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

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Huh? It's fairly obvious which one is female there. If you had chosen a picture of Hubbard standing it would be even more obvious.

Anyway, doesn't really matter how they look. Hubbard is a male person.

I chose the first pictures that came up on a search on google tbh, it wasn’t like I was going to too much effort to point out how they look pretty similar, to me at least, indistinguishable.

And while it doesn’t matter to you how they look, it clearly does matter to you how an athlete looks as you posted the picture of the athletes on the podium in second and third place and how they looked dejected and defeated compared to the athlete on the winner’s podium. I mean, is anyone actually surprised that the winner is delighted while the losers are not? Or was your point about the difference in physical stature, in which case your claim that it doesn’t matter how an athlete looks is looking pretty sketchy.

Hubbard can be a three-titted alien from the planet Zog for all I care, the point is that they meet the criteria to be eligible to compete in women’s sports competitions, and restricting the criteria to the point where athletes like Hubbard who were previously eligible are now no longer eligible, would have the inevitable effect of excluding more women unless they were willing to undergo medically unnecessary intervention in order to be considered for eligibility on the basis that they are within the limits of the criteria based upon hormone levels, as well as still needing to meet all the other criteria.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

'cuz it seems to bear saying: "woman" does not mean "collection of curves, glitter and pink I personally find attractive."

Christ.

Cuz it seems to bear saying: That’s your opinion and you’re perfectly entitled to it. It’s not my opinion, and I don’t have to accept your opinion in the same way as you don’t have to accept mine. It’s entirely subjective as to how anyone determines what does or doesn’t constitute their understanding of woman, or man for that matter, and individual opinions vary greatly between individuals. A person would want to be fairly sheltered if they hadn’t been exposed to the idea of people referring to men as women, or vice versa, and thinking that people rely on the OED for their criteria. It’s only a matter of time before they update the dictionary to redefine the word, and then people who demand everyone be compelled to adhere to dictionary definitions won’t be able to use that argument any more -


Oxford Dictionaries amends 'sexist' definitions of the word 'woman'

Strumms

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cuz it seems to bear saying: That’s your opinion and you’re perfectly entitled to it. It’s not my opinion, and I don’t have to accept your opinion in the same way as you don’t have to accept mine. It’s entirely subjective as to how anyone determines what does or doesn’t constitute their understanding of woman, or man for that matter, and individual opinions vary greatly between individuals. A person would want to be fairly sheltered if they hadn’t been exposed to the idea of people referring to men as women, or vice versa, and thinking that people rely on the OED for their criteria.

People in a free democracy can refer to themselves as whatever, should be no consequences to that...

But people claiming they are X gender and demanding to participate in sports, DEMANDING others exceed to this claim of whatever gender they choose or assume is BS really..

There are people now claiming the existence of 72 different genders.

The Olympics could last 6 years...

Podge_irl

Female sports are an inherently protected category. They exist today to provide for and recognise excellent in sports who are all other things being equal at a massive disadvantage to androgenised people (i.e. those who have undergone male puberty).

As with any protected category it is likely impossible to define it in such a way as to be both accepting of all those who deserve a place and restrictive of all those who should not be there. But you do need to define it somewhere and that is why the likes of the Semanya case are so difficult.

DSD issues are however, utterly and completely separate, from the issue at hand here. Someone who has undergone androgen fuelled puberty is at a massive physiological advantage to someone who has not. The advantage will vary based on sport, but as an example for boxing, taking similar weight levels the punching strength difference is over 100%. Speed differences are easily >10%. The science on this is unequivocal. What is uncertain is how much is lost due to hormonal treatment and testosterone suppression - though it is becoming clear that it is far from all of it.

Laurel Hubbard may not do exceptionally well as they have for most of their life been a supremely mediocre athlete and she is now significantly past her athletic prime. That she is now of Olympic standard just shows the gross difference between strength of androgenised and non-androgenised people.

I somewhat regret the focus has come down on one athlete, though it is probably the best sport the highlight the problem given the massive disparities in strength between male and female. The difference would only be highlighted more in combat sports, but in those people would be at serious risk of injury to highlight the massive issue.

One eyed Jack

Podge_irl wrote: »

DSD issues are however, utterly and completely separate, from the issue at hand here. Someone who has undergone androgen fuelled puberty is at a massive physiological advantage to someone who has not. The advantage will vary based on sport, but as an example for boxing, taking similar weight levels the punching strength difference is over 100%. Speed differences are easily >10%. The science on this is unequivocal. What is uncertain is how much is lost due to hormonal treatment and testosterone suppression - though it is becoming clear that it is far from all of it.

They’re not though, it is precisely because Caster Semenya and other athletes like her are being excluded from competition on the basis that they refuse to undergo unnecessary medical interventions to reduce their testosterone levels which it is claimed give them an unfair advantage over their competition, is the reason why more women are being excluded from women’s sports. Their exclusion is based upon their testosterone levels, something which is completely natural, which means they don’t adhere to a limited stereotype of woman as understood by the IOC and WA in their policies. Women like Caster Semenya are an inconvenience for the WA and the IOC and the people who claim to base their arguments in biology and “natal sex” and all the rest of it.

If by “the science on this is unequivocal” you mean the science on this is poorly understood and constantly undergoing revision and updating as new information comes to light and more research is done, then yes, I’d agree with you, but if you mean the science of the issues involved is settled and beyond question, then I’d strongly disagree with you on the basis I have outlined above.

It’s not just a question of science either, as already mentioned it’s also a question of international human rights standards and trying to navigate international laws and legislation in countries where for example they do not have what we have here which is the gender recognition act, or in Iran where they force gay men and lesbian women to undergo medically unnecessary interventions because homosexuality is prohibited by law and punishable by death. The photo a poster posted earlier of the Iranian women’s football team was posted to make a point about the absurdity of it, and wouldn’t you know the Daily Mail have their usual far from unique take on it too -


Dodgy tackle! Eight players of the Iranian women’s football team are actually MEN awaiting sex swap operations


Arguing about whether or not one athlete should be banned from women’s sports on the basis that they don’t adhere to a stereotype of woman, ignores the reality of these organisations which claim to recognise international cultural diversity and encourage participation in sports, while in reality the opportunities are only open to a very limited and specific criteria, at the exclusion of the vast majority of women in the case of this policy regarding women’s sports. At least they aren’t able to demand that women who want to participate in the events must present themselves naked for inspection any more, like that was absolutely fair and not a violation of those women’s dignity at all at all…


Sex testing in major sporting events dates back to the pre-WWII era. The tests at this stage were crude "nude parades" that required female athletes to strip down so that their bodies could be inspected. Over time, attempts at more precise tests were made, but each proved to be an inadequate method of determining sex. Shortly before the summer Olympics in 2012, the IOC took another stab at wrestling the definition of sex down to a single factor, announcing that it would be adopting an androgen-based (specifically, testosterone) sex test. Women with hyperandrogenism, or naturally elevated testosterone, can now be disqualified from the women's competition.


The Story Behind the Olympics' Outrageous Sex Testing


Incredible what can be justified and legitimised way to treat people as a consequence of irrational prejudice really. Darwin would be proud.

Theboinkmaster

Pretty sure this concludes any discussion:

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters Edit
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]

Podge_irl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not though, it is precisely because Caster Semenya and other athletes like her are being excluded from competition on the basis that they refuse to undergo unnecessary medical interventions to reduce their testosterone levels which it is claimed give them an unfair advantage over their competition, is the reason why more women are being excluded from women’s sports. Their exclusion is based upon their testosterone levels, something which is completely natural, which means they don’t adhere to a limited stereotype of woman as understood by the IOC and WA in their policies. Women like Caster Semenya are an inconvenience for the WA and the IOC and the people who claim to base their arguments in biology and “natal sex” and all the rest of it.

How would you define who is eligible to compete in women's sport?

Quantum Erasure

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Does be funny when people come into threads and talk about things they haven’t the first clue about or interest in until it clashes with something they do have an interest in.

To be fair, womens weightlifting is a pretty niche sport for either side to be interested in....

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not though, it is precisely because Caster Semenya and other athletes like her are being excluded from competition on the basis that they refuse to undergo unnecessary medical interventions to reduce their testosterone levels which it is claimed give them an unfair advantage over their competition, is the reason why more women are being excluded from women’s sports. Their exclusion is based upon their testosterone levels, something which is completely natural, which means they don’t adhere to a limited stereotype of woman as understood by the IOC and WA in their policies. Women like Caster Semenya are an inconvenience for the WA and the IOC and the people who claim to base their arguments in biology and “natal sex” and all the rest of it.

Caster is intersex with XY chromosomes though, no?
She isn't female.

jam_mac_jam

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Caster is intersex with XY chromosomes though, no?
She isn't female.

Correct. She is intersex so does have a natural advantage in that she has a higher level of testosterone.

I don't know if I would say she isn't female though.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Correct. She is intersex so does have a natural advantage in that she has a higher level of testosterone.

I don't know if I would say she isn't female though.

Male. Female or intersex.
Theyre the sexes (not gender!)

Intersex with XY chromosomes, to me tends more towards the male spectrum rather than female.
Intersex with XX would be the other way

jam_mac_jam

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Male. Female or intersex.
Theyre the sexes (not gender!)

Intersex with XY chromosomes, to me tends more towards the male spectrum rather than female.
Intersex with XX would be the other way

I don't know enough about her condition to comment. I take your point about the chromosomes though.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't know enough about her condition to comment. I take your point about the chromosomes though.

She was assigned female at birth, not sure were female genitalia more pronounced.
Apparently she doesn't have ovaries or womb, but has internal testes - churning out the testosterone.


The fairest way is for there to be a trans/intersex games.

ceadaoin.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

She was assigned female at birth, not sure were female genitalia more pronounced.
Apparently she doesn't have ovaries or womb, but has internal testes - churning out the testosterone.


The fairest way is for there to be a trans/intersex games.

Yes she has been through a male puberty with all that entails with regards to strength etc and isn't female. Not sure why she is being held up as an example in this instance. Us silly women just need to try harder presumably

John Doe1

Are there any people (preferrably transgender people) on here who can give a legitimate reason why it is acceptable to change millenia old concepts because it makes 0.1 percent of the population uncomfortable?

Transgenderism is a myth, there are feminine boys and masculine women and that is absolutely fine.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089
In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary

volchitsa

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

She was assigned female at birth, not sure were female genitalia more pronounced.
Apparently she doesn't have ovaries or womb, but has internal testes - churning out the testosterone.


The fairest way is for there to be a trans/intersex games.

Trans and intersex conditions (anomalies of sexual organs) are completely different things.

Caster Semenya was born a boy with deformed genital organs where the penis wasn’t easily identifiable as such. But if Semenya had been born in a city with medical services, the anomaly would have been quickly identified and s/he’d have been brought up as a boy. The confusion only arose due to lack of medical care in a poor African village.

There’s no connection between that as trans gender people who have perfectly normal genitalia whose appearance corresponds perfectly to their chromosomes.

Sure look it, if what it takes is a stout athlete plagued by injuries who was notably mediocre when lifting in the male competitions to qualify as a glorious Olympian on a women's team, for the eyes of the public to finally swivel and for people to say come on ta feck, it will have to do.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Trans and intersex conditions (anomalies of sexual organs) are completely different things.

Caster Semenya was born a boy with deformed genital organs where the penis wasn’t easily identifiable as such. But if Semenya had been born in a city with medical services, the anomaly would have been quickly identified and s/he’d have been brought up as a boy. The confusion only arose due to lack of medical care in a poor African village.

There’s no connection between that as trans gender people who have perfectly normal genitalia whose appearance corresponds perfectly to their chromosomes.

Indeed. And i don't disagree with you although I think her birthcert has born female.

If womens sports are to be for well women, I dont have a problem with a para-olympics style trans (or intersex) event - and yea they're different, but having the same impact

volchitsa

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Indeed. And i don't disagree with you although I think her birthcert has born female.

If womens sports are to be for well women, I dont have a problem with a para-olympics style trans (or intersex) event - and yea they're different, but having the same impact

It does but genetically she isn’t female.
That mistake wouldn’t have happened if she’d been born to a wealthy family in a SA city, but her mother got no real medical care and nobody knew what was wrong with the baby. That really was a case of “assigned female at birth” - but it’s incredibly rare - maybe impossible - for that to happen in a modern hospital.

One eyed Jack

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Caster is intersex with XY chromosomes though, no?
She isn't female.

The results of the sex tests have never been officially confirmed, but there has been leaks and speculation about Casters condition. I know people will inevitably disagree but in my opinion, Caster is female with an intersex condition. I know your opinion is that there are three sexes - male, female and intersex, but in my opinion there are only two - male and female. Traditionally they are categorised according to characteristics common to either sex, but as more research is conducted, and the language used is changing, the idea of binary classification of sex itself is being challenged, as well as how humans are classified and human characteristics are classified according to biology is being challenged.

Personally, I don’t see any necessity to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak and start claiming ideas like females are at risk of developing prostate cancer. There are glands in human females which share similar characteristics with analogous glands in human males, but to suggest the notion of female prostate cancer is a stretch. That’s just one example as to why it’s important to maintain and recognise that there are differentiatable characteristics in both sexes, rather than try reinventing the wheel so to speak.

The idea though that athletic performance can be whittled down to one single characteristic like hormones, a characteristic which is subject to fluctuations throughout a persons life based upon numerous influencing factors, is far more suspect IMO than the idea of a female prostate.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes she has been through a male puberty with all that entails with regards to strength etc and isn't female. Not sure why she is being held up as an example in this instance. Us silly women just need to try harder presumably

It’s precisely because of the first sentence is the reason for the second. Semenya and women like her absolutely do not go through “a male puberty”. Like all humans, they go through puberty. It’s a process of human development. It’s why dictionary definitions like “adult human female” to define women are simply inadequate. “Adult human female” is a description for smartarses, nothing more. It’s reductive nonsense that has no acknowledgement for the diversity of human biology. If you want to use biology as the basis for determining how women are defined, you’ll still come a cropper when you have to describe the terms “adult”, “human” or “female”, with what constitutes female giving you the same problems as what constitutes woman. Caster Semenya is an example of a woman, female, elite athlete, and by those definitions alone she is eligible to compete in women’s events with women. However, the IOC and the WA have tried to be too clever for their own good, and have based the criteria not upon sex or gender, not even on chromosomes, but rather on appropriate hormone ranges for both female and male athletes. They’re STILL running into issues -


That surely includes the latest testosterone standard. The IOC zeroed in on testosterone levels, it said, because the performance difference between male and female athletes may be “mainly” due to the hormone. It’s true that the normal female and male ranges for this hormone are clearly distinct. Yet women with conditions like congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome sometimes test in the male range. That includes small but significant numbers of female Olympic athletes. In 2000, British endocrinologist Peter Sonksen analyzed testosterone levels for around 650 Olympic athletes representing a random selection across sports. His results haven’t been published, but he gave me a scatterplot of his data, and it shows almost 5 percent of the women testing in the male range for testosterone and more than 6 percent of the men testing in the female range. In other words, T levels are not diagnostic for sex.

The International Olympic Committee apparently thinks that’s OK. The point is to identify women whose high T levels have “performance-enhancing effects” with regard to “strength, power and speed” that give them an unfair advantage over other female competitors. (They will make allowances for athletes whose bodies do not respond normally to the hormone.) It’s widely accepted, after all, that testosterone builds muscle mass.

But little research supports the view that elite athletes with naturally high testosterone levels fare better in sports than those with lower levels. “We really don’t know,” says Allan Mazur of Syracuse University. “Logical assumptions about hormones don’t always turn out to be true.” In Sonksen’s study, more than 25 percent of the male Olympians had T levels below the normal male range. If testosterone is all-important for sports, how could that be?


And the reason Caster Semenya is used as an example in these discussions is in line with the eligibility criteria requirement as set by the sports organisations which are trying to exclude her and women like her. I really hope you didn’t imagine that Caster Semenya is the only woman with what are regarded as disorders of sex development who exist and are being scouted to compete in sports? Their rarity is exactly what makes them sought after for development into elite athletes! The criteria do not exclude people who are transgender from competing in women’s events on the basis that they are transgender. They are excluded on the basis of their hormones being outside of the specified range in the IOC and WA policies, very same as Caster Semenya and women like her. Forcing anyone to undergo unnecessary medical interventions to compete in their chosen category is unethical, and that’s why the IOC and the WA are coming in for such harsh criticism on a number of fronts, not just from transgender athletes, or women, or men, but because their scientific “research” which they claim they are using to support their policies is also decidedly suspect, and their policies appear to be based upon upholding traditional notions of gender stereotypes as opposed to being based upon any properly conducted scientific research or any notions about fairness in the sport or protecting women or any of the rest of it when their policies and practices suggest otherwise.

volchitsa wrote: »

Trans and intersex conditions (anomalies of sexual organs) are completely different things.

Caster Semenya was born a boy with deformed genital organs where the penis wasn’t easily identifiable as such. But if Semenya had been born in a city with medical services, the anomaly would have been quickly identified and s/he’d have been brought up as a boy. The confusion only arose due to lack of medical care in a poor African village.

There’s no connection between that as trans gender people who have perfectly normal genitalia whose appearance corresponds perfectly to their chromosomes.

No she wasn’t.

And had Caster Semenya and people like her been born in “a city with medical services” (or more specifically - Western society), “corrective surgery” might have been offered to them, and her parents might have believed medical professionals scaremongering about the potential for the development of cancer in later life in order to obtain her parents consent to perform the surgery, and her parents might have brought her up as a boy, and in later life Semenya might have struggled with her identity because her genitalia didn’t correspond to her gender identity, and then you’re into David Remner territory, and the world might have known of Caster Semenya for entirely different reasons.

That’s an awful lot of ‘mights’ though, and I just wouldn’t be as certain or confident of any outcomes as you are. That’s notwithstanding how many people with disorders of sex development or intersex conditions are campaigning for an end to the practice as they view it as unethical -


The Ethical Pitfalls of ‘Corrective’ Surgery for Intersex Babies


This is exactly what goes to the very core of the issue regarding athletes who don’t fit the mould competing in women’s sports, and why the focus is so much on women’s sports, because of the politics involved, while pretending their aims are to be all about fairness in women’s sports.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

It does but genetically she isn’t female.
That mistake wouldn’t have happened if she’d been born to a wealthy family in a SA city, but her mother got no real medical care and nobody knew what was wrong with the baby. That really was a case of “assigned female at birth” - but it’s incredibly rare - maybe impossible - for that to happen in a modern hospital.

She has XY chromosomes.
Are you responding to the right poster?

volchitsa

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

She has XY chromosomes.
Are you responding to the right poster?

You said her birth cert is marked female. I’m saying yes but that was a mistake made due to the lack of medical expertise when s/he was born. Semenya has, as you say, XY chromosomes and is therefore genetically male despite what the birth certificate says. Why would you think that wasn’t related to what you said?

But none of this has anything to do with perfectly healthy children who have no physical issues transitioning into the opposite gender.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

You said her birth cert is marked female. I’m saying yes but that was a mistake made due to the lack of medical expertise when s/he was born. Semenya has, as you say, XY chromosomes and is therefore genetically male despite what the birth certificate says. Why would you think that wasn’t related to what you said?

But none of this has anything to do with perfectly healthy children who have no physical issues transitioning into the opposite gender.

Go back a few posts - I said she's not female
You seem to be responding to something I haven't said....

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for explaining.

You're welcome. I appreciate that you've stopped to

I was more making the point that, if "trans women" is an insulting distinction to trans women, and that is the reason why we should call trans women women, and indeed why many insist that trans women be called women by everyone (whether they believe that or not), then surely the distinction itself is the issue. And if the distinction is the issue, then surely it's not any less insulting just because of the context.

I don't think trans- as a distinction is an insult in an of itself. Especially when refer to trans- vrs not trans, or the transition specifically. It has a meaning that is often relevant.
I think the opposition is to people go out of their way to refer to people like that.

"Can you bring this to Mary, the women in accounts"
"Can you bring this to Mary, the transwomen in accounts"

There is is not being used to distinguish, it's being used to point out somebody's personal life. Just like saying the "obese women in accounts" would be unnecessary and likely insulting.

The other issue is whether it used to mean a subset of woman, or an exclusion set.

Honestly, I miss the days when I could dismiss Twitter activists as culturally irrelevant internet noise.

I honestly hate twitter and my life is better for it.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think it's worse, the distinction seems to be only 1 way, adding "trans" is insulting yet we must now add "cis" to the biological sexes.

Adding trans is not the insult. It's a term with a meaning, that we all understand.
The insult is using trans to say not-a-woman, or that you can only use trans-. And I think that's your cis- example falls down.

Nobody is telling people that have to use cis-, it's really only used in this conversations, just that the scientific name. People are saying trans people are only allowed to used trans-.

Obviously you don't agree. But I don't buy that you don't understand the difference

If there was no issues with trans athletes competing then why do we have any gender distinctions?

Honestly, we all know the answer, is size and strength.
I genuinely find it hard to form a form a regulation for that.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But Laurel Hubbard does meet the criteria, and that’s why they were selected following qualification, precisely because they met the eligibility criteria to compete in the competition. Therefore they shouldn’t be banned. Whether or not anyone regards them as a woman is neither here nor there in terms of their eligibility to compete in women’s sports competitions.

No she doesn't.
I've no idea how you could have read my post and reached that conclusion.
I was incredibly clear.

She has met a criteria for eligibility.
She has breached other criteria required to participate.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...if the criteria which allow athletes like Hubbard to compete are reduced to such a point that they would exclude athletes like Hubbard from competing… not only will they exclude athletes like Hubbard from competing, but they would exclude far more women from competing because they don’t meet the criteria,

How would the above exclude any athletes other than those that the governing bodies have tried to ban any way.
I think you need to maybe look up the requirements for olympic participation before you twist the words of others (as you quoted me, I'm taking the above as a reference to my post).

Female athletes as per females generally have between 0.12 and 1.79 nanomoles of testosterone per litre in circulating blood.

The guideline of maintaining less than 5 nanomoles of testosterone for events of 400 metres or longer has not been met by Cece Telfer who would otherwise have gone to the Olympics.

Cece has been doing well in the US, garnering prizes in girls sports eg NCAA title in 2019 , while obviously maintaing testosterone levels - let me do some quick mental sums here - of between 3 to more than 40 times the levels of their direct competition.

Seems legit, as the kids say.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/24/cece-telfer-transgender-runner-olympic-trials

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

'cuz it seems to bear saying: "woman" does not mean "collection of curves, glitter and pink I personally find attractive."

Christ.

Scuse you, I was born with a glitter gland that secretes glitter every half an hour.

Gentlemanne

John Doe1 wrote: »

Are there any people (preferrably transgender people) on here

In previous gender identity threads there was trans people but for some reason they've decided not to keep up with the thread or contribute, I wonder why that is?

John Doe1 wrote: »

Transgenderism is a myth,

Ah yeah it's probably sh*te like this.

Gatling

Gentlemanne wrote: »

In previous gender identity threads there was trans people but for some reason they've decided not to keep up with the thread or contribute,

I've seen people claim they were astronauts and secret agents on board's

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

"Can you bring this to Mary, the women in accounts"
"Can you bring this to Mary, the transwomen in accounts"

There is is not being used to distinguish, it's being used to point out somebody's personal life. Just like saying the "obese women in accounts" would be unnecessary and likely insulting.

But why is it ok to distinguish that Mary is not a man?

Mellor wrote: »

The other issue is whether it used to mean a subset of woman, or an exclusion set.

Its not a subset, transwoman is as much as subset of woman is woman is a subset of man. i.e. not at all.

Mellor wrote: »

Adding trans is not the insult. It's a term with a meaning, that we all understand.
The insult is using trans to say not-a-woman, or that you can only use trans-. And I think that's your cis- example falls down.

Nobody is telling people that have to use cis-, it's really only used in this conversations, just that the scientific name. People are saying trans people are only allowed to used trans-.

Obviously you don't agree. But I don't buy that you don't understand the difference

Woman is a term with meaning that for millenia we have all understood, its not like some new race has been discovered that has different type of women that we now need to specify cis-woman for clarity.
There are women and there are transwomen and the two are totally different things. Thinkk Grape vs Grapefruit.

Certain people are constantly using "cis" to try to get people to accept that "cis" and "trans" are just two types of the same thing.

Mellor wrote: »

Honestly, we all know the answer, is size and strength.
I genuinely find it hard to form a form a regulation for that.

There are already regulations based on weight classes, but we still dont lump both sexes in together.
And regulating for strength when trying to determine who is the strongest would seem bizarre and not much of a spectacle....?