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

One eyed Jack

Will I Am Not wrote: »

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

Will I Am Not wrote: »

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.

It’s as though you imagine the development of sporting contests among humans has anything to do with evolution? Just as one example that comes to mind, have you ever heard of the Fosbury flop and how that changed the outcomes of the high jump event?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

It’s as though you imagine both evolution and sports development are static and should always remain so, as though humans society doesn’t change either. No disrespect but your argument just doesn’t hold up is all.

Will I Am Not

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as though you imagine the development of sporting contests among humans has anything to do with evolution? Just as one example that comes to mind, have you ever heard of the Fosbury flop and how that changed the outcomes of the high jump event?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

It’s as though you imagine both evolution and sports development are static and should always remain so, as though humans society doesn’t change either. No disrespect but your argument just doesn’t hold up is all.

Oh yeah, like all you’re arguments in this thread do hold up :pac:

My argument has nothing to do with sporting contests being evolutionary BTW. Just physical differences between the sexes.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

I do, but I gather the observation that you’re both making stuff up to suit yourselves, wasn’t actually the point you intended to make.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as though you imagine the development of sporting contests among humans has anything to do with evolution? Just as one example that comes to mind, have you ever heard of the Fosbury flop and how that changed the outcomes of the high jump event?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

It’s as though you imagine both evolution and sports development are static and should always remain so, as though humans society doesn’t change either. No disrespect but your argument just doesn’t hold up is all.

Before the fosbury flop came along, were there physical differences between men and women (size, strength and speed) and was the women's world record in the high jump roughly the same as the mens?

voldejoie

Admittedly I know very little about weightlifting, but I am a woman who swam at quite a high level until my early 20s. Despite being one of the best in my club and training hard consistently, I once went for a swim with some friends and was absolutely trounced by a male friend who was a casual swimmer and hadn't been in a pool for several months before that. There's just no getting away from the physical advantages men have over women, and I find it really quite sinister that it's somehow become verboten to comment on it in any context. I would imagine those advantages are, if anything, more pronounced in strength training sports than cardio (happy to be corrected on that though).

Will I Am Not

voldejoie wrote: »

Admittedly I know very little about weightlifting, but I am a woman who swam at quite a high level until my early 20s. Despite being one of the best in my club and training hard consistently, I once went for a swim with some friends and was absolutely trounced by a male friend who was a casual swimmer and hadn't been in a pool for several months before that. There's just no getting away from the physical advantages men have over women, and I find it really quite sinister that it's somehow become verboten to comment on it in any context. I would imagine those advantages are, if anything, more pronounced in strength training sports than cardio (happy to be corrected on that though).

It’s not just strength and cardio. It’s accuracy, anything hand/eye coordinated, reflexes, basically all facets of sporting skills. It’s why sports are segregated. It’s nobody’s fault and maybe in a few hundred thousand years it will be a level playing field but for now we still carry those evolutionary traits.

Will I Am Not

Any gender is free to try and win a place on the PDC darts tour but they still have to have designated women’s places for their World Championship because none are ever going to qualify on merit. That’s a sport where fitness, strength and size is irrelevant.

volchitsa

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It’s not just strength and cardio. It’s accuracy, anything hand/eye coordinated, reflexes, basically all facets of sporting skills. It’s why sports are segregated. It’s nobody’s fault and maybe in a few hundred thousand years it will be a level playing field but for now we still carry those evolutionary traits.

It's not about fault because it's all about reproduction: it's evolution. Women have smaller organs not just because they're physically smaller but also to leave room for a growing uterus during pregnancy. Same with our shorter legs compared to body size - our "strength" is in our uterus and all that's associated with that. that's why women have more of the "slow twitch" muscles, and are better at endurance sports but not as good at "explosive energy" sports.

Will I Am Not

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not about fault because it's all about reproduction: it's evolution. Women have smaller organs not just because they're physically smaller but also to leave room for a growing uterus during pregnancy. Same with our shorter legs compared to body size - our "strength" is in our uterus and all that's associated with that. that's why women have more of the "slow twitch" muscles, and are better at endurance sports but not as good at "explosive energy" sports.

That’s kinda what I said

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

Before the fosbury flop came along, were there physical differences between men and women (size, strength and speed) and was the women's world record in the high jump roughly the same as the mens?

My point wasn’t about records or anything else though, it was simply refuting the idea that the development of sports had anything to do with evolution. I was making the point that sports have changed and developed over the last few decades as a result of of technology advances and so on.

Evolution just has nothing to do with the issue. That’s not to suggest that I don’t acknowledge that there are of course physiological and anatomical differences between human males and females and I have never made the point that there weren’t. There are anatomical and physiological differences between males and other males and females and other females too, and some people are more suited to compete in some sports than others due to having natural advantages over their competitors that some competitors feel the need to cheat in order to gain an artificial advantage, and are punished when they’re caught cheating.

Politics has been involved in sports since their inception and has more of an influence in sports than any advantages athletes have had over each other which enabled them to win, which is also why I don’t buy the whole notion of anyone suggesting I was suggesting comparing men’s and women’s records in sports or women being forced to compete with men or vice versa. The rules have simply changed is all, and obviously while there are understandably people put out by the rules changing, they are not being forced to participate against their will, unless they are actually being forced to compete, but that’s another issue entirely.

volchitsa

Will I Am Not wrote: »

That’s kinda what I said

I was agreeing and expanding on it.

c.p.w.g.w

Isn't there some acedotal evidence that some highschool girls are doping in order to try and compete with the trans gender girls in order for scholarship's

volchitsa

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Isn't there some acedotal evidence that some highschool girls are doping in order to try and compete with the trans gender girls in order for scholarship's

You might need to provide some evidence of that (even anecdotal). I haven't come across it but then I wouldn't know where to look.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do, but I gather the observation that you’re both making stuff up to suit yourselves, wasn’t actually the point you intended to make.

In other words, you just completely disregard my central point in that post - and instead decide to quote the part on Young Earth Creationism.

Men dominate sports.

Look at the Gold Medal results for men and women across sport. Men dominate.

If men transition, they still retain significant advantages - no matter how low their testosterone levels are artificially lowered.

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Isn't there some acedotal evidence that some highschool girls are doping in order to try and compete with the trans gender girls in order for scholarship's

To be fair, it's a good excuse if you're caught juicing, it's to beat the lads you're running against, especially in Conneticut
2 trans athletes have apparently amassed 15 different state championship titles that were once held by nine different girls across the state.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In other words, you just completely disregard my central point in that post - and instead decide to quote the part on Young Earth Creationism.

Men dominate sports.

Look at the Gold Medal results for men and women across sport. Men dominate.

If men transition, they still retain significant advantages - no matter how low their testosterone levels are artificially lowered.

I thought the YEC comparison was your main point as you had mentioned it a couple of times already, but fair enough, I did overlook your other points as you appeared to be telling me I already agreed with you.

Ok so we’ll look at some stats from the upcoming Olympics, because I’ve already been very clear that my point has never been about medals, but eligibility to participate in any given sport of their choice, a right that should be open to everyone regardless of their sex or gender identity. It should be obvious that I’m not suggesting that competitions are set up to “teach anyone a lesson”, or to be spiteful, or any other negative connotations. In this years Olympics -





11,500 athletes competing in 400 events across 50 different sports, with an almost 50/50 split between the genders (note the graphic refers to gender, not sex), and 79,000 overseas officials, journalists and support staff. Your one-on-one hypothetical comparison just doesn’t get a look in. You’re trying to create a false dilemma.

Regarding any decision to transition, it’s an individual’s choice and IMO they should never be compelled to undergo any unnecessary medical interventions or be forced to take synthetic hormones, no matter how they identify themselves as whatever their gender identity (some countries such as Germany, Samoa and India recognise a third gender), and it’s true that males retain the advantages of puberty if they choose to continue to participate in sports, or choose to take up a new sport where they may have what are considered advantages.

It also appears to be true that males retain what appears to be those same significant advantages in their chosen sports regardless of their testosterone levels. Now what does that suggest to you? That’s not a rhetorical question btw, I’m genuinely interested in your answer.

The point I’m making is that it is the same sort of “they must be up to no good” suspicion that is cast on athletes precisely because they are open about their gender identity, in spite of the fact that they are being open about their gender identity, they are castigated as somehow being dishonest or looking to cheat so they can compete. By that catch 22 standard, it places athletes who are transgender in an untenable position where no matter what they do, they are either ineligible to compete, or disqualified if they cheat. It’s simply not worth the risk, knowing that they’re held to a FAR higher standard than athletes who conform to the norm, and the vilification and scrutiny and humiliation is that much more intense than an athlete you will be unlikely to have ever heard of before now, and just three examples to illustrate the point -

Woman Weightlifter Tests Positive For Banned Substance, Asked To Return Home From National Camp: Report

Seema, Indian Weightlifter and Commonwealth Championship Silver Medallist, Banned for Four Years for Doping By NADA

Chika Amhala - banned twice, first time in 2014 at 16 years of age, for two years, second time in 2019 for eight years, but she could well be hitting her peak strength when she’s eligible to compete again in her chosen sport -

PEAK STRENGTH: At what age are we our strongest?

Tilden Katz

voldejoie wrote: »

Admittedly I know very little about weightlifting, but I am a woman who swam at quite a high level until my early 20s. Despite being one of the best in my club and training hard consistently, I once went for a swim with some friends and was absolutely trounced by a male friend who was a casual swimmer and hadn't been in a pool for several months before that. There's just no getting away from the physical advantages men have over women, and I find it really quite sinister that it's somehow become verboten to comment on it in any context. I would imagine those advantages are, if anything, more pronounced in strength training sports than cardio (happy to be corrected on that though).

Indeed.

My swimming skills pre-illness - a decent enough front crawl and backstroke with good limb coordination and pretty good breathing coordination
My husband's swimming skills - almost non-existent pretty much bar a very uncoordinated doggie paddle with no breathing technique

We'd race sometimes. I'd always beat him but only just. And that was with much better coordination, knowing two strokes and being able to control and conserve my breathing much better. If he was taught a basic stroke and how to breath properly, he'd have been trouncing me in no time. I'd give it mere weeks.

Tilden Katz

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Any gender is free to try and win a place on the PDC darts tour but they still have to have designated women’s places for their World Championship because none are ever going to qualify on merit. That’s a sport where fitness, strength and size is irrelevant.

Huh? If all those things are irrelevant then why are places put aside for women? Surely women would qualify on merit if fitness, size and strength are irrelevant?

c.p.w.g.w

volchitsa wrote: »

You might need to provide some evidence of that (even anecdotal). I haven't come across it but then I wouldn't know where to look.

It was a suggestion from someone in response to some high school wrestling

One eyed Jack

voldejoie wrote: »

There's just no getting away from the physical advantages men have over women

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Indeed.

Swimming was the only sport where I imagined I would have an equal chance to compete against everyone else as I wasn’t relying on my legs, with a click hip my party trick was to dislocate it and appear as though I was double-jointed, but I’d no co-ordination in the lower half of my body so I just didn’t use my legs when swimming, it was all upper body work. And I could trounce everyone. Then at 16 I started training to be a lifeguard and was paired up with my swimming coaches daughter. Two years older than me and she was just a much better performance swimmer in every way. The front crawl which was my strongest swim, she was faster and could go for longer, much, much longer!

Generally speaking, I’d agree that it does appear that men do have advantages over women in most sports activities, but in my experience, that truism just… isn’t true. I just wouldn’t rely upon my own experience though if I were attempting to be objective and honest because anecdotal evidence and zeroing in on factors which we can rationalise and use to suit our arguments never gives a fuller perspective and are loaded with our own biases and assumptions about advantages and disadvantages from our own perspective.

Unfortunately, relying on a peer review system that has long been criticised for its lack of objectivity due to political interests and interference means that it lends credibility to conspiracy loons claims of a cover-up like they did with Lisa Littmans effort, or more recently vaccination (which has a history of public health vs civil liberties misinformation since the first vaccine programmes, long before Andrew Wakefield who latched onto autism was ever heard of), and it’s the same politics is interfering in science now as it has always been, and it’s no different when it comes to sports and sporting competitions and education.

Shield

Will I Am Not wrote: »

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

And the weird thing is, it’s the gobby activists that are causing the credibility damage with their mindless slogans and empty rhetoric.

There are plenty of very intelligent trans people who acknowledge their biology and at the same time, live in the gender they feel comfortable in. How can you not respect that?

I recall hearing Debbie Hayton saying she thinks it’s cruel to lie to trans people by telling them it’s possible to change your biological sex when the world and its mother knows it is simply impossible. I find her honesty inspiring so if you haven’t heard of her, her Twitter handle is @DebbieHayton - presently being told she’s transphobic for appearing on GB News!

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

And the weird thing is, it’s the gobby activists that are causing the credibility damage with their mindless slogans and empty rhetoric.

There are plenty of very intelligent trans people who acknowledge their biology and at the same time, live in the gender they feel comfortable in. How can you not respect that?

There are, but Debbie Hayton is not one of them. It’s unsurprising and no coincidence though that you would elevate Debbie Hayton’s opinion above the thousands of people who disagree with Debbies opinions, people who if you don’t like your activists gobby and instead prefer that they behave more civilised and conform to your standards at the risk of damaging their credibility in your opinion, there are plenty of people who are more than willing to participate in a discussion where they are regarded as equals (and not just regarded as equals or regarded as intelligent only when they agree with your opinions). Debbie just tells their audience whatever they want to hear -

Trans parent: Debbie Hayton shares her journey exclusively with Hood

This Is What It's Like Being A Transgender Teacher In Britain

I just wouldn’t recommend Twitter in any case to anyone if they were looking for evidence of civilisation, probably avoid GBNews too tbh.

Shield

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are, but Debbie Hayton is not one of them

She has a PhD in Physics. That makes her very intelligent in my humble opinion!

Lillyfae

Shield wrote: »

She has a PhD in Physics. That makes her very intelligent in my humble opinion!

I may identify as someone who has a PhD in Physics :pac:

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

She has a PhD in Physics. That makes her very intelligent in my humble opinion!

I get what you’re saying, but there are different types of intelligence, and having a PhD while it’s an achievement that can tell you a lot about a person and give a certain impression upon which you make judgments, on it’s own it by no means tells you the whole story.

Earlier you used the example of Richard Dawkins, someone who has written extensively on evolutionary biology and philosophy. Clearly an articulate individual, and has written books about evolution and philosophy which I would consider recommended reading to anyone, but I would also recommend that they avoid Twitter because Richard… comes into his own, shall we say

Fine if you’re into that sort of stuff, but his “public” persona is in stark contrast to his more personal work.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as though you imagine the development of sporting contests among humans has anything to do with evolution? Just as one example that comes to mind, have you ever heard of the Fosbury flop and how that changed the outcomes of the high jump event?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

The Fosbury Flop was an improved technique foe both sexes.
Pre-flop men could jump higher.
Post-flop men could jump higher.

How does that in anyway negate the idea that men have an evolutionary advantage.
Seriously, stop using sports examples, they are not helping you.

voldejoie wrote: »

I would imagine those advantages are, if anything, more pronounced in strength training sports than cardio (happy to be corrected on that though).

A teammate of mine is a world class athlete in a combat sport. Where strength is a huge factor. She is a professional. I am a casual hobbyist.
She is currently competing in the P\premier organisation for the sport (and has since moved to the states).
Prior to her signing with that organisation, we trained together often. If I ever used all my strength, I would completely overwhelm her. So I would intentionally hold back. she is technically better than me, but could not compete with my strength advantage.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point wasn’t about records or anything else though, it was simply refuting the idea that the development of sports had anything to do with evolution. I was making the point that sports have changed and developed over the last few decades as a result of of technology advances and so on.

They have change for both sexes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

11,500 athletes competing in 400 events across 50 different sports, with an almost 50/50 split between the genders (note the graphic refers to gender, not sex), and 79,000 overseas officials, journalists and support staff. Your one-on-one hypothetical comparison just doesn’t get a look in. You’re trying to create a false dilemma.

Mem and Women are qualifying to different standards.
If they were working off one standard. I'd guess that there would be 10-20% women as most, mainly in events where men don;t compete.

The point I’m making is that it is the same sort of “they must be up to no good” suspicion that is cast on athletes precisely because they are open about their gender identity, in spite of the fact that they are being open about their gender identity, they are castigated as somehow being dishonest or looking to cheat so they can compete.

They are using their gender identity as a means to qualify in an event where they would not other wise be able to. They should not be allowed to do that.
I really don;t know how you can't grasp that.


It’s simply not worth the risk, knowing that they’re held to a FAR higher standard than athletes who conform to the norm, and the vilification and scrutiny and humiliation is that much more intense than an athlete you will be unlikely to have ever heard of before now, and just three examples to illustrate the point -

Woman Weightlifter Tests Positive For Banned Substance, Asked To Return Home From National Camp: Report

Seema, Indian Weightlifter and Commonwealth Championship Silver Medallist, Banned for Four Years for Doping By NADA

Chika Amhala - banned twice, first time in 2014 at 16 years of age, for two years, second time in 2019 for eight years, but she could well be hitting her peak strength when she’s eligible to compete again in her chosen sport -

Weightlifters, in general, are the most frequent cheaters in all the olympics. I've no idea what point you think you are making.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

I've no idea what point you think you are making.

Reading my posts in the context in which they were written might help, but I couldn’t guarantee it will.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Reading my posts in the context in which they were written might help, but I couldn’t guarantee it will.

It's not always easy to follow your thinking.

You tend to link to things that aren't particularly relevant. You linked to an intersex/male??? German athlete who was forced to take part in pre-WWII competitions in one of your replies to me that had nothing to do with the fairness of modern day trans people taking part in the Olympics.

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not always easy to follow your thinking.

You tend to link to things that aren't particularly relevant. You linked to an intersex/male??? German athlete who was forced to take part in pre-WWII competitions in one of your replies to me that had nothing to do with the fairness of modern day trans people taking part in the Olympics.

There could be no possible relationship in your mind between a male who was raised as female who was forced to represent Germany in the Olympics because Hitler (there goes the thread :pac:) wanted to show the world Germany’s dominance and excluded the Jewish woman so there wouldn’t be any embarrassment?

How Dora the Man Competed in the Woman's High Jump

I was only reminded of it because you asked me about previous high jump records in the men’s and women’s events before Fosbury who couldn’t get over the bar used his brain and adapted his style so he could get over the bar… and then everyone started copying him.

I have to admit, I admire your compartmentalisation!

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get what you’re saying, but there are different types of intelligence, and having a PhD while it’s an achievement that can tell you a lot about a person and give a certain impression upon which you make judgments, on it’s own it by no means tells you the whole story.

Earlier you used the example of Richard Dawkins, someone who has written extensively on evolutionary biology and philosophy. Clearly an articulate individual, and has written books about evolution and philosophy which I would consider recommended reading to anyone, but I would also recommend that they avoid Twitter because Richard… comes into his own, shall we say

Fine if you’re into that sort of stuff, but his “public” persona is in stark contrast to his more personal work.

You speak in tongues and riddles.

Everything is manipulated and torn apart, re-worded, misleadingly phrased, and packaged in deliberately awkward language -- almost as if you are debating yourself and trying to weasel together a justification to believe what you want to believe, rather than what is the actual case.