they have experienced numerous years under the physiological boost of testosterone?
Great, so it appears we are all on the same side.

Trans-women shouldnt compete in womens events as its not fair.

Err, we haven't defined what those characteristics are other than some physique and what they look like to the judgemental audience. Athletes at their peak generally don't compete over the age of 35 at which when they hang up their boots. Hence a young person who transitions at their young age has not had that physiological boost of testosterone as pronounced as someone who transitions at age 60. People here were judging on how a person looks to the eye, with those looking for a jawline for example which is crazy.

GreeBo wrote: »

and as you so easily just proved to use, a life of testosterone means that no matter how striking a form a woman may possess there will ALWAYS be a bigger, stronger, faster man to beat her in whatever event they engage in.

Not sure what you getting at here. A man at his top physique would indeed beat a woman in their similar field. There is that issue when the man has their testosterone crashing to near zero levels, it's quite a serious reverse in ability to compete in any mens sporting event.

Lash Into The Pints

klaaaz wrote: »

And when you die, your bones will have been riddled by osteoporosis due to alcoholic abuse. Tis a pity that the alcohol you abuse affects your education of the subject in question.

Once again: you can get the surgery and the hormone treatment but you cannot change the fact were born a man and will remain one until you die.

klaaaz

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Once again: you can get the surgery and the hormone treatment but you cannot change the fact were born a man and will remain one until you die.

They were born a baby, not a man. And please elaborate on your view which contradicts what the medical community says on the matter. If you have pints on you, it maybe take longer for you to prove your 'facts'

Lash Into The Pints

klaaaz wrote: »

They were born a baby, not a man. And please elaborate on your view which contradicts what the medical community says on the matter. If you have pints on you, it maybe take longer for you to prove your 'facts'

Born a boy. And why so touchy? I'm mearly pointing out the very obvious truth that you can't change what you are born as.

Are you a transsexual?

Franz Von Peppercorn

klaaaz wrote: »

They were born a baby, not a man.

Every animal is born as a baby. In sexually reproductive species the babies are male or female.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Good, if long, post from Quillette about this topic. The anti scientific actions are shocking.


https://quillette.com/2018/10/18/trans-activists-campaign-against-terfs-has-become-an-attack-on-science/

klaaaz

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Born a boy. And why so touchy? I'm mearly pointing out the very obvious truth that you can't change what you are born as.

Are you a transsexual?

So you cannot prove what you say, just your personal view on the matter whether sober or drunk.

Lash Into The Pints

klaaaz wrote: »

So you cannot prove what you say, just your personal view on the matter whether sober or drunk.

And your personal view is that you can change yourself into the opposite sex which is just wrong.

I can chop my dick off and get a tit job but I'm still a man.

klaaaz

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

And your personal view is that you can change yourself into the opposite sex which is just wrong.

I can chop my dick off and get a tit job but I'm still a man.

You maybe a bit tipsy by your username, I stand by what the medical community say on the matter. They actually study the stuff.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Not sure what you getting at here. A man at his top physique would indeed beat a woman in their similar field. There is that issue when the man has their testosterone crashing to near zero levels, it's quite a serious reverse in ability to compete in any mens sporting event.

Men, even not at their top physique would still be able to beat most women. So the male is no longer good enough to compete against men. Why does that mean that women need to move aside to accommodate them ?

Lash Into The Pints

klaaaz wrote: »

You maybe a bit tipsy by your username, I stand by what the medical community say on the matter. They actually study the stuff.

The medical 'community' once believed in trepanning and leech therapy.

You can change your sex? Nope, that is quakery. Maybe think of that before blowing your life savings by traveling to Thailand to get your penis inverted into a 'vagina?

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

You maybe a bit tipsy by your username, I stand by what the medical community say on the matter. They actually study the stuff.

Can you provide a source where a member of the medical community is saying that is possible to literally change sex. That surgery is not just to give the appearance of the opposite sex? Because I really can't see a person who is an expert in human biology saying such a thing.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Men, even not at their top physique would still be able to beat most women. So the male is no longer good enough to compete against men. Why does that mean that women need to move aside to accommodate them ?

Shouldn't that question be directed at the sporting authorities for each particular competition? They do have certain rules on hormonal influence for competition, don't they ?

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you provide a source where a member of the medical community is saying that is possible to literally change sex. That surgery is not just to give the appearance of the opposite sex? Because I really can't see a person who is an expert in human biology saying such a thing.

Maybe our homegrown HSE who have their own psychiatrists/endocrinologists specialists? (And that's just here, many countries have similar, oh there is the WPATH as well https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/ )

GreeBo

klaaaz wrote: »

Err, we haven't defined what those characteristics are other than some physique and what they look like to the judgemental audience. Athletes at their peak generally don't compete over the age of 35 at which when they hang up their boots. Hence a young person who transitions at their young age has not had that physiological boost of testosterone as pronounced as someone who transitions at age 60. People here were judging on how a person looks to the eye, with those looking for a jawline for example which is crazy.


Not sure what you getting at here. A man at his top physique would indeed beat a woman in their similar field. There is that issue when the man has their testosterone crashing to near zero levels, it's quite a serious reverse in ability to compete in any mens sporting event.

Firstly no one was judging people by how they look, one poster demonstrated the different results depending on which direction you were transtitioning.
Secondly any chance of an answer to my question regarding lizard-man and cat-man?
Finally, dont bother I've just added you to my ignore list.

bodice ripper

I just want to jump in here and say that while I have issues with transwomen competing against natal women in sport; I reject wholesale this debate descending into questioning their identities as a whole.

I am happy to describe these people as women for no other reason other than they asked. Because I am not an arsehole. Because I have the opportunity to make someone happy through incredibly minor effort on my part. Surely it is the least I can do.

And if you gave a **** about women's sports, you sure as **** wouldn't drift off into deliberately misgendering and otherwise attacking the women in question on the basis of how you interpret their identities.



This isn't OK because of an unreasonable advantage, one that can be quantified. Not because the public ought to pile on people about how they see themselves.

Must we be polarised on every issue?

Lash Into The Pints

bodice ripper wrote: »

I just want to jump in here and say that while I have issues with transwomen competing against natal women in sport; I reject wholesale this debate descending into questioning their identities as a whole.

I am happy to describe these people as women for no other reason other than they asked. Because I am not an arsehole. Because I have the opportunity to make someone happy through incredibly minor effort on my part. Surely it is the least I can do.

Thank you for that bland generic statement showcasing your tolerance. You go girl!

bodice ripper

Lash Into The Pints wrote:

Thank you for that bland generic statement showcasing your tolerance. You go girl!

I am sorry that my bland position has raised your ire.

Lash Into The Pints

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am sorry that my bland position has raised your ire.

No at all my npc friend. I heartily endorse your statement and/or product. Who needs freedom of thought? Far better to parrot vague ideals about tolerance and receive platitudes on social media in return.

You rock girl!

bodice ripper

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

No at all my npc friend. I heartily endorse your statement and/or product. Who needs freedom of thought? Far better to parrot vague ideals about tolerance and receive platitudes on social media in return.

You rock girl!

I do apologise. I will include a trigger warning for the likes of you in future.

Lash Into The Pints

bodice ripper wrote: »

I do apologise. I will include a trigger warning for the likes of you in future.

Thank you.

#orangemanbad
#lovetrumpshate

bodice ripper

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Thank you.

#orangemanbad
#lovetrumpshate

No problem hun.

#cheaphashtaggags

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

I just want to jump in here and say that while I have issues with transwomen competing against natal women in sport; I reject wholesale this debate descending into questioning their identities as a whole.

I am happy to describe these people as women for no other reason other than they asked. Because I am not an arsehole. Because I have the opportunity to make someone happy through incredibly minor effort on my part. Surely it is the least I can do.

And if you gave a **** about women's sports, you sure as **** wouldn't drift off into deliberately misgendering and otherwise attacking the women in question on the basis of how you interpret their identities.

This isn't OK because of an unreasonable advantage, one that can be quantified. Not because the public ought to pile on people about how they see themselves.

Must we be polarised on every issue?

You jumped in there though out of nowhere with that interjection to signal your own virtuous attitude based entirely upon what you determine will be just as far as you personally are willing to go to allow other people to be happy, while at the same time making the point that the woman in question in this particular instance whom it was determined by the organisers did not have an unreasonable advantage over her fellow competitors, and was on that basis qualified to compete in the competition, should not have been permitted to compete, regardless of whether it would make her unhappy had the decision been yours to make.

It’s probably a good thing for her then that she didn’t ask for your permission to refer to herself as a woman so you never had to put yourself out at all, not even a little bit, not even to tell her that your incredibly minor effort shall consist of questioning her identity wholesale, but she’s not to see you as an asshole. You’re a good person, and anyone who disagrees with your decree is the unreasonable asshole.

You’ll have to forgive me if I interpreted the intent of your post to signal your own virtues while covering your own arse at the same time. I’m just not seeing how useful it is to anyone but yourself tbh. It certainly doesn’t help anyone who doesn’t meet your criteria by which you determine they are a woman, or a man with an unfair advantage trying to pass themselves off as a woman.

Kinda looks like you’ve polarised yourself with a post that I’m guessing was meant to be conciliatory? It just reads rather awkwardly if I’m being honest, as though in your attempt to show how you weren’t an asshole, well, y’know...

I’m sure someone, somewhere, appreciates the conciliatory sentiment though, even if it only goes as far as you’re willing to go, while criticising other people who aren’t willing to go as far as you do, with neither being far enough for the people who don’t need anyone else’s permission in the first place to identify themselves for themselves, as it was never anyone else’s permission to be themselves they sought, but rather other people’s acceptance which appears to make them happy, an acceptance which by your own admission you wouldn’t be willing to give.

It’s like you’ve just proclaimed you’re as eager as anyone else to ensure other people who don’t adhere to your standards are reminded that they don’t adhere to your standards?

Congratulations?

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Generalisation indeed. Many women do not fit that generalisation of what a woman should look like as per that poster's post so that post he posted is grossly unfair to alot of women.
As to having a moustache, I just hope those people who are judgemental(some are on this thread) do not give you grief for it.

My moustache - IF I ever had a moustache :mad: - would be as cute and sweet as girldick, I'm telling you.

wexie

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am happy to describe these people as women for no other reason other than they asked.

Describe as, refer to, treat as a woman, I'm okay with all of those to be honest.

Where I start finding it problematic is when I am told to just reject science and believe they actually ARE women.