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

One eyed Jack

Podge_irl wrote: »

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

It’s because of the rules which don’t allow them to compete, because of ideas in society which also have feckall to do with biology. Nature didn’t devise or develop sports or sports competitions or events or organise governing bodies. People did. Your argument isn’t even a technicality.

I didn’t say anything about “the patriarchy” btw, I was referring to the prevailing attitude in Western society that considered women biologically inferior to men (supporting prevailing attitudes in society held by both men and women at the time), and arranged social standards on that premise. It wasn’t as a consequence of “the patriarchy” that these ideas were perpetuated, it was because of bad science influenced by politics which influenced and led to bad social policies, including trying to keep women out of sports.

It’s why when Cymro mentioned that women would have to organise their own sports again, I pointed to the example of how the US team had attempted to humiliate the Thailand team in the Women’s World Cup, and how it would be a futile exercise to suggest that women should organise their own sports - Cymro was of course basing their judgement around their own standards, overlooking the fact that it’s clear that women are not of a hive mind.

Charisma Amoe-Tarrant, Laurel Hubbards competition from Australia, supports their participation in the competition. It would simply be an egregious oversight to assume that all women agree with the decision to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports and events.

Podge_irl

I don't consider women biologically inferior.

They are, however, athletically slower, smaller and weaker. This is a simple fact.

Is your theory that if we removed segregation and and allowed men and women to compete together with equal support that somehow this would result in women coming up to the same level and being able to be competitive? Cause that's fantasy.

Galwayguy35

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because of the rules which don’t allow them to compete, because of ideas in society which also have feckall to do with biology. Nature didn’t devise or develop sports or sports competitions or events or organise governing bodies. People did. Your argument isn’t even a technicality.

I didn’t say anything about “the patriarchy” btw, I was referring to the prevailing attitude in Western society that considered women biologically inferior to men (supporting prevailing attitudes in society held by both men and women at the time), and arranged social standards on that premise. It wasn’t as a consequence of “the patriarchy” that these ideas were perpetuated, it was because of bad science influenced by politics which influenced and led to bad social policies, including trying to keep women out of sports.

It’s why when Cymro mentioned that women would have to organise their own sports again, I pointed to the example of how the US team had attempted to humiliate the Thailand team in the Women’s World Cup, and how it would be a futile exercise to suggest that women should organise their own sports - Cymro was of course basing their judgement around their own standards, overlooking the fact that it’s clear that women are not of a hive mind.

Charisma Amoe-Tarrant, Laurel Hubbards competition from Australia, supports their participation in the competition. It would simply be an egregious oversight to assume that all women agree with the decision to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports and events.

Hubbard is about 6 feet tall and built like a tank, its not even up for debate that no woman has a chance to win in competition and the Aussie competitor is just being PC saying she is in favour of this person being included.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because of the rules which don’t allow them to compete, because of ideas in society which also have feckall to do with biology. Nature didn’t devise or develop sports or sports competitions or events or organise governing bodies. People did. Your argument isn’t even a technicality.

I didn’t say anything about “the patriarchy” btw, I was referring to the prevailing attitude in Western society that considered women biologically inferior to men (supporting prevailing attitudes in society held by both men and women at the time), and arranged social standards on that premise. It wasn’t as a consequence of “the patriarchy” that these ideas were perpetuated, it was because of bad science influenced by politics which influenced and led to bad social policies, including trying to keep women out of sports.

It’s why when Cymro mentioned that women would have to organise their own sports again, I pointed to the example of how the US team had attempted to humiliate the Thailand team in the Women’s World Cup, and how it would be a futile exercise to suggest that women should organise their own sports - Cymro was of course basing their judgement around their own standards, overlooking the fact that it’s clear that women are not of a hive mind.

Charisma Amoe-Tarrant, Laurel Hubbards competition from Australia, supports their participation in the It would simply be an egregious oversight to assume that all women agree with the decision to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports and events.

Ah Jack.

The rules of a game are devised and codified, then teams and competitions are arranged around age, sex etc.

There's a reason men don't play women in sports. It's not a coincidence men play men.

You mention "bad social policies...trying to keep women out of sports"
We're repeating mistake with this, to the detriment of women again.

Driving women out of sports, when instead we should do all we can to encourage girls into sports, correct years of neglect.
If this isn't corrected, why bother playing a sport, when a biological male could literally batter you senseless.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hubbard is about 6 feet tall and built like a tank, its not even up for debate that no woman has a chance to win in competition and the Aussie competitor is just being PC saying she is in favour of this person being included.

I think she's ranked 17th?
Unlikely to medal, but she's taken the spot of a girl who has trained all their life for this.

Podge_irl

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hubbard is about 6 feet tall and built like a tank, its not even up for debate that no woman has a chance to win in competition and the Aussie competitor is just being PC saying she is in favour of this person being included.

Hubbard is not that likely to win. Because she spent most of her life as an incredible mediocre weightlifter and is well past her prime. This sudden late career "resurgence" is the issue.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because of the rules which don’t allow them to compete, because of ideas in society which also have feckall to do with biology. Nature didn’t devise or develop sports or sports competitions or events or organise governing bodies. People did. Your argument isn’t even a technicality.

I didn’t say anything about “the patriarchy” btw, I was referring to the prevailing attitude in Western society that considered women biologically inferior to men (supporting prevailing attitudes in society held by both men and women at the time), and arranged social standards on that premise. It wasn’t as a consequence of “the patriarchy” that these ideas were perpetuated, it was because of bad science influenced by politics which influenced and led to bad social policies, including trying to keep women out of sports.

It’s why when Cymro mentioned that women would have to organise their own sports again, I pointed to the example of how the US team had attempted to humiliate the Thailand team in the Women’s World Cup, and how it would be a futile exercise to suggest that women should organise their own sports - Cymro was of course basing their judgement around their own standards, overlooking the fact that it’s clear that women are not of a hive mind.

Charisma Amoe-Tarrant, Laurel Hubbards competition from Australia, supports their participation in the competition. It would simply be an egregious oversight to assume that all women agree with the decision to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports and events.

Jack, with all due respect - you're talking out of your hole at this point. If sports were never segregated then somehow - you don't mention how - women would be able to compete successfully with men?

Yes, Hubbard is a stout middle aged person who is carrying injuries. They are not that great, and just happen to be generally better than elite female athletes due to their male biology.
It is not likely that they will win - which will also be thrown back as a told you so.


I believe that this parade will go ahead, and in a more sensible time results will be adjusted to accommodate the truth of the sexed categories and outcomes.


As it happens it looks like the Tripartite Commission have exercised their right to invite and have invited Kuinini Manumua to participate in the Olympics. Nini Manumua is the female contender who would have gone to the Olympics on merit had Hubbard not bumped her out of contention. The Tripartite invitation can be extended to countries/regions with low numbers of delegates - in this case Tonga, Oceania. So Kuinini will go now, although it seems to be a bit of a convenient sop as a response to fairly widespread condemnation of the incoherency of Hubbard claiming a place as an Olympian in the female category.

Yeah_Right

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure what this has to do with trans women competing against women.



So Megan Rapinoe tweeted a reply to a team mate 10 years ago that might be a bit racist but we don't know what she was replying to. What does this have to do with trans women athletes?

The US team kick the crap out of Thailand at women's world cup and people say they humiliated and disrespected them. That's pretty sexist. I don't remember anyone saying that about the All Blacks when they put 100 plus points on Japan, Italy or Tonga in rugby. Is it ok for males athletes humiliate opponents but not for female athletes to do the same? Is that why you want to abolish gender segregation in sport so that more women will be humiliated in defeat?

One eyed Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm not sure what this has to do with trans women competing against women.

So Megan Rapinoe tweeted a reply to a team mate 10 years ago that might be a bit racist but we don't know what she was replying to. What does this have to do with trans women athletes?

It was a tongue-in-cheek response to Cymro’s idea of women organising sports competitions for themselves. The point I was making is that while Megan Rapinoe would be qualified to be President of the organisation, she would want to implement policies that support transgender athletes in women’s sports. The point being I don’t think Cymro thought their point through is all.

One eyed Jack

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't consider women biologically inferior.

Just to be absolutely clear - I know you don’t, I didn’t accuse you of thinking any such thing either.

Podge_irl wrote: »

They are, however, athletically slower, smaller and weaker. This is a simple fact.

And I’m not disputing that generally speaking, yes, women are athletically slower, smaller and weaker than men. So are other women slower, smaller and weaker than other women, and other men are slower, smaller nad weaker than other men. The argument that anyone is slower, smaller and weaker than anyone else as a reason to exclude others from competing, just isn’t a very compelling one. Otherwise, using that reasoning, one would be justified in arguing that individual events are the way to go so so everyone wins their own event and gets a rubber medal, because we couldn’t have anyone losing out to anyone else… I know that’s definitely not what you’re suggesting, but it’s the logical conclusion of the whole “someone is denied a place, other competitors will lose out”, as if anyone is automatically entitled to the win.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Is your theory that if we removed segregation and and allowed men and women to compete together with equal support that somehow this would result in women coming up to the same level and being able to be competitive? Cause that's fantasy.

No. It’s my theory that if the sex and gender barriers are removed, then it opens opportunities for athletes who wouldn’t normally get to compete in the events they wish to compete in, and before you argue that women would “lose out”, they already do! It’s also a fact that some people would not consider a career in sports because they don’t wish to compete against women or against men or against people who are transgender, or any of the infinite number of reasons as to why they don’t want to compete because others are competing, as though those other people who are competing should be banned from the sport so they can compete. There’s nothing to prevent them competing the same as every other athlete. They’re not entitled to an automatic win, no athlete is entitled to that, much as some people imagine they are, they’re dreaming.

Tilden Katz

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.

Well, who knows? The other group greatly affected by all this has been pretty vocal despite being at risk of being disparaged so that’s no excuse really. If you don’t speak up, you leave a void there.

bfa1509

I'm amazed at the amount of people in this thread standing up for Hubbard and supporting transgender competitors in female competitions.

I'd like to know what you think of things the competitors have been saying. For example:

Belgian weightlifting competitor Ana Van Bellinghen: "It's like a bad joke"
Or what fellow New Zealand competitor Tracey Lambrechs said regarding how the concerns of female competitors "were being ignored".

Are these women homophobic/transphobic for having these views? Should they be sanctioned, disqualified from the Olympics or 'cancelled'?

y0ssar1an22

TBH i hope they win gold, and michael johnson comes out of retirement as a female to try to break more records.

maybe a 16 year old could break flo jo's record?

JamesFlynn

Thanks for all the great responses, Jack.

At this point however your position is about as tenable as a Slovakian Marxist in 1989. You’ve believed in an ideology for so long you can’t see the sands shift beneath your feet. It’s over - nobody can believe it any more.

Laurel Hubbard taking a woman’s olympic medal in weight-lifting? Barbie Kardashian accessing our daughter’s changing rooms just because she says so? Aimee Challenor censoring what we can post online? Fallon Fox fracturing a woman’s skull? No thank you.

We see you.

There were "bitter-enders" in Eastern Europe too, until everyone went over the wall.

The wall is falling.

JamesFlynn

JamesFlynn wrote: »

The wall is falling.

You mean the “anti fascist protection rampart”, surely.

Will I Am Not

Why don’t they just get rid of weight divisions in boxing while they’re at it? We could have 16 stone men punching 8 stone teenagers. Maybe scrap the age groups in underage soccer and GAA? We could have 17 year olds slide tackling and shoulder barging 6 year olds. Sure the argument that they are faster, bigger and stronger shouldn’t stop them from competing.

Gentlemanne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Not sure you should be condescending like this when you conflate Marxism, Communism and Nazism.. And also Marxism is like Identitariasm and it's also Foucaldian.

Everything I don't like is the same!
How much Marx or Foucault have you read? Or is it just that you're very vaguely familiar with them?

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Not sure you should be condescending like this when you conflate Marxism, Communism and Nazism.. And also Marxism is like Identitariasm and it's also Foucaldian.

Everything I don't like is the same!
How much Marx or Foucault have you read? Or is it just that you're very vaguely familiar with them?

I didn’t conflate, I related, and if you don’t understand the connections I suggest study. I don’t have time to educate you.

And I read enough Marx and Foucault to earn a first class degree. Sorry if you were looking for postgrad.

Rothko

Annasopra wrote: »

Hahaha

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

You appear to have a problem with women....

Mules

How is this allowed? It's obvious that transgender women have an advantage. I'd imagine if female athletes took some sort of case against the IOC, they'd win. Or a boycott.

Tilden Katz

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Why don’t they just get rid of weight divisions in boxing while they’re at it? We could have 16 stone men punching 8 stone teenagers. Maybe scrap the age groups in underage soccer and GAA? We could have 17 year olds slide tackling and shoulder barging 6 year olds. Sure the argument that they are faster, bigger and stronger shouldn’t stop them from competing.

Well indeed. The people making out that removing sex segregation in no biggie are completely ignoring that there is intra-sex sporting segregation too. Separation by age group, size, etc.

suicide_circus

Usually a thread of this sort would have a more even split, pro and con. However in this case, the issue is so glaringly obvious that people willing argue for the pro side are few and far between.

One eyed Jack

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Well indeed. The people making out that removing sex segregation in no biggie are completely ignoring that there is intra-sex sporting segregation too. Separation by age group, size, etc.

I don’t think anyone is ignoring it, they’re just not arguing for it, and it’s disingenuous to argue as though they are and portray the issue as a slippery slope argument like was done with the marriage equality referendum where people argued things like “sure if they want marriage equality, then I can marry my horse, what if I want to marry my horse, eh? Eh?”

Same as “Why don’t they do this and that and the other while they’re at it?” Because that’s not what anyone is suggesting, is why. It’s an attempt to portray what they are arguing for, as unreasonable in the extreme. I don’t see why anyone should be required to make, or defend, arguments for something else entirely on the basis of the issue that they are arguing for.

Claims of ignoring anything are akin to it being suggesting that anyone arguing against the idea on the basis of women’s safety, fairness to women, girls being used as punching bags by grown men who purposely wish to cause injury or harm… y’know, why aren’t they concerned about the abuse of girls and women which already goes on in women’s sports? Why aren’t they concerned about all the athletes that don’t qualify or finish in medal positions already? They’re ignoring the hundreds of thousands of athletes who already don’t qualify or don’t win, they’re not concerned that those athletes “can’t compete”, as if anyone is suggesting that removing a criteria means they want to force anyone into direct competition with others or force people to risk injury or even force people out of medal opportunities.

That’s not what anyone has argued.

SnuggyBear

This reminds me of the ringer film. What a messed up world we live in and it's only going to get worse.

endacl

Mules wrote: »

How is this allowed? It's obvious that transgender women have an advantage. I'd imagine if female athletes took some sort of case against the IOC, they'd win. Or a boycott.

Possibly. They’d have to deal with Twitter then though.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not entitled to an automatic win, no athlete is entitled to that, much as some people imagine they are, they’re dreaming.

Sure why have boxing weightclass then?
Why have age segregation? Why cant a woman play on the under 8's Home Farm team?

The reason for the segregation in competition sports is for a way to find the elite children, the elite men and the elite women. The elite men will undoubtedly (in the vast majority of sports) be better than the elite women and therefore combining the categories will result in women finishing far far down the line.

Women's sport deserves more than that.

Edit* ignore my post. I can see my exact point was made by a lot of others.

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure why have boxing weightclass then?
Why have age segregation? Why cant a woman play on the under 8's Home Farm team?

The reason for the segregation in competition sports is for a way to find the elite children, the elite men and the elite women. The elite men will undoubtedly (in the vast majority of sports) be better than the elite women and therefore combining the categories will result in women finishing far far down the line.

Women's sport deserves more than that.

Edit* ignore my post. I can see my exact point was made by a lot of others.

There shouldn’t even be an U8’s Home Farm team. There’s nothing stopping those 7 year olds from playing in the League of Ireland Premier Division.

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

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

You have an issue with casually referring to somebody as a women?
I don’t believe you are being genuine there.

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

Legally, she is a transgender woman. That’s literally what transwomen is short for.

As arguing against that is not a battle anyone is going to win. Which is why I suggested the breeches requirements.

There are women and there are transwomen and the two are totally different things. Thinkk Grape vs Grapefruit.

Grape and grapefruit. Both different. Both fruit.

And regulating for strength when trying to determine who is the strongest would seem bizarre and not much of a spectacle....?

I take it you’re not much of a sports/weightlifting fan.

Almost every strength sport, including weight lifting, regulate for strength. Otherwise there only be one event in the olympics.

suicide_circus

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Everything I don't like is the same!
How much Marx or Foucault have you read? Or is it just that you're very vaguely familiar with them?

I never read Mein Kampf either but i'm pretty sure it's a load of bollox!