Biological males in women's sport

One eyed Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

Would you ever jog on with that nonsense. I know a load of women worried about this stuff for very good reason and basically you’re portraying female athletes as a bunch of spoiled brats in your quest to appear virtuous on this issue.

The whole point is that many of the sporting bodies are way off on this, mostly out of fear of being condemned as bigoted. If you think the likes of Rachel McKinnon and Fallon Fox and Hannah Mounsey present no contradictions then you’re either ignorant about the effects of physiology in sport or else being wilfully disingenuous.

The law and the rules in sporting bodies are being constructed in a climate where there’s huge lobbying for this stuff, it’s all part of the same thrust with the same goals - the idea that sex is simply something you opt in or out of.

I fully support female athletes speaking out against this and I fully condemn those portraying them as sore losers or bigots because they don’t want to see women’s sports made a mockery of.

I’m not sure you could possibly be more wrong. I’m not wishing to appear virtuous on this issue or any issues related to it. On Rachel McKinnon I’m on record as having said one doesn’t need to look any further than the waist up to know something isn’t kosher there. The Chinese athletes were a tougher sell, I’m still not convinced.

Now appears these teenagers in Connecticut where State laws are on their side, and the majority of sporting bodies and education bodies are on their side, and you kinda do have to ask yourself, well, I do anyway - is it simply the case that more people agree with this because they’re afraid of a backlash, or because they want to support it? They’re not being forced to support it in other words, and only a minority of people are against it. For me that puts the whole “right-thinking people” stuff in perspective. There’s no huge lobbying for it, it’s just the lobbying against it is practically non-existent - they’re scared of their shìte of being seen even among themselves, as bigots. It’s not something that has ever troubled me if I didn’t support something.

batman_oh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get what you’re saying, but their right to be regarded in law as their preferred gender makes them equal in law at least to women or men, whichever they’re competing with in the area of sports. It’s up to the sporting bodies to act within the law to ensure the competitions are fair, and that’s where the problem lies - who determines the criteria for fair competition and what does it mean for the sport and for the development of the sport in society.

All these things are factored into deciding what’s fair, not just the opinions of women who are trying to illicit sympathy for their cause by their latest effort claiming to be “politically homeless” :rolleyes:

It can't and never will be fair to let somebody that has gone through puberty compete against women. High school boys in America are faster than the fastest ever women's 100 metre run by a drugged out of her mind Flo-Jo.

If you think it can be 'fair' because some law decides it due to pressure then you have no basic grasp of anything to do with physical activity. The only hope is that there will be so few that women will still be able to compete in their chosen fields in the main without former men taking part.

One eyed Jack

batman_oh wrote: »

It can't and never will be fair to let somebody that has gone through puberty compete against women. High school boys in America are faster than the fastest ever women's 100 metre run by a drugged out of her mind Flo-Jo.

If you think it can be 'fair' because some law decides it due to pressure then you have no basic grasp of anything to do with physical activity.

No I think it can be fair because the sporting bodies are compelled to act within the law in whatever jurisdiction they operate. If you think it shouldn’t be fair because you say so, then I’m not too concerned about your grasp of either the law or biology. I’m guessing you’re not an elite Olympic athlete and more of an armchair enthusiast, so the validity of our opinions are about the same.

CtevenSrowder

FTA69 wrote: »

On sections of the left it’s almost impossible to speak out about this without becoming a pariah. Like if I started publicly commenting on this on Facebook for instance I’d have no doubt complaints would be made to the Union I work for, in numbers. The activist group around this issue act like a mob and the fire they whip up then gets fanned by certain lefty journalists with huge social media platforms encouraging the pile on. The idea that Women’s Place in the UK is a “hate group” is preposterous, a bunch of middle aged feminists getting compared to the f*cking BNP.

Well I hope you are brave enough to speak out if in a position to. This crap will only be defeated by those on the left such as yourself.

ittakestwo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I think it can be fair because the sporting bodies are compelled to act within the law in whatever jurisdiction they operate. If you think it shouldn’t be fair because you say so, then I’m not too concerned about your grasp of either the law or biology. I’m guessing you’re not an elite Olympic athlete and more of an armchair enthusiast, so the validity of our opinions are about the same.

To get around the "law" what would you think if the events were not segregated on gender but on what chromosomes you have. A born male has xy chromesome and will always have xy chromesome even if they become trans.

So an xy athlete would never be able to compete with an xx athlete even if they identify as the same gender. Means the fairness is still there and they have gotten around the Law.

One eyed Jack

ittakestwo wrote: »

To get around the "law" what would you think if the events were not segregated on gender but on what chromosomes you have. A born male has xy chromesome and will always have xy chromesome even if they become trans.

So an xy athlete would never be able to compete with an xx athlete even if they identify as the same gender. Means the fairness is still there and they have gotten around the Law.

You mean separated by biological sex? That wouldn’t get around the law, because the law in Ireland anyway regards a persons preferred gender and their sex as one and the same in Irish law (other jurisdictions will vary) -

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

Gender Recognition Act 2015, S.18


And that’s really what has the IOC’s knickers in a bunch - it’s not that the scientists can’t provide them with the data on how much testosterone occurs naturally in biologically female athletes, it’s the political ramifications the IOC are worried about - sponsors withdrawing their support en masse.

Same for all the other governing bodies and organisations - they have the data from scientists and could easily make a call or set a limit, but they’re reluctant to simply because of politics and money talking. This has nothing to do with any concern for women’s welfare.

ittakestwo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You mean separated by biological sex? That wouldn’t get around the law, because the law in Ireland anyway regards a persons preferred gender and their sex as one and the same in Irish law (other jurisdictions will vary) -

Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.

Gender Recognition Act 2015, S.18


And that’s really what has the IOC’s knickers in a bunch - it’s not that the scientists can’t provide them with the data on how much testosterone occurs naturally in biologically female athletes, it’s the political ramifications the IOC are worried about - sponsors withdrawing their support en masse.

Same for all the other governing bodies and organisations - they have the data from scientists and could easily make a call or set a limit, but they’re reluctant to simply because of politics and money talking. This has nothing to do with any concern for women’s welfare.

No, separate athletes on what chromosomes they have as that is what forms their physical advantage/disadvantage not gender. Gender does not need to be mentioned.... XX does not mean their male or female by the law today. So instead separate them on what makes the physical different ( chromosomes)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FTA69 wrote: »

I don’t think any of these trans athletes are transitioning just to get an advantage, I mean it’s a massive thing to do in your life. I believe they’re genuine in being who they want to be and who they identify as and that’s fair enough and can and should be accommodated in most cases.

That does not however mean that their right to identify as female etc supersedes the right of women to compete in a fair environment.

That’s it. At the moment, with current technology available, it just can’t be resolved. Somebody is going to miss out.

Another thing is, the amount of MtoF transgender athletes will always likely be small but that small sample can distort things quite badly because of their biological advantages. It doesn’t matter that there are few.

One eyed Jack

ittakestwo wrote: »

No, separate athletes on what chromosomes they have as that is what forms their physical advantage/disadvantage not gender. Gender does not need to be mentioned.... XX does not mean their male or female by the law today. So instead separate them on what makes the physical different ( chromosomes)

Chromosome tests have been a part of women’s sports for decades (that was how they clocked Caster Semenya), it’s not the chromosomes really that are the issue or the greatest influential factor, but hormone levels that are claimed to offer the greatest physical advantage in athletics and other sports.

Chromosome testing fwiw has for a long time been seen as unethical for all sorts of reasons, so attention on women’s sports like this, while it could certainly be argued that it might discourage some women from participating, it may well have the opposite effect too, and may attract more money and investment into women’s sports that has up to now been historically lacking.

BloodBath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The complainants aren’t trying to change the law in this case though, they’re trying to use existing law to set a precedent which would exclude individuals who are transgender from participating in sport as their preferred gender. They’re going to fail to exclude anyone from participating in their chosen sport, so when you ask me is there an element of sour grapes involved in this particular case? Certainly seems that way on behalf of the complainants.

I’ve never dodged it. This thread gets resurrected every so often and I’ve always been of the opinion that people who are transgender should be permitted to participate in sport as their preferred gender. It’s up to governing bodies and organisations how they choose to comply with legislation. I’m not going to get het up about cases in the US or Olympics or even politics in the UK as it doesn’t affect my life directly in any meaningful way.

But if you’re asking me is it sour grapes again on some people’s part? It’s a bit sour grapes and a bit dog in a manger tbh - the amount of people who never gave a shìte before who give a shìte now has risen in direct proportion to the visibility of people who are transgender in Western society.

Ah yes, you are 1 step away from calling anyone opposed to this madness transphobes and god knows what else. While this argument will surely attract some people who are the majority are reasonable arguments to protect biological women.

People didn't care before because they didn't know or it hadn't gone as far as allowing this madness in the Olympics and other major sporting events.

The reality is anyone who went through male puberty has a massive physical advantage over those who didn't. Permanent changes that hormones won't fix and testosterone tests don't account for.

We're already seeing examples of trans athletes dominating a woman's sport and beating records all over the place. It's bull**** and nobody should be standing for it.

Give trans athletes their own competition. What's next, self identifying as disabled so you can enter the Paralympics?

TheW1zard

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well it's also unfair that a female transman using testosterone is allowed to compete when others would be banned for doping. I don't have the first clue about wrestling so I'm not sure if it would be safe for him to compete in the male division?

At least She doesnt need a strap-on

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

What I find disturbing is that in some comment sections and other forums, I’ve seen statements such as “Well, this won’t be a problem for anyone who transitions to a woman after blocking puberty. They won’t get those physical advantages.” as if there are no problems with pubertal-blocking, when it’s actually deeply unethical.

Calhoun

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What I find disturbing is that in some comment sections and other forums, I’ve seen statements such as “Well, this won’t be a problem for anyone who transitions to a woman after blocking puberty. They won’t get those physical advantages.” as if there are no problems with pubertal-blocking, when it’s actually deeply unethical.

Aren't those blockers dangerous and when we say puberty blockers they are actually drugs used for cancer treatment to suppress certain hormones.

I could be way off here and its just bull**** but thats what i thought it was.

Bill 2.0

Calhoun wrote: »

Aren't those blockers dangerous and when we say puberty blockers they are actually drugs used for cancer treatment to suppress certain hormones.

I could be way off here and its just bull**** but thats what i thought it was.

They do fairly severe damage to the liver in the long term.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Calhoun wrote: »

Aren't those blockers dangerous and when we say puberty blockers they are actually drugs used for cancer treatment to suppress certain hormones.

I could be way off here and its just bull**** but thats what i thought it was.

Literature is scant but suggests that, yes, they are dangerous.

Giving cancer drugs to physically healthy children is madness. People take those drugs when the alternative is death but the side effects are generally horrendous.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I think it can be fair because the sporting bodies are compelled to act within the law in whatever jurisdiction they operate. If you think it shouldn’t be fair because you say so, then I’m not too concerned about your grasp of either the law or biology. I’m guessing you’re not an elite Olympic athlete and more of an armchair enthusiast, so the validity of our opinions are about the same.

What a load of bollocks. You have no idea what you are talking about. You just feel compelled to support this because it's one of the woke issues on the SJW list. Evidence and science be damned. If you spent five minutes reading the basic science behind the advantages that male puberty gives, you would understand why it will never be fair to allow biological males compete against females.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. You have no idea what you are talking about. You just feel compelled to support this because it's one of the woke issues on the SJW list. Evidence and science be damned. If you spent five minutes reading the basic science behind the advantages that male puberty gives, you would understand why it will never be fair to allow biological males compete against females.

No, I feel compelled to support human rights. It’s that simple. The issue isn’t just about science, it’s about society. I understand why you argue that based upon scientific evidence you’re of the opinion that it’s unfair to allow biological males to compete against biological females, and if it were as simple as that and that’s all it came down to, I’d wholeheartedly agree with you. But it’s not just about the scientific evidence, the issue is about so much more than just that one aspect, and that’s why I don’t agree with the idea of barring biological males from competing in women’s sports.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure you could possibly be more wrong. I’m not wishing to appear virtuous on this issue or any issues related to it. On Rachel McKinnon I’m on record as having said one doesn’t need to look any further than the waist up to know something isn’t kosher there. The Chinese athletes were a tougher sell, I’m still not convinced.

Now appears these teenagers in Connecticut where State laws are on their side, and the majority of sporting bodies and education bodies are on their side, and you kinda do have to ask yourself, well, I do anyway - is it simply the case that more people agree with this because they’re afraid of a backlash, or because they want to support it? They’re not being forced to support it in other words, and only a minority of people are against it. For me that puts the whole “right-thinking people” stuff in perspective. There’s no huge lobbying for it, it’s just the lobbying against it is practically non-existent - they’re scared of their shìte of being seen even among

themselves, as bigots. It’s not something that has ever troubled me if I didn’t support something.

"only a minority of people are against it" There are already teenage girls, actual girls, taking court cases in the US about this. As a teenage girl why would you even bother to compete when this is exactly how it works.

2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th
2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th
2018: Craig Telfer 'transitions to female"
2019: CeCe Telfer is National Campion


Not only is it competitvely devasting for girls but it also prevents them getting into college on sports scholorships. There is no justification to allow this. It is cheating.
CeCe graciously tells us "that being biologically male doesn't provide her with an advantage over her cisgender female opponents as the medical procedures she's going through for her transition leave her at a disadvantage."
Poor CeCe.

BloodBath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I feel compelled to support human rights. It’s that simple. The issue isn’t just about science, it’s about society. I understand why you argue that based upon scientific evidence you’re of the opinion that it’s unfair to allow biological males to compete against biological females, and if it were as simple as that and that’s all it came down to, I’d wholeheartedly agree with you. But it’s not just about the scientific evidence, the issue is about so much more than just that one aspect, and that’s why I don’t agree with the idea of barring biological males from competing in women’s sports.

You are for human rights except for the rights of biological women to compete in a fair environment against other biological females. Hypocrisy much?

What are these other aspects outside of the hard scientific data that shows trans women who went through male puberty have a big advantage?

One eyed Jack

BloodBath wrote: »

Ah yes, you are 1 step away from calling anyone opposed to this madness transphobes and god knows what else. While this argument will surely attract some people who are the majority are reasonable arguments to protect biological women.

Well only you know what else, because I haven’t called anyone anything.

BloodBath wrote: »

People didn't care before because they didn't know or it hadn't gone as far as allowing this madness in the Olympics and other major sporting events.

People didn’t care before simply because it wasn’t an issue before. The vast majority of people still don’t care. The minority of people who do care are somewhat split between those who are against the idea, and those who support the idea. You’re overlooking the fact that there have been far more biologically female athletes who have come out in support of transgender athletes competing in sports, than the combined number of biological female athletes who are against the idea, so who are you really protecting, and from whom? Obviously it would stand to reason that your greater concern is protecting the people who already agree with your opinions.

BloodBath wrote: »

We're already seeing examples of trans athletes dominating a woman's sport and beating records all over the place. It's bull**** and nobody should be standing for it.

Give trans athletes their own competition. What's next, self identifying as disabled so you can enter the Paralympics?

We’re seeing a handful of examples, that’s all. We’re not seeing any great overall threat to female athletes from trans athletes. The vast majority of female athletes are still competing in sports and don’t have any issues. There number of people who do have issues are about the same number of trans athletes competing in sports, that is to say - not a whole lot. I don’t know what’s next, but I don’t see women’s sports falling apart at the seams given the sudden interest in women’s sports where there was no interest in them before. If anything I see it as a good thing that more people are getting interested in supporting women in sports, which would suggest that rather than trans athletes actually dominating women’s sports, biological women will still continue to dominate women’s sports overall, and they will have gained new support that wasn’t there before too.

You’re acting as though sports doesn’t evolve, it does, and the evidence that it evolves and changes has been demonstrated by women themselves in women’s sports in just the last few decades alone. You’re acting like things should be just how you like them and they should stay that way, and that ignores the reality that society just doesn’t function like that.

One eyed Jack

BloodBath wrote: »

You are for human rights except for the rights of biological women to compete in a fair environment against other biological females. Hypocrisy much?

What are these other aspects outside of the hard scientific data that shows trans women who went through male puberty have a big advantage?

I didn’t put it like that but when you put it like that, then of course it’s easy to point out that stance as hypocritical. I’m not arguing with the scientific data either, I’ve already agreed that trans women who went through male puberty have an advantage over biological women who didn’t. I’m arguing that if that’s all sports were about, you’d absolutely have a point, but since it’s not, your point has a lot less value. I’m not completely dismissing your point, I’m saying that there are other factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to permit transgender athletes to compete in sports, or for biological males to compete against biological females, if you prefer. I don’t have a problem with that point of view.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t put it like that but when you put it like that, then of course it’s easy to point out that stance as hypocritical. I’m not arguing with the scientific data either, I’ve already agreed that trans women who went through male puberty have an advantage over biological women who didn’t. I’m arguing that if that’s all sports were about, you’d absolutely have a point, but since it’s not, your point has a lot less value. I’m not completely dismissing your point, I’m saying that there are other factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to permit transgender athletes to compete in sports, or for biological males to compete against biological females, if you prefer. I don’t have a problem with that point of view.

Firstly we are talking about transmen competing against women specifically, not whether trans-people should be able to compete in sports. Regardless, these other factors are?

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

"only a minority of people are against it" There are already teenage girls, actual girls, taking court cases in the US about this. As a teenage girl why would you even bother to compete when this is exactly how it works.

Because as a teenage girl they want to compete? They know how it works and they still want to compete. Why does anyone do anything? Because they want to. Those who don’t want to compete because they don’t stand a chance of winning don’t get to dictate who should be able to compete against them.

That would simply mean that they have an unfair advantage over their competitors, because they won and their competitors didn’t, so do their competitors then have a right to argue that they should be excluded so that they can win? That’s why it’s not up to competitors themselves to determine what’s fair and what isn’t.

ingalway

For some actual scientific facts on biological differences in males and females:
https://savewomenssports.com/science

Funnily enough there is no hard evidence about 'feeling' like a woman. being born in the 'wrong' body, having a 'lady brain' or even the mighty 'female penis' aka 'lady dick'

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Firstly we are talking about transmen competing against women specifically, not whether trans-people should be able to compete in sports. Regardless, these other factors are?

These other factors are recognition of people’s human rights, the development of the sport, and determining what’s fair for everyone who wants to participate in the sport.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because as a teenage girl they want to compete? They know how it works and they still want to compete. Why does anyone do anything? Because they want to. Those who don’t want to compete because they don’t stand a chance of winning don’t get to dictate who should be able to compete against them.

That would simply mean that they have an unfair advantage over their competitors, because they won and their competitors didn’t, so do their competitors then have a right to argue that they should be excluded so that they can win? That’s why it’s not up to competitors themselves to determine what’s fair and what isn’t.

Oh how I wish this were Twitter so I could tell you exactly what I think of you. I certainly will not waste another second of my life on you though.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These other factors are recognition of people’s human rights

The womens' rights are being infringed upon because a biological man is competing against them and as such has an unfair biological advantage.


,

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the development of the sport

What do you mean by this.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and determining what’s fair for everyone who wants to participate in the sport.

Right but you can guarantee the majority will believe allowing a biological man compete against women is unfair. This is why sports are gender segregated in the first place in the main.

ceadaoin.

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah women who have trained all of their lives getting shunted to the back in order to make way for transitioned makes. Sour grapes though eh?

The athletes in that case arent even transitioned. They dont even take hormones. Literally they have long hair and that's it. That makes them a girl apparently

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The womens' rights are being infringed upon because a biological man is competing against them and as such has an unfair biological advantage.

Women’s rights aren’t being infringed upon though because women are still able to compete in their chosen sports.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What do you mean by this.

Promoting the sport among a wider audience, attracting sponsors and developing the sport at community, national and international level.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Right but you can guarantee the majority will believe allowing a biological man compete against women is unfair. This is why sports are gender segregated in the first place in the main.

I can’t guarantee anything any more than you can. I can understand how it suits you of course to believe the majority of people share your opinion, but until they voice either their support or their objections, neither of us could possibly know either way.

BloodBath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People didn’t care before simply because it wasn’t an issue before. The vast majority of people still don’t care. The minority of people who do care are somewhat split between those who are against the idea, and those who support the idea. You’re overlooking the fact that there have been far more biologically female athletes who have come out in support of transgender athletes competing in sports, than the combined number of biological female athletes who are against the idea, so who are you really protecting, and from whom? Obviously it would stand to reason that your greater concern is protecting the people who already agree with your opinions.

Mainly people didn't know. The majority still don't know. I've told several people and none of them heard of it. The Olympics will be the first time most people see or hear of it. Of course they support it when they either don't understand it or see what happened to people like Sharon Davies and Martina and several scientists. The attacks people who oppose the idea go through make most people who do know about it avoid the issue completely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’re seeing a handful of examples, that’s all. We’re not seeing any great overall threat to female athletes from trans athletes. The vast majority of female athletes are still competing in sports and don’t have any issues. There number of people who do have issues are about the same number of trans athletes competing in sports, that is to say - not a whole lot. I don’t know what’s next, but I don’t see women’s sports falling apart at the seams given the sudden interest in women’s sports where there was no interest in them before. If anything I see it as a good thing that more people are getting interested in supporting women in sports, which would suggest that rather than trans athletes actually dominating women’s sports, biological women will still continue to dominate women’s sports overall, and they will have gained new support that wasn’t there before too.

You’re acting as though sports doesn’t evolve, it does, and the evidence that it evolves and changes has been demonstrated by women themselves in women’s sports in just the last few decades alone. You’re acting like things should be just how you like them and they should stay that way, and that ignores the reality that society just doesn’t function like that.

If women want to support and allow it then fine. Let them do it. They won't be long changing their minds when they see the outcome. What's really disgusting is the attacks on the women (and men) who opposed it went through. There should be room to debate the issue without the accusations and paranoia that everyone who opposes it is a trans phobe. I know you aren't doing that but it has happened to most who have done it publicly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These other factors are recognition of people’s human rights, the development of the sport, and determining what’s fair for everyone who wants to participate in the sport.

Human rights do not cover trans women competing in female sports though so your point is moot. This kind of nonsensical talking and pushing these agendas only breeds negative attitudes towards trans people. What % of people are trans? You place the rights of a tiny minority of trans over the majority of women in sports.

Here's a real human right.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Maybe the trans community and it's supporters can stop attacking and ruining the careers of people who oppose some of their ideas. Then an honest and open debate can happen.