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

kildare lad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah. Just rude and juvenile. We're not delicate flowers.

That dude has major issues, though.

I wonder in the future if they keep pushing for and allowing trans to compete against girls , will it put off girls from competing ? People who live in the real world know there's a huge advantage in the difference between male and female bodies , and yet people try and deny it .

Could I compete against 16 year olds because I woke up one morning and identified as a teenager. I wonder what the reaction would be if I painted myself black because I woke up one day and decided I'm a black man .

volchitsa

kildare lad wrote: »

I wonder in the future if they keep pushing for and allowing trans to compete against girls , will it put off girls from competing ? People who live in the real world know there's a huge advantage in the difference between male and female bodies , and yet people try and deny it .

Could I compete against 16 year olds because I woke up one morning and identified as a teenager. I wonder what the reaction would be if I painted myself black because I woke up one day and decided I'm a black man .

That's different because reasons. Look up Rachel Dolezal if you're interested in what happens when a white person identifies as black.

(Hint: nobody calls them brave and stunning)

keano_afc

volchitsa wrote: »

That's different because reasons. Look up Rachel Dolezal if you're interested in what happens when a white person identifies as black.

(Hint: nobody calls them brave and stunning)

I've never heard anyone give an explanation as to why I can identify as a woman and thereby be accepted as a woman based on my say so, but if I identify as another race I'm an attention seeking bigot.

kildare lad

volchitsa wrote: »

That's different because reasons. Look up Rachel Dolezal if you're interested in what happens when a white person identifies as black.

(Hint: nobody calls them brave and stunning)

I know , youd be on the receiving end of a lot of serious abuse . Does that not stink of hypocrisy though , you can change you sex but not your skin colour , it's not very inclusive

keano_afc

keano_afc wrote: »

I've never heard anyone give an explanation as to why I can identify as a woman and thereby be accepted as a woman based on my say so, but if I identify as another race I'm an attention seeking bigot.

There are internal inconsistencies in every dogmatic religion and the adherents seldom require explanation, much less feel a need to give one to outsiders.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s the problem. You can’t simply make a claim of any wrongdoing against someone and expect that it should be taken seriously without compelling evidence when you’re aware of the penalties involved.

Why do I need to provide evidence for a clearly established fact?
It's been referenced by multiple posters, including yourself.

I don’t have to answer shìt, you made the claim against Hubbard that they are cheating in the context of this years competition, the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence for your claim.

It's not a claim. It's the reality of the situaton.

The fact you are refusing to answer has two explanations.

• You are absolutley clueless of the specifics of sport and gender transitionin. Which undermines everything you have said.
• You aren't clueless, but are refusing to answer as you are fully aware it comfirms she is cheating, thus unermining your position.

I couldn’t give a tinkers what drugs athletes are or aren’t taking and whether or not they’re on the banned substances list, I care about the claim that they are cheating. Because that’s what they would be punished for if found to have been in breach of the rules.

You are exposing your ignorance of the sport, and sports in general here.

Taking drugs on the banned list is cheating. That is a fact.
You can't say you care about one but not the other. That's a complete contradiction.

The fact Hubbard has done this and not been banned is exactly the double standard that I am referring to. Claiming the fact she has not been punished is proof that she did not do it is a logical fallacy.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

That's different because reasons. Look up Rachel Dolezal if you're interested in what happens when a white person identifies as black.

(Hint: nobody calls them brave and stunning)

Far more likely that not that many people would care. I say ‘not that many’, because they might get a slot on Daytime talk show TV in the US where oddball characters have been paraded for spectacle and show claiming to be black or white since the 90s with Rikki Lake and Sally Jesse Raphael.

The difference with Rachel Dolezal is that she was attempting to benefit from intentionally setting out to deceive people. She wasn’t just claiming to be black, she lied to people about herself in order to rise through the ranks of the NAACP along with a whole other slew of lies and trying to deceive people. Really not the same thing at all.

kildare lad

kildare lad wrote: »

I wonder in the future if they keep pushing for and allowing trans to compete against girls , will it put off girls from competing ? People who live in the real world know there's a huge advantage in the difference between male and female bodies , and yet people try and deny it .

Could I compete against 16 year olds because I woke up one morning and identified as a teenager. I wonder what the reaction would be if I painted myself black because I woke up one day and decided I'm a black man .

Oli London is getting significant push back. There is considerable irony in the pushback as Oli London genuinely seems to feel they are Korean, in that they very very strongly identify as Korean. Oli has gone to a lot of effort with plastic surgery, name change, and immersion in KPop culture.
I know some young people who have been heavily immersed in KPop culture over the past years - it seems to be a mesmerising thing for some. Maybe it is like goths or EMOs or something. I also have a Korean friend who is a sensible lady in her forties and lives in New York and I sometimes cannot get over her incredible fondness for KPop and her amplified upset because of scandals coming out of the culture.
Just saying these things to illustrate that KPop is a big thing for some people and seems to have an almost metaphysical element, similar to what I often see in gender theory. This gender soul or inner essence vibe.



Here is Oli anyway, saying that trans racial is similar to trans gender. Going by the ''rules'' of trans he has a point.

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1409812644262027268?s=20

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1408906565520871432?s=20

Just gonna go on record and say that I don't think Oli is Korean. I think Oli is a bit deluded and is having an identity crisis, possibly brought about by the way that social media affects culture and warps perception for young people. Oli should be helped and supported in finding the root cause of their identity crisis.

Oli will never be Korean, nobody will ever truly see Oli as Korean, and Oli living thems life in expectation of controlling other people's perception of they will only bring them pain.

isha

isha wrote: »

Here is Oli anyway, saying that trans racial is similar to trans gender. Going by the ''rules'' of trans he has a point.

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1409812644262027268?s=20

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1408906565520871432?s=20

Though part of me does wonder whether this is an elaborate publicity stunt.

It has certainly garnered worldwide attention for this relatively unknown person.

Perhaps they do have an affinity for Korea etc., but decided to max out on the publicity at the same time by dragging identity politics into the arena.

That said, I don't know.

For all I know, this person is genuine about the transracial element.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Just gonna go on record and say that I don't think Oli is Korean. I think Oli is a bit deluded and is having an identity crisis, possibly brought about by the way that social media affects culture and warps perception for young people. Oli should be helped and supported in finding the root cause of their identity crisis.

Oli will never be Korean, nobody will ever truly see Oli as Korean, and Oli living thems life in expectation of controlling other people's perception of they will only bring them pain.

My personal belief is I do not believe Oli is Korean. But I also do not believe trans women are women; I believe they are trans women. One cannot change sex. One cannot change race.

However it is apparent that Oli identifies as Korean (unless it is a spoof, which I do not think it is).
Insofar as self identification is considered to have legal consequence in sex matters then I cannot see how it should not be extended to race matters. Sex can legally be changed by identification, even though that is biologically impossible. Why not race which is also biologically impossible?

In sport for example Cece Telfer has been winning in college sports against girls while having testosterone levels in excess of 5 nanomoles per litre which is max allowed for trans women in Olympics. They did not qualify for Olympics because they exceeded the level. Female testosterone normal range is 0.12 - 1.79 nanomoles - so identification rather than biological reality is doing a lot of heavy lifting in Cece's case. (Males 7.7 - 29 nanomoles/litre is normal range).

Identification is trumping biology in lots of examples in this area.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

Why do I need to provide evidence for a clearly established fact?
It's been referenced by multiple posters, including yourself.


It's not a claim. It's the reality of the situaton.

The fact you are refusing to answer has two explanations.

• You are absolutley clueless of the specifics of sport and gender transitionin. Which undermines everything you have said.
• You aren't clueless, but are refusing to answer as you are fully aware it comfirms she is cheating, thus unermining your position.

You are exposing your ignorance of the sport, and sports in general here.

Taking drugs on the banned list is cheating. That is a fact.
You can't say you care about one but not the other. That's a complete contradiction.

The fact Hubbard has done this and not been banned is exactly the double standard that I am referring to. Claiming the fact she has not been punished is proof that she did not do it is a logical fallacy.

You’re in no position to talk about double standards when you were nit-picky with another poster over the accuracy of your own opinion, and now you’re choosing to misrepresent my opinion. I didn’t claim Hubbard hasn’t been punished as proof that they haven’t done anything wrong. You’re trying to shift the burden of proof for your claim that Hubbard is cheating onto me and I’m simply having none of it. That’s all that’s happening here, or the reality of the situation as you might say.

You need to provide evidence for your claim, because without it, you can’t establish facts. You can make all the claims you want about me after that too, but the only one I’m interested in is the one which has actual consequences for the person you’re accusing of cheating, knowing that it means their reputation would be damaged, and they could be punished by the sports governing body.

When I referenced earlier the case of Shelby Houlihan, I didn’t just throw it out there imagining that nobody would question it, I imagine that they would, that they should, because not only does it damage her reputation, but the punishment is severe. I searched for reasons as to how CAS could have come to the conclusion they did. The explanation might have had some legitimacy if it hadn’t been known for decades that a pork burrito is not something you want to be eating hours before a drug test, and God knows I can empathise with the hunger for a dirty great burrito, but I’m not an elite athlete, so it’s of no consequence other than I wouldn’t recommend anyone use the restroom after me - man, woman or child! :pac:

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re in no position to talk about double standards when you were nit-picky with another poster over the accuracy of your own opinion, and now you’re choosing to misrepresent my opinion.

If somebody misrepresents my opinion, I am entitled to correct them. That's not nitpicking. The poster in question accepted my correction and thanked me.

I didn’t claim Hubbard hasn’t been punished as proof that they haven’t done anything wrong.

I didn't misrepresent you. I quoted you. You referenced that they would have been punished if found to be cheating

I care about the claim that they are cheating. Because that’s what they would be punished for if found to have been in breach of the rules.

You’re trying to shift the burden of proof for your claim that Hubbard is cheating onto me and I’m simply having none of it.

As above it's not a claim, its an accepted fact. I've no idea what evidence you are looking for. Can you clarify please?

Hubbard was born a man. Hubbard underwent gender transitioning.
I'm sure you don't dispute that?


What do you think "transitioning" entailed?
Simple answer will do.

You need to provide evidence for your claim, because without it, you can’t establish facts. You can make all the claims you want about me after that too, but the only one I’m interested in is the one which has actual consequences for the person you’re accusing of cheating, knowing that it means their reputation would be damaged, and they could be punished by the sports governing body.

They have very little reputation of being interested fairness.
And whether or not they can be punished is irrelevant to the act of cheating.

Cheating in a way you can't get caught is still cheating.

When I referenced earlier the case of Shelby Houlihan, I didn’t just throw it out there imagining that nobody would question it, I imagine that they would, that they should, because not only does it damage her reputation, but the punishment is severe.

I don't see the relevance. Shelby Houlihan cheated.

She clearly lied in her response and on social media.
He coach also clearly lied.

I searched for reasons as to how CAS could have come to the conclusion they did. The explanation might have had some legitimacy if it hadn’t been known for decades that a pork burrito is not something you want to be eating hours before a drug test,

There is no issue with eating pork.
The issues is with eating large amount of organ meat. Nandronlone is naturally occurring, so certain foods have higher amounts. A sausage isn't going to put you over, you'd need to eat large amounts, of uncastrated, male , hog organ meat to register a false positive.

As above, I don't see the relevance.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

As above it's not a claim, its an accepted fact. I've no idea what evidence you are looking for. Can you clarify please?

Cheating in a way you can't get caught is still cheating.

I don't see the relevance. Shelby Houlihan cheated.

As above, I don't see the relevance.

I’m only quoting the parts of your post which are relevant to your claim that Hubbard is cheating, and your apparent failure to understand why you have to provide evidence to support your claim that’s Hubbard is cheating. So far, you’ve provided no evidence to support your claim that Hubbard is cheating. That’s why I provided the example of cheating I referenced of Shelby Houlihan to demonstrate that there was sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that she had cheated. That’s what sufficient credible evidence looks like, not just putting a claim out there about another person that you imagine was indisputable. When challenged to provide evidence you try to take a pot shot at me instead, and STILL fail to produce any evidence to support your original claim.

I’m just gonna put the claim of Hubbard cheating down as BS now and move on. I’ve made my point.

JustAThought

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Maybe that's the nub of it?

Maybe societal "acceptance" of trans women has a limit with regard to the displacement of "real" women. Maybe trans women shouldn't be classified as women, maybe the classification is transwomen.

And I think you've completely missed the point of Stowers.

Whatabout the burrito.

Maybe the classification should be ‘trans’. Not a man and not a woman.

Seems fair to both sexes.

Have a trans sport. Then watch them slug it out on fairness.

suicide_circus

JustAThought wrote: »

Maybe the classification should be ‘trans’. Not a man and not a woman.

Seems fair to both sexes.

Have a trans sport. Then watch them slug it out on fairness.

But where is the all important gender validation in that?

JustAThought

suicide_circus wrote: »

But where is the all important gender validation in that?

!!!

I think what many forget is that most people don’t want to make someones life harder - particularly when they have found it so far to be hard and difficult and filled with emotional turmoil and lonlieness. Most people will choose to be kind and not voice their real opinions and live and let live regardless of their real thoughts inside. Nobody want to be cruel on a point or hurt or further damage someone who has had a tough time.

The problem seems to be that this has been mistaken for full support in every area of the increasing demands they and left wing radicals supporting them are now making. Belfast. 50 year old men with penises self declared as women dressed up in beards and tutus demanding their rights to be enrolled in little childrens ballet classes and sueing the toddlers teacher when they refuse. Real example.

Convicted historic sex offender man with penis - Self declared as a woman & self declared homeless under new female name - not spotted under new name and address for deportation - arreasted for child rape (Dublin) and bleats on about his human rights.

etc

And thats before I get started about men in womens toilets.

And men in womens sports.

Nobody wants someone who thinks they are the other sex to have a miserable tortured life. But then again if they continue the farce that has become increasingly surreal then they will end up damaging the goodwill, good intentions and tolerence people have.

Lets face it - its already being exploited enough.

Anyine know what the prosecution status is of the man/woman who self declared to be the other, signed themselves up under their nee name as (another) ‘homeless’ person (while already owning their own house here) and continued to fleece the charity they were head of for tens of thousands whilst begging for sympathy for their confused sexual status - one they were utterly at home and happy exploiting for their own financial and material gain. Worth a google all of them.


Personally I think an international trans sport competition should be initiated. Seems reasonable. I’ve no doubt that within a few years it would then be subdivided up into classifications the way the paraolympics now is - degrees of ability.

Same with trans sports / degrees of competitive advantage.

Ten of Swords

JustAThought, you have ignored the very clear warning in post #1. Take a short break

Mod Note - Please stick to the topic of the thread, this is not a replacement for the Gender Identity thread

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m only quoting the parts of your post which are relevant to your claim that Hubbard is cheating, and your apparent failure to understand why you have to provide evidence to support your claim that’s Hubbard is cheating..

I'm not claim anything that is not widely know. Hubbard transitioned male to female. The fact you are denying this says everything about your position. You aren't making any sense.
Do you really need me to provide concrete evidence that Hubbard transitioned male to female. You are being ridiculous.

But we both know you know those rules, and know Hubbard broke them.
The fact you refused to answer a simple yes/no proves that. Really undermines your entire position by refusing a very civil question. The "point" you think you have proven, is that you are willfully ignoring anything that doesn't git you agenda.

Yeah_Right

Mellor wrote: »

If you have to change the scenario to something completely different, then what I said is entirely accurate. There are many athletes representing countries they weren't born in. But that's not what I was responding to.

You can change, but it requires a 3 year gap. so somebody who had been trying to qualify for australia, would be excluded from switching the upcoming olympics.

Wasn't meaning to change what you were saying just point out that athletes can do change countries. Usually for money or glory and not patriotism.

I have no issue with someone representing a country they weren't born in but I don't like when they switch nations. If that makes sense. I know its allowed but I think its BS. Same as the rule that has allowed Hubbard to compete.

Unless Hubbard wins gold, then i think the rule is correct, right and fair.

volchitsa

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Wasn't meaning to change what you were saying just point out that athletes can do change countries. Usually for money or glory and not patriotism.

I have no issue with someone representing a country they weren't born in but I don't like when they switch nations. If that makes sense. I know its allowed but I think its BS. Same as the rule that has allowed Hubbard to compete.

Unless Hubbard wins gold, then i think the rule is correct, right and fair.

I don't get this. What difference does that make?

Hubbard is 43 years old and after years as a mediocre athlete is suddenly olympic standard, whether or not they take gold. If any other female athlete suddenly changed up a few gears like that, at age 43, would people think it was fair as long as she didn't win gold?

What when a 25 year old transitions - they will deffo take the gold. So would that be fair or unfair in your book?

Yeah_Right

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't get this. What difference does that make?

Hubbard is 43 years old and after years as a mediocre athlete is suddenly olympic standard, whether or not they take gold. If any other female athlete suddenly changed up a few gears like that, at age 43, would people think it was fair as long as she didn't win gold?

What when a 25 year old transitions - they will deffo take the gold. So would that be fair or unfair in your book?

I'm a kiwi. I want NZ to win medals. By hook or by crook if necessary ðŸ˜

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't get this. What difference does that make?

Hubbard is 43 years old and after years as a mediocre athlete is suddenly olympic standard, whether or not they take gold. If any other female athlete suddenly changed up a few gears like that, at age 43, would people think it was fair as long as she didn't win gold?

What when a 25 year old transitions - they will deffo take the gold. So would that be fair or unfair in your book?

There’s no guarantee they would even qualify, never mind anything else.

EDIT: Just to give some idea of what it takes just to qualify for the Olympics, and Hubbards odds -


It means Hubbard, who won silver at the 2017 world championships and was sixth after a severe injury in 2019, is almost certain to become the first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympics. And while she will be the oldest weightlifter at the Games, she will also have a genuine chance of a medal given her qualifying lifts rank her fourth out of the 14 qualifiers in the 87kg-plus super heavyweight category for Tokyo.

…

Hubbard had feared her career was over after sustaining an elbow injury at the Commonwealth Games in 2018 only to come back to near her best a year later. She is now 16th in the world rankings, but at least six of those above her will be absent because of IWF rules that limit nations to only one athlete per category, and she is certain to get the second Oceania spot behind Feagaiga Stowers of Samoa.


Trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard set to make history at Tokyo Olympics


Bold emphasis my own, but it’s one of the reasons why athletes who some people would consider “mediocre” or “past it”, switch nations to represent smaller nations where they are in with a better chance of being chosen for qualification for the Olympics ahead of other competitors.

Shield

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is that person Korean? And if not, why not?

There’s definitely an interesting discussion to be had about transracialism that Richard Dawkins raised in April with the tweet below. It was clear to me that he was coming at this from the ‘common ancestor’ angle that we all originate from Africa. However, I think a breakaway discussion might be necessary because it raises a different subset of questions, yet some of those questions overlap or derive from a sense of self identity.

If you took the transracialism argument to its logical conclusion, might we end up seeing Enya competing against Stormzy for the “Sickest Bars” MOBO award?

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1380812852055973888

Blaire White (a trans woman) talks a bit about trans women in sport in this new video with Benjamin Boyce. It's long and they cover a lot of topics, but the sport stuff is close to the start.

https://youtu.be/NmnkezRG0Tg

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

There’s definitely an interesting discussion to be had about transracialism that Richard Dawkins raised in April with the tweet below. It was clear to me that he was coming at this from the ‘common ancestor’ angle that we all originate from Africa.

He was in his hole :pac:

Anyone familiar with his “fireballs of hatred” effort where he tried to play the victim after coming out with something equally monumentally stupid (he almost outdone himself, he outdone himself with the bells tweet, incurring responses which I dare not reprint here ) knew exactly what he was at.

It showed Dawkins up for the poor mans Christopher Hitchens he really is, no class.

Richard Dawkins is Still Denying the Basic Humanity of Trans People


If weasel wording were an Olympic event, Richard would undoubtedly take home the gold medal.

Shield

Shield wrote: »

It was clear to me that he was coming at this from the ‘common ancestor’ angle that we all originate from Africa.

I don't think he was. He was just pointing out that the precise same logic used to justify trans genderism can be graphted, exactly as it is, onto trans racialism, and make exactly the same amount of sense and not one single bit more or less than that.

A point that constructionists refuse to acknowledge because they are invested in a different dog on the race side of things.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He was in his hole :pac:

Anyone familiar with his “fireballs of hatred” effort where he tried to play the victim after coming out with something equally monumentally stupid (he almost outdone himself, he outdone himself with the bells tweet, incurring responses which I dare not reprint here ) knew exactly what he was at.

It showed Dawkins up for the poor mans Christopher Hitchens he really is, no class.

Richard Dawkins is Still Denying the Basic Humanity of Trans People


If weasel wording were an Olympic event, Richard would undoubtedly take home the gold medal.

Many transwomen, who have undergone surgery, agree with Richard Dawkins.

Stop portraying this as a one-sided debate, as if all trans- people think uniformly on this subject / and sport.

It's divided, even among the trans and LGBT communities.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many transwomen, who have undergone surgery, agree with Richard Dawkins.

Stop portraying this as a one-sided debate, as if all trans- people think uniformly on this subject / and sport.

It's divided, even among the trans and LGBT communities.

You’re having a laugh, surely?

So what if anyone agrees with Dawkins? So what if everyone agrees with Dawkins? That doesn’t make his effort any more legitimate than it wasn’t already, any more than your point that because some people who are transgender agree with Dawkins it legitimises his point.

Dawkins isn’t clueless as to how people who are transgender are portrayed in society, they are vilified, and he was just contributing to that vilification by trying to equate people who are transgender with someone who was vilified for their behaviour (the criticism wasn’t based upon the colour of her skin), more than there were anyone who argued that Dolezal had a legitimate point. There were a few who agreed with Dolezal, just like there were a few people who agree with Dawkins. It doesn’t mean either of them had any legitimate point.

I’m well aware it’s not a one-sided debate, and your own selection bias of picking from among what is a tiny proportion of the population those people who agree with you really doesn’t make your argument against treating all people as equals regardless of their characteristics any more legitimate than it wasn’t already.

This thread is just another example of many where in spite of all the arguments about the threat to women’s sports, the best anyone’s been able to come up with in reality is an athlete who is ranked 15th in the world in the event they are eligible to compete in. There has been a focus on their characteristics, their background, everything to try and paint them as unscrupulous and devious and purposely setting out to deceive people for their own benefit. Yet there has been nothing in the way of any actual evidence to suggest that is the case, let alone does it speak to any argument against transgender athletes participation in women’s sports.

Mellor

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Wasn't meaning to change what you were saying just point out that athletes can do change countries. Usually for money or glory and not patriotism.

I have no issue with someone representing a country they weren't born in but I don't like when they switch nations. If that makes sense. I know its allowed but I think its BS. Same as the rule that has allowed Hubbard to compete.

Unless Hubbard wins gold, then i think the rule is correct, right and fair.

I completely got what you were saying. No harm at all.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm a kiwi. I want NZ to win medals. By hook or by crook if necessary ðŸ˜

Bloody Kiwis. :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread is just another example of many where in spite of all the arguments about the threat to women’s sports, the best anyone’s been able to come up with in reality is an athlete who is ranked 15th in the world in the event they are eligible to compete in.

You can't be serious. The fact they are ranked 15th, in the womens rankings does add any validity to their inclusion in the womens rankings.
Whatever source you are quoting above is very out of date. Stowers is below her, but the Oceania spot went to Australia.

For reference, in the Male rankings, her total would be 98th out of 107. That's the biological difference between the sexes, not "a social construct" as was claimed.
Their has been lots of solid arguments put forward, willfully ignoring them does not negate them.