Biological males in women's sport

MrKingsley

Rothko wrote: »

How people not realise that suicide_circus is being sarcastic?

I think it may be because a lot of the stuff they are saying isn’t far from what some people (not necessarily on here) are actually arguing

suicide_circus

MrKingsley wrote: »

I think it may be because a lot of the stuff they are saying isn’t far from what some people (not necessarily on here) are actually arguing

I've said nothing that isnt in Irish law as we speak. This ship has sailed.

Danzy

ittakestwo wrote: »

This does not make sense. Either sport is not segregated on any basis which most would see as unfair. People with XX cannot compete against XY. Or we decide that it is fair to separate people with XY against people with XX.

It doesn't make sense but the book burners have the clout and the pressure to force conformity.

ingalway

ittakestwo wrote: »

This does not make sense. Either sport is not segregated on any basis which most would see as unfair. People with XX cannot compete against XY. Or we decide that it is fair to separate people with XY against people with XX.

What makes sense and what is fair no longer matters, only feelings, mainly men’s feelings, are important. It's dressed up (literally), as being the most oppressed group on earth. It's got to the point that you can no longer say that women have a cervix or have periods, or even give birth; it must state 'people' who have a cervix, who have a period, who give birth. JK Rowling was vilified for daring to say that the word is 'woman'.
Breast feeding is now chest feeding. Rape shelters and refuges for women and children advertise jobs for anyone who 'identifies' as a woman. Trans people, quite rightly, have the same protections in law as everyone else but identity rights for one group should not change the meaning of words and subtly erode the meaning of what being a female is.

CtevenSrowder

https://twitter.com/IStandWithHer1/status/1286189910467260416?s=19

Here seems to be another example of it, though from few years ago. Horrible back story, but that doesn't make a 50 year old male playing basketball with (college age) women at this level acceptable! The tweets make a good point though. What about the girl that this trans-women took the place off!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2012/12/04/college-basketball-transgender-player-gabrielle-ludwig-robert-ludwig-mission-college/1744703/

ThunbergsAreGo

ittakestwo wrote: »

This does not make sense. Either sport is not segregated on any basis which most would see as unfair. People with XX cannot compete against XY. Or we decide that it is fair to separate people with XY against people with XX.

Yes, the logical conclusion for this is not to segregate. If there is no defining agreed method to do it.

Is it unfair, most probably. However sport is already full of unfairness due to natural talent/size/speed etc.

jam_mac_jam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Yes, the logical conclusion for this is not to segregate. If there is no defining agreed method to do it.

Is it unfair, most probably. However sport is already full of unfairness due to natural talent/size/speed etc.

Not to segregate? So just stop women playing sport at high levels? And all those professional women athletes can just find something else to do?

ThunbergsAreGo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not to segregate? So just stop women playing sport at high levels? And all those professional women athletes can just find something else to do?

Well what is a woman?

Invidious

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Yes, the logical conclusion for this is not to segregate. If there is no defining agreed method to do it.

Is it unfair, most probably. However sport is already full of unfairness due to natural talent/size/speed etc.

According to the World Rugby working group, athletes who have gone through male puberty "are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development)."

It's not only unfair to let biological males compete against natal women, it's downright dangerous. In rugby, a natal woman tackled by a biological male opponent has a 30% greater chance of injury than when tackled by a natal female opponent.

It's not only the rights of trans people who matter. Fairness and safety for women matters too. Biological males should not be competing in women's sport.

suicide_circus

Invidious wrote: »

It's not only unfair to let biological males compete against natal women, it's downright dangerous. In rugby, a natal woman tackled by a biological male opponent has a 30% greater chance of injury than when tackled by a natal female opponent.

Natal women need to man up and dry their eyes - if transwomen are messing them up on the rugby pitch maybe they need to hit the gym.

Transwomen are women. Obey.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IStandWithHer1/status/1286189910467260416?s=19

Here seems to be another example of it, though from few years ago. Horrible back story, but that doesn't make a 50 year old male playing basketball with (college age) women at this level acceptable! The tweets make a good point though. What about the girl that this trans-women took the place off!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2012/12/04/college-basketball-transgender-player-gabrielle-ludwig-robert-ludwig-mission-college/1744703/

That tweet is a strange response to the article. The article outlines the things said on the podcast that the journalist finds objectionable and there's no mention of sports whatsoever. I've no doubt the subject came up during the chat as that's Joe's area of interest, but strange to bring it up as a counter to a series of unrelated points.

AllForIt

To accommodate transgender people in sport - your would have to further divide sport's competition not just by gender but by their physical attributes i.e muscle mass, height etc. In the same way you have weight categories in mens boxing. The transgender position on this is actually an argument to have no subdivision at all i.e no mens or womens sport, just sport. Why would you divide sport competition by gender if physical attributes has noting to do with it.


Anyway, for Mens Health Magazine to stick their ore in on this is not that surprising. Their rag has a predominately gay readership that masquerades as a general fitness mag for all. It is the Heat magazine equivalent of a fitness mag, for the shallow ,narcissistic, vein, gossipy, fashion concision fitness enthusiast. It's just all about the outward look and noting much to doing with actual fitness. When I first got into fitness years ago I'm embarrassed to this day that anyone might have seen me taking it off the shelf to purchase. The lifestyle image they promote should go exactly where their opinions go - straight into the rubbish bin.

BloodBath

Invidious wrote: »

The ethics of allowing biological males to compete against natural-born women in non-contact sports such as tennis or running are already highly dubious, given the insurmountable physical advantage that one has over the other.

Allowing biological males to compete in women's contact sports is frankly insane, given the risks of injury this poses to natural-born women. Are people so wedded to their ideology that they can no longer understand the laws of physics?

The laws of physics are a social construct.

keano_afc

BloodBath wrote: »

The laws of physics are a social construct.

Physics is literally killing people.

1hnr79jr65

I am all for any person being who they believe they are, however i believe that lack of any regulation in sport will lead to the destruction of the one thing the trans community wants, equality. There is a fair amount of discontent with cis women about trans women being in the sport from having advantages of being born with a biologically male body and it is very noticeable that cis women are leaving these sports slowly but surely.

Eventually all the trans women will be left with themselves in various sports, segregated, as cis women will give up engaging in sports where starting out they are at an automatic disadvantage genetically/biologically. Fair enough that trans folks want equality and to be seen as they want to be seen, however there has to be a realization that not everyone feels the same way and with a distinct lack of genetic/biological fairness they may loose on they equality they seek by default due to lack of engagement by cis women.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IStandWithHer1/status/1286189910467260416?s=19

Ha, look at how badly that Men's Health tweet has been received. A lot of comments saying that the Men's Health writer doesn't even seem to have listened to any of the podcast and other comments saying stuff like "Yeah, just go back to suggesting workouts and diets".

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ha, look at how badly that Men's Health tweet has been received. A lot of comments saying that the Men's Health writer doesn't even seem to have listened to any of the podcast and other comments saying stuff like "Yeah, just go back to suggesting workouts and diets".

Why do you take glee in that? Is the article actually misrepresenting the conversation? I havn't listened to the podcast so I have no idea.

Quantum Erasure

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Well what is a woman?

What is 'female'?

What are chromosomes?

What is intersex ...

What is a red herring?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

Why do you take glee in that? Is the article actually misrepresenting the conversation? I havn't listened to the podcast so I have no idea.

Why not take glee in it? I'm really very, very okay with the taking of the glee. It's a spectacular swing and a miss and I have the popcorn out. If you never taken glee in something in your life, super for you.

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why not take glee in it? I'm really very, very okay with the taking of the glee. It's a spectacular swing and a miss and I have the popcorn out.

Yeah, but why? What do you find objectionable about the content of the article? Did you watch the podcast, and if so, is the article framing the conversation dishonestly?

I'm sympathetic of concerns about the impact of the trans issue on sports and gendered spaces, and those conversations need to be had openly and in good faith. But are we just deciding "Trans bad" and taking joy in any kind of hostile reaction towards anyone speaking up for trans people, just because?


The article suggests this person asserted, without scientific evidence, that a surge in people wanting to transition is a "contagion". If that's true, then thats absolutely a concerning thing for someone to be putting out there. Imagine the knock-on effects that could stem from that kind of thinking. Parents wanting their kids taken out of class with a trans kid etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

Yeah, but why? What do you find objectionable about the content of the article? Did you watch the podcast, and if so, is the article framing the conversation dishonestly?

Yes, I've listened to a lot of the podcast (not all of it as his podcasts are long) and read the article. Why would you think I haven't?

The part of the podcast I listened to was fascinating and I found Abigail Shrier to be very compassionate and measured. The writer seems like he hasn't listened to any of the podcast. Maybe he has but that was the distinct impression I got. It's a diatribe.

And accusing Rogan of fanning the flames of hate is laughable. He is vocal about his concerns about males being allowed to play in women's sports divisions (rightly so, IMO) but other than that, he's pretty open-minded on the topic of transgender issues. He also has all kind so people on his show. What are people afraid of in hearing somebody they don't agree with?

If you want to know more about the article or the podcast, why not listen to them yourself?

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, I've listened to a lot of the podcast (not all of it as his podcasts are long) and read the article. Why would you think I haven't?

The part of the podcast I listened to was fascinating and I found Abigail Shrier to be very compassionate and measured. The writer seems like he hasn't listened to any of the podcast. Maybe he has but that was the distinct impression I got. It's a diatribe.

And accusing Rogan of fanning the flames of hate is laughable. he is vocal about his concerns about males being allowed to play in women's sports divisions but other than that, he's pretty open-minded on the topic of transgender issues.

If you want to know more about the article or the podcast, why not listen to them yourself?

I wasn't thinking you hadn't, I just wanted to know the reasoning behind your reaction.

Poor Joe does get a hard time of it, in fairness to him. Often framed as something he's not.

Honestly, I can't really hack the JRE unless it's an episode about MMA.

jam_mac_jam

RWCNT wrote: »

Yeah, but why? What do you find objectionable about the content of the article? Did you watch the podcast, and if so, is the article framing the conversation dishonestly?

I'm sympathetic of concerns about the impact of the trans issue on sports and gendered spaces, and those conversations need to be had openly and in good faith. But are we just deciding "Trans bad" and taking joy in any kind of hostile reaction towards anyone speaking up for trans people, just because?



Yeah, but why? What do you find objectionable about the content of the article? Did you watch the podcast, and if so, is the article framing the conversation dishonestly?

The article suggests this person asserted, without scientific evidence, that a surge in people wanting to transition is a "contagion". If that's true, then thats absolutely a concerning thing for someone to be putting out there. Imagine the knock-on effects that could stem from that kind of thinking. Parents wanting their kids taken out of class with a trans kid etc.

I listened to the podcast. It was about a surge in a subset of people, teenage girls wanting to transition. Not adults. She was warning of the dangers of not having therapy first and the implementation of the possibility of girls transitioning on the basis of self diagnosis.

Did you listen to it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

The article suggests this person asserted, without scientific evidence, that a surge in people wanting to transition is a "contagion". If that's true, then thats absolutely a concerning thing for someone to be putting out there. Imagine the knock-on effects that could stem from that kind of thinking. Parents wanting their kids taken out of class with a trans kid etc.

This is a very new field. The phenomenon of teenage girls transitioning has really taken off in only the last five years or so. At the moment, all we really have are anecdotes. It will take time to compile a large amount of data. And, by the way, people have run in to difficulties in getting funding in researching people who regretted transitioning because universities are afraid of a backlash. So you're saying there's a lack of research but when people want to research the topic, they can't.

Personally, I think caution is needed, even with scanty data because some the changes caused by transition will affect the person who regrets transition for the rest of their life. Not something I want to shrug my shoulders at personally.

RWCNT

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I listened to the podcast. It was about a surge in a subset of people, teenage girls wanting to transition. Not adults. She was warning of the dangers of not having therapy first and the implementation of the possibility of girls transitioning on the basis of self diagnosis.

Did you listen to it?

I didn't, no, I don't really enjoy listening to Joe talk for a sustained period of time about anything other than martial arts and psychedelics. I was open to the notion that the article was misrepresenting Joe and was asking in good faith. There's a lot of suspect comments on the tweet, including the one linked here, that don't engage with anything said in the article though. I can't think of why people would do that other than to have a go at trans people really.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This is a very new field. The phenomenon of teenage girls transitioning has really taken off in only the last five years or so. At the moment, all we really have are anecdotes. It will take time to compile a large amount of data. And, by the way, people have run in to difficulties in getting funding in researching people who regretted transitioning because universities are afraid of a backlash. So you're saying there's a lack of research but when people want to research the topic, they can't.

Personally, I think caution is needed, even with scanty data because some the changes caused by transition will affect the person who regrets transition for the rest of their life. Not something I want to shrug my shoulders at personally.

I can't disagree with any of that, although saying something like the contageoun remark without back-up is still very dodgy, if that is what was said. I'd support the kind of data collection you're talking about. Also, sorry for all the edits guys, my phone is being a prick.

jam_mac_jam

RWCNT wrote: »

I didn't, no, I don't really enjoy listening to Joe talk for a sustained period of time about anything other than martial arts and psychedelics. I was open to the notion that the article was misrepresenting Joe and was asking in good faith. There's a lot of suspect comments on the tweet, including the one linked here, that don't engage with anything said in the article though. I can't think of why people would do that other than to have a go at trans people really.




I can't disagree with any of that, although saying something like the contageoun remark without back-up is still very dodgy, if that is what was said. I'd support the kind of data collection you're talking about. Also, sorry for all the edits guys, my phone is being a prick.

I thought the article misrepresented her to be honest.

She was quite specific that she was talking about a particular problem with teenage girls and how certain personality traits led some girls to transition due to peer pressure or other difficulties that they have. It is portrayed that she is saying it all a contagion. The title of her book doesn't help however.

She is a journalist though not a scientific researcher so by nature anecdotal. I do agree with you that more study is needed on the subject. Though in the mean time if people are transitioning medically without proper consultation that needs to be questioned. Parents are afraid to question the child in case they are wrong and they should transition

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

I can't disagree with any of that, although saying something like the contageoun remark without back-up is still very dodgy, if that is what was said. I'd support the kind of data collection you're talking about. Also, sorry for all the edits guys, my phone is being a prick.

The social contagion theory isn’t entirely without backup. A researcher from Brown University has published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic. That doesn’t make it above criticism, of course, and criticised she was. That probably makes other researchers and funding bodies nervous of a backlash. My thoughts are, what are people afraid of? If they think there’s no social contagion aspect, won’t the research reflect that?

StinkyMunkey

Maybe it's been asked before, but have any trans men taken part in a sport and dominated it? Without even checking, I'll hazard a guess and say no.

Trans people can't be identified as whom ever they which, but you cannot change your biology or the attributes that come with it. Trans woman dominating woman's sports is a farce, why should woman in sports be penalised because of how a person identifies.

engleburt

If you see sport as another form of entertainment like a Movie or TV show, you should be all for Biological males in Womens sports, you just know there will be lots of drama and laughs as the biological Women get beaten time after time, it will be great entertainment.

ingalway

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Maybe it's been asked before, but have any trans men taken part in a sport and dominated it? Without even checking, I'll hazard a guess and say no.

Trans people can't be identified as whom ever they which, but you cannot change your biology or the attributes that come with it. Trans woman dominating woman's sports is a farce, why should woman in sports be penalised because of how a person identifies.

Would Bruce Jenner have won an Olympic decathlon gold medal had he been born Caitlyn then transitioned to Bruce? Not in a million years. Females can never compete with males, it's unfair and it's dangerous.