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

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 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.

They meet the testosterone levels requirement for transgender women.
The do not meet the requirements that other athletes have to meet in order to enter these competitions.

I’ve already clarified how it would do so - because more women simply wouldn’t meet the criteria for eligibility.

Women lose there eligibility all the time. An American weightlifter was banned last month because they had hormone treatments last year.

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.

Nothing I said was about eligibility vrs participation. That was somebody else.
I’m saying that exogenous hormones are banned for athletes. If another person took them, they be excluded from competing. It’s a double standard.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I think the main motivation most would have for arguing against Hubbard 'inclusion' is that nobody wants to watch or hear of a sport where one athlete has a distinct advance. It's not far away from cheating. As I think I mentioned to you before, every sport has it's constant little controversies and they are more often than not to do with fairness. Particularly in football related to the refs decision...it's not fair if the ref awarded a penalty or a red card for example.

I couldn't care less about the athletes. I'm not a virtue signaller pretending about to care about people I don't even know, like lefty's feigning concern and empathy for migrants and refuges and minorities and 3rd world Africans. It's all just a load of virtue signalling. Nobody could possibly care that much, I don't know how anyone could live a normal life if they held that much empathy. Their real motivation is trying to affect policy for their own political reasons. People who have real empathy go out to Africa and do some work voluntarily.

All I care about in any discussion on this forum is what ones point is on the topic. I'm not the type to say '...oh look at the usual suspects here..'. I cant bear that kind of commentary and I think it should be if not banned at least frowned up. It's not really a point and I'm wasting my time reading such stuff.

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?

No clue about it for a start and I'm not concerned about 'women' per se. I don't get the latter, there's usually only 1 or 3 winners if you call silver and bronze a winner. If one doesn't get a medal then it's because their not good enough to win a medal. What's concerning out that, that's as it should be.


Your point has always been about participation, not winning. Well, how about this. In the case one has legally changed their gender sporting governing bodies change the rules to allow transgender women to participant in male sports instead of this nonsense testosterone thing which is a bit of a farce imo. There, problem solved. Participate away. It would be quite something if they would object on the basis that the cis men would have an advantage over them in that scenario : )


============================================


Speaking of testosterone there is something I don't get about and well, I'll make an analogy to body builders:

Bbr's success is 99.9% down to the size of their muscles. So it's all down to how hard they work out in the gym rather than mastering a skill, although there is some skill to lifting. Even recreational bb's of which their are many these days do everything they can do get as big and strong as possible. This includes eating properly (body is built in the kitchen as they say, which is true) AND they get their testosterone levels checked out. It is not uncommon for recreational bbr's to go to their GP and get their T levels checked and if they are below normal they can be prescribed some corrective medication. I had it done once and was disappointed they were normal because there's wasn't anything wrong you could fix to get better gym results. One has be kinda obsessive about these things you see if you desire better than mediocre results...

But in the case of a trans-women athletes they have to (some) do 2 things which directly work against each other. They train as hard as they can to make themselves stronger but then take medication to lowertheir testosterone not raise is, which makes them weaker than they could be. I don't know how anyone could train in those circumstances, it's like taking 1 step forward and 3 steps back. I'd find that a bit of a mind *ck and completely undoable if one were training for professional sports no mind recreationally.

Tilden Katz

I both amused and bemused at the suggestion that people opining on this topic don’t care about the abuse of women and girls in other sports. I can’t speak for everyone but I’ve was very interested in the Larry Nassar case and the treatment of athletes in gymnastics has bothered me for years. And ballet - an artform, not a sport but one with puts enormous pressure on its dancers to stay tiny. And swimming, where sexual abuse of minors has been a problem for years and years. And cycling, where doping almost seems to be a prerequisite or at least used to be. And indeed weightlifting. I very much care about all of these things. So people who think that people here don’t give a crap about any of the other problems in sports cannot possibly know what else we care about unless they live in our heads.

volchitsa

Mellor wrote: »

They meet the testosterone levels requirement for transgender women.
The do not meet the requirements that other athletes have to meet in order to enter these competitions.

Women lose there eligibility all the time. An American weightlifter was banned last month because they had hormone treatments last year.


Nothing I said was about eligibility vrs participation. That was somebody else.
I’m saying that exogenous hormones are banned for athletes. If another person took them, they be excluded from competing. It’s a double standard.

That happened a few years back too, a woman got treatment for a medical condition, PCOS, was banned for two years:

In a statement, Robles said the artificial DHEA was recommended by a doctor to treat hormone imbalance related to polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, a fairly common disorder.

Mellor

volchitsa wrote: »

That happened a few years back too, a woman got treatment for a medical condition, PCOS, was banned for two years:

Exactly. There are rules about taking drugs, particularly steroids and other hormones.
Many of these drugs have legitimate uses. But those uses make athletes ineligible.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

I think the main motivation most would have for arguing against Hubbard 'inclusion' is that nobody wants to watch or hear of a sport where one athlete has a distinct advance. It's not far away from cheating. As I think I mentioned to you before, every sport has it's constant little controversies and they are more often than not to do with fairness. Particularly in football related to the refs decision...it's not fair if the ref awarded a penalty or a red card for example.

And I’d take that as a fair point if there was a thread started in CA every time there was an instance of unfair play in football, but there isn’t. There IS a thread every time there’s a sniff of an opportunity to rag on people who are transgender. Your point is certainly ONE motivation, and a fair one if that’s all it was - an instance where there is foul play. But it’s so, so incredibly specific and so niche and so much people suddenly expressing concern where they never expressed concern before, as to be incredible to think it was just about unfairness or cheating or little controversies as you put it.

AllForIt wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the athletes. I'm not a virtue signaller pretending about to care about people I don't even know, like lefty's feigning concern and empathy for migrants and refuges and minorities and 3rd world Africans. It's all just a load of virtue signalling. Nobody could possibly care that much, I don't know how anyone could live a normal life if they held that much empathy. Their real motivation is trying to affect policy for their own political reasons. People who have real empathy go out to Africa and do some work voluntarily.

That could be said of anyone really in all fairness. I know you’re not a virtue signalling leftie, neither am I, but let’s not pretend the wider issues aren’t political, especially in the context of sports and it’s place in society. I haven’t been to Africa (was invited, all expenses paid, but had to turn it down), nor do I imagine everyone who does go to Africa has the entirely altruistic motivations you’re suggesting (that’s a whole other thread ).

AllForIt wrote: »

No clue about it for a start and I'm not concerned about 'women' per se. I don't get the latter, there's usually only 1 or 3 winners if you call silver and bronze a winner. If one doesn't get a medal then it's because their not good enough to win a medal. What's concerning out that, that's as it should be.

You’re not the only poster who missed the context of the post I was responding to, hell, even the poster who made the point about people ignoring other issues, is not only bemused and amused by their own point, they don’t appear to remember having opined on it and then later opining about how nobody can possibly know what else anyone cares about unless they live in those peoples heads -

Tilden Katz wrote: »

So people who think that people here don’t give a crap about any of the other problems in sports cannot possibly know what else we care about unless they live in our heads.

Confused? I am, but moving on

AllForIt wrote: »

Your point has always been about participation, not winning. Well, how about this. In the case one has legally changed their gender sporting governing bodies change the rules to allow transgender women to participant in male sports instead of this nonsense testosterone thing which is a bit of a farce imo. There, problem solved. Participate away. It would be quite something if they would object on the basis that the cis men would have an advantage over them in that scenario : )

Yes, my point has always been about participating in the competitions they wish to compete in (you appear to have missed that last bit). But if I may use an analogy - your point is like so many others that pretend to miss the point of people arguing for something. It’s akin to the less than helpful suggestions during the marriage equality referendum which suggested that people who are gay could get married already, they had the same rights as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s being disingenuous, not helpful, not clever. You’re aware that they are already permitted to compete in mens competitions, but that’s not what they want, any more than Chris Mosier wanted to compete in the women’s competitions. It’s precisely for this reason that Chris Mosier fought to have the IOC criteria changed.

AllForIt wrote: »

Speaking of testosterone there is something I don't get about and well, I'll make an analogy to body builders:

Bbr's success is 99.9% down to the size of their muscles. So it's all down to how hard they work out in the gym rather than mastering a skill, although there is some skill to lifting. Even recreational bb's of which their are many these days do everything they can do get as big and strong as possible. This includes eating properly (body is built in the kitchen as they say, which is true) AND they get their testosterone levels checked out. It is not uncommon for recreational bbr's to go to their GP and get their T levels checked and if they are below normal they can be prescribed some corrective medication. I had it done once and was disappointed they were normal because there's wasn't anything wrong you could fix to get better gym results. One has be kinda obsessive about these things you see if you desire better than mediocre results...

But in the case of a trans-women athletes they have to (some) do 2 things which directly work against each other. They train as hard as they can to make themselves stronger but then take medication to lowertheir testosterone not raise is, which makes them weaker than they could be. I don't know how anyone could train in those circumstances, it's like taking 1 step forward and 3 steps back. I'd find that a bit of a mind *ck and completely undoable if one were training for professional sports no mind recreationally.

It would take more time than I think it’s worth (it’s not as though it hasn’t occurred to me you’ll skip this post entirely already), to explain the complexities of body building and powerlifting and the effects of hormones (or absence or reduction) on the human body (both natural and synthetic), and while bodybuilding is only concerned with physical appearance, there’s the horrible irony that’s common in bodybuilding of testicular atrophy as a result of anabolic steroid use - too much T and a bodybuilder ends up with… small t’s :pac: It’s also a bit of a myth that bodybuilders aren’t incredibly strong, that their muscles are just for show (my brother and his girlfriend who were competitive bodybuilders looked like freaks of nature), but they actually are much stronger than average because they build muscle with resistance training and they sure as hell can lift! The reason they’re weaker at competition time is because they have to cut, so they can achieve competition physique.

In the case of transgender athletes on feminising hormones, I would imagine that they are just as obsessive and disciplined and are aware of the sacrifices and the consequences of their decisions, which would certainly explain why many of them didn’t choose to come out earlier in life and because they were late in life coming out, they’re not going to pass like someone who has been on cross-sex hormones since their late teens. There’s a trade-off there that I don’t think many people actually acknowledge, one that is becoming less and less stigmatised, and so we are absolutely likely to see much younger transgender athletes competing at the Olympics (the qualifying age is 16), and other competitions, so plenty of fodder for the Daily Mail yet who are likely rubbing their hands with glee at the money they’re going to make off “raising the public’s consciousness”, about people who are transgender.

endacl

If Hubbard is so more substantially heavy than the other competitors, it stands to reason the IOC should introduce a +130kg category in Ladies Weightlifting. She’d be the only competitor in the class, and the next lower category could be re-levelled.

Would save her the price of the flight. The medal could just be posted to NZ. Any biological woman who achieved this weight class would probably have a heart attack walking into the arena and wouldn’t be competing anyway.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I’d take that as a fair point if there was a thread started in CA every time there was an instance of unfair play in football, but there isn’t. There IS a thread every time there’s a sniff of an opportunity to rag on people who are transgender. Your point is certainly ONE motivation, and a fair one if that’s all it was - an instance where there is foul play. But it’s so, so incredibly specific and so niche and so much people suddenly expressing concern where they never expressed concern before, as to be incredible to think it was just about unfairness or cheating or little controversies as you put it.

To be fair Jack, this is a global story in an Olympic year, a nation has sent a biological male to compete in a womens event.

Lillyfae

endacl wrote: »

If Hubbard is so more substantially heavy than the other competitors, it stands to reason the IOC should introduce a +130kg category in Ladies Weightlifting. She’d be the only competitor in the class, and the next lower category could be re-levelled.

Would save her the price of the flight. The medal could just be posted to NZ. Any biological woman who achieved this weight class would probably have a heart attack walking into the arena and wouldn’t be competing anyway.

Very practical solution

Podge_irl

Lillyfae wrote: »

Very practical solution

Its not a practical solution. It would potentially solve this one particular case, but an androgenised individual at the same weight as a non-androgenised one will still have a massive advantage.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, my point has always been about participating in the competitions they wish to compete in (you appear to have missed that last bit). But if I may use an analogy - your point is like so many others that pretend to miss the point of people arguing for something. It’s akin to the less than helpful suggestions during the marriage equality referendum which suggested that people who are gay could get married already, they had the same rights as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s being disingenuous, not helpful, not clever. You’re aware that they are already permitted to compete in mens competitions, but that’s not what they want, any more than Chris Mosier wanted to compete in the women’s competitions. It’s precisely for this reason that Chris Mosier fought to have the IOC criteria changed.

Actually no I didn't miss it, I just didn't mention it. Obviously it's what they want and obviously you want it for them but I don't see how because it's what they want is enough reason to let them have it. And no you may not use the comparison with the gay ref silly argument because essentially transgender athletes would be competing, whereas gay men marrying women wouldn't get them any nookie which is the basis of personal unions.

Thinking of your ulterior movies for volunteering in Africa the same could be said for transgender m2f athletes. It's easy to see why one would want to compete with women rather than men, since it is a competition after all. If you look at weightlifting the athlete doesn't interact with their opponents at all. So what difference does it make who they compete with in that case. Well, the final result is one big difference. In Tennis you are interacting with an opponent and in of course all team sports.

But I already know your reply to that. All I'm saying is that it is easy to see why one would would want what they want and that there's noting necessarily inherently bad about that want. Just some people genuinely think it's unfair. I do, and I don't even read tabloids.

It would take more time than I think it’s worth (it’s not as though it hasn’t occurred to me you’ll skip this post entirely already), to explain the complexities of body building and powerlifting and the effects of hormones (or absence or reduction) on the human body (both natural and synthetic), and while bodybuilding is only concerned with physical appearance, there’s the horrible irony that’s common in bodybuilding of testicular atrophy as a result of anabolic steroid use - too much T and a bodybuilder ends up with… small t’s :pac: It’s also a bit of a myth that bodybuilders aren’t incredibly strong, that their muscles are just for show (my brother and his girlfriend who were competitive bodybuilders looked like freaks of nature), but they actually are much stronger than average because they build muscle with resistance training and they sure as hell can lift! The reason they’re weaker at competition time is because they have to cut, so they can achieve competition physique.

Skip your posts Jack? Never. I'm only here for your posts. Although there was an occasion I fully intended to get back to you but by the time I felt I'd tackle it the thread was closed. I did actually read those links your provided. You'll know what I'm talking about here when I say that I agree with the pheromones argument ,in that it's defiantly a thing, but it's still not conclusive that there is no more to that story. I hate the idea that I'm gay because of genes. If I were in a heated discussion with a religious zealot arguing over homosexuality I would never use the 'born this way' argument. I hate that idea because it infers that though genetic engineering or medicine we could be theoretically made extinct and if you believe in rights based on what people want then one would have the right to do it if they so choose. I don't see anything like that happening though, because you can't engineer anything unless your certain about what your engineering and there is no irrefutable evidence that higher than normal estrogen levels during pregnancy causes one to be transgender despite all the studies that have been done over decades. And those articles you linked to were't saying this is a possible explanation - they were saying this is the answer so case closed. No, I'm never going to go by by what a blogger writes.

But the reason I mentioned bodybuilding is because it's not much different to weightlifting essentially. The work is all done in the gym beforehand and unless you're ill you should be able to lift your max as you did the day before. Yeah I'm sure they know full well hormone reduction would make them less strong but would it make them less strong enough to come last or still do fairly well. All I was saying is that it's a bit of a head wrecker for me how someone who is involved in a competition where you are striving to be better than everyone else though training, at the same time takes medication which can only reduce their performance, the last thing they would want. Especially in weightlifting where it is all about pure strength.

little bit of help

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" Animal Farm

Hubbard doesn't want equality she wants preferential treatment.
She has the right to transition but the responsibility to not use it as an unfair advantage.

Challenging transpeople on their crappy behavior doesn't make you a transphobe. I think Hubbard is setting back the trans movement. Most transpeople just want to live their lives and be treated with respect and should be. Hubbard thinks this gives her a free pass on her behavior. It doesn't. What she wants isn't more important than being fair. And her competing against women isn't fair and no amount of wishing will ever make it fair.

volchitsa

Podge_irl wrote: »

Its not a practical solution. It would potentially solve this one particular case, but an androgenised individual at the same weight as a non-androgenised one will still have a massive advantage.

Out of curiosity though, what if the highest women’s weight classes were set at the same weight as men’s? How many women would there be to compete with a Laurel Hubbard? None? Or a dozen in the world?

Lillyfae

Podge_irl wrote: »

Its not a practical solution. It would potentially solve this one particular case, but an androgenised individual at the same weight as a non-androgenised one will still have a massive advantage.

It’s kicking the can down the weight category I agree, but it would solve this one case.

suicide_circus

little bit of help wrote: »

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" Animal Farm

Hubbard doesn't want equality she wants preferential treatment.
She has the right to transition but the responsibility to not use it as an unfair advantage.

Challenging transpeople on their crappy behavior doesn't make you a transphobe. I think Hubbard is setting back the trans movement. Most transpeople just want to live their lives and be treated with respect and should be. Hubbard thinks this gives her a free pass on her behavior. It doesn't. What she wants isn't more important than being fair. And her competing against women isn't fair and no amount of wishing will ever make it fair.

Interesting take, i dont think i've thought of it that way before.

Mellor

endacl wrote: »

If Hubbard is so more substantially heavy than the other competitors, it stands to reason the IOC should introduce a +130kg category in Ladies Weightlifting. She’d be the only competitor in the class, and the next lower category could be re-levelled.

Would save her the price of the flight. The medal could just be posted to NZ. Any biological woman who achieved this weight class would probably have a heart attack walking into the arena and wouldn’t be competing anyway.

Except Hubbard won’t be the biggest competitor. Let alone be substantially bigger.
The line about a heart attack is pretty disrespectful, but highlights how nobody took much notice of women’s weightlifting in previous years.

volchitsa wrote: »

Out of curiosity though, what if the highest women’s weight classes were set at the same weight as men’s? How many women would there be to compete with a Laurel Hubbard? None? Or a dozen in the world?

It would change little tbh. The vast majority of the top athletes are 109+kg (the men’s limit).

There are 1 or 2 at 100kg. But the rest are typically around 120kg. The heaviest are 140 - 150kg.

The weight isn’t the issue, could just as easily be a middleweight division .

Mellor

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.

The rules were not created by nature.
They were created by people because of nature.

To say the segregation of sexes in sport is not about biology is pretty hilarious.

TCM

Deleted User wrote:

What happens when a male to female boxer who transitioned at age 28 fights a cis gender woman?

There is no such thing as a 'cis' woman. A women is simply a woman.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

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

I dont have any issue with it, just like I dont have an issue with referring to someone as a transwoman.

Mellor wrote: »

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

Legally black people were once slaves, I wouldn't use the legal profession to define science/biology.

Mellor wrote: »

Grape and grapefruit. Both different. Both fruit.

Yep, man, woman, both humans.

Mellor wrote: »

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.

Don't they regulate by weight rather than strength?

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

Legally black people were once slaves,I wouldn't use the legal profession to define science/biology.

We aren’t talking about biology. Nobody is redefining biology. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are failing tbh.

Also, it wasn’t the legal professional to decided blacks were slaves. Nor have they decided that transgender is a thing.

But slavery was wrong and made progress. Not a great example to use tbh. Unless you’re saying that profess was wrong?

Yep, man, woman, both humans.

You just said one of them refereed to transgender women. Moving the definition a bit there.

Don't they regulate by weight rather than strength?

Weight divisions exist entirely because mass contributes to strength. The sole purpose of weight divisions is because lighter athletes have no chance in an open division. It is purely down to strength.
Not sure that was even brought up. Should be pretty obvious.

suicide_circus

https://qnews.com.au/eight-members-of-irans-womens-soccer-team-are-transgender/

Iran was way ahead of the curve

One eyed Jack

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

To be fair Jack, this is a global story in an Olympic year, a nation has sent a biological male to compete in a womens event.

But that’s this story Mike. I was referring to the numerous threads there have been of a similar theme of portraying people who are transgender in a negative light, and yeah it’s a fair point again you’re making if it were just this one incident that’s being discussed, or sparked a discussion about fairness… but it’s not. You may not have been aware of them previously and that’s fair enough, but the number of threads has risen exponentially in proportion to any threat to the rest of society posed by people who are transgender. Hubbard isn’t the only athlete attending the Olympics this year who is open about their being transgender though*, they’re just the athlete that got the most attention.


*There are likely to be far more ‘biological males’ (if we’re using those terms… I wouldn’t, but I’m trying to be fair to anyone who does), attending this years Olympics and competing in women’s events that aren’t even aware they are biological males, and certainly nobody else is either, apart from the people watching at home who somehow just “know”, by suspicion of there being something “off” about an athlete on the basis of their physical appearance alone, or the way they talk, or the way they walk… boy am I glad I got my hip replacement done that i no longer walk like a woman having been born with a click hip that wasn’t detected at birth! It had it’s advantages and disadvantages, but I would hardly call them biological, and having had a replacement is what I would consider conferred an artificial advantage to my previously disabled biological state.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hubbard isn’t the only athlete attending the Olympics this year who is open about their being transgender though*, they’re just the athlete that got the most attention.

You’re going to have to back that one up. Sounds like complete BS to me.

The IOC have allowed transgender athletes for years. None have utilised the rule.
Hubbard is the apparent first. You’re claiming there’s others in secret? I’m doubtful.

There are likely to be far more ‘biological males’ (if we’re using those terms… I wouldn’t, but I’m trying to be fair to anyone who does), attending this years Olympics and competing in women’s events that aren’t even aware they are biological males,

No, that’s really not likely at all. Occurrences like that are incredibly rare.
In these days of extensive biological passports and blood test it’s not likely to do unnoticed.

volchitsa

Mellor wrote: »

You’re going to have to back that one up. Sounds like complete BS to me.

The IOC have allowed transgender athletes for years. None have utilised the rule.
Hubbard is the apparent first. You’re claiming there’s others in secret? I’m doubtful.


No, that’s really not likely at all. Occurrences like that are incredibly rare.
In these days of extensive biological passports and blood test it’s not likely to do unnoticed.

You're trying to reason with a poster who claimed - and then doubled down on the claim - that before breast feeding was invented people used to feed babies with plant juices. (As evidence that women didn’t have a unique role in reproduction IIRC)

So. You know.

I have him on ignore since shortly after that.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

You’re going to have to back that one up. Sounds like complete BS to me.

The IOC have allowed transgender athletes for years. None have utilised the rule.
Hubbard is the apparent first. You’re claiming there’s others in secret? I’m doubtful.

I didn’t claim there were others in secret? You even quoted my post where I said Hubbard isn’t the only athlete attending the Olympics this year who is open about their being transgender though, they’re just the athlete that got the most attention, and your questioning it just demonstrates my point! Anyway…

BMX rider Chelsea Wolfe becomes Team USA's first transgender Olympian after qualifying for Tokyo Games as an alternate

Mellor wrote: »

No, that’s really not likely at all. Occurrences like that are incredibly rare.
In these days of extensive biological passports and blood test it’s not likely to do unnoticed.

I wasn’t disputing the fact that occurrences like that are incredibly rare. They are, in the general population. But among athletes, their prevalence is much higher than among the general population, just like the prevalence of females with what would be considered T levels in the male range are higher among athletes -


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.


Gender Games


It’ll go unnoticed as long as they’re not winning. If they win, their medical tests will somehow find their way into the media in the hope of humiliating them out of the sport.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You're trying to reason with a poster who claimed - and then doubled down on the claim - that before breast feeding was invented people used to feed babies with plant juices. (As evidence that women didn’t have a unique role in reproduction IIRC)

So. You know.

Your recollection of your misrepresentation of my opinion is bang on.

astrofool

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your recollection of your misrepresentation of my opinion is bang on.

You can always represent your opinion and correct the poster's recollection.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

Actually no I didn't miss it, I just didn't mention it. Obviously it's what they want and obviously you want it for them but I don't see how because it's what they want is enough reason to let them have it. And no you may not use the comparison with the gay ref silly argument because essentially transgender athletes would be competing, whereas gay men marrying women wouldn't get them any nookie which is the basis of personal unions.

I was trying to be fair to you and give you the benefit of the doubt that you had missed it, that you wouldn’t misrepresent my opinion, but it appears you misrepresented my opinion on purpose! I’ll use the comparison of the marriage equality referendum because apart from the fact that you have a surprise coming if you think marriage is about getting nookie, it was about making a change to our laws for the benefit of everyone in society, not just people who are homosexual. The basis of Family Law in Ireland is founded upon the idea of the Family being the most fundamental institution in society, founded upon the institution of Marriage. It also came as a surprise to a few people who were of the “I don’t mind the gays getting married, but they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt!”, as though one follows from the other, that there was no barrier in Irish law regarding adoption discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. There were also many homosexual couples who already had children, and their children did not (and still to some extent don’t) enjoy the same rights and protection in law as the children of married heterosexual couples. It wasn’t just a question of “because they want it”, it was a question of “why don’t they have it already?”

AllForIt wrote: »

Thinking of your ulterior movies for volunteering in Africa the same could be said for transgender m2f athletes. It's easy to see why one would want to compete with women rather than men, since it is a competition after all. If you look at weightlifting the athlete doesn't interact with their opponents at all. So what difference does it make who they compete with in that case. Well, the final result is one big difference. In Tennis you are interacting with an opponent and in of course all team sports.

The same IS said for transgender athletes! The point I was making was in response to the idea that in your opinion, people who have what you called real empathy, go out to Africa and do some work voluntarily. The point I was making is that I would question the criteria on which you’re basing your assessment as it’s a matter of individual perspective. There are people who go out to Africa and campaign against“corrective” or “normalising” surgery on people who are born with what are characterised as disorders of sex development.[/url] There are people who go out to Africa to provide corrective or normalising surgeries, and there are Africans who rescue children from people who want to kill them. Empathy, is not predicated upon geographic location. It’s based upon affinity with other people.

You say it’s easy to see why people would want to compete with women rather than men, ignoring my argument that it wasn’t a biological male who campaigned to have the IOC change the rules, not just because they wanted the rules changed for themselves, but because they wanted the rules changed for anyone who is like them excluded from competing because of the current rules as they were, before they were changed following it being successfully argued that they needed to be changed because… “why aren’t they that way already?”, and there is more to do to achieve fairness for everyone who wishes to participate in sports and compete in competitions which they deserve to because of their dedication and sacrifice and determination and passion for the sport. The idea that they just want to thumb their noses at people having “got everything their own way” as those people see it, requires an enormous degree of self-importance, as if campaigners have the capacity to have empathy for people who would rather they are excluded from being treated as equals!

AllForIt wrote: »

I did actually read those links your provided. You'll know what I'm talking about here when I say that I agree with the pheromones argument ,in that it's defiantly a thing, but it's still not conclusive that there is no more to that story. I hate the idea that I'm gay because of genes. If I were in a heated discussion with a religious zealot arguing over homosexuality I would never use the 'born this way' argument. I hate that idea because it infers that though genetic engineering or medicine we could be theoretically made extinct and if you believe in rights based on what people want then one would have the right to do it if they so choose. I don't see anything like that happening though, because you can't engineer anything unless your certain about what your engineering and there is no irrefutable evidence that higher than normal estrogen levels during pregnancy causes one to be transgender despite all the studies that have been done over decades. And those articles you linked to were't saying this is a possible explanation - they were saying this is the answer so case closed. No, I'm never going to go by by what a blogger writes.

You have no idea how much I appreciate that anyone actually reads the evidence I provide to support my opinions. However I wasn’t suggesting that there is any one determining biological or environmental factor of sexual orientation, or gender identity for that matter. I try and provide online sources for what I read in mostly books. I don’t expect that in an online discussion forum anyone should be expecting or expected to provide citations in Harvard Citation Format, so blogs it is, or whatever, especially when the source being used to support discrimination against people who are transgender is the Daily fcuking Mail! I have provided sources from scientific papers and medical journals and there is no clear evidence of any advantage that people who are transgender have in sports. I was also making the point that prejudice against people who are transgender is unfair in the same way as prejudice against people who are homosexual is unfair, as is prejudice against people who are regarded as having characteristics which are regarded as disabilities in their society. I didn’t expect having read my post that you would come away with the opinion that I was suggesting anything was definitive, when I know for a fact and would have said so, that it isn’t. Honestly it’s at times like this when I wonder is it just me, or are there a whole boatload of people in society with undiagnosed dyslexia that they have difficulty understanding how I express myself in a Shakespeare’s monkeys sort of scenario :pac:

AllForIt wrote: »

But the reason I mentioned bodybuilding is because it's not much different to weightlifting essentially. The work is all done in the gym beforehand and unless you're ill you should be able to lift your max as you did the day before. Yeah I'm sure they know full well hormone reduction would make them less strong but would it make them less strong enough to come last or still do fairly well. All I was saying is that it's a bit of a head wrecker for me how someone who is involved in a competition where you are striving to be better than everyone else though training, at the same time takes medication which can only reduce their performance, the last thing they would want. Especially in weightlifting where it is all about pure strength.

Yeah I got where you were coming from, and my point was that it’s just not as simple as what you’re suggesting. Stands to reason that of course it would fcuk with your head if you’re to increase your strength and your mind is telling you all sorts and your body is doing something else entirely, and then you’re doing something which is undoubtedly going to make you the butt of every joke and ridicule and suspicion that you’re up to no good as if overwhelming suspicion amounts to evidence? That’s called a Witch-hunt, not to be confused with imagining you’re treating people fairly.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

You’re going to have to back that one up. Sounds like complete BS to me.

The IOC have allowed transgender athletes for years. None have utilised the rule.
Hubbard is the apparent first. You’re claiming there’s others in secret? I’m doubtful.
.

OEJ, please back this up.

That's a very bold statement.

Tilden Katz

Mellor wrote: »

You’re going to have to back that one up. Sounds like complete BS to me.

The IOC have allowed transgender athletes for years. None have utilised the rule.
Hubbard is the apparent first. You’re claiming there’s others in secret? I’m doubtful.

Well, in fairness, until 2015, the entry barrier for transgender athletes was much higher since their admittance to the Olympics in 2004. 2015 saw a slackening of the rules but it was too soon before the 2016 games to really have an impact. So whilst transgender athletes have been allowed to compete for years, in reality the entry criteria were pretty stringent. I think maybe even surgery was required up until 2015. This year’s Olympics will really be the first since those new rules took effect. I doubt Hubbard will be the only transgender athlete we will see at the games. Why wouldn’t there be others?