Biological males in women's sport

ceadaoin.

Zorya wrote: »

And also if you take it to its logical conclusion lopping the boys who identify as female into female games should start from early childhood. That would be way before any puberty blockers should be used, if we don't want to be entirely monstrous to children. And cross sex hormones should not start until 16 at least from as far as I can figure out - so we are talking sports among children up to older teenage years. So female children up to puberty (at least) could be seriously disadvantaged in the biological course of events by competing in running, swimming, etc etc against children in boys bodies. The community games would be a right laugh if that sort of thing took off...nonetheless it is the logical conclusion.

In the Connecticut high school state track championships, the top 2 finishers were trans girls who don't take any hormones.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/transgender-athletes-speak-parents-petition-change-policy-compete/story?id=56071191

This will be a scholarships on the line . Females will be pushed out of the elite levels of sport. Girls and women's sport will be affected by the this from the bottom up. I think anyone who denies this will be the case must be secretly delighted by this prospect. There is no other explanation, it's blatantly obvious that males have an athletic advantage. It's the reason why sports is segregated in the first place.

ohnonotgmail

Is That It? wrote: »

I, a fully abled body man, have decided I now identify as a disabled man (yes bigots it's a real thing, look it up).

Therefore I assume no one will object to me entering the Paralympics?

assuming you meet the qualifying criteria then nobody will object.

ChikiChiki

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

Actually it is an issue. Because until that data is gathered, its unfair on existing competitors. Imagine training all your life to lose to what is biologically a guy competing in a female event.

Zorya

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In the Connecticut high school state track championships, the top 2 finishers were trans girls who don't take any hormones.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/transgender-athletes-speak-parents-petition-change-policy-compete/story?id=56071191

This will be a scholarships on the line . Females will be pushed out of the elite levels of sport. Girls and women's sport will be affected by the this from the bottom up. I think anyone who denies this will be the case must be secretly delighted by this prospect. There is no other explanation, it's blatantly obvious that males have an athletic advantage. It's the reason why sports is segregated in the first place.

Yes, of course. It's the end of serious female sports particularly at school and college level. But...bone density, bruh :rolleyes: and testosterone or something..

I've been trying to think of an equivalent for male sporting fields but I can only conjure up bears or orangutans identifying as human males, competing in wrestling and looking offended if audiences don't cheer themselves raw when the orangutans win...hahha . (But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006 )

LollipopJimmy

Zorya wrote: »

Yes, of course. It's the end of serious female sports particularly at school and college level. But...bone density, bruh :rolleyes: and testosterone or something..

I've been trying to think of an equivalent for male sporting fields but I can only conjure up bears or orangutans identifying as human males, competing in wrestling and looking offended if audiences don't cheer themselves raw when the orangutans win...hahha . (But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006 )

Khabib Nurmagomedov wrestled bears as a child in Russia

wexie

Zorya wrote: »

(But I see now that unfortunately bear wrestling is outlawed in 20 states as of 2006 )

You mean it's legal in the others? :eek:

bloodless_coup

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

ceadaoin.

Also, the cyclist in question here doesn't think she should even have to reduce her testosterone levels to compete against women. She thinks having to do this is a violation of her human rights. Describes herself as a "6ft, 200lb powerlifter" and thinks competing against women is a level playing field. Definitely not a cheat. Nope.

Mean Laqueefa

doylefe wrote: »

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

Pffff missed a trick ya could have played camogie, depending on your mood that day of course

PlaneSpeeking

doylefe wrote: »

I identify as a 13 year old. Started playing under 14 hurling again. It's great fun.

I once said (jokingly, as a reaction to the bat **** craziness around me) that I wasn't actually female but that I identified as a gay man in a woman's body.

Most of my colleagues agreed and one said I was "brave" for speaking up.

It's not that we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we've sent out change of address cards.

PlaneSpeeking

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also, the cyclist in question here doesn't think she should even have to reduce her testosterone levels to compete against women. She thinks having to do this is a violation of her human rights. Describes herself as a "6ft, 200lb powerlifter" and thinks competing against women is a level playing field. Definitely not a cheat. Nope.

Seriously ?????

Cheat. End of. Caster Semanya, the runner, had to go through a test -

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports

- but none of these "female" athletes do.

Discrimination, no ?

ceadaoin.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Seriously ?????

Cheat. End of. Caster Semanya, the runner, had to go through a test - - but none of these "female" athletes do.

Discrimination, no ?

Yep. Women just have to "deal with it". It's not about the years of training that they have put in, and their right to compete on a level playing field, it's about her feelings. If you disagree you are just like a racist.

“This is bigger than sports,” McKinnon told USA Today. “It’s about human rights. By catering to cisgender people’s views, that furthers transgender people’s oppression.

“When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority? I bet a lot of white people were p*ssed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/01/11/these-transgender-cyclists-have-olympian-disagreement-how-define-fairness/995434001/

Gravelly

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yep. Women just have to "deal with it". It's not about the years of training that they have put in, and their right to compete on a level playing field, it's about her feelings. If you disagree you are just like a racist.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/01/11/these-transgender-cyclists-have-olympian-disagreement-how-define-fairness/995434001/

McKinnon sounds like some piece of work.

Zorya

Rachel winning bigly some more...but unaware of the background irony :pac:



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dplx0JeWwAANuWG.jpg

DancingFlames

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

DEFTLEFTHAND

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

Because women deserve to have their sports.

Take away segregation and a woman will never win a world championship or Olympic medal in any discipline ever again. Have you ever compared male and female times in the likes of running or swimming at the elite level?

As well as being bigger stronger faster men on average also possess superior spacial awareness skills and hand eye co-ordination (hunting instincts they evolved with). This is why they dominate the likes of pool, snooker, darts etc.

DancingFlames

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Because women deserve to have their sports.

Take away segregation and a woman will never win a world championship or Olympic medal in any discipline ever again. Have you ever compared male and female times in the likes of running or swimming at the elite level?

As well as being bigger stronger faster men on average also possible superior spacial awareness skills and hand eye co-ordination (hunting instincts they evolved with). This is why they dominate the likes of pool, snooker, darts etc.

But that doesn't answer the question: if biological men are allowed to compete in women's sports now, what's the point in having women's sports at all?

ceadaoin.

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

So you think women can compete against the likes of Usain bolt in running just because there is no contact? Spoiler alert - they can't. That's biology. The reason women fought for their own events was to be get a chance at competition in their own right, on a level playing field. Taking that away is not progress

Women's sport can get equal screen time and be taken seriously without letting men in.

Gravelly

DancingFlames wrote: »

If biological men are now allowed to compete in women's sports, then we should do away with segregating the genders in sports altogether. What's the point in having women's sports at all if even the definition of a woman is up for debate?

I'd personally love to see female athletes getting the same amount of tv screen time as men. I've never understood why we've segregated sports by gender anyway. Yes, people say that it has to do with men being "stronger" but then why do we segregate women from sports that don't require any physical contact like running or swimming? Why do we segregate women from sports that don't even require strength like golf or chess???

Because women would not be competitive in the vast majority of sports (in fact I can't think of one in which they would be). It would be the end of mass participation of women in sports, the end of sports scholarships for women, and the end of young girls getting the health and wellbeing benefit of sports.

While we're at it why not get rid of weight divisions in boxing, make disabled athletes compete against the able-bodied, and make 8 year olds compete against adults.

soups05

Zorya wrote: »

Rachel winning bigly some more...but unaware of the background irony :pac:



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dplx0JeWwAANuWG.jpg

who is yer man in the middle???














:pac::D

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Doing away with women’s sports would be terrible. On a level playing field, the races can be just as exciting. It doesn’t matter if men are faster and stronger. Racing like with like can produce incredibly exciting finishes.

ceadaoin.

Gravelly wrote: »

Because women would not be competitive in the vast majority of sports (in fact I can't think of one in which they would be). It would be the end of mass participation of women in sports, the end of sports scholarships for women, and the end of young girls getting the health and wellbeing benefit of sports.

While we're at it why not get rid of weight divisions in boxing, make disabled athletes compete against the able-bodied, and make 8 year olds compete against adults.

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-women-ski-jumpers-equality-20180210-story.html



Can't have women getting ahead of themselves and being better at something that men now can we! Actally, maybe those women should all identify as men for the next winter Olympics...

Gravelly

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

You have me on that one, ski jumping would be one of the few sports I know nothing about!

Bet you won't have a load of these lads queuing up to enter that then.

Danzy

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

Hard to know if you are trolling or are one of the numerous loolahs* that are increasingly dominating the Left in the Western World.

Maybe there isn't a difference between trolls and activists like that.

*No disrespect intended.

Danzy

soups05 wrote: »

who is yer man in the middle???













:pac::D

The one with the Penis?

That is a woman you fascist.

LollipopJimmy

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

Gravelly

Danzy wrote: »

The one with the Penis?

That is a woman you fascist.

In the words of Reg from The Life of Brian "It's symbolic of his struggle against reality"

DEFTLEFTHAND

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The one sport I can think of where women perform equally or better is ski jumping. And they had to fight for it to be included in the winter Olympics, that only happened in 2014 and even then they still get less events than men.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-women-ski-jumpers-equality-20180210-story.html



Can't have women getting ahead of themselves and being better at something that men now can we! Actally, maybe those women should all identify as men for the next winter Olympics...

There's still a big gap in the world records though.

Longest male jump ever recorded is 832 ft and longest female is 656ft.

Gravelly

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

T'was already mentioned in the first pic - I'd have been in there long before now if it hadn't.

Mean Laqueefa

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Wait... Dick Lane Velodrome? Nobody???

**** you Jimmy, i identify as velodrome !