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

chopperbyrne

Tilden Katz wrote: »

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?

FtM would not qualify in the male competitions.

You'd hope decency and respect would be why there wouldn't be more MtF.

SnuggyBear

This dude is going to crush the competition, so unfair for the women he's competing against.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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…

No, my questioning it doesn't demonstrate your point. It's does demonstrate that there is a lot of the ignorance of the sports involved going on.

Chelsea Wolfe is a Team USA athlete. She has not qualified for the Olympics, and as such will not be competing - unless something changes in the team line up.
So Hubbard is at this point the only Transgender athlete.

Now, unless there is another, I think you should take your claim back.
Obviously, Wolfe will travel with the team, and be in Tokyo, obvious not what you were referring to. As there could be thousands of transgender people attending - there is no issue with them watching sports.

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's talking about females with high test. Obviously athletes test level is above average (for males and females). That doesn't back up your claim that multiple feamle athletes at the olympics are actually unknown biologically male.
You going to have to also back that one up.

Tilden Katz wrote: »

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?

The rules were different, but I don't think it was much higher requirement.

Previously the rules were

1. Sex reassignment surgery
2. Legally change their gender/sex on official documents
3. Hormone Treatment

The legal aspect was removed as it might not be possible everywhere. But they still need to declare their gender and not change it, which is de facto legal name change.
Hormone treatment is required to meet the T threshold. If anything it's higher now as the previous didn't quantify how much treatment was needed, and initial threshold was higher.
The surgery requirement is the only aspect really removed. I would have though that was happening a lot regardless of the rules.

Tilden Katz

Mellor wrote: »

The rules were different, but I don't think it was much higher requirement.

Previously the rules were

1. Sex reassignment surgery
2. Legally change their gender/sex on official documents
3. Hormone Treatment

The legal aspect was removed as it might not be possible everywhere. But they still need to declare their gender and not change it, which is de facto legal name change.
Hormone treatment is required to meet the T threshold. If anything it's higher now as the previous didn't quantify how much treatment was needed, and initial threshold was higher.
The surgery requirement is the only aspect really removed. I would have though that was happening a lot regardless of the rules.

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. The removal of the surgery requirement alone is a very big deal IMO. Sex reassignment surgery is a huge commitment that doesn’t appear to be undertaken lightly, by adults at least. And all surgery carries risk, no matter what it is. I would never be so blasé about it myself personally. Surgery is never just only surgery. It’s fucking surgery! There is a big difference between it being a requirement and not a requirement for athletes.

And, let’s be clear here - sex reassignment surgery is most assuredly not “happening a lot”. Most people who obtain a GRC in western countries do not get the surgery and never will. I cannot think of the percentage off the top of my head right now but the overwhelming majority do not get surgery. North of 80% as far as I recall. It could even be 90%+. Its removal as a requirement to compete in the Olympics represents a significant relaxation of the entry requirements.

Mellor

Tilden Katz wrote: »

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. The removal of the surgery requirement alone is a very big deal IMO.

Surgery was removed as it may not always be advised or possible in certain areas. I wasn't suggesting surgery wasn't a big deal.

But competing, internationally, as a semi-professional athlete, in a gender that does not align with your biological sex is also a big deal. People are not doing that on a whim. It's not a temporary trial.

And, let’s be clear here - sex reassignment surgery is most assuredly not “happening a lot”. Most people who obtain a GRC in western countries do not get the surgery and never will. I cannot think of the percentage off the top of my head right now but the overwhelming majority do not get surgery. North of 80% as far as I recall. It could even be 90%+. Its removal as a requirement to compete in the Olympics represents a significant relaxation of the entry requirements.

Are you sure about that?

Using the UK as an example.

UK Judicial Statistics wrote:

Your query has been passed on to me as I am responsible for publishing the quarterly Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics.

The number of interim GRCs issued between Q1 2005/2006 and Q3 2013/2014 is 171. I've attached a copy of Table 1 with relevant figures highlighted in blue, to clarify how this figure is calculated.
source

That is less that 20 a year over those 8.75 years. Which match the period under the old rules.

How does that compare with surgery numbers?

The cost of gender reassignment is £19,236 per patient, including support as well as surgery.

The total cost to the NHS in England last year was £17.13 million and this year the budget has been increased to £22.72 million.
source

Those figures represent 900 and 1200 per year. And that was in 2015.
Maybe they didn't all go to full reassignment surgery. But most of them are also not elite athletes. I've seen nothing to suggest any elites athletes in 2004-2016 wanted to compete in elite events, but didn't due to surgery.

Annasopra

Tilden Katz wrote: »

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. The removal of the surgery requirement alone is a very big deal IMO. Sex reassignment surgery is a huge commitment that doesn’t appear to be undertaken lightly, by adults at least. And all surgery carries risk, no matter what it is. I would never be so blasé about it myself personally. Surgery is never just only surgery. It’s fucking surgery! There is a big difference between it being a requirement and not a requirement for athletes.

And, let’s be clear here - sex reassignment surgery is most assuredly not “happening a lot”. Most people who obtain a GRC in western countries do not get the surgery and never will. I cannot think of the percentage off the top of my head right now but the overwhelming majority do not get surgery. North of 80% as far as I recall. It could even be 90%+. Its removal as a requirement to compete in the Olympics represents a significant relaxation of the entry requirements.

Whats your solution? Forced surgery?

volchitsa

Annasopra wrote: »

Whats your solution? Forced surgery?

Hardly. Athletes with male bodies can compete in the male section. Simple.
Those with outwardly female bodies who can’t fulfill the drug criteria for women might need special rules saucy as the 2004 rule change brought in.

Though personally if they can’t fulfill the same criteria as other women I think they should probably be disqualified same as women undergoing hormone treatment for PCOS have been.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Whats your solution? Forced surgery?

There's no surgery that will turn a biological male into a female. This is the problem.

topdecko

world has gone mad. seemingly intelligent people arguing that this is reasonable. We have seen elsewhere the mockery that M to F transgender athletes make of fairness in sports - Rachel McKinnon etc to the fractures skull with Fallon Fox. This is nonsense. It is simply unfair and offers a distinct advantage to those with body dysmorphia.
So i train hard but can't quite make the grade as a bloke, there is a path to glory now anew.... when is all this gonna end??

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Whats your solution? Forced surgery?

If one ever wants an example of a bad faith argument based on various fallacies, well, here is one.

Because of course a person objectively noting that removal of any requirement for sex reassignment surgery is a big change in qualifying conditions causes one to somehow deduct that the person's presumed solution is ''forced surgery'' on other human beings?



Forced. Surgery. Think about it! Think what it means to openly suggest with zero evidence in a debate that another person's desired solution is forced removal of sexual characteristics ie castration.

Mic 1972

Tilden Katz wrote: »

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. The removal of the surgery requirement alone is a very big deal IMO. Sex reassignment surgery is a huge commitment that doesn’t appear to be undertaken lightly, by adults at least. And all surgery carries risk, no matter what it is. I would never be so blasé about it myself personally. Surgery is never just only surgery. It’s fucking surgery! There is a big difference between it being a requirement and not a requirement for athletes.

And, let’s be clear here - sex reassignment surgery is most assuredly not “happening a lot”. Most people who obtain a GRC in western countries do not get the surgery and never will. I cannot think of the percentage off the top of my head right now but the overwhelming majority do not get surgery. North of 80% as far as I recall. It could even be 90%+. Its removal as a requirement to compete in the Olympics represents a significant relaxation of the entry requirements.

If gender dysphoria means feeling trapped in the wrong body, wouldn't sex reassignment surgery be something the patient would want in the first
place?

Tilden Katz

Annasopra wrote: »

Whats your solution? Forced surgery?

Absolutely not and kindly don’t put words in my mouth. I’m pretty much horrified by the thought of unnecessary surgery in any walk of life, as somebody has been through hellish necessary surgery. Such dramatics as you have displayed here are very difficult to take seriously, by the way. :rolleyes:

The solution? Play in the leagues of one’s sex class (obviously, no use of hormones or surgery can be permitted in those cases) or set up separate leagues to accommodate transgender athletes. Seems the fairest way. Anyone who falls outside any of those parameters? I guess they can’t be included.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

If gender dysphoria means feeling trapped in the wrong body, wouldn't sex reassignment surgery be something the patient would want in the first
place?

Sex reassignment surgery is not common in individuals with gender dysphoria or gender identification that does not match their natal sex. In its various forms is not a very successful surgery and many have severe and ongoing complications. many actively do not want SRS for the very logical reason that it is painful and not successful.

Personally I do not think SRS is required to be a transgender identifying person at all.

That does not negate my viewpoint that sex matters, and is immutable, and that in cases where sex-based rights come into conflict with gender identification there need to be solutions that are not incoherent.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

If gender dysphoria means feeling trapped in the wrong body, wouldn't sex reassignment surgery be something the patient would want in the first
place?

I think the surgery aspect is a bit of red herring when it comes to sports. None of my business what a person does to themselves. If a procedure can help with their mental wellbeing, go for it, but irrespective of what bodily configuration can be facilitated by a surgeon, biological males should not compete with biological females.

Tilden Katz

isha wrote: »

If one ever wants an example of a bad faith argument based on various fallacies, well, here is one.

Because of course a person objectively noting that removal of any requirement for sex reassignment surgery is a big change in qualifying conditions causes one to somehow deduct that the person's presumed solution is ''forced surgery'' on other human beings?



Forced. Surgery. Think about it! Think what it means to openly suggest with zero evidence in a debate that another person's desired solution is forced removal of sexual characteristics ie castration.

Right? Apparently because I’ve noted that surgery is no longer required for transgender athletes competing in the Olympics, that means... I advocate for sex reassignment surgery or something? I’d love to follow the mental knee-jerking that lead somebody to that conclusion. T’would be fascinating.

poolboy

topdecko wrote: »

world has gone mad. seemingly intelligent people arguing that this is reasonable. We have seen elsewhere the mockery that M to F transgender athletes make of fairness in sports - Rachel McKinnon etc to the fractures skull with Fallon Fox. This is nonsense. It is simply unfair and offers a distinct advantage to those with body dysmorphia.
So i train hard but can't quite make the grade as a bloke, there is a path to glory now anew.... when is all this gonna end??

It's never going to end because disagreement with it by any high profile figure will lead to an epic pile on and the end of their career. The woke mob have turned into the greatest bullies we've ever seen.

Mic 1972

isha wrote: »

Sex reassignment surgery is not common in individuals with gender dysphoria or gender identification that does not match their natal sex. In its various forms is not a very successful surgery and many have severe and ongoing complications. many actively do not want SRS for the very logical reason that it is painful and not successful.

Personally I do not think SRS is required to be a transgender identifying person at all.

That does not negate my viewpoint that sex matters, and is immutable, and that in cases where sex-based rights come into conflict with gender identification there need to be solutions that are not incoherent.

Personally, i find the whole "being trapped in the wrong body" debatable when sex reassignment surgery is available and still transgender people will refuse it.

They are ok to go through any other form of body enhancement surgery, but they refuse the one surgery that removes the most relevant sexual attribute

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Personally, i find the whole "being trapped in the wrong body" debatable when sex reassignment surgery is available and still transgender people will refuse it.

They are ok to go through any other form of body enhancement surgery, but they refuse the one surgery that removes the most relevant sexual attribute

I would question the nomenclature.

Nobody can be born in the wrong body, as it assumes that another body was available to inhabit.

Given we are born with the only body we can possibly have, it cannot be the wrong body.

You can like or dislike the body you were born with, but it doesn't make it a wrong body.

Baggly

JayZeus Threadbanned

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

I would question the nomenclature.

Nobody can be born in the wrong body, as it assumes that another body was available to inhabit.

Given we are born with the only body we can possibly have, it cannot be the wrong body.

You can like or dislike the body you were born with, but it doesn't make it a wrong body.

Not true.

Studies have shown that the brain of a transwoman woman (m2f) closer resembles the female brain, and vice-versa.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Personally, i find the whole "being trapped in the wrong body" debatable when sex reassignment surgery is available and still transgender people will refuse it.

They are ok to go through any other form of body enhancement surgery, but they refuse the one surgery that removes the most relevant sexual attribute

It is understandable that it is not desirable. The urogenital system is very complex and fiddling with it can lead to loss of sexual function, loss of pleasure, and issues with pain, infections and stenosis etc.

Full radical mastectomy is the most common sex reassignment surgery.

SnuggyBear

poolboy wrote: »

It's never going to end because disagreement with it by any high profile figure will lead to an epic pile on and the end of their career. The woke mob have turned into the greatest bullies we've ever seen.

Can you imagine what the world will look like in 100 years if there isn't fightback against this kind of crap?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Not true.

Studies have shown that the brain of a transwoman woman (m2f) closer resembles the female brain, and vice-versa.

True, but that doesn't make it a 'wrong body'. There is no alternative body. Editing an existing body is still the same body, only edited.

Gay male people's brains more resemble straight women, according to studies, and vice versa with gay females and straight men.

Their images show that in the brains of gay people, certain features including symmetry and connections to the brain’s emotional centre are more closely matched to the brains of straight people from the opposite sex.

That still doesn't make my brain 'female'.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Not true.

Studies have shown that the brain of a transwoman woman (m2f) closer resembles the female brain, and vice-versa.

I have to laugh at these kinds of researches. Studies have also shown that London taxi drivers have notably larger hippocampi than average people. This is because of the memory training involved in driving through large complex cities. It does not mean that London taxi drivers are evolving into GPS devices.
Normal brain plasticity influenced by habits, activities etc is much more likely to be the reason behind any ''differences'' discovered in brains. (If there is any such thing as a sexed brain - which is a subject of some considerable controversy.)

suicide_circus

Elite sport is by its very nature exclusionary so i'm dubious about the need for it to be "inclusive".

Tilden Katz

suicide_circus wrote: »

Elite sport is by its very nature exclusionary so i'm dubious about the need for it to be "inclusive".

Well indeed. Then again, that sentiment can also be used to dismiss the woman who has missed out on an Olympic spot because of Hubbard. :rolleyes:

volchitsa

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Well indeed. Then again, that sentiment can also be used to dismiss the woman who has missed out on an Olympic spot because of Hubbard. :rolleyes:

Only if the competition was fair though. That’s the difference with missing out against other women.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

Not true.

Studies have shown that the brain of a transwoman woman (m2f) closer resembles the female brain, and vice-versa.

Who gives a fook.

She aint going to be lifting with her brain.
Her bones, muscles, heart and lungs were all developed as a male.

That is what counts.
Unless you have some alternative modern right on take on biology and physiology.

manonboard

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Personally, i find the whole "being trapped in the wrong body" debatable when sex reassignment surgery is available and still transgender people will refuse it.

They are ok to go through any other form of body enhancement surgery, but they refuse the one surgery that removes the most relevant sexual attribute

Hey Mic, I have some trans gender friends who have refused to get the surgery. I just assumed it was a natural part of the expectations of their path, so i had alot of questions about it when they decided not to.

I thought maybe you'd like to hear some of the concerns and reasons that might clarify it for you.
For the Female to male transition, The 3 biggest deciding factors is it requires a high number of a very painful and quite serious operations. My first friend was informed the surgeon often does it in 5 different attempts before they can call it a fully built penis. Thats a huge amount of painful recovery and a very very difficult 'in between' section of time to cope with (toilet, sex, partner, looks, psychologically etc, pain)

Another is the result. The results are quite far from what one would consider quite average compared to a naturally born penis body. They have to pumps or particular implants installed to have erections. So its not akin to their existing genitals that although still a vagina, (with VERY large clits from the hormone changes) they at least get turned on naturally now and feel pleasure the way they are used to it. The result from the artificially built penises cant even be said to allow them to ever have an orgasm again. It's all moving in the right direction, but its far from the optimal result they would like.
http://www.trans-health.com/2013/penile-implants-guide/

From the male to the female side of things, they seemed much more inclined to do the surgery. A big reason they had for this was that it all gets kinda tucked in.. so its ALOT easier to shape and build from a structural point of view. It also doesnt have to be functionally capable as its at more of rest position than a penis needs to be.

Anyways, just wanted to share with you the reasons why someone people dont get it done from my personal groups. Maybe its useful to you.

I genuinely hope that Hubbard wins gold.

It will shine a greater light on the severity of the problem and, hopefully, actions will be taken to prevent or better still, stop this insanity.