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

How Soon Is Now

Gatling wrote: »

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

Who are we to tell them there not! Everyone is entitled to claim to be what they like right?

Isn't that how it works?

Gatling

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Who are we to tell them there not! Everyone is entitled to claim to be what they like right?

Isn't that how it works?

Exactly

If testosterone levels were sufficient grounds for Olympic qualification, would it be acceptable for Usain Bolt (or an athlete of his calibre) to reduce testosterone levels at 35 years old, then compete in the women's division?

I understand that surgery is also a prerequisite, but that's more of a personal choice for the transgender person involved.

In terms of athleticism, it comes down to testosterone levels - according to the Olympic Committee.

And if that's all that matters, and not other matters of biological advantage, then the Usain Bolt example would have to be accepted as legitimate even though it is glaringly obvious this athlete would dominate the women's division in perpetuity.

I just don't see why the same is any different with Laurel Hubbard. The biological advantage for a male who lived as a male until 34, then transitioned, must be enormous.

volchitsa

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 wonder why that is?



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

When we were fighting to legalise abortion or marriage equality, I never heard anyone say that people who’d had abortions or gay couples might all stay away from the debate and leave it to those who had no personal experience in case they got bad things said to them.

And we got plenty of stuff said to us - baby killers etc. But we stuck it out because it was important to us.

So no, I’m not convinced by that at all.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

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.

You were incredibly clear! I took from your post that in your opinion they should be banned. I questioned why they should be banned if they meet the criteria for eligibility. I wasn’t attempting to twist your words or take you out of context or anything else. You posted a graph earlier in the thread and there was no disputing it, so I didn’t, but the idea that anyone who meets the criteria for eligibility should be banned, I didn’t want to be putting words in your mouth so unless you clarify exactly why or for what reason you think they should be banned when they meet the eligibility criteria, I’m at a loss tbh.

Mellor wrote: »

How would the above exclude any athletes other than those that the governing bodies have tried to ban any way.

I’ve already clarified how it would do so - because more women simply wouldn’t meet the criteria for eligibility. The whole point of the criteria is to ensure fair competition for all competitors in women’s sports, and I get that, but the criteria if they were further narrowed, would mean the exclusion of women who were previously eligible to compete, and the only way they would meet the criteria is if they were willing to undergo medically unnecessary interventions to lower their testosterone levels.

Mellor wrote: »

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).

I didn’t twist your words then, and I’m not twisting your words now, and telling me to read over what I’ve read over already and I’m still not seeing why you’re suggesting I read over them again, doesn’t tell me what you think I’m missing. Instead you could just tell me what you think I’m missing. I’m not going to quibble over the difference between eligibility or participation if that’s the distinction you think I’m missing. That’s just nitpicking, I’d expect it’s something more fundamental than semantics.

KeepItLight

John Doe1 wrote: »

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

If you're under the impression that it's a misguided pursuit of truth, you're mistaken. This is all about power, specifically the power to define the language that others must use, and power to change the rules at will. If you can control the language others must use, then you have tremendous power to mould reality to what suits you.

BattleCorp

eskimohunt wrote: »

I understand that surgery is also a prerequisite, but that's more of a personal choice for the transgender person involved.

Surgery isn't a prerequisite.

FileNotFound

BattleCorp wrote: »

Surgery isn't a prerequisite.

Yup only requisite is hormone (testosterone) levels for X period (cannot remember the specifics.

You could switch back after the win in theory...

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If testosterone levels were sufficient grounds for Olympic qualification, would it be acceptable for Usain Bolt (or an athlete of his calibre) to reduce testosterone levels at 35 years old, then compete in the women's division?

I understand that surgery is also a prerequisite, but that's more of a personal choice for the transgender person involved.

In terms of athleticism, it comes down to testosterone levels - according to the Olympic Committee.

And if that's all that matters, and not other matters of biological advantage, then the Usain Bolt example would have to be accepted as legitimate even though it is glaringly obvious this athlete would dominate the women's division in perpetuity.

I just don't see why the same is any different with Laurel Hubbard. The biological advantage for a male who lived as a male until 34, then transitioned, must be enormous.

It’s NOT glaringly obvious though, and that’s the problem. As you’re rightly suggesting, Bolt dominated in the events he competed in during his career. There was no suggestion that he should lower his testosterone levels in order to make the competition fair to all competitors. There were plenty of accusations and speculation throughout his career - Is Usain Bolt on Steroids?.

Elite athletes have characteristics or traits which enables them to do what they do, and combined with training they are just able to do it much better, to the degree that they do actually dominate the sport, whichever events they participate in. Bolt wouldn’t dominate in a marathon event for example. He wanted to play cricket, but he switched to sprinting. I don’t imagine he would dominate in cricket either. The point is that it isn’t just training, or one single characteristic that gives an athlete an advantage over their competitors. It’s a whole combination of factors. Having gone through puberty in and of itself doesn’t confer any advantage on an athlete over another in any given event.

You can draw correlations and suggest that’s what gives an athlete or athletes an advantage over their competitors, which is what you’re doing when you’re suggesting that if Usain Bolt were to lower his testosterone levels (I don’t know what his testosterone levels are), that he would STILL dominate in the women’s events, as if testosterone levels are the most influential factor in athletic or sporting ability. There’s just no way to know the outcome for certain of what you’re suggesting, and all anyone can do is speculate as to any potential outcomes and rationalise afterwards how it is possible that an athlete is able to achieve what they do, like this article does for example -

Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, and Caster Semenya: Should Semenya Take Drugs to Decrease Testosterone Levels?

KeepItLight

KeepItLight wrote: »

If you're under the impression that it's a misguided pursuit of truth, you're mistaken. This is all about power, specifically the power to define the language that others must use, and power to change the rules at will. If you can control the language others must use, then you have tremendous power to mould reality to what suits you.

I don't agree that controlling language gives someone the power to mould reality to what suits them. But it's absolutely the case that the constructionists buy into this Foucauldian idea of language as a key to power, and that for the academic types, deconstructing and reconstructing language in such a way that power is place firmly in their hands is certainly at the top of the goals list, just as it has been in every Marxist/communist/Nazi movement in history.

They seem simply incapable of learning the glaringly obvious lesson that the only result there can ever be is murderous authoritarianism that must repeatedly and brutally work to contain the reality that refuses to be bridled by language. Concentration camps, death squads and gulags are all a direct and unavoidable result of Foucauldian/Marxist/identitarian thought (and the "useful idiots" who are drawn into it, when their good nature is preyed upon).

Ho hum.

Sleepy

The only fair solution is to create separate categories for women who were born male and men who were born female. It's inclusive, recognises these men and women as being the gender they are, eliminates the problem of trans women having an unfair advantage over other women and provides a platform for trans men to compete in sport when otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s NOT glaringly obvious though, and that’s the problem. As you’re rightly suggesting, Bolt dominated in the events he competed in during his career. There was no suggestion that he should lower his testosterone levels in order to make the competition fair to all competitors. There were plenty of accusations and speculation throughout his career - Is Usain Bolt on Steroids?.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but, are you suggesting that if - in some parallel universe - Usain Bolt transitioned to become a female, and wanted to participate in the 100m dash, that he wouldn't dominate the female line-up?

If that is your position, I find it nothing short of shocking.

JamesFlynn

This topic is reaching traditional media now and the complexities are being considered - there's a good article in today's I.T.:

Irish Times: Issue of transgender athletes sees rights on safety and inclusion collide

So I think we've finally turned the corner on this - I'm hopeful now common sense will prevail.

The vast majority look at the Laurel Hubbard situation and see it as simply unjust.

And it might prompt them to consider the other areas of trans ideology and how it impacts women's rights.

Just as most look back now with horror at how women were treated by church ideology back in "good old Catholic Ireland",

We will look back at this current trans ideology in thirty years time and wonder how on earth we thought it ok to treat women this way.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't want to put words in your mouth but, are you suggesting that if - in some parallel universe - Usain Bolt transitioned to become a female, and wanted to participate in the 100m dash, that he wouldn't dominate the female line-up?

If that is your position, I find it nothing short of shocking.

I’m saying that there’s simply no way to know any outcome for certain. I don’t know that he would, and I don’t know that he wouldn’t. You’re changing one criteria which suits your argument and not expecting that other criteria wouldn’t also be different. In this universe at least, there are numerous factors as to what determines fairness for all athletes, and it’s not as simple as one criteria which suits your argument -

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies


Results

In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based.

Conclusion

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.


In a parallel universe, transgender Bolt might well figure “fcuk this craic, I’d rather party like it’s 1999”


Bolt had incredible natural talent, but he was also his worst enemy. His coach Pablo McNeil was frustrated by his laid-back behavior, as he used to be more interested in partying and eating fast-food than training in his youth.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Elite athletes have characteristics or traits which enables them to do what they do, and combined with training they are just able to do it much better, to the degree that they do actually dominate the sport, whichever events they participate in....

The point is that it isn’t just training, or one single characteristic that gives an athlete an advantage over their competitors. It’s a whole combination of factors. Having gone through puberty in and of itself doesn’t confer any advantage on an athlete over another in any given event.

You can draw correlations and suggest that’s what gives an athlete or athletes an advantage over their competitors, which is what you’re doing when you’re suggesting that if Usain Bolt were to lower his testosterone levels (I don’t know what his testosterone levels are), that he would STILL dominate in the women’s events, as if testosterone levels are the most influential factor in athletic or sporting ability. There’s just no way to know the outcome for certain of what you’re suggesting, and all anyone can do is speculate as to any potential outcomes and rationalise afterwards how it is possible that an athlete is able to achieve what they do, like this article does for example -

From 2017, and just looking at 100m.

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/

Over 124 boys were faster than the fastest elite woman.
2474 men outperformed the fastest elite woman
10,009 times the fastest elite womans time was beaten by a male.

Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys. (Yes, that’s the right number of zeros.)

All these have one variable in common.
Males v females.

No matter your feminist tendencies and desire for equality, the simple fact is females can't compete (and this isn't a misogynistic post- it's the opposite) athletically with males.

Males should not be competing against females. Its a fact.
We'll look back on these years in embarrassment.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m saying that there’s simply no way to know any outcome for certain. I don’t know that he would, and I don’t know that he wouldn’t.

You’re changing one criteria which suits your argument and not expecting that other criteria wouldn’t also be different. In this universe at least, there are numerous factors as to what determines fairness for all athletes, and it’s not as simple as one criteria which suits your argument -

This is why I've come to the conclusion that arguing about the gender question is the equivalent of debating a flat Earther or a Young Earth Creationist. They always have inventive, creative ways to sneak out of an argument, often by throwing what they call 'evidence' in your face and barking: how do you answer that!!

Okay, so the Usain Bolt example doesn't cut the mustard with you.

Fine.

How about Oleksii Novikov - winner of the World's Strongest Man, 2020.

Are you seriously going to point to those studies, many of which are about as reliable as studies commissioned by supplement companies to demonstrate the efficacy of supplements, to show that - even if Oleksii Novikov, a human tank by any other measure, reduced his testosterone levels, he may not beat an equivalent women's division?

According to you, we cannot know anything, so let's just go with it, right?

I cannot believe debating standards have sunk so low.

Usain Bolt would dominate. Oleksii Novikov would dominate. Most minor professional male tennis players can thrash the top women players. The list goes on.

But you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

One eyed Jack

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

All these have one variable in common.
Males v females.

I’m not disputing the performance differences between males and females in specific events though? None of those performances include transgender athletes either. I mean, the first thing surely in any comparison is to compare like with like, and you’re not comparing like with like when you’re posting performance differences between males and females rather than performances of transgender athletes who are not the same as males and females who aren’t transgender. It’s the same as the Usain Bolt in a parallel universe stuff - theoretical argument based upon criteria which you’ve already determined to be fact.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

No matter your feminist tendencies and desire for equality, the simple fact is females can't compete (and this isn't a misogynistic post- it's the opposite) athletically with males.

Males should not be competing against females. Its a fact.
We'll look back on these years in embarrassment.

Is it possible to have a discussion without these stupid labels being thrown about as if they carry any weight whatsoever? I have fcukall in the way of feminist tendencies or a desire for equality or any of the rest of it, I don’t subscribe to either philosophy, but if I may ask you a quick question seeing as Western society evolved from a point where women were regarded as inferior to men and the effects it had on society, until women were regarded as being equals to men in terms of employment and education and so on… how long do you imagine sporting organisations can keep up the pretence of segregated sports under the guise that it’s in order to be fair to women who just wouldn’t be able to compete with men?

I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be organisations where anyone who wants can set their own criteria, they’ve done it with the “special” Olympics (it’s an example, one that I despise for how patronising it is, but that’s another thread), and there’s the Transplant Games, much like the way people have suggested a competition solely for people who are transgender, but people who are transgender don’t appear to want to participate in a separate competition, they want to compete in the Olympics, or whatever other competitions where they want to compete in. That’s why simply telling them as much as “Organise your own games, this is our games”, while maintaining the pretence of a philosophy which claims to be all about inclusion without discrimination and educating youth and all that good stuff, is being challenged to live up to their philosophy -


The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

Olympic Solidarity


It would be like the UN suggesting that the concept of Universal Human Rights only applies to certain people.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not disputing the performance differences between males and females in specific events though? None of those performances include transgender athletes either. I mean, the first thing surely in any comparison is to compare like with like, and you’re not comparing like with like when you’re posting performance differences between males and females rather than performances of transgender athletes who are not the same as males and females who aren’t transgender. It’s the same as the Usain Bolt in a parallel universe stuff - theoretical argument based upon criteria which you’ve already determined to be fact.

Is it possible to have a discussion without these stupid labels being thrown about as if they carry any weight whatsoever? I have fcukall in the way of feminist tendencies or a desire for equality or any of the rest of it, I don’t subscribe to either philosophy, but if I may ask you a quick question seeing as Western society evolved from a point where women were regarded as inferior to men and the effects it had on society, until women were regarded as being equals to men in terms of employment and education and so on… how long do you imagine sporting organisations can keep up the pretence of segregated sports under the guise that it’s in order to be fair to women who just wouldn’t be able to compete with men?

I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be organisations where anyone who wants can set their own criteria, they’ve done it with the “special” Olympics (it’s an example, one that I despise for how patronising it is, but that’s another thread), and there’s the Transplant Games, much like the way people have suggested a competition solely for people who are transgender, but people who are transgender don’t appear to want to participate in a separate competition, they want to compete in the Olympics, or whatever other competitions where they want to compete in. That’s why simply telling them as much as “Organise your own games, this is our games”, while maintaining the pretence of a philosophy which claims to be all about inclusion without discrimination and educating youth and all that good stuff, is being challenged to live up to their philosophy -


The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

Olympic Solidarity

It would be like the UN suggesting that the concept of Universal Human Rights only applies to certain people.

Apologies if you thought the reference to feminism was directed at you- it wasn't, it was to anyone potentially offended by the next comment that females are not the athletic equal of males. Its a fact.

Focusing on testosterone is attempting to have some analytical metric or bar to conform to.
IMO it's wrong, as it doesn't have regard to the other muscularskeletal and physiological advantages males enjoy. But it seems to be the only metric they have. Maybe it's a mitochondrial or chromosomal test that's needed.

The best female athletes are at a juvenile male standard. The best transfemale athletes are starting to dominate certain female events. There does not appear to be the same impact with trans males on male events.

Are you arguing in the interest of equality, there should be mixed events?
Surely not

One eyed Jack

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Are you arguing in the interest of equality, there should be mixed events?
Surely not

I’m not suggesting that there should be mixed events, though that would be the logical conclusion of my argument that the barriers which are currently in place to exclude athletes from competing in the events which they are eligible to compete in, should be removed.

Basically where posters here are arguing that men shouldn’t be permitted to compete against women (as if they would realistically actually want to, and that’s a fact too given that the amount of men historically who have tried to cheat to compete in women’s sports I can count them on one hand), I’m suggesting that their gender or their sex shouldn’t be the determining criteria, and that testosterone levels aren’t a very reliable criteria either.

That’s why the whole “let’s cripple Usain Bolt and see what happens” stuff is impossible to answer, because even demanding that athletes with Usain Bolts ability be crippled, couldn’t determine the effects the drugs would have on them as a person or on their performance, not to mention how it would be unethical to do so which is why it’s bizarre to me that they thought it was acceptable to even suggest it to Caster Semenya.

They do appear to be at least trying to determine a balance in the interests of fairness, which is what I’m interested in (as opposed to equality), and it will undoubtedly take time and there will undoubtedly be exceptional cases which come to public attention like the cases of Semenya and Hubbard, attention which has for the most part been negative, and the effects that has on their mental health.

I don’t see the way they’re perceived as being fair, when arguments against their participation are predicated upon the assumption that it would be a free-for-all for anyone who wants to cheat, like an athlete of Usain Bolts ability claiming to be transgender, competing in the women’s events, and then “detransitioning”, like it’s actually that simple. That’s Daily Mail standard of perpetuating FUD, paranoia and prejudice - “What’s to stop them doing so and so…”, is the very thing that stops them from even considering a career in sport in the first place.

suicide_circus

Any of the atrocities you care to mention which occurred in Ireland over the last 100 years were done with the full approval of the relevant authorities.

The IOC giving this the go ahead in no way validates it as morally or ethically correct.

bewareofthedog

eskimohunt wrote: »

But you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

I don't even think right and wrong comes into it anymore. It's too far gone off the crazy train at this point for minor things like morality to matter.

A biological male is competing against women in a "who can lift the heaviest" competition.

Seems a little unfair.

screamer

If that’s the way it’s going I think there’ll be a loss of interest in women’s sports (poorly supported as they currently are) because if the winner is a foregone conclusion, who’d be bothered to do all that training, and putting in all the effort when they haven’t a hope in hell of winning. We need to think why is there the segregation into men’s and women’s sports in the first place, and transgenderism doesn’t make those criteria invalid. The sport will suffer so the participants can participate.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

If that’s the way it’s going I think there’ll be a loss of interest in women’s sports (poorly supported as they currently are) because if the winner is a foregone conclusion, who’d be bothered to do all that training, and putting in all the effort when they haven’t a hope in hell of winning. We need to think why is there the segregation into men’s and women’s sports in the first place, and transgenderism doesn’t make those criteria invalid. The sport will suffer so the participants can participate.

Women will just organise their own Olympics.

Again.

Annasopra

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't agree that controlling language gives someone the power to mould reality to what suits them. But it's absolutely the case that the constructionists buy into this Foucauldian idea of language as a key to power, and that for the academic types, deconstructing and reconstructing language in such a way that power is place firmly in their hands is certainly at the top of the goals list, just as it has been in every Marxist/communist/Nazi movement in history.

They seem simply incapable of learning the glaringly obvious lesson that the only result there can ever be is murderous authoritarianism that must repeatedly and brutally work to contain the reality that refuses to be bridled by language. Concentration camps, death squads and gulags are all a direct and unavoidable result of Foucauldian/Marxist/identitarian thought (and the "useful idiots" who are drawn into it, when their good nature is preyed upon).

Ho hum.

Hahaha

Basically transgenderism is all a marxist mind controlling plot. This stuff just gets funnier.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Women will just organise their own Olympics.

Again.

Megan Rapinoe as President?


Not on brand! Liberal soccer star Megan Rapinoe under fire for 'Asian eyes' tweet about ex-teammate one day after being named face of newly woke Victoria's Secret


Certainly puts their attempt to humiliate Thailand in the Women’s World Cup in a whole different light, and answers the question as to why people who have more class would want to compete in spite of overwhelming odds against them.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Hahaha

Basically transgenderism is all a marxist mind controlling plot. This stuff just gets funnier.

There is no mind-controlling plot, in that those supposedly in charge of most things political are generally incompetent egotistical show ponies.

But if you try to insist that gender theory ideology is NOT part of a wider nexus of postmodern thought that has been inculcated over several decades in the US academic institutions, spread insidiously through institutional capture and exported round the world along with enslaving global corporatism which pretends to love people and human rights, then I am afraid you are ill-equipped to truly understand its reality.

Happy thoughts for the day

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not suggesting that there should be mixed events, though that would be the logical conclusion of my argument that the barriers which are currently in place to exclude athletes from competing in the events which they are eligible to compete in, should be removed.

Basically where posters here are arguing that men shouldn’t be permitted to compete against women (as if they would realistically actually want to, and that’s a fact too given that the amount of men historically who have tried to cheat to compete in women’s sports I can count them on one hand), I’m suggesting that their gender or their sex shouldn’t be the determining criteria, and that testosterone levels aren’t a very reliable criteria either.

That’s why the whole “let’s cripple Usain Bolt and see what happens” stuff is impossible to answer, because even demanding that athletes with Usain Bolts ability be crippled, couldn’t determine the effects the drugs would have on them as a person or on their performance, not to mention how it would be unethical to do so which is why it’s bizarre to me that they thought it was acceptable to even suggest it to Caster Semenya.

They do appear to be at least trying to determine a balance in the interests of fairness, which is what I’m interested in (as opposed to equality), and it will undoubtedly take time and there will undoubtedly be exceptional cases which come to public attention like the cases of Semenya and Hubbard, attention which has for the most part been negative, and the effects that has on their mental health.

I don’t see the way they’re perceived as being fair, when arguments against their participation are predicated upon the assumption that it would be a free-for-all for anyone who wants to cheat, like an athlete of Usain Bolts ability claiming to be transgender, competing in the women’s events, and then “detransitioning”, like it’s actually that simple. That’s Daily Mail standard of perpetuating FUD, paranoia and prejudice - “What’s to stop them doing so and so…”, is the very thing that stops them from even considering a career in sport in the first place.

While the whole Usain Bolt thing is a bit of a red herring, although something similar has actually happened in this Hubbard case.

Male, transitions in 2012, competes (as female) in international weightlifting for first time in 2017 and wins gold in 2017 Australian International & Australian Open, setting four national records during her performance...



But fair should be fair. Not more fair to some, less fair to others.

I don't blame her, or think she's deliberatky cheating. I blame the rules that would see such unfairness tolerated. She's unlikely to medal, but I hope she does, and expose the whole sham.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Hahaha

Basically transgenderism is all a marxist mind controlling plot. This stuff just gets funnier.

Are you feeling okay?

Is this really where you're at? Having to intentionally misinterpret people's posts in the most obviously bad-faith way in order to try and dismiss them?

Bless your heart.

Podge_irl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if I may ask you a quick question seeing as Western society evolved from a point where women were regarded as inferior to men and the effects it had on society, until women were regarded as being equals to men in terms of employment and education and so on… how long do you imagine sporting organisations can keep up the pretence of segregated sports under the guise that it’s in order to be fair to women who just wouldn’t be able to compete with men?

Women can't compete with men athletically. It is not because of the patriarchy, it is because of biology.