Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin.

The latest from Jen Wagner Assali who was the third placed rider who spoke out and then apologised

For those of you who think I have "folded" I have not. There's a group of us working on getting the rules changed but we are going to fight it offline, not in the name-calling angry world of social media. I'm choosing to move on in a positive way

McKinnons response is to claim harrassment because of this and is attempting to have her sanctioned by cycling authorities. This person is a bully who wants to silence women and by their passive agressive tweets they are clearly trying to incite a Twitter storm of hatred against Wagner-Assali.

Also

klaaaz wrote: »

You have taken it out of context for your own agenda.

Hahahahaha. Seriously? You have done this very thing multiple times on this thread. Pot, meet kettle.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Hahahahaha. Seriously? You have done this very thing multiple times on this thread. Pot, meet kettle.

Nope, you and a few others have ranted a bit without any facts to back you up. Authoritative medical organisations on trans healthcare like the HSE and Wpath have been dismissed with derogatory remarks. You should educate yourself on the path for trans healthcare and what exactly is involved, it does help the discussion.

By the way, as you are starting your protest over this issue against the HSE, do also start your protest against the cycling authorities who set the rules for competitive cycling. Please come back and let us know how you get on with both protests.

Franz Von Peppercorn

klaaaz wrote: »

Nope, you and a few others have ranted a bit without any facts to back you up. Authoritative medical organisations on trans healthcare like the HSE and Wpath have been dismissed with derogatory remarks. You should educate yourself on the path for trans healthcare and what exactly is involved, it does help the discussion.

By the way, as you are starting your protest over this issue against the HSE, do also start your protest against the cycling authorities who set the rules for competitive cycling. Please come back and let us know how you get on with both protests.

I just looked up something on the internet related to a condition my oh has. It gives different potential risk factors for males and females. Doesn’t even bother say biological.

Of course, this is true throughout 99.9999% of the medical literature. Irrelevant to this debate though as McKinnon hasn’t had a sex change and doesn’t want one.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Btw klaaz what restrictions if any do you think should be applied to transgender (in particular, m-f) transgender athletes.

klaaaz

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Btw klaaz what restrictions if any do you think should be applied to transgender (in particular, m-f) transgender athletes.

Surgery should be a prerequisite and also test the testosterone levels just like any other competitor. It's stricter than the present rules which the IOC set. If anyone has a problem with the IOC rules, complain to the IOC instead of being a keyboard warrior like some here!

uck51js9zml2yt

klaaaz wrote: »

Open both your eyes Jack, it's all there.

Sex re-assignment is mentioned at least 4 times in that document, that is changing sex. Medical definition - https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+change+surgery
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender+reassignment+surgery
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sex-change


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender-reassignment


I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

Just because it quaks like a duck and walks like a duck, doesn't make it a duck..when it's really a swan!

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Surgery should be a prerequisite and also test the testosterone levels just like any other competitor. It's stricter than the present rules which the IOC set. If anyone has a problem with the IOC rules, complain to the IOC instead of being a keyboard warrior like some here!

I agree with this, if they are going to allow males to compete against females then surgery should be a requirement. I don't think even the most dedicated cheat would go that far simply to win medals. This isn't acceptable to trans activists though because they know that it's only a very small minority who actually have surgery. They would consider you transphobic for thinking that. The likes of McKinnon don't even think they should have to lower testosterone. I wonder how they would feel if all sports we're desegregated. I bet they wouldn't be too happy about competing against men but they are ok with forcing women to do so when that man says he is a woman.

Personally I think they should have their own separate division when it comes to the elite levels. Fallon fox has had partial surgery at least to remove testicles and still severely injured a woman. It's not just current testosterone levels that give an advantage.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Perhaps yourself, Wibbs, Zorya and One Eyed Jack amongst others should protest to the HSE about that statement ye are offended and upset with. While ye are protesting, please state that yer opinions supercede those endocrinologists and psychiatrists that are employed by the HSE for trans issues.

Why would I protest to the HSE when I have already made it clear that I don’t disagree with what they’re saying?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I actually read that paragraph as a summary of what some people who are transgender hope to achieve with surgery, not what the surgery can actually deliver.

This is why when anyone says “the medical community says this” or “the scientific community says this”, implying that either medicine or science supports their bias, like that particular poster, suggesting that people who are transgender didn’t need to go for medical checkups, or that endocrinologists agree with them, or the medical community agrees with them, that’s just some dangerously deluded ideological nonsense, because anyone listening to that, is going to be putting their lives at risk.


(As an aside, the info on that page is adapted from the NHS site in the UK, it’s not even the HSE’s own content -
Content provided by NHS Choices www.nhs.uk and adapted for Ireland by the Health A-Z.)

Their opinions supersede yours too, by a country mile, particularly when you choose to misrepresent their opinions to try and lend an air of authority to your own opinions which are demonstrably false and certainly not what is suggested by anyone whom you claim supports your opinions.

klaaaz wrote: »

Nope, you and a few others have ranted a bit without any facts to back you up. Authoritative medical organisations on trans healthcare like the HSE and Wpath have been dismissed with derogatory remarks. You should educate yourself on the path for trans healthcare and what exactly is involved, it does help the discussion.

It certainly does, and you have quite a bit of educating yourself to do on the matter rather than hope that you could misrepresent the authorities you claim support your opinions in the hope that anyone wouldn’t see exactly what you were attempting to do.

ingalway

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The discussion on whether sex surgery changes sex isn’t, as it happens, relevant to the general discussion on trans gender, sport and self identification since that’s about gender changes not sex changes. No sex change is necessary in many jurisdictions nor in the IOC rules. In the IOC the only barrier is testosterone levels.

In tandem with the debate about gender reassignment, surgery, hormones etc I think the fact that Gender Self ID is now being introduced into some countries deserves equal attention.

Any biological man, or woman, only has to declare on a form that they are the opposite gender to which they were born. They don't have to see a doctor, don't have to have taken any hormones, had any surgery or even lived as the opposite gender for a length of time. They don't need to make any attempt whatsoever to even appear as the opposite gender, just declare on the form, then all official documents such as passport, driving licence, can be changed. Access must then be given to all women only spaces, not only sport, eg battered women's refuges where women who have been subjected to male violence go as a last resort, often with their children, must then provide access to trans women.

The NHS are now also offering trans women, who register with their GP as a female, cervical smear tests. NHS guidance states: "men living as women are being invited for cervical smear tests even though they do not have a cervix, an official guidebook states. A video accompanying the guidance explains that smear tests can be “uncomfortable” for trans men, as “it is often a procedure designed for women”.
I bet it's uncomfortable trying to do a cervical smear on someone with no cervix, I have no idea how you would even attempt that.

“it is often a procedure designed for women”. Total madness

ceadaoin.

ingalway wrote: »

The NHS are now also offering trans women, who register with their GP as a female, cervical smear tests. NHS guidance states: "men living as women are being invited for cervical smear tests even though they do not have a cervix, an official guidebook states. A video accompanying the guidance explains that smear tests can be “uncomfortable” for trans men, as “it is often a procedure designed for women”.
I bet it's uncomfortable trying to do a cervical smear on someone with no cervix, I have no idea how you would even attempt that.

“it is often a procedure designed for women”. Total madness

I would gladly forgo smear tests if I could. I don't understand why anyone would go through the procedure if there was no reason whatsoever for it. Are the NHS really wasting funds on performing smear tests on males? I'm not sure many trans women would take them up on their offer. It would be like some sort of creepy roleplaying fantasy.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Personally I think they should have their own separate division when it comes to the elite levels. Fallon fox has had partial surgery at least to remove testicles and still severely injured a woman. It's not just current testosterone levels that give an advantage.

I was thinking perhaps just have male and female categories and then a super category where anyone can compete, no drug testing, inject, swallow and modify away. If we're going to do away with reason we may as well go full scifi and make it entertaining and spectacular.

Zorya

wexie wrote: »

I was thinking perhaps just have male and female categories and then a super category where anyone can compete, no drug testing, inject, swallow and modify away. If we're going to do away with reason we may as well go full scifi and make it entertaining and spectacular.

Full on Mad Max, I like it :pac:

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I would gladly forgo smear tests if I could. I don't understand why anyone would go through the procedure if there was no reason whatsoever for it. Are the NHS really wasting funds on performing smear tests on males? I'm not sure many trans women would take them up on their offer. It would be like some sort of creepy roleplaying fantasy.

They’re not.

Trans woman

If you are a trans woman aged 25 to 64 you won’t need to be screened as you don’t have a cervix.

Registered with a GP as female

If you are registered with a GP as female, you will be routinely invited for cervical screening unless your GP has already told us you’re not eligible. We can update our records so you are not invited unnecessarily.

Registered with a GP as male

If you are registered with a GP as male, you won’t be invited for cervical screening.

Source: Information for trans people


That’s the actual booklet, not sourced from tabloid rags like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, and there are good reasons for providing screening for people who are transgender -

WHO: Risk of certain cancers higher in transgender communities

pleas advice

so, trans males aren't screened at all?

benjamin d

wexie wrote: »

I was thinking perhaps just have male and female categories and then a super category where anyone can compete, no drug testing, inject, swallow and modify away. If we're going to do away with reason we may as well go full scifi and make it entertaining and spectacular.

That is what is nominally known as the "mens" category. Many (most?) sports have women's as a subcategory but mens is the colloquial term for the standard 'open' competition.

The argument for the last several pages is that once a trans individual is LEGALLY recognised as a woman then they are also somehow biologically a woman. That is patently nonsense. Declaring yourself a woman on a form does not change the fact that you were born a man, grew up a man, and are a man as far as science and nature is concerned. For the particular poster above (not you wexie) to state that anyone saying this is transphobic is abhorrent and utterly offensive. Most posters here - and myself - have bent over backwards to qualify our statements with the acceptance that generally no one gives a sh!te if someone wants to live their life as a woman despite being born a man, or vice versa. I've said before that I personally know two trans individuals and have nothing but respect for the life they want to lead, but if it comes to denying the basic science that a person born as a male is and will always be a biological male then that has to be called out. This is damaging trans rights more than any backward hick's opinions ever could. To bring this all back OT, a biological man should not ever be allowed to compete against women.

An absolutely average man has the potential to be a competitive elite female. THAT is the reason biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sport. Current testosterone levels are a red herring.

Women's sport is at a crossroads where a huge amount of work has been done to make it socially acceptable for girls and young women to be sporty, we cannot afford to F this up by allowing biological males to run roughshod over their efforts and achievements because of some blinkered notion of 'rights' for trans individuals.

One eyed Jack

pleas advice wrote: »

so, trans males aren't screened at all?

This is kind of the difficulty with trans healthcare. Trans males may or may not be offered screening, it depends entirely upon the individual and how they identify themselves, and whether or not they are registered with their GP as either male or female. They may identify themselves as trans male and are registered with their GP as male, yet they may also possess a cervix, which would potentially mean they are at risk of developing cervical cancer.

Trans females who are registered with their GP as female may be invited for screening, unless their GP has informed the NHS that they are not eligible, which in some cases can mean it’s potentially an administrative clusterfcuk.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is kind of the difficulty with trans healthcare. Trans males may or may not be offered screening, it depends entirely upon the individual and how they identify themselves, and whether or not they are registered with their GP as either male or female. They may identify themselves as trans male and are registered with their GP as male, yet they may also possess a cervix, which would potentially mean they are at risk of developing cervical cancer.

Trans females who are registered with their GP as female may be invited for screening, unless their GP has informed the NHS that they are not eligible, which in some cases can mean it’s potentially an administrative clusterfcuk.

They should record both identified gender and biologcal sex for healthcare purposes. That way the patient can be treated as their preferred gender in all respects but when it comes sex specific screenings like smear tests they aren't missing out

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They should record both identified gender and biologcal sex for healthcare purposes. That way the patient can be treated as their preferred gender in all respects but when it comes sex specific screenings like smear tests they aren't missing out

I think that would certainly be the sensible option. From what I understand though it may well through up some ideological barriers.

Referring to the fact that a transgender woman was once a man apparently is no longer acceptable. Even on this very forum there are people pushing the narrative that (I quote) 'a transwoman is a woman'.

Not just for legal or social purposes but for all intents and purposes.

I don't want to have to go looking for it but someone recently linked to some article where a person started transitioning between committing and being prosecuted for a crime. They wanted the prosecution dropped on the basis that 'they were no longer that person' and the person that committed those crimes 'no longer exists and therefor can no longer be prosecuted'.

:rolleyes:

A wang is usually a good indicator of gender.

ceadaoin.

wexie wrote: »

I think that would certainly be the sensible option. From what I understand though it may well through up some ideological barriers.

Referring to the fact that a transgender woman was once a man apparently is no longer acceptable. Even on this very forum there are people pushing the narrative that (I quote) 'a transwoman is a woman'.

Not just for legal or social purposes but for all intents and purposes.

I don't want to have to go looking for it but someone recently linked to some article where a person started transitioning between committing and being prosecuted for a crime. They wanted the prosecution dropped on the basis that 'they were no longer that person' and the person that committed those crimes 'no longer exists and therefor can no longer be prosecuted'.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I linked to that article. Think it was in the Graham linehan transphobia thread. There is another similar case ongoing in the UK too where the person wants their male specific crime erased from their record so that their biological sex is not revealed on a background check.

wexie

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There is another similar case ongoing in the UK too where the person wants their male specific crime erased from their record so that their biological sex is not revealed on a background check.

I think that kind of madness shouldn't be entertained, no court time or effort should be spent on it, it's pure and utter unadulterated lunacy.

Maybe we just need a different way of documenting a 'person'.

'Such and such human being with DNA profile yada yada yada yada was convicted of yada yada yada yada'.

Be a lot harder to argue your way out of that.

benjamin d

If we're going to accept that testosterone early in life hasn't affected current physiology it's not a huge leap to suggest that previous stereotypically male crimes (violence, sexual assault, etc.) are unrelated to present female physiology. This is genuinely the road we're travelling.

Danzy

benjamin d wrote: »

If we're going to accept that testosterone early in life hasn't affected current physiology it's not a huge leap to suggest that previous stereotypically male crimes (violence, sexual assault, etc.) are unrelated to present female physiology. This is genuinely the road we're travelling.

It is the vein of thinking that leads the legitimate revolution ending up once more in mass slaughter.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They should record both identified gender and biologcal sex for healthcare purposes. That way the patient can be treated as their preferred gender in all respects but when it comes sex specific screenings like smear tests they aren't missing out

This is the thing though, they’re not missing out because they aren’t being recorded properly, they’re missing out because they choose not to avail of screening due to the attitudes they are met with and their own perception of the standards of healthcare they are (or indeed aren’t) being provided with.

I don’t for one minute blame the vast majority of people who are transgender for the actions and attitudes of a tiny minority of utter fcukwits like the Rachel MacKinnons of this world who seek to further their own political and social agendas who imagine they are representative of people who are transgender. They are only representative of themselves, and a poor representation at that, who, because of their actions and attitudes towards other people, are doing more damage to the vast majority of people who are transgender than anything even remotely positive. They are entirely self-serving, selfish individuals who don’t appear to care about anyone but themselves.

While they are in a minority, unfortunately they carry plenty of political and social clout and are able to bully people to get their own way and still portray themselves as ‘victims’. It’s actually only thanks to social media that there are a growing number of people who are transgender who are pointing out that the Rachel MacKinnons of this world neither speak for them, nor are they representative of all people who are transgender. They include people like Sam Collins who was actually criticised for being “too cis”, people who reject ideological nonsense in favour of asking people to engage their critical faculties and get engaged in the discussion on some of the topics that Rachel MacKinnon et al want to pretend don’t exist and would rather shrink away from -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVztYHItaFA

GreeBo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I was on the fence, until it turned out that McKinnon doesn't believe in taking hormone blockers or being tested(it violates your rights). Or that testosterone gives competitive gains(besides the obvious logic of it literally being the primary drug tested for in most sports). And was kicked from the cycling team of a person who is part of a scientific study showing clearly the difference hormone blockers have on cycling performance. I'm now pretty sure that there is a good chance that this is a full unencumbered biological male who only identifies as a women, because the IOC guidelines state that they only have to present a doctors note saying they are usually under a certain amount of natural testosterone generally.

Also turns out there are successful female to male athletes who get to take hormone therapy.

I wonder how people would feel about a biological women identifying as a man, takes testosterone for 3-4 years and then switches back to a woman and competes against women?

I cant see how this is any different than someone taking HGH or other PED for a couple of years before turning pro and being clean.

Do they really think that there is no advantage to be gained by this process?
If they do, how is this any different than having natural testosterone coursing through your body for the first 18+ years of your life and then competing against biological women?

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

Do they really think that there is no advantage to be gained by this process?
If they do, how is this any different than having natural testosterone coursing through your body for the first 18+ years of your life and then competing against biological women?

I genuinely think that a lot of the people arguing this don't actually believe this. The problem is that admitting it and following that line of reasoning to a logical conclusion would lead to them to having no option but having to admit (or at least question) that perhaps transwomen aren't indistinguishable from cis* women. The whole thing is built on a really very shaky foundation and the only way to keep it going is to just ignore science, logic and reason.


* I despise that bloody term and am only using it for clarity
** I've hopefully phrased this (again) suitably vague and sensitive, I fully appreciate that transwomen legally are women and understand the mods need to make sure Boards as an entity stays out of legal trouble

GreeBo

wexie wrote: »

I genuinely think that a lot of the people arguing this don't actually believe this.

Well how convenient for you.
Can you share what you basing this view on, or is it just that it disagrees with yours and hence these people must be just liars?

wexie wrote: »

The problem is that admitting it and following that line of reasoning to a logical conclusion would lead to them to having no option but having to admit (or at least question) that perhaps transwomen aren't indistinguishable from cis* women. The whole thing is built on a really very shaky foundation and the only way to keep it going is to just ignore science, logic and reason.

Apart from the fact that they are most definitely distinguishable then sure, your point is perfectly valid.
I would counter your 'argument' thusly:
I genuinely think that a lot of the people arguing for trans athletes do actually believe they have a physiological advantage.
The problem is that admitting it and following that line of reasoning to a logical conclusion would lead to them to having no option but having to admit (or at least question) that perhaps transwomen are distinguishable from cis* women. The whole thing is built on a really very shaky foundation and the only way to keep it going is to just ignore science, logic and reason.

wexie wrote: »

** I've hopefully phrased this (again) suitably vague and sensitive, I fully appreciate that transwomen legally are women and understand the mods need to make sure Boards as an entity stays out of legal trouble

I think this is an excellent way to stop logical debate on the topic.

Franz Von Peppercorn

^ bit of a double negative problem there. Maybe “aren’t indistinguishable” should have been written as “are distinguishable” but it’s the same thing.

GreeBo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

^ bit of a double negative problem there bud. Maybe “aren’t indistinguishable” should have been written as “are distinguishable” but it’s the same thing.

me?

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

I think this is an excellent way to stop logical debate on the topic.

As evidenced by some other threads.

Shut down the discussion by any means necessary and we'll never have to start examining our beliefs too deeply.