First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

bewareofthedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re right that I pointed out at the time a few months ago there weren’t any male to female athletes competing at elite level, because there weren’t at the time. Months later there is, and you would have been claiming months ago that it would be the end of women’s sports. Which of us was correct then? Which of us is correct now?

Twisting and weaving again. The reason you said something said like "there's no transgender athletes at elite levels" was in context of using it to downplay what's happening at colleges and lower levels in sports, as as if to say at the time anyone thinking it will creep into the top level is delusional and "sure it's only colleges", even though you knew full well what would inevitably happen.

Now you say because there's only one athlete competing at an elite level people are acting like "it's the end of women's sport!" in a sarcastic manner. It's so obvious where this whole thing is going.

One eyed Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You really don't understand elite level sport and the dedication and sacrifices that go in to competing at that level. I'd go as far as saying that you don't understand why people participate in sports.

I’d only go so far as to say you’d be as likely to say the same of anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, you’re not actually saying anything that indicates you know any better than I do or anyone who disagrees with your opinion knows about elite sport or the dedication and sacrifices that go into competing at that level or why people participate in sports. I’d also say we’re as likely to know as much as each other about people who when they lose out to their competition accuse their competition of having an unfair advantage in some shape or form. American athletes in particular are notorious for that sort of behaviour.

Yeah_Right

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d only go so far as to say you’d be as likely to say the same of anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, you’re not actually saying anything that indicates you know any better than I do or anyone who disagrees with your opinion knows about elite sport or the dedication and sacrifices that go into competing at that level or why people participate in sports. I’d also say we’re as likely to know as much as each other about people who when they lose out to their competition accuse their competition of having an unfair advantage in some shape or form. American athletes in particular are notorious for that sort of behaviour.

That's saying a lot without actually saying anything.
Like I said, I think you are clueless about what it takes to compete at an elite level. I do because I have done.

I like hearing differing opinions. It educates me and helps me to look at things from a different perspective. You have an agenda and you just want to belittle those that disagree with you.

John Doe1

God this is like something from Monty python.

I think im going to enter the dressage event for Ireland as the horse as I have always identified with my equine side.

One eyed Jack

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Twisting and weaving again. The reason you said something said like "there's no transgender athletes at elite levels" was in context of using it to downplay what's happening at colleges and lower levels in sports, as as if to say at the time anyone thinking it will creep into the top level is delusional and "sure it's only colleges", even though you knew full well what would inevitably happen.

Now you say because there's only one athlete competing at an elite level people are acting like "it's the end of women's sport!" in a sarcastic manner. It's so obvious where this whole thing is going.

I’m absolutely not twisting and weaving. You’re attributing something to me now that even in the context in which you explain it, and I know you’re citing from memory which is fair enough, I probably did say something like that alright, but at the time I also would have known of Chris Mosier and I would have mentioned it, unless we were discussing the issue as it relates to male to female transgender athletes, and at the time there were none (was this around the time of the cyclist winning?). It was probably around the same time as the case in Connecticut with the college girls complaining that transgender athletes were permitted to compete in competitions?

I’ve never denied or tried to downplay the idea that it would eventually become a much bigger issue in elite sports because it’s obvious outside of sports the trajectory that legislation is taking in relation to upholding the rights of people who are transgender, and the children who are children now participating in sports will inevitably become adults who wish to continue to compete in sports, and stipulations around testosterone levels won’t be able to exclude children who have made the same sacrifices and dedication to get to elite level as any of the other athletes will be entitled to compete in competitions in either women’s sports or men’s sports.

Women’s sports will still be women’s sports, men’s sports will still be men’s sports, and my point has always been that there will never be the critical mass of transgender athletes that posters are suggesting here which will threaten the existence of women’s sports, or would prevent women from competing in women’s sports. It would be akin to arguing that tall basketball players have a biological advantage and are keeping shortarses who have made sacrifices and dedication out of basketball, as if tall players just because they’re tall won’t have made similar sacrifices and dedication to participate in basketball, or short basketball players claiming that tall basketball players are “ruining the sport” and should be excluded on the basis of their having what it is argued is a biological advantage over shortarses. The reality however is far more complex, and shortarses need not fret that they will be punted off the court any time soon -


Does height affect performance in basketball?


The same goes for women in women’s sports, and men in men’s sports. I might have reason to be anxious if I were someone who claimed that women’s sports need to be protected while having absolutely no interest in women’s sports, but I just didn’t like the idea of people who are transgender getting notions and needing to be put back in their place.

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I might have reason to be anxious if I were someone who claimed that women’s sports need to be protected while having absolutely no interest in women’s sports, but I just didn’t like the idea of people who are transgender getting notions and needing to be put back in their place.

YOU might...

Nicely done, again

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d only go so far as to say you’d be as likely to say the same of anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, you’re not actually saying anything that indicates you know any better than I do or anyone who disagrees with your opinion knows about elite sport or the dedication and sacrifices that go into competing at that level or why people participate in sports. I’d also say we’re as likely to know as much as each other about people who when they lose out to their competition accuse their competition of having an unfair advantage in some shape or form. American athletes in particular are notorious for that sort of behaviour.

In fairness they did call it regards Michelle Smith that time

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness they did call it regards Michelle Smith that time

Despite her winning with pretty average times for gold medals positions

One eyed Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

That's saying a lot without actually saying anything.
Like I said, I think you are clueless about what it takes to compete at an elite level. I do because I have done.

I like hearing differing opinions. It educates me and helps me to look at things from a different perspective. You have an agenda and you just want to belittle those that disagree with you.

Come again?

I haven’t belittled anyone who has ever disagreed with me in any conversation I’ve had on Boards and I defy you to point out anywhere I have ever done so. I try to remain civil at all times even though I strongly disagree with someone’s opinion. I’ll argue a rebuttal of their points as best I can rather than stoop to getting personal.

You haven’t made any point other than in your opinion I don’t know what I’m talking about. How is that any sort of a rebuttal? How is that even an argument? Of course I have an agenda and I’ve always been up front and honest about that. If you’re referring to the post where it looks like I was calling Bloodbath a fcukwit, I wasn’t. I was making the point that it wouldn’t occur to me to call anyone who disagrees with me a transphobe, because I don’t use those terms, or racist or misogynist or anything else, in the same way I don’t use terms like “transgender woman” or “transgender man”, because I don’t think in those terms.

I like to understand where people are coming from too and I’m somewhat open to different opinions (I have my limits), but so far all I’m hearing from you is that I don’t know what I’m talking about and you do because you’re an elite athlete. You haven’t actually addressed any of the points I’ve made to indicate where and why you disagree or indicate to you that I don’t know what I’m talking about which would indicate to me that you actually do know what you’re talking about, and whether you’re an elite athlete or not is neither here nor there because all that amounts to is an argument from authority. You shouldn’t have to tell me you’re an elite athlete, I would know from your opinion that you actually do know what you’re talking about if you had given an opinion relevant to the topic instead of trying to take a pop at me personally.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness they did call it regards Michelle Smith that time

Broken clock in fairness

Dunno if you’re familiar with the expression but if you accuse everyone who beats you of cheating, there’s a possibility you might be right at some point. It only takes an accusation to be called in for testing, it’s how Caster Semenya’s condition was discovered, and then her medical report “accidentally on purpose” found it’s way into the media and was released to the world, and nobody has ever been held responsible for releasing her private medical information to the media where the tabloids did what they do best -


Shock claims: Caster Semenya 'is a hermaphrodite with no womb or ovaries'

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It only takes an accusation to be called in for testing, it’s how Caster Semenya’s condition was discovered, and then her medical report “accidentally on purpose”

It more down to she fact that they looked like a man and ran like a man that got peoples attention Along with her fellow runner who openly questioned the situation ,
It wasn't an accusation it was pretty obvious that something was amiss ,

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

It more down to she fact that they looked like a man and ran like a man that got peoples attention Along with her fellow runner who openly questioned the situation ,
It wasn't an accusation it was pretty obvious that something was amiss ,

What you’re describing is an accusation based upon the idea that they thought Caster Semenya was a man because she beat them. You’ll rarely ever hear of winners accusing losers of cheating -


Ashlee Evans-Smith said Fallon Fox shouldn't be allowed to fight due to perceived unfair advantages. Then Evans-Smith cheated trying to gain...an actual unfair advantage.


Fighter who said Fallon Fox should be banned from MMA is banned for cheating


(Evans had previously beaten Fox)

Ten of Swords

John Doe1 wrote: »

I think im going to enter the dressage event for Ireland as the horse as I have always identified with my equine side.

Don't post in this thread again

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you’re describing is an accusation based upon the idea that they thought Caster Semenya was a man because she beat them.

No not so simple it was the fact they couldn't make qualification for one event then suddenly started winning and setting records ,and they looked , sounded and acted and ran like man ,
Like the Chinese runners and swimmer's that popped up to start winning event after event before retiring back to China , never compete again ....
My first opinion of seeing castor the first time she was male based off appearance and running style

Strumms

The 200 meters men's world record holder is Usain Bolt of Jamaica, who ran 19.19s at the 2009 World Championships.

By the current logic, in say 2011, he could have decided to assume the gender of a female, he would have been of the ability to run 2.15 seconds faster then the women’s world record...roughy 10% faster... that fair ? Can’t have one rule for people changing one way vs the other..

Mellor

Strumms wrote: »

The 200 meters men's world record holder is Usain Bolt of Jamaica, who ran 19.19s at the 2009 World Championships.

By the current logic, in say 2011, he could have decided to assume the gender of a female, he would have been of the ability to run 2.15 seconds faster then the women’s world record...roughy 10% faster... that fair ? Can’t have one rule for people changing one way vs the other..

He slowed down by 2016 as a male (exactly 2 seconds). So he definitely wasn't going to run 19.19 if he transitioned in 2011.

I've no idea how much his time would have dropped on the lady hormones. He may have well dropped 2 seconds. But that's irrelevant. It's not a case of being unfair if they get the gold. It's unfair as regardless. As soon as they enter, it's unfair.

And wouldn't that be the same way, rather than the other way?

Mellor

Laurel Hubbard is now a women. I have no issue recognising that. That's her choice, and it doesn't affect me. People have no right to tell her that she is X or Y.
Regardless of all of that. I do not support her in the Olympics. She has no business or right to be there. Her biological history means that as a women, she is a doper. Simple as that.
I am yet to see anybody supporting her put forward a logical reason for doing so.

Similarly, people shouting "he's a man" are not doing a good job outlining why she shouldn't be there. It's a poor argument, as it's easily disregard for clearly being bigoted.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Laurel Hubbard is now a women. I have no issue recognising that. That's her choice, and it doesn't affect me. People have no right to tell her that she is X or Y.
Regardless of all of that. I do not support her in the Olympics. She has no business or right to be there. Her biological history means that as a women, she is a doper. Simple as that.
I am yet to see anybody supporting her put forward a logical reason for doing so.

Similarly, people shouting "he's a man" are not doing a good job outlining why she shouldn't be there. It's a poor argument, as it's easily disregard for clearly being bigoted.

I agree except one point: she isn't a woman, she's a transwoman. It's important to many many women to make the distinction, and while transwomen deserve the right to dignity and recognition for who they are, so do women. It should go both ways, not just one way. I know you weren't being disrespectful, just, as I said, it's important to make the distinction, because what's happening when the distinction is not made at an official level is hideous language erasing female biology with terms such as "front hole" and "birthing people". This is happening in the name of inclusiveness... yet via exclusion of women. It's not inclusive.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

No not so simple it was the fact they couldn't make qualification for one event then suddenly started winning and setting records ,and they looked , sounded and acted and ran like man ,
Like the Chinese runners and swimmer's that popped up to start winning event after event before retiring back to China , never compete again ....
My first opinion of seeing castor the first time she was male based off appearance and running style

You’re only doing the same as the athletes Caster Semenya beat who wanted to take out their competition because she beat them. If Caster Semenya hadn’t beaten them, you wouldn’t have thought twice about it, same as the Chinese athletes and swimmers - they came under closer scrutiny because they won! You’re choosing to ignore the hundreds of thousands of athletes who compete and don’t win, because they never come up on the radar, because they don’t win competitions. They still compete, but as long as they’re not winning, they’re not perceived as a threat, or they’re not perceived as having cheated, or they’re not perceived as having an unfair advantage or looking and sounding like men. They sure as hell don’t look like the average woman, nor do they run like the average woman either. It stands to reason they would have a more noticeable running style and would come under much closer scrutiny, and like I said - you accuse everyone of cheating, you’re bound to be right at some point.

It’s just backwards rationalisation - in hindsight you were right. Well of course you were when you’re suspicious of every bloody athlete like the other poster suggesting earlier that that’s the approach anyone should take - assume they’re all up to no good and put the burden of proof on them to prove they’re innocent. Her condition was only discovered when she was forced to undergo sex testing and the only way she would be permitted to compete in the sport again was if she agreed to undergo what in her opinion was an unnecessary medical intervention. This was after her private medical report had been leaked to the media and she’s been fighting her case ever since. I have no doubt the people who leaked the report knew the damage it would do to Caster Semenya and it was their way of ensuring that she wouldn’t ever be able to compete in the sport again. They didn’t consider for a minute that she would fight back, let alone that she would have any support among elite athletes, and they were right, at the time, but people’s views have changed since then -


Caster Semenya: 'Once I thought she was cheat. Now I'm sure she belongs in women's athletics'

Strumms wrote: »

The 200 meters men's world record holder is Usain Bolt of Jamaica, who ran 19.19s at the 2009 World Championships.

By the current logic, in say 2011, he could have decided to assume the gender of a female, he would have been of the ability to run 2.15 seconds faster then the women’s world record...roughy 10% faster... that fair ? Can’t have one rule for people changing one way vs the other..

Usain Bolt keeps being brought up as an example of if he were to identify as a woman, what then, and arguing about his performance based upon the fact that he is a man who has never identified as a woman! The point is moot as there’s simply no way to know any potential outcome by simply examining one single factor as if that’s all that contributes to an elite athletes success. If that were the case, then is it simply a fact that Usain Bolt if you cut him, he bleeds testosterone? I doubt it. Far more likely he’s just an exceptional athlete who has literally set the bar that much higher for what it actually means to be an elite athlete -


Much of the film is dedicated to the build-up to this past summers Rio Olympic Games, where Bolt was vying for his third straight three-gold Olympics: in the 100m, 200m, and 4 x 100m relay. The man they call Lightning Bolt wasnt feeling particularly motivated leading up to Rio that is, until Justin Gatlin and the other American sprinters began ripping into Bolt for receiving a medical exemption after injuring his ankle.

At the trials, when I had to pull out because I had a small injury leading up the championships, the comments that the U.S. guys made really got under my skin. I’ve never been so upset about something my entire life until that very moment, he tells me.

The irony, of course, is that Gatlin and many of the American sprinters had been busted for doping violations, yet somehow had the nerve to criticize the great one. For me, I don’t make the rules of track and field, but I’ve always been respectful of them and never bashed them in any way. I’ve always shown respect, you know what I mean? So the way that they came at me I felt was really disrespectful, he says. It really annoyed me and got me angry for the first time ever.

Bolt promised Gatlin that he will feel my full wrath in Rio and he did. Bolt took home golds in the 100m, 200m, and 4 x 100m relay, achieving immortality.


Usain Bolt on LGBT Rights in Jamaica and Hanging Up His Spikes

bewareofthedog

Laurel asks to be treated with respect. Isn't it odd how Laurel doesn't give the same respect to all the the athletes who were cheated out of medals

Mellor

Lurleen wrote: »

I agree except one point: she isn't a woman, she's a transwoman. It's important to many many women to make the distinction, and while transwomen deserve the right to dignity and recognition for who they are, so do women. It should go both ways, not just one way.

How does referring to her as a women generically impact the dignity or recognition of any one else? What is going one-way?

I was speaking informally btw, if you we are to be technical, then yes she is a transwomen, a woman at birth is a ciswomen. Both subsets under the gender of women. Both terms recoginise the biology/history of each.

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the sporting situation. Seems to be semantics mostly.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

o
Usain Bolt keeps being brought up as an example of if he were to identify as a woman, what then, and arguing about his performance based upon the fact that he is a man who has never identified as a woman! The point is moot as there’s simply no way to know any potential outcome by simply examining one single factor as if that’s all that contributes to an elite athletes success.

That's true, and something I pointed out above.
However, Hubbard has transitioned. And Hubbard has competed as both a male and female.

As a 20 year old, in the mens' division. He lifted a 300kg total. Setting a national record.
As a 42 year old, in the womens' division. She has lifted 285kg.

I'd be impressed if any athlete had only lost 5% from the 20s to their 40s without having transitioned.


She won a gold medal at the master games.
The blue dots are mens scores. The orange dots womens cores. These is an age group division. The winning margin, is a 1 in 2.8 billion shot.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

How does referring to her as a women generically impact the dignity or recognition of any one else? What is going one-way?

Because she is not a woman - she is a transwoman. Calling a transwoman a woman is redefining the meaning of woman. It is not respectful towards us women. Please just try to understand where we are coming from. It is not right to redefine the meaning when woman means adult human biological female. And no we are not just defined by biology, but the word "woman" is (you are recognising this yourself with your acknowledgement of the difference in biology). After that we are defined by numerous other things - including gender. And that is what the term "transwoman" recognises.

I was speaking informally btw, if you we are to be technical, then yes she is a transwomen, a woman at birth is a ciswomen. Both subsets under the gender of women. Both terms recoginise the biology/history of each.

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the sporting situation. Seems to be semantics mostly.

We are not a "subset" of women, we are women (subset?!)

There is nothing technical about it - women are women and transwomen are transwomen. It doesn't make sense to refer to someone as trans but then also to refer to her as a woman.

And we are not "cis" women - just women.

It is absolutely not semantics - it is very important to us, especially with a term like "birthing people" being used at an official level. This is so undermining of the female sex.

How Soon Is Now

Jesus every time I see that cis thing being used...

You're either a man or you're a woman. It's nearly always used in some smartarse condescending tone as well.

FileNotFound

All I can say is I hope that this 41 yr old (think thats her age) - goes in and wins everything.

At least then we can all agree that a past prime age athlete had an unfair advantage that even banned drug use couldnt match (I am assuming that some of her competition will have been taking drugs...)

That should at least give a clear simple - this is unfair in sport answer.

Mellor

Lurleen wrote: »

Because she is not a woman - she is a transwoman. Calling a transwoman a woman is redefining the meaning of woman. It is not respectful towards us women. Please just try to understand where we are coming from. It is not right to redefine the meaning when woman means adult human biological female. And no we are not just defined by biology, but the word "woman" is (you are recognising this yourself with your acknowledgement of the difference in biology). After that we are defined by numerous other things - including gender. And that is what the term "transwoman" recognises.

Women is not specific to biology. Otherwise, trans- wouldn't ever be recognised.
I guess the biological term is female.
You seem to recognise ghat this person is no longer a man, but you are trying to prevent her being a woman. There's a contradiction there.

As I said, I don't agree with her being in the sport due to biology.
The line you refereed to was not about biology, it was about gender.

Lets keep it simple. How many genders are there?

And we are not "cis" women - just women.

It is absolutely not semantics - it is very important to us, especially with a term like "birthing people" being used at an official level. This is so undermining of the female sex.

I don't know where the term cis-gender originated. Regardless, it has the meaning it has in modern times. I don't use it often myself, only here as it's the antynom to trans- in this sense. We used to say biological woman or man.

You don't like referring to her as a woman, that's your opinion.
Semantics the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. What you are saying is quite literally the definition of semantics. I'm not trying to trivialise your opinion, that's just what it means.
I'm sorry you feel the female sex is being undermined. Personally I don't see it. There are many great things that female do, have done, and continue to do. It's takes more than which word we use to take that away from them. To be, it's just a word.


And I don't see how any of it is relevant to the topic. We all know her history. We all know the biological issues in regards to the sport. What changes whether we say A, B or C. The situation at the olympics is the same.
The fact is, the end at the olympics is called Womens Weightlifting, not Female weightlifting. And for some bizarre reason, it's grouped by gender rather than sex.

Mellor

FileNotFound wrote: »

All I can say is I hope that this 41 yr old (think thats her age) - goes in and wins everything.

At least then we can all agree that a past prime age athlete had an unfair advantage that even banned drug use couldnt match (I am assuming that some of her competition will have been taking drugs...)

That should at least give a clear simple - this is unfair in sport answer.

That's actually unlikely to happen tbh. The graph above is the Master division.
In the olympics the other athletes will be in their prime, and yes they are definitely on drugs*.
She's most likely won't even make the podium, let alone the gold medal.


* I think the drugs she took to transition would also be on the banned list too - another reason to disallow her competing.

DeadHand

Lurleen wrote: »

Because she is not a woman - she is a transwoman. Calling a transwoman a woman is redefining the meaning of woman. It is not respectful towards us women. Please just try to understand where we are coming from. It is not right to redefine the meaning when woman means adult human biological female. And no we are not just defined by biology, but the word "woman" is (you are recognising this yourself with your acknowledgement of the difference in biology). After that we are defined by numerous other things - including gender. And that is what the term "transwoman" recognises.

We are not a "subset" of women, we are women (subset?!)

There is nothing technical about it - women are women and transwomen are transwomen. It doesn't make sense to refer to someone as trans but then also to refer to her as a woman.

And we are not "cis" women - just women.

It is absolutely not semantics - it is very important to us, especially with a term like "birthing people" being used at an official level. This is so undermining of the female sex.

A hugely important post.

All contributors should take careful note.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Women is not specific to biology.

The definition of "woman" is literally "adult human female". It's exactly specific to biology, and has never referred to "gender" (whatever you consider that to be).

suicide_circus

Mellor wrote: »

Women is not specific to biology.

If that's your position, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding LH's participation in women's sports. Lies have consequences and big lies have big consequences and the lie that a woman is anyone who says thry're a woman is a steaming whopper.