First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**
Comments
-
(1) Has nothing to do with my post you quoted.
(2) I was speaking about women’s sports and men’s sports in general, of course I can think of specific sports and events where everyone is treated as being of equal status, but that wasn’t the point. The point was in relation to sports where men and women are NOT regarded as being of equal status.
(3) I try to be helpful and I assume that by default everyone has a functioning brain, so in the spirit of being helpful and assuming you have a functioning brain, I’m going to suggest that you scroll back up to the post you quoted and click the little pull-down arrow to read the full post I was responding to, where the poster specifically makes the point that “sex categories exist in sports to protect women”.
Then I’m going to suggest that you take it up with them. I’m also going to assume you will take it up with them seeing as you have been so quick to take it up with me when it was never a point I made, and in fact it was a point I questioned. I’m assuming I won’t get an answer to the question either as the poster likes to point out to anyone who they think gives a shìte, that they’re ignoring me.
However, on the off-chance that you’re not ignoring me yet, perhaps you might offer an answer seeing as you’re quite keen on the whole “protected categories” idea - what do you imagine anyone needs protecting from? Because from what I understand, and from what I know of, and from what I see and hear of… whoever claims to be protecting anyone just isn’t doing a very good job, and the whole idea smells like a protection racket - “we’re protecting you from us”, seems to be the idea tbh. I’d suggest that was rather convenient for the people who claim to be providing protection as the solution to an issue they created in the first place.
I guess it would never occur to some people that other people neither need, nor want, their “protection”. They just don’t want to be having to deal with discrimination which to them is unfair and acts as barriers to prevent, limit, or inhibit their equal participation in sports and being regarded as being of equal status as anyone else (including people who claim to be providing “protection” from being treated unfairly) -
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!!!!!!
Look at the post. Note who I was quoting and replying to. I'll give you a hint. IT WASN'T YOU!
1 -
I’m aware the post you were responding to wasn’t mine? You’re still trying to introduce an irrelevant side-track with the whole comparing men’s and women’s event times and insinuating that’s reason enough to justify your whole “protected categories” nonsense in sports.
It’s not all about you either, on a public forum, if that’s the tack you want to employ, in just the same way as sports aren’t just about maintaining standards that were previously advantageous to some people, as though those standards should be maintained, at the expense of everyone else. That’s just not how reality works.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
"comparing men’s and women’s event times and insinuating that’s reason enough to justify your whole “protected categories” nonsense in sports"
Women cannot match men's performance in the vast, vast majority of sports.
This is why women are given their own events.
This is why it's a problem allowing people born male, who went through puberty as a male to compete in women's sports.
It's very simple.
This is two Olympic medalist gymnasts being amazed at how simply men messing around in a gym can do things that they struggled to/never could do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvz3F4HP170
100m Men's times from the last Olympics finals.
1 Usain Bolt Jamaica 9.81
2 Justin Gatlin United States 9.89
3 Andre De Grasse Canada 9.91
4 Yohan Blake Jamaica 9.93
5 Akani Simbine South Africa 9.94
6 Ben Youssef Meite Ivory Coast 9.96
7 Jimmy Vicaut France 10.04
8 Trayvon Bromell United States 10.06
Elaine Thompson won the women's event with a time of 10.71.
Laurel Hubbard may not win her weightlifting category because she's not that good, but the fact that a below average male weightlifter is in with a chance of winning the women's event is a huge problem.
If allowed to continue, it will lead to women losing out on medals/scholarships/sponsorships to males.
It's inherently unfair, regardless of it being currently within the rules.
18 -
If someone is suggesting that the massive, permanent and unalterable disparity in performance between one category and another is an "irrelevant side-track" to the question of whether those categories should be separated and protected than they are probably simply having a wildly different discussion to you and probably aren't worth engaging with.
16 -
Advertisement
-
If I'm a biological female and I've trained and sacrificed for years to get to the Olympics only to find out I'll be competing against a biological male I'd be pretty pissed off. I'd love to see a mass protest at the games, all the biological females should walk off, put an end to this madness before it gets ridiculous.
6 -
Indeed,
Instead of making a mockery of women's sports and totally destroying the credibility of the games. Why not just add the third gender category, socially and legally accepted in most of Asia for many years.
“Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”
1 -
So what if they wouldn't stand a chance?
I wouldn't stand a chance either.
The fact of the matter is that gender is becoming an outdated concept.
The Olympic athletes in the 2032 or 2036 Olympics are just growing up now and by that time you are going to have a whole host of new genders and categories. So "men" and "women" won't cover it anymore.
Who's to say the top 3 fastest runners would all even identify as men? From our 2021 perspective we might automatically see them as men but who knows.
This is just the beginning.
Would be easier for all involved if we just get on with it and have a single open to all category. The fastest person gets the gold 2nd gets silver, 3rd gets bronze and then the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
The alternative is having people who cannot compete in Category A simply identifying themselves into Category B where they can compete and get the associated prize money and fame etc.
0 -
The categories are still separate and protected? It’s simply a question of who that separation and protection is extended to, and in the case of most sports as in the case of most legal systems in most countries, it’s separated into males and females. If a person is recognised as either male or female in their own jurisdiction, the IOC guidelines are cognisant of this fact, and the national governing bodies of the sports are cognisant of this fact.
The question of times and performance and so on is a different matter entirely as within each of those already separated categories, athletes are all capable or not of different times and performance and so on, and nobody demands a new separate category for themselves so that they can increase their chances of a medal or trophy or whatever the case may be by way of rewarding them for their efforts.
In most sports, the rewards for men are still much greater than those for women and greater recognition is given to men’s sports than women’s sports, even at the lower levels in the sport, so the idea that there would be a flood of men suddenly wishing to participate in the women’s events when they have the potential for greater rewards and recognition in the men’s events, simply isn’t an argument.
It’s not simply about who does or doesn’t qualify for the Olympics, many athletes of both sexes will never qualify for the Olympics, but the point is that they should be permitted to participate in sports in accordance with their gender identity. I’m not arguing about how things used to be and that’s how they should remain forever and ever amen, I’m saying that the IOC are recognising how things are now, internationally, not just individually, because policies aren’t based upon individuals times or performance or any of the rest of it, they’re based upon objective criteria as to who is eligible to participate and compete in the sports in the various categories.
We’re all aware of how things used to be, they’re not that way any more, the sports have evolved -
0 -
So we are to basically kill off any dreams that biologically born females have of competing fairly in future games. People can sugar coat it with whatever progressive liberal crap they want, the science is objective and clear. There may be a level playing ground in certain sports where a person born a women would compete but there are other sports such as boxing or wrestling or Judo where the advantage would be overwhelming.
3 -
Advertisement
-
I don’t fully understand sekiro’s point, particularly the bit about gender being an outdated concept, and then they go on to say that in the future there will be a whole rake of gender identities, but I don’t think their argument leads to the conclusion you think it does either. Nobody is killing off anyone’s dreams, that’s just nonsense, frankly. The IOC guidelines relating to the participation of transgender athletes has been in existence since 2004, and was updated in 2015.
Had it not been for a ‘biological female’ (if you want to use those terms) who campaigned to have the restrictions around people who are transgender competing in the Olympic Games eased, then what of their dreams to be an Olympian? “Suck it up buttercup!”? If you wouldn’t be satisfied with that answer, why would you expect anyone else should be?
Btw there’s nobody sugar coating anything, and science is neither objective nor clear as it is subject to all manner of political, financial, cultural and social influences, but to suggest that the IOC guidelines are either liberal or progressive suggests that you’re working off a very different definition of either liberal or progressive than most people.
The guidelines are decidedly conservative, which is not a bad thing, as conservative politics and social policies are concerned with maintaining the integrity of institutions, they don’t care much for individual rights. Liberal and progressive political and social policies are concerned with individual rights. Anyone challenging the policies has to work within a conservative framework, not a liberal or progressive one which concerns itself with identity politics and individual rights and freedoms and so on.
The policies apply to anyone who wishes to compete in sports regardless of their sex or gender identity or any of the rest of it. It’s whole purpose, and the philosophy of the Olympic Games is to promote sports and the values and benefits of sports in society as inclusive and participation free from discrimination and so on, which is in concert with international human rights law which is founded upon the principle of all people being regarded as being of equal status in law.
Both liberals and progressives have tried their level best to undermine these institutions, but they remain constant in law, as institutions, and that’s why suggesting that all people being regarded and treated as equals is either a progressive or liberal position is why I suggested you’re probably working off a different definition of either liberal or progressive than most people.
0 -
Sorry you lost me at "If you want to use those terms". Except in very rare cases you are born either a male or female. In general biological males are faster and stronger than biological females, an abundance of empirical evidence to prove this so it's not debatable. That said, if I am born a woman no matter how much training I do I can never compete fairly with biological males, when it comes to certain sports(Unlesss there are performance enhancers I don't know about) . I'm all for inclusiveness but I don't think this is the answer, maybe additional categories.
1 -
No Matter how you try and spin this, simple biology and physiology (you know the sciencey stuff and noty the feeling emotional stuff) is not outdated.
The very fact you think events should be based on a social construct which does not take into account strength, body mass, body build and physiology shows you know sweet damn all about sport.
Western society is going down the toilet, much like this site.
I am not allowed discuss …
11 -
I would suggest that in ALL cases, anyone is either born male or female, there isn’t a third sex category, certainly not in biology, and only in a small number of jurisdictions in law.
I wouldn’t generalise, nor do I think it’s the only relevant factor when we’re referring to something as specific as any particular sport, let alone any particular sporting competitions - you must surely be aware of the many other numerous factors involved in participation in sports besides pitching a biological female and a biological male into an arena and watching them go at it and whichever one of them makes it out of the arena alive is declared the winner?
You must surely be aware of the new sports and policies that the IOC are recognising in Tokyo which… and tbh it sticks in my craw to say it, but… promote ‘gender equality’? This sort of shìte -
Arguing as though the issues involved are just about speed and strength of individual athletes is what’s not debatable. I have no doubt you’re well aware of the numerous issues and influences and potential outcomes involved from a number of different perspectives be they legal, scientific, ethical, social and so on. It’s exactly for these reasons that the IOC held off on releasing updated guidelines relating to the participation of transgender athletes in Olympic competition until after the Tokyo Olympics, and they still won’t have anything approaching sufficient scientific evidence to inform their decisions in relation to their policies and guidelines in relation to participation of athletes who are transgender.
The argument isn’t about whether or not it’s fair that men can just rock up and compete in the women’s events, nor that these policies would enable them to do so, when they could have been doing so for years of they’d actually wanted to. The policy relates to acknowledging and supporting everyone who wants to participate in the Olympics, regardless of their sex or gender identity. It’s not about enabling men in sports briefs hung like Linford Christie to rock up to the starting blocks and give the ladies a knowing wink before they tear off down the track (thank fcuk 3D tv never took off!).
EDIT: The reason btw I said “if you want to use those terms”, when you refer to ‘biological females’ is that they are rarely ever used outside of incredibly specific contexts, even the word ‘females’ is generally not used to refer to women, outside of a few incel infested corners of the Internet, and the person I was referring to, the person who campaigned for the IOC to change their rules with regard to transgender athletes participation in competitions, refers to themselves as a man, not a ‘biological female’ -
It’s not about “being kind” or any of the rest of that shite that I refer to anyone how they prefer to be referred to. As far as I’m concerned it’s just basic manners and respect for another human being, no different than the same standard of basic manners and respect I would wish to be treated with. I may not subscribe to various ideologies, but I can respect the fact that they are fundamentally important to other people who are not me, as part of who they are as a human being. The reason why I don’t use certain terms in certain contexts, or outside of certain contexts, is because they are often deployed in a discussion as what are called ‘snarl words’. ‘Biological females’ is one of those terms in the context of discussions regarding human rights -
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
Ironic that the Chris Mosier article uses the term "biological female" just saying lol
0 -
I’m fully aware that it may be my reading comprehension is at fault here, but I could find no mention of the term ‘biological female’ in the article? The closest I could find, and I’m not sure this is even what you’re referring to, is this -
Mosier struggled with gender identity at a young age. He knew at the age of four years that his gender identity (male) and biological sex (female) did not match. He began his transition in 2010 when he legally changed his name, and then began to receive testosterone injections. By making this transition, Chris gave up his top ranking in the women’s category. Since transitioning, Chris has received overwhelmingly positive receptions from fellow athletes.
I don’t see the irony either if I’m being honest, even if the author of the article were to use the terms “biological female”, because like yourself earlier when you used the term, I don’t think you were using it as a means to diminish the equal status of anyone or dehumanise anyone. I made the point that outside of incredibly specific contexts, the term just isn’t often used to refer to women. The term has it’s legitimate use in regards to classifying individuals on the basis of their sex, in the context of the study of human biology. I think very few people would argue with the classification of individuals on the basis of their sex as either female or male. Context.
Let’s say for example using terms like ‘cisgender’ to refer to anyone who is not transgender - perfectly legitimate use of the term in the very specific and limited context of the social sciences. Then say you get someone using the term ‘cis’ to refer to people in a way they know is going to wind that person or those people up. That’s not a legitimate use of the term, it’s the intentional act of an asshole (can’t think of a more polite term tbh). Same as using the terms ‘biological female’ or ‘female’ or ‘females’ when referring to women.
Take another example of the phrase which is often espoused by people who hold certain beliefs - “hard fought for sex-based rights”. Seems legit, right? However the phrase when used in the context of suggesting that people who are transgender do not also have equal rights to protection from unlawful discrimination, renders the use of the phrase either misleading, misinformed, a misinterpretation of law, or simply a malicious and deliberate falsehood intended to deceive people and deprive other people of their equal status in law, because that’s where rights and responsibilities come from - recognition in law. That’s what gives them legitimacy, not just whatever beliefs you make up to suit yourself as if your own personal beliefs are legitimate and carry equal weight in law just because you hold them. The phrase itself of “hard fought for sex-based rights”, to my knowledge, has only ever been used in the context of suggesting that people who are transgender do not have equal rights to protection from discrimination, and this is just not true -
The jurisdictions where the terms are used most commonly is the UK, they’re not really used that much outside of the UK that I’ve come across anyway. I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assume their intentions are malicious, because that is the whole point of acknowledging that other people don’t think the same way you do, or I do, or whatever the case may be. It’s easy to respect people who share your opinions, but when it matters is when they don’t - the obligation to respect people as human beings and to treat people with respect in recognition of human dignity, doesn’t change on the basis of whether or not they share your beliefs, opinions, world view, ideology, etc, whatever you want to call it.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on1 -
-
Unbunch your knickers there like a good man -
2021 (after the WA changed their policies in 2019) :
Focusing on individuals is nothing more than a witch-hunt. The policies are what’s at issue, because it’s the policies will determine whether or not any individuals are eligible to participate in sports, not the individuals themselves.
The US is undergoing something of a transition itself in relation to the participation of people who are transgender in sports, and there are a number of different organisations involved, it’s not just a question of pitting individual athletes against each other, and whether or not it’s fair to all athletes, when what is or isn’t fair is determined by the policies of the organising or governing bodies involved in the sport and sports competitions according to either State, or Federal law. US athletes who are eligible to compete under NCAA policies, are unlikely to be eligible to qualify under WA policies -
What “according to State or Federal law” means, is that politicians in individual States within the US have the ability to determine their own laws, but those laws may be in conflict with Federal laws and statutes and policies and so on, or quite simply may be regarded as unlawful or unconstitutional -
These new developments come hot on the heels as it were of decisions being overturned by Executive Order of the current President, following their introduction by the previous incompetent, regarding Title IX, and also as a result of decisions made at Supreme Court level like the expansion of Title VII and interpretation of the Civil Rights Act 1964 to include protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity -
I don’t foresee the IOC guidelines after the Tokyo Olympics being influenced by misleading memes on a discussion forum tbh, all I see that kind of behaviour doing is reinforcing people’s already held prejudices against people on the basis of that persons own paranoia.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
It's not prejudicial, it's fact. Biological males have a distinct advantage when it comes to sports over biological females. You've even admitted to that fact earlier in the thread.
CeCe Telfer couldn't cut it as a top class male athlete but is now a top class female athlete. Go figure. If this bullsh1t of letting someone who was born a biological male compete with biological women is allowed to continue it'll screw up women's sports.
Identifying as a woman doesn't remove the natural physical abilities that Telfer has over biological females and no arguing on the internet will change that fact.
By the way, what's misleading about my meme. It's 100% accurate. Nothing misleading about it at all.
4 -
It IS prejudicial, because the intent of your meme is to point the finger at a single individual solely on the basis of their being transgender, ignoring the actual reality that there are thousands of people who are transgender who will never play sports, let alone have a chance to compete at national level, before the rules of the governing bodies of the sport prohibit them from being selected to compete at international level in the sport. For what it’s worth, I never admitted to any such “fact”, because it’s not a fact, because my point has consistently been that there are more factors involved in participating in sports and sports competitions than just a single distinction, which may or may not be an advantage, and may be as much a disadvantage if an individual wishes to continue to participate in any given sport - the fact that they are transgender.
It’s simply not the case, and it would be unreasonable to argue as though your assumptions about their motivations are in any way legitimate when you infer that it’s because any athlete who is transgender “couldn’t cut it” as a top class male athlete, so they simply chose to identify themselves as female in an attempt to be perceived as a top class female athlete, as if it were actually that simple, because you’re choosing to ignore facts which don’t fit with your assumptions, which are based entirely upon your own beliefs. Your attempt at correlation is not causation, it can absolutely be summed up as prejudice.
No amount of arguing on the Internet either that it’ll screw up women’s sports will make your argument a reality when the evidence just doesn’t exist to support your argument, and any evidence which does exist, supports the argument that there are more factors involved in competition than just one single distinction based on biology. By that standard, every athlete has biological advantages and disadvantages over and under their competition, but because we know for a fact that competitions aren’t just based upon biology, we have an obligation to examine ALL the facts in making any decisions or determinations about fairness in sports.
Technology for example is also a factor in sports competitions, just ask Usain Bolt, since he gets brought up frequently in these discussions. Even he starts complaining about unfairness in sports, when his records are under threat (important to note there is no scientific evidence of any advantage conferred upon athletes wearing the shoes, beyond anecdotal evidence, but who needs scientific evidence, right?) -
What’s misleading about your meme is that it follows Telfers career in collegiate athletics competitions in chronological order up to 2019, and I was just continuing the meme in the same vein, up to what is now 2021 when what is preventing Telfer from continuing to compete in international athletics isn’t their biology, it’s the rules of the WA which mean they can’t represent their country at the Olympics even though the guidelines for transgender athletes testosterone levels competing in the Olympics are twice that of the WA.
Different organisations have their own ideas about what is or isn’t fair, and it has feckall to do with preserving the integrity of the sport or any of the rest of that nonsense. It has everything to do with being determined to be relevant in a society which is changing all around them. Eventually that’ll change too, and it’s not because of any kind of progressive ideas it’ll change, but because of the reality that the principle of fairness requires all people being regarded as equals and all people having equal opportunities to participate in society and participate in sports for their own physical and mental health and as part of their education and social inclusion and all the positives that participation in sports has to offer, without discrimination.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I like brevity-- can anybody sum up the pro-transgender side of this argument? No long essays. We shouldn't need a PhD to understand something simple. I remember being told years ago that if you cannot make complex topics simple, then you either don't understand them or you are hiding something.
The opposition is easily articulated. I tend to agree with it, but am open to persuasion. Cheers.
4 -
How about this for fairness. Make the men’s competitions completely open, anyone can compete whether male, female or other.
then keep the women’s competition for biological females only and define it as that which takes gender out of it.
7 -
I like brevityyou're in the wrong thread so...
we still have over a week to wait to see Laurel Hubbard competing in the woman's over 87kg weightlifting on Monday the 2nd at 2:50 in the morning our time, for anyone who was wondering
1 -
There's lot of information to get started with in this thread, including namechecked sports scientists researching the field. And ample ways to look them up. Ross Tucker, Emma Hilton. Nobody posting here works personally in the field as far as I know so you'll just have to read for yourself. Nobody can do that for you.
1 -
Because in just the same way as there are a small number of people who argue that women are taking away men’s jobs and men’s opportunities for employment, you will have the same numbers of the same sorts of people making the same sorts of arguments about sports.
You’ll also have a number of biological females questioning the validity and legitimacy of your argument, and that’s exactly what happened when Chris Mosier challenged the IOC rules which they considered were unfair discrimination against transgender athletes of both sexes.
Essentially, it was your idea in the first place, has you in the position you’d be in now anyway!
0 -
I understand-- but my point is that the pro-trans argument should, in essence, be easily summed up around basic, sound principles, from which more nuanced and specific angles can be extrapolated. Instead, this thread has over 1000 posts, with some very long, detailed and, at times, casuistic and jesuitical phraseology.... I just want the highlights! Maybe I'm lazy.
3 -
Bullshit. There are sports, and sub-divisions of otherwise categoriesed sports, which are completely open without categories. There is no demand from anyone to subdivide these so as to protect the males from female competition, from anyone of any gender or sex.
1 -
Are you guaranteeing us that not one male athlete will ever declare themselves to be female in order to achieve better results in the female category than they could ever achieve in the female category? You're sure this could never ever happen. That no man on the planet could ever possibly do such a thing?
A simple yes or no will do, rather than a multi-paragraph essay.
2 -
What’s actually bullshìt is that you’re attempting to argue a point I never made. Their argument isn’t that there is a need to protect males from female competition, it’s that the needs of males are being overlooked, and this argument is actually quite commonly being made in areas from accommodation and education, to sports. Bullshìt you say? It’s your argument is bullshìt, and easily proven to be bullshìt by way of just one example among many I can easily point to -
Ahh fcuk it, I’m feeling generous, here’s another example -
Some choice quotes from that article -
“No woman ever has entered the clubhouse and, praise God, no woman ever will.”
—Royal Liverpool’s club secretary in 1946
“Women are everywhere. We’re letting them play golf and tennis now!”
—FOX’s Brian Kilmeade in 2012
Bullshìt, indeed.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe you can launch the trans players association Jack? You would be an excellent president .
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
![https://i.imgur.com/BaphhUB.jpg[/img]](https://i.imgur.com/BaphhUB.jpg[/img]){kind=link}