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

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

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Whatever source you are quoting above is very out of date.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.

I’m genuinely at a loss as to how you’re reading my posts because my argument was never to argue for inclusion, it was an argument against the exclusion, of transgender athletes, from women’s sports. Nowhere did I make any reference to “social constructs” or any of the rest of it. I also made no reference to rankings in the men’s events as it’s simply not relevant to the argument as to whether or not transgender athletes should or should not be permitted to compete in women’s sports.

The argument for the exclusion of transgender athletes from women’s sports amounts to the idea that they are a threat to women’s sports. Hubbards inclusion in the women’s events in a single sport is the evidence they are using to support their argument. It is simply irrational and unreasonable to conclude from Hubbards inclusion in the women’s events in a single sport, that any apparent threat to women’s sports has any credibility, and I can hardly be accused of ignoring arguments, not even arguments I think are poor and unjustifiable. I’m not looking to belittle anyone who disagrees with me either or portray them as something they’re not, as is being done with Hubbard by people who claim that the “woke mob” will gang up on them if they say anything, as if they are not part of a mob much greater in size than anyone they perceive to belong to any “woke mob” based upon their own identity politics.

You did at least highlight one correction I should make when I was quoting from the article I used in support of my argument - in the article, dated 5th May 2021, it describes Hubbard as being ranked 16th in the world, not 15th, and the point I was making, is that the competition is more than just about biology. I consider the mental aspect biology, but I understand that other people refer to this as psychological as though it is distinct from biology, the distinctions I make are between psychology, physiology and anatomy, all still referring to biology. There is a framework concept called the biopsychosocial model which acknowledges the influences of environmental and social factors, and if you imagine I’m just pulling stuff out of my ass, I’m really not, I’m a couch potato Jim, not a proctologist I’m certainly not wedded to the idea though, and like any idea, it’s not without its valid and justifiable criticisms.

Slightly sidetracked there, but to get back to my main point, a single athlete who, through what could only be put down to a series of coincidences beyond their control has qualified for the women’s events at the Olympics, among thousands of other athletes who have also qualified for the women’s events. Whatever else they can be accused of being responsible for, they can’t possibly be held responsible for current worldwide events, unless you’re a a subscriber to the the butterfly effect (good first movie, shìte sequel, you’ll hurt yourself if you think too hard about it :pac:), and to use them as a demonstration of the potential influence it is claimed the inclusion of transgender athletes will have on women’s sports, in order to justify their exclusion, when they are only at the events through a a series of coincidences, as if it is possible to predict the outcome of their participation as a foregone conclusion… I have but one question left to ask…


Can you do next weeks lotto numbers too?

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m genuinely at a loss as to how you’re reading my posts because my argument was never to argue for inclusion, it was an argument against the exclusion, of transgender athletes, from women’s sports.

Inclusion and exclusion are mutually exclusive. Especially in this sense.
Arguing against exclusion is exactly the same as arguing for inclusion.

If you really want to be pedantic and argue one only, then for inclusion is the only valid option, as the rule that Hubbard is permitted to enter under is a inclusion rule - not an anti exclusion rule.

Nowhere did I make any reference to “social constructs” or any of the rest of it.

Are you sure about that. As I called you out on it, as did a number of others.
And you conveniently moved on to some other nonsense. Post below

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

I was referring to the prevailing attitude in Western society that considered women biologically inferior to men (supporting prevailing attitudes in society held by both men and women at the time), and arranged social standards on that premise.

Caught in another lie there.

I also made no reference to rankings in the men’s events as it’s simply not relevant to the argument as to whether or not transgender athletes should or should not be permitted to compete in women’s sports.

I never said you made reference to the Men's ranking. I made that reference on my own.

And it is absolutely relevant to this topic. It an transwomen were not eligible for the womens divisions, they would be by default in the mens division.
The comparative ranking shows the ranking boost a male athletes achieves if he were to transition.

The argument for the exclusion of transgender athletes from women’s sports amounts to the idea that they are a threat to women’s sports.

No it doesn't amount to that. That is one aspect.
Another is the idea of fairness. It is unfair for Hubbard to utilise a male biological advantage in a womens division.
Another is cheating. Transitioning gender involves process that are specificly banned for athletes.

You conveniently ignore the latter two, as you have no justification for it.

Hubbards inclusion in the women’s events in a single sport is the evidence they are using to support their argument. It is simply irrational and unreasonable to conclude from Hubbards inclusion in the women’s events in a single sport, that any apparent threat to women’s sports has any credibility...

The rules being discussed would apply to unlimited number of athletes.
"it's just one athlete, in one sport" is a really weak justification.

Michelle Smith was banned in 1998 for doping. Suggesting she should have been allowed to take androsterone because she was just one women in one sport would be utterly ridiculous.
She was not allowed because it is unfair and against the spirit of sport.

I can hardly be accused of ignoring arguments, not even arguments I think are poor and unjustifiable. I’m not looking to belittle anyone who disagrees with me either or portray them as something they’re not, as is being done with Hubbard by people who claim that the “woke mob” will gang up on them if they say anything,

That is a lie. You ignored a simple set of questions from me, then refused to answer. Here they are again, feel free to correct that by answering.

• Has Hubbard taken in the past, or is she currently taking, exogenous hormones or hormone analogues?
• Is that permitted under the rules of weightlifitng and/or the Olympics?

You did at least highlight one correction I should make when I was quoting from the article I used in support of my argument - in the article, dated 5th May 2021, it describes Hubbard as being ranked 16th in the world, not 15th,

The article is wrong, Hubbard is currently 15th. Stowers is not above her.
At least 7 athletes ahead of her are excluded.

She is 15th due to her injury at the commonwealth games.
Previously she was 2nd in the world.

and the point I was making, is that the competition is more than just about biology. I consider the mental aspect biology, but I understand that other people refer to this as psychological as though it is distinct from biology, the distinctions I make are between psychology, physiology and anatomy, all still referring to biology. There is a framework concept called the biopsychosocial model which acknowledges the influences of environmental and social factors, and if you imagine

Nobody at any point as claimed weightlifting is solely about biology or physiology.
Psychology is of course a factor. As it skilll. And as are tactics (which many are unaware of.

None of that excludes physiology from being a significant factor.

Slightly sidetracked there, but to get back to my main point, a single athlete who, through what could only be put down to a series of coincidences beyond their control has qualified for the women’s events at the Olympics, among thousands of other athletes who have also qualified for the women’s events. Whatever else they can be accused of being responsible for, they can’t possibly be held responsible for current worldwide events,

Sorry, what coincidences are you talking about here?

The only reason that Hubbard has qualified for the olympics is due to her transitioning genders. That is not a coincidence, or in any way outside of her control.

you’ll hurt yourself if you think too hard about it[/url] :pac:), and to use them as a demonstration of the potential influence it is claimed the inclusion of transgender athletes will have on women’s sports, in order to justify their exclusion, when they are only at the events through a a series of coincidences, as if it is possible to predict the outcome of their participation as a foregone conclusion…

What is this nonsense?
I never said anything about the influence on womens sports. OR a treat to womens sport.
You might want to look up the meaning of coincidence.
Hubbard is at the olympics due to deliberate efforts to qualify.

Whether is was a foregone conclusion is irrelevant.
Whether she succeeded or not is irrelevant.
The rules are not about the individual.



Can you please try to response to the points made, it stead of going off on another tangent again when caught in a lie again.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

Inclusion and exclusion are mutually exclusive. Especially in this sense.
Arguing against exclusion is exactly the same as arguing for inclusion.

If you really want to be pedantic and argue one only, then for inclusion is the only valid option, as the rule that Hubbard is permitted to enter under is a inclusion rule - not an anti exclusion rule.

My point is that they are included already, and I’m arguing against the idea of changing the current rules so that they be excluded.

Mellor wrote: »

Are you sure about that. As I called you out on it, as did a number of others.
And you conveniently moved on to some other nonsense. Post below.

My fault, I read your post as though you were suggesting I had argued that gender was a social construct as opposed to biology. Not a lie, just a misunderstanding.

Mellor wrote: »

No it doesn't amount to that. That is one aspect. Another is the idea of fairness. It is unfair for Hubbard to utilise a male biological advantage in a womens division.
Another is cheating. Transitioning gender involves process that are specificly banned for athletes.

You conveniently ignore the latter two, as you have no justification for it.

I ignore them because they’re irrelevant. Hubbard is not cheating, and you were unable to provide any evidence of Hubbard cheating, and I do not accept your premise that just because anyone hasn’t been caught cheating doesn’t mean they aren’t. The idea of male advantages might be a legitimate argument were it not for the fact that Hubbard also has male disadvantages if you want to look at it in those terms - certainly their… (as you put it) their perceived “male advantages” mean they are subjected to greater scrutiny than the other athletes, although I would not suggest that was by implication an advantage of being being female.

Mellor wrote: »

The rules being discussed would apply to unlimited number of athletes.
"it's just one athlete, in one sport" is a really weak justification.

Michelle Smith was banned in 1998 for doping. Suggesting she should have been allowed to take androsterone because she was just one women in one sport would be utterly ridiculous.
She was not allowed because it is unfair and against the spirit of sport.

The rules apply to anyone who wishes to compete in the competition. You’re coming at this from the point of view that anyone who doesn’t meet what appears to be your rules, is cheating, and using the example of an athlete who was caught cheating, and punished, to support your argument. You’re aware as I am that even though the drugs are on the banned list, it is the levels of chemicals in their body they are tested for, not just the presence of the drugs. The point I make about one athlete in one sport is as a counter to the argument that the participation of athletes who are transgender in women’s sports will mean an end to women’s participation in sports, arguing as though this is an inevitable foregone conclusion and therefore transgender athletes should be excluded from participating in women’s sports on that basis. It’s catastrophising nonsense without foundation. It amounts to nothing more than scaremongering, fuelling prejudice against people who are transgender. Michelle Smith, though I understand why you make the comparison, has never identified themselves openly as transgender. She’s an incredible athlete, who got caught for cheating. Hubbard, is a mediocre athlete who is openly transgender, who has never cheated. That’s the difference.

Mellor wrote: »

That is a lie. You ignored a simple set of questions from me, then refused to answer. Here they are again, feel free to correct that by answering.

• Has Hubbard taken in the past, or is she currently taking, exogenous hormones or hormone analogues?
• Is that permitted under the rules of weightlifitng and/or the Olympics?

No, it’s not a lie, though i understand why you’re claiming it’s a lie, because you’re choosing to ignore the fact that I informed you that the onus to provide evidence for your claim that Hubbard is cheating, is on you. I had made my point, and until you can provide evidence of your claim that Hubbard is cheating, I’m going to ignore your argument which I have already addressed, and you have chosen to ignore the point I made that I don’t have to answer your questions, the burden of proof is on you.

Mellor wrote: »

Nobody at any point as claimed weightlifting is solely about biology or physiology.

That’s disingenuous, especially when you’re making claims of athletes having “male advantages” as a reason to argue for their exclusion.

Mellor wrote: »

Sorry, what coincidences are you talking about here?

The only reason that Hubbard has qualified for the olympics is due to her transitioning genders. That is not a coincidence, or in any way outside of her control.

That’s not the only reason they have qualified for the Olympics though, nor is being transgender something they have any control over, nor are any of the other circumstances which have meant that Hubbard is the first openly transgender athlete to compete in the women’s events at the Olympics. For example had Chris Mosier, the athlete who campaigned for the IOC to relax the restrictions on transgender athletes eligibility not been injured, it would likely have been Chris Mosier who made history, in a couple of ways. For now Chris Mosier will have to settle for being the athlete who made it possible for transgender athletes such as Hubbard to be eligible for qualification.

Mellor wrote: »

Can you please try to response to the points made, it stead of going off on another tangent again when caught in a lie again.

I can tell already you’re going to cling onto that one for dear life :pac:

Podge_irl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s disingenuous, especially when you’re making claims of athletes having “male advantages” as a reason to argue for their exclusion.

It is not disingenuous. It is not the sole factor but it is the largest factor.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The argument for the exclusion of transgender athletes from women’s sports amounts to the idea that they are a threat to women’s sports. Hubbards inclusion in the women’s events in a single sport is the evidence they are using to support their argument.

It's the thin edge of the wedge, isn't it. It's unfair for biological women to compete against Hubbard in weightlifting, and if this nonsense is let carry on, then it will/is extending into other sports.

Lets be honest, a mediocre biological male weightlifter who would barely scrape into the top 100 in the men's category would easily walk into the top 10 in the women's category. And there's an awful lot of science to prove why that is.

Denying that being a transgender woman offers no physical advantages when compared to biological women when it comes to sports that involve size and strength is just ridiculous.

volchitsa

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not disingenuous. It is not the sole factor but it is the largest factor.

Hubbard's career proves that, in her case at least, it is by far the largest factor.

To suddenly move up to Olympic standard in weightlifting at 43 years of age? It's actually funny.

Some people on here remind me of the awestruck crowds in The Emperor's New Clothes.

I think it is useful to post this image from time to time when people try to argue about these things. Nothing changes these differences.

One eyed Jack

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not disingenuous. It is not the sole factor but it is the largest factor.

Not going to quibble with you Podge, it’s why I agreed with your earlier observation in the thread that two things can be ostensibly true.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's the thin edge of the wedge, isn't it. It's unfair for biological women to compete against Hubbard in weightlifting, and if this nonsense is let carry on, then it will/is extending into other sports.

Lets be honest, a mediocre biological male weightlifter who would barely scrape into the top 100 in the men's category would easily walk into the top 10 in the women's category. And there's an awful lot of science to prove why that is.

Denying that being a transgender woman offers no physical advantages when compared to biological women when it comes to sports that involve size and strength is just ridiculous.

I agree it’s the thin end of the wedge as previously the criteria for transgender athletes to be considered eligible for participation or competition were so restrictive that it was easy for anyone to say they support transgender athletes participation in sports - their conviction behind their virtue signalling had never been tested. Their conviction is now being tested and they are quick to point out that the current circumstances are not what they had in mind when they professed their support for transgender athletes. I agree that it will absolutely extend into other sports and there will be many more transgender athletes participating in sports as a result of the restrictions on their participation being relaxed. It’s been years coming, and there’s no putting them back in their box.

Being honest, while science is a useful tool in helping to make predictions, it’s not infallible, and using it outside of its proper context for purposes it was never intended for just leads to policy decisions being made on unreasonable grounds justified on the basis of a combination of bad data, pseudoscientific nonsense and politics, a concept which was no better demonstrated by this example, and this which, while by no means as effective as the first example, was the dogs bollocks, metaphorically speaking, of course. Trying to find what could be considered objective scientific evidence among sources which are for the most part producing weird results without acknowledging bias, is not science, it’s politics.

I wouldn’t use the terms you’re using, but your claim in any case is pretty vague, even if I look at it the way you’re looking at it. In the interests of fairness, one would have to take into consideration as many factors as possible, even the ones that don’t suit them, and I don’t think that’s what’s happening here in determining that it is unfair that transgender athletes should be permitted to participate in women’s sports. Athletes have advantages and disadvantages, focussing solely on their being transgender or not is just one criteria which influences any outcome. That’s what fairness means. If you’re someone who believes you’re entitled to win and that’s all you’re concerned about, then I can understand why anything which stands in the way of achieving that aim is perceived as unfair. However once you start down that road, it’s not long before you start looking at the athletes who do not openly identify themselves as transgender who win competitions, and then accusing them of being a man as a means to discredit their achievements and damage their reputation in as public a fashion as possible, all the easier to do with the proliferation of social media.

Even if there were no physical advantages (with or without hormone supplements), Hubbard should not compete in the women's division on the basis that she was born to a male biological body.

Sex is immutable, and this alone should be the basis of the decision to exclude Hubbard - not physiological debates about strength and bone density.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that they are included already, and I’m arguing against the idea of changing the current rules so that they be excluded

Everyone is well aware she is permitted to enter under the current rules.
Those rules are the issue. The fact they are currently allowed does not support that they should be allowed.

There's no other way to look at it other that you are for trans inclusion.

My fault, I read your post as though you were suggesting I had argued that gender was a social construct as opposed to biology. Not a lie, just a misunderstanding.

You mistake in that case.
To be clear, you said sex segregation in sport had a social basis, not a physiological one. That statement is laughably incorrect imo.

I ignore them because they’re irrelevant. Hubbard is not cheating, and you were unable to provide any evidence of Hubbard cheating, and I do not accept your premise that just because anyone hasn’t been caught cheating doesn’t mean they aren’t.

I have clearly outlined how they have broken the rules.
You keep say she is not, but have not provided a single reason for that. Ergo it's useless. I have outline my reasons very clearly.

"wah, wah, wah, leave her alone" is not a counterpoint.

The idea of male advantages might be a legitimate argument were it not for the fact that Hubbard also has male disadvantages if you want to look at it in those terms - certainly their… (as you put it) their perceived “male advantages” mean they are subjected to greater scrutiny than the other athletes, although I would not suggest that was by implication an advantage of being being female.

What male disadvantages are you referring to? Be specific.

How many Olympic events are there? I believe its in the ballpark of 400.
And in how many does the womens' record surpass the mens'? I imagien virtually none.

The rules apply to anyone who wishes to compete in the competition. You’re coming at this from the point of view that anyone who doesn’t meet what appears to be your rules, is cheating, and using the example of an athlete who was caught cheating, and punished, to support your argument.

This is incorrect.

I didn't not make the rules. The fact you think that I did calls into question your understand of the issues here.

The above was in response to your idea that "its just one athlete in one event". Smith was just one athlete, why was she not permitted to gain an advantage? Because it is categorically unfair.

You’re aware as I am that even though the drugs are on the banned list, it is the levels of chemicals in their body they are tested for, not just the presence of the drugs.

This is incorrect.
Certain substance have a threshold that athletes have to stay under.
But the vast majority are not permitted to be found in ANY quantity.

In addition, in the case of naturally occur hormones, taking them exogenously is not permitted in any amount regardless of whether you exceed a natural physiological range or not.

I think you badly exposed your ignorance of the subject there. And completely made my point for me, thank you.

The point I make about one athlete in one sport is as a counter to the argument that the participation of athletes who are transgender in women’s sports will mean an end to women’s participation in sports, arguing as though this is an inevitable foregone conclusion and therefore transgender athletes should be excluded from participating in women’s sports on that basis.

I've never claimed that.
It's not about destroying every division in every sport. It's about destroying the fairness in the divisions in which they compete.

It’s catastrophising nonsense without foundation. It amounts to nothing more than scaremongering, fuelling prejudice against people who are transgender.

In this very thread, I've made pro-transgender points. I've made it clear I have no issue with Hubbard living as a women. It's absolute nonsense to try to tar me as being prejudice. My post is entirely about the fairness of sport.

Michelle Smith, though I understand why you make the comparison, has never identified themselves openly as transgender. She’s an incredible athlete, who got caught for cheating.

Actually, Smith was a mediocre athlete who had a surge in performance in the 2 years leading up to her getting caught, coinciding with her meetign his future husband - a discus thrower who was at the time banned for cheating with PEDs also.

Hubbard, is a mediocre athlete who is openly transgender, who has never cheated. That’s the difference.

This is also incorrect.

Gavin Hubbard was a mediocre weightlifter. He's was maybe ranked about 100.
Laurel Hubbard, with similar lifts, is ranked among the elites of the womens division.
That is precisely the advantage transitioning afford Hubbard.

No, it’s not a lie, though i understand why you’re claiming it’s a lie, because you’re choosing to ignore the fact that I informed you that the onus to provide evidence for your claim that Hubbard is cheating, is on you. I had made my point, and until you can provide evidence of your claim that Hubbard is cheating, I’m going to ignore your argument which I have already addressed, and you have chosen to ignore the point I made that I don’t have to answer your questions, the burden of proof is on you.

The questions I posed prove Hubbard cheated.
This is the irony. You want me to give evidence, so I gave it. And you're reply it that you're going to ignore it. This is the logic we are dealing it.

That’s disingenuous, especially when you’re making claims of athletes having “male advantages” as a reason to argue for their exclusion.

Key word. Solely.
I guess this was another one of you "misunderstandings".
Please read more carefully

That’s not the only reason they have qualified for the Olympics though, nor is being transgender something they have any control over, nor are any of the other circumstances which have meant that Hubbard is the first openly transgender athlete to compete in the women’s events at the Olympics. For example had Chris Mosier, the athlete who campaigned for the IOC to relax the restrictions on transgender athletes eligibility not been injured, it would likely have been Chris Mosier who made history, in a couple of ways. For now Chris Mosier will have to settle for being the athlete who made it possible for transgender athletes such as Hubbard to be eligible for qualification.

Yes it is the only reason. As evidence by the fact that Gavin Hubbard failed to qualify for multiple Olympic games.
And qualifying is not something that is in out of her control, she had to actively try.

Finally, you are trying to conflate it being a coincidence that she was the first to qualify, with it being a coincidence that she qualifying.
That is really intentional misrepresentation. Shocker. Another compete lie from you.

Seriously, your posts are a serious is "mistakes", incorrect statements, and flot out lies.

Mellor

eskimohunt wrote: »

Even if there were no physical advantages (with or without hormone supplements), Hubbard should not compete in the women's division on the basis that she was born to a male biological body.

Sex is immutable, and this alone should be the basis of the decision to exclude Hubbard - not physiological debates about strength and bone density.

You're entitled to that opinion. But the premise it starts from is a fallacy.
There are physical advantages. So there's no point talking about if there were not.

Hypothetically, if there were no physical advantages, there wouldn't be a mens/womens split. As evidenced by certain sports.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

You're entitled to that opinion. But the premise it starts from is a fallacy.
There are physical advantages. So there's no point talking about if there were not.

Hypothetically, if there were no physical advantages, there wouldn't be a mens/womens split. As evidenced by certain sports.

I agree, there are physical advantages. It's obvious, except to One Eyed Jack.

It's a fair point, though. If there were no physical advantages, there wouldn't be a distinction between men and women's sport. I guess that I see the debate about pelvis size etc. as a distraction.

Because if it were hypothetically possible to level those physiological parameters, then your argument would be out the water.

Whereas mine would remain: even if Lauren Hubbard were to modify their body and hormones to level themselves against women legitimately, it still wouldn't be grounds to include them in the competition with women born to female biological bodies.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

Seriously, your posts are a serious is "mistakes", incorrect statements, and flot out lies.

Feel free to drop any pretence of being civil at this point. Any further back and forth is evidently pointless unless you can provide evidence for your claims that is not just based upon your subjective interpretation.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feel free to drop any pretence of being civil at this point. Any further back and forth is evidently pointless unless you can provide evidence for your claims that is not just based upon your subjective interpretation.

Quite frankly, Mellor comprehensively destroyed your arguments -- line by line, point by point; armed with logic, propelled by facts.

I'm unsurprised you have chosen to park the discussion with them.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite frankly, Mellor comprehensively destroyed your arguments -- line by line, point by point; armed with logic, propelled by facts.

I'm unsurprised you have chosen to park the discussion with them.

Equally, I am unsurprised you are of that opinion. It’s not coincidence that you are of that opinion when your own objections are based upon the idea that sex is the only criteria by which transgender athletes participation in sports should be assessed. I agree with your view that sex is immutable, that humans simply do not have the capacity to change their sex, but in reality when it comes to sports, the criteria for participation are not solely based upon sex.

That doesn’t suit you, but it doesn’t follow that anyone who doesn’t agree with your perspective can be compelled to adhere to your standards, you’re not being compelled to adhere to their standards either. You do you and all that. You’re not being forced to participate, you just don’t have the authority to demand that anyone else be excluded, and so far what amounts to your own standards is insufficient to compel sports governing bodies and organisations to suit your standards. Broadening the criteria for participation in any sport, in no way affects anyone else’s right to participate, in spite of their claims to the contrary or claims that it is unfair. What they tend to mean is that it’s unfair upon people who they share an affinity with.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Being honest, while science is a useful tool in helping to make predictions, it’s not infallible, and using it outside of its proper context for purposes it was never intended for just leads to policy decisions being made on unreasonable grounds justified on the basis of a combination of bad data, pseudoscientific nonsense and politics, a concept which was no better demonstrated by this example, and this which, while by no means as effective as the first example, was the dogs bollocks, metaphorically speaking, of course. Trying to find what could be considered objective scientific evidence among sources which are for the most part producing weird results without acknowledging bias, is not science, it’s politics.

I didn't realise that science had a proper context and that using science to determine the differences between biological men and biological women was something outside of the correct context. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that the science that says biological men are physically larger and stronger than biological women is wrong?

You highlighted a few instances where science was misled or fooled but the body of evidence relating to the biological/physiological differences between biological men and biological women is pretty conclusive.

I wouldn’t use the terms you’re using, but your claim in any case is pretty vague

Why wouldn't you use those terms? Are they not correct?

Which part of what I said is pretty vague?

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but in reality when it comes to sports, the criteria for participation are not solely based upon sex.

This whole discussion isn't about the participation of transgender people in sport, it's about what category they participate in.

And yes, the criteria for participation isn't solely based on sex. There are other categorisations such as by age, weight, physical or mental disability etc.

What criteria do you think transwomen should be allowed to enter the women's events and compete against biological women?

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't realise that science had a proper context and that using science to determine the differences between biological men and biological women was something outside of the correct context. :rolleyes:

Don’t just take my word for it.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you saying that the science that says biological men are physically larger and stronger than biological women is wrong?

You highlighted a few instances where science was misled or fooled but the body of evidence relating to the biological/physiological differences between biological men and biological women is pretty conclusive.

I’m saying the issues are not quite as simple as you’re suggesting.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why wouldn't you use those terms? Are they not correct?

Which part of what I said is pretty vague?

I wouldn’t use those terms because I don’t subscribe to what is in my view a political and social ideology which I simply disagree with, and I’ll stop there because any further explanation is likely to cause offence and I would be likely banned from the site. Your last point was vague, but I’m not interested in delving any further into it. I don’t foresee the likelihood of your opinion that it is simply ridiculous being changed.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don’t just take my word for it.

I've read that link. I don't see how it's relevant. God and intelligent design????

I’m saying the issues are not quite as simple as you’re suggesting.

Agreed. But what is relatively simple is the fact that being born a biological male and going through male puberty gives certain advantages when it comes to sports such as weightlifting. That's pretty irrefutable.

I wouldn’t use those terms because I don’t subscribe to what is in my view a political and social ideology which I simply disagree with, and I’ll stop there because any further explanation is likely to cause offence and I would be likely banned from the site. Your last point was vague, but I’m not interested in delving any further into it. I don’t foresee the likelihood of your opinion that it is simply ridiculous being changed.

You are right. I won't change my opinion, and neither will you, even though your opinion flies in the face of science.

You continually fail to admit that being born male and going through male puberty gives a transwoman advantages when it comes to weightlifting.

Simple question, does being born a biological male and going through male puberty and then transitioning bestow any physical advantages to a transwoman? It's a yes, no, or I don't know answer by the way.

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've read that link. I don't see how it's relevant. God and intelligent design????

You said you weren’t aware that science had it’s proper context, and apart from the examples I’d already given where they tried to dress up pseudoscience as having any scientific validity or merit whatsoever, the same is done by proponents of Intelligent Design -


Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".


It’s this very same sort of bollocks that allows people to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them or doesn’t share their opinions or has a different opinion is, as you put it - “flying in the face of science.” The point of the exercise is only effective if the person they’re aiming the accusation at… well, gives a fcuk really. This is how John Money was able to successfully perpetuate his ideas - anyone who didn’t agree with his fcukology, he would castigate them as ascientific, and all the rest. He appealed successfully to people’s egos. It wasn’t science he was practicing, it was politics, and that pretty much brings us up to where we are today where you’re trying to tell me my opinion flies in the face of science as if you expect me to care for your decree.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Agreed. But what is relatively simple is the fact that being born a biological male and going through male puberty gives certain advantages when it comes to sports such as weightlifting. That's pretty irrefutable.

On the face of it, presented in the way you have done that suits your already foregone conclusion, I can see how from your point of view it’s pretty irrefutable. I don’t think it is a fact, nor is it as simple as you’re making out. Perhaps generally speaking would be a better way to suggest that there is scientific evidence to support the claim that an outcome can be predicted based upon data available, and if we know the outcome we want, we can manipulate the data to support our argument and claim that the science is irrefutable. Convenient, but I wouldn’t call it science.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are right. I won't change my opinion, and neither will you, even though your opinion flies in the face of science.

You continually fail to admit that being born male and going through male puberty gives a transwoman advantages when it comes to weightlifting.

Simple question, does being born a biological male and going through male puberty and then transitioning bestow any physical advantages to a transwoman? It's a yes, no, or I don't know answer by the way.

It’s not that I fail to admit anything. It’s that I won’t express what I don’t know is actually true as if it is actually true. You’re expressing an opinion which I find questionable on a number of fronts based upon the terms you’re using - “born male”, “male puberty” and the worst offender - “transwoman”. To me the term “transwoman” is an oxymoron for a concept that in my view doesn’t exist, it has no legitimacy, therefore I can’t answer your question the way you want me to, which you’re more than welcome to claim is a victory for you, but that’s not what actually happened in reality. Still makes for a good story down the pub though, but has no place in a discussion regarding transgender athletes participation in women’s sports and the decision of the IOC to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Olympics to accommodate transgender athletes who would otherwise have been ineligible to compete under the previous rules.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not that I fail to admit anything. It’s that I won’t express what I don’t know is actually true as if it is actually true..

Once again trying to hide behind feigned ignorance.

A study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine has proposed that the 12-month treatments for trans women that were proposed by World Athletics and the IOC were not sufficient due to trans women still being 12% faster than biological women after two years of treatment

scientists on the IOC panel have argued that reducing the permitted testosterone levels to 5nmol/L – below most males – would provide a reasonable compromise between inclusion and fairness, ensuring that trans women could still compete in the women’s category while taking away most of the advantages of undergoing male puberty.

the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which show that testosterone suppression for transgender women has little effect on reducing muscle strength even after a year of treatment. That indicates that at least some of the physical advantages of those who have gone through male puberty are maintained even after transitioning.

The IOC ever refer to the hormonal advantage in the requirements.
I’m the above laughable note, I’m out.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s this very same sort of bollocks that allows people to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them or doesn’t share their opinions or has a different opinion is, as you put it - “flying in the face of science.”

Well, doctors and other experts who have studied this stuff for years and years are all happy to acknowledge that biological males, on average, are bigger and stronger than biological females and therefore have a physical advantage when it comes to certain sports. I must let them know that you think that they are wrong.

On the face of it, presented in the way you have done that suits your already foregone conclusion, I can see how from your point of view it’s pretty irrefutable. I don’t think it is a fact, nor is it as simple as you’re making out.

There's the medical evidence that's pretty irrefutable. There's the scientific evidence that's pretty irrefutable. There's the anecdotal evidence in the form of the world records that are pretty irrefutable.........women don't really come close to matching the men's world records in things like track and field and weightlifting. But anyway.............

Perhaps generally speaking would be a better way to suggest that there is scientific evidence to support the claim that an outcome can be predicted based upon data available, and if we know the outcome we want, we can manipulate the data to support our argument and claim that the science is irrefutable. Convenient, but I wouldn’t call it science.

Doesn't matter whether or not it meets 'your' definition of science. It's a fact that the average male is bigger, stronger and faster than the average female. No matter what way you look at the data, it will show that this is the case. It's not a matter of skewing it to make it suit an agenda. Identifying as female doesn't remove that 'size, strength and speed' difference.

It’s not that I fail to admit anything. It’s that I won’t express what I don’t know is actually true as if it is actually true.

Come on, you know well it's true. A biological male athlete will normally beat a biologically female athlete at a strength based sport.

You’re expressing an opinion which I find questionable on a number of fronts based upon the terms you’re using - “born male”, “male puberty” and the worst offender - “transwoman”.

So, you are questioning my opinion that biological men are typically bigger, stronger and faster than biological women even though there is the world of evidence that shows this is the case because I use the term biological before the person's sex?

To me the term “transwoman” is an oxymoron for a concept that in my view doesn’t exist, it has no legitimacy, therefore I can’t answer your question the way you want me to, which you’re more than welcome to claim is a victory for you, but that’s not what actually happened in reality. Still makes for a good story down the pub though, but has no place in a discussion regarding transgender athletes participation in women’s sports and the decision of the IOC to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Olympics to accommodate transgender athletes who would otherwise have been ineligible to compete under the previous rules.

I know it doesn't suit your agenda but the discussion on whether biological males who identify as female should be allowed to take part in women's sports isn't going to go away because, whether you admit it or not, gives transwomen an unfair advantage in strength based sports.

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know it doesn't suit your agenda but the discussion on whether biological males who identify as female should be allowed to take part in women's sports isn't going to go away because, whether you admit it or not, gives transwomen an unfair advantage in strength based sports.

I don’t think that’s the reason why it’s not going away, I’ve already said it’s only getting started, and hopefully there will come a point where the concept of universal human rights actually means something, and isn’t just a trite neologism.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think that’s the reason why it’s not going away, I’ve already said it’s only getting started, and hopefully there will come a point where the concept of universal human rights actually means something, and isn’t just a trite neologism.

Gavin Hubbard ranked 100th+ in the male weightlifting.

Transitions to Lauren, and is now ranked something like 14th.

If that's not enough to demonstrate to you the advantage, I don't know what will convince you.

Let's reverse that.

Imagine we have a woman born as a biological female who is ranked 14th in the world. Decides to transition to become a man at 34 and now competes in the men's weightlifting. We can safely assume that this person will move from 14th in the female ranks to a very high number indeed in the male ranking.

BattleCorp

eskimohunt wrote: »

Gavin Hubbard ranked 100th+ in the male weightlifting.

Transitions to Lauren, and is now ranked something like 14th.

If that's not enough to demonstrate to you the advantage, I don't know what will convince you.

Let's reverse that.

Imagine we have a woman born as a biological female who is ranked 14th in the world. Decides to transition to become a man at 34 and now competes in the men's weightlifting. We can safely assume that this person will move from 14th in the female ranks to a very high number indeed in the male ranking.

Don't forget to add in that Hubbard is now 43, and not in their athletic prime any more.

Will I Am Not

It’s weird how some people just can’t accept the natural, evolutionary differences between males and females.

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It’s weird how some people just can’t accept the natural, evolutionary differences between males and females.

It's cognitive dissonance coupled to pseudoscientific ideology.

When people want to believe something hard enough, they'll make it fit - no matter what nor how irrational it may appear to others.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gavin Hubbard ranked 100th+ in the male weightlifting.

Transitions to Lauren, and is now ranked something like 14th.

If that's not enough to demonstrate to you the advantage, I don't know what will convince you.

Let's reverse that.

Imagine we have a woman born as a biological female who is ranked 14th in the world. Decides to transition to become a man at 34 and now competes in the men's weightlifting. We can safely assume that this person will move from 14th in the female ranks to a very high number indeed in the male ranking.

Quite honestly, on their own, single anecdotes like what you’re presenting will tell us nothing. It demonstrates precisely why we musn’t rely on anecdotal evidence to determine anything. Instead we as much data as we can gather, and continue to gather data, and when it comes to determining what’s fair in a competition like the Olympics, then you’re not just talking about individual athletes being pitted against one another to duke it out or anything else.

The IOC as an international organisation have to look at all factors, and instead of making their determinations on the basis of a single study, which is pretty much what they did, they should have gathered data from a number of different sources, which they didn’t. It’s not just a question of being fair to athletes disadvantages, but they also must regard athletes advantages. They chose to put the most weight in the testosterone levels argument, overlooking all others. While transgender athletes no longer had to undergo castration to compete in the women’s events, an expectation which was a violation of their human rights, they were being compelled by the new rules to lower their testosterone levels as if that would handicap their performance. The data available suggests that it doesn’t.

I do think they’re looking for answers in the wrong place, very same as Money was doing but was trying to cover up the fact that the outcomes of his experiments did not correspond to his politics. I don’t know what the answer is, but the responsibility for ensuring fairness in the sport lies with the sports and competitions governing bodies, and IMO they must make their decisions while being cognisant not just of the science, but also the framework of human rights and all legal frameworks and legislation in the participating countries which the athletes are representing. I don’t envy their task, but they set up the rules of the sport without regarding how their principles would translate in reality. The answer to that question, in hindsight, is obvious - not very well. ‘Twas all well and good when the sports participants were largely homogeneous, but thanks to the development of the sport, other people who wouldn’t normally have wanted to participate, now do, which leaves sporting organisations and their principles and their rules, in a bit of a bind with no easy hard and fast answers.

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's cognitive dissonance coupled to pseudoscientific ideology.

When people want to believe something hard enough, they'll make it fit - no matter what nor how irrational it may appear to others.

I wonder does the majority of the rest of the animal kingdom have these issues. I mean between manes, colours, horns, strength, size among a myriad of other difference that almost always favour the male, they’ve got it pretty bad. It’s almost like there’s some sort of reason for it all.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite honestly, on their own, single anecdotes like what you’re presenting will tell us nothing. It demonstrates precisely why we musn’t rely on anecdotal evidence to determine anything. Instead we as much data as we can gather, and continue to gather data, and when it comes to determining what’s fair in a competition like the Olympics, then you’re not just talking about individual athletes being pitted against one another to duke it out or anything else.

Anecdotal?

Are you serious?

Are you seriously arguing that if a biological woman who lived to 34 - then transitioned and joined the elite men's weightlifting - she'd be ranked in the Top 20?

We both know the answer to that, and why it never goes the other way.

Those born to biological male bodies ascend the female ranks post-transition, whereas the converse never takes place.

You can deny it all you wish. But it's as clear as day to the rest of us.

You can see why I often compare this to arguing with Young Earth Creationists.

No amount of common sense is enough, no matter how simple and obvious the point made.