Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118839262#Comment_118839262

Did Reka Gyorgy participate in the finals that Lia Thomas did?? If there was no biological male in that race, would she have made the final??

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118846578#Comment_118846578

The irony is that this is the same person who coined the term “pundits fallacy”, is falling foul of it themselves…

Assuming that one's favorite policy is politically the most expedient as well.

https://www.jargondatabase.com/Category/Other/Logical-Fallacies-Jargon/Pundit's-Fallacy

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118845269#Comment_118845269

Evidence that a scientist agrees with your opinion, is not scientific evidence. If it existed, it would need to be unequivocal to justify the exclusion of athletes who are of the male sex, but the female gender, from competing at elite levels in sports,

There isn’t data available in the first place on transgender athletes, to determine anything conclusive, There is of course mountains of data available on males and females performances, but trying to misapply the data to deduce a conclusion about a different set of subjects, immediately you should be able to see the issue.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118845922#Comment_118845922

(along with making sure their hormone level doesn't act as a PED)

That’s a “real world” line of argument is being taken by some people alright, same as a sports scientist who makes the point about 6’ 9” players in women’s basketball would be unfair, as though there aren’t 6’ 9” players in the WNBA, or bases their opinion on the idea that men are choosing to be women, that they’re prevented by law from taking sex hormones is the only reason it’s not happening at an earlier age. You’re accusing people of cheating, based upon your own personal beliefs. Don’t try and pass that off as a credible scientific argument.

Utter garbage.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847043#Comment_118847043

So all sports people should be allowed to take PED? Or only some?

Os is this a vain attempt to re-classify what a PED is? (but again, only for some).

Should we return the trophies to Lance Armstrong and apologise?

None of this is my personal belief, I will follow the science.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847086#Comment_118847086

Nobody is arguing any such thing.

Girly Gal

Is Lia Thomas the first person to have competed at an elite level pre and post transition? I don't recall anyone else competing at elite level pre and post transition. I'm aware of cases where people transitioned after their sports career had finished.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118846940#Comment_118846940

"Evidence that a scientist agrees with your opinion, is not scientific evidence."

He disagrees with your opinion, which is inconvenient.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118846816#Comment_118846816

Jesus, that's some rant. Did you even read the paragraph I quoted? It was the Transgender Law Centre that said they can't convince people, not the blogger. A number of surveys have shown that barely a half of Democrat voters support trans women competing against women in sport. The figure is obviously a lot lower for Republican voters.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847139#Comment_118847139

You are, you are arguing it, whether it's hidden behind 10 random references to other things or not, you are either arguing that the female category shouldn't exist (because you say it's based on stereotypes) or that PED's should just be allowed whenever someone feels like the PED state represents their true state, hiding it behind walls of text doesn't hide it, it's either one or the other. This is the crux of your arguments and isn't representative of the topic being discussed in the OP where Thomas is specifically taking medicines to both represent their desired state and stay within the limits currently allowed for the female category for trans-women.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847874#Comment_118847874

I have no issue with him disagreeing with my opinion, it’s why I didn’t have an issue presenting his opinion in the first place, and why I’m making the point to you that evidence of scientists regardless of whether they agree or disagree with anyone, does not constitute scientific evidence of anything.

Inconvenient would be if there were any negative consequences for anyone as a result of people introducing new laws claiming to be doing so because they were following the science. Plenty of people claim to be ‘following the science’, it doesn’t actually mean anything, they might as well be saying they follow the word of God. It still doesn’t justify their behaviour towards other people.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847950#Comment_118847950

That’s an awful lot of words to accuse me of arguing that anyone should be able to cheat in competition.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118847989#Comment_118847989

Sorry, but this has to be an attempt at either winding others up or someone unable to look at themselves in the mirror.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848166#Comment_118848166

You’re not one bit sorry, and I’m fine with myself in the mirror. You posted this earlier, and it doesn’t represent anything I’ve ever argued. It’s deliberately misleading -

So all sports people should be allowed to take PED? Or only some?

Os is this a vain attempt to re-classify what a PED is? (but again, only for some).

Should we return the trophies to Lance Armstrong and apologise?

None of this is my personal belief, I will follow the science.

The first claim - you’re aware that athletes are permitted to take drugs which are on a banned substances list provided they have a legitimate reason for doing so. An exemption exists in the rules already.

The second claim - you’re aware that I am not attempting to reclassify performance enhancing drugs. They are still classified as performance enhancing drugs.

The third point is in the form of a rhetorical question, attempting to categorise athletes who are transgender who are taking hormones, with cheaters, and they should be prohibited from competing with other athletes of the same gender when they are not the same sex classification.

The last claim - you’re following whatever you think has scientific merit in order to justify purposely putting anyone at a disadvantage in competition. If you can’t do that, then according to your personal beliefs, anyone who doesn’t volunteer to be disadvantaged, you can claim they have an advantage. It’s circular reasoning -

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

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848257#Comment_118848257

I wasn't apologising, just remarking that it must be peak boards.ie to be accused of using too many words in this scenario.

You are attempting to claim, extraordinarily, that there is no effective difference between males and females when it comes to sport and that any advantages incurred by higher testosterone levels are either somehow natural due to that being their desired state or while unnatural are no different from other natural advantages such as height (this is also ignoring the permanent changes that occur during puberty that can't really be undone, at least with today's medical technology).

The endpoint of affirmation being used is that females be allowed to use PED's to match the trans-women they may be competing against or to pretend it doesn't matter at all and tell females they just aren't trying hard enough.

DontHitTheDitch

NBC news apparently doctoring photographs of the trans swimmer to make them look more feminine:

Photographer 'Disappointed' That NBC Edited Lia Thomas Photos | PetaPixel

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848434#Comment_118848434

Too many words, for what was a simple claim! You left that bit out. Sheesh 😂

I’m not attempting to claim anything like that at all. I’m claiming that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the claims that males who’s sex does not correspond to their gender identity have an unfair advantage in women’s sports that would justify their exclusion. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Anything after that is the product of your own imagination. I’m not interested in arguing with your imaginary scenarios.

AllForIt

The problem with this issue of trans in sport is every sport is different. In terms of what personal physical attributes make a difference.

I know nothing about swimming, I can't even swim. But I would have thought that being taller would give you an advantage. Just like if a runner were twice the size of everyone else, (exaggerating to make the point) that would give one a very obvious advantage, and I can see how the same would apply to swimming.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php

This shows that men are on average taller than women.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848731#Comment_118848731

I’m claiming that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the claims that males who’s sex does not correspond to their gender identity have an unfair advantage in women’s sports that would justify their exclusion.

You have to disprove testosterone as having an impact on sports performance while then also allowing athletes to raise their testosterone levels.

That has been scientifically proven leaving you nowhere else to go (as said previously that's before taking into account the permanent impact of male puberty). Any avenue you go down here can only advocate for PED to be allowed in order to suit your narrative once we reduce it to its impact, which means you will need to go wide with random anecdotes and pretend otherwise but you have built the crux of your argument on sand.

Your only scenario is to walk back on affirmation alone and start on what levels of reduction are fitting to be allowed to compete as that is where the sports bodies currently stand, the low numbers impacted don't matter. And the male category is, effectively, open to all, risks not withstanding (and updating some of the rulebooks to allow it to happen which a lot of sports and countries have already done).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118849568#Comment_118849568

The argument here is that some females are tall, the physical attributes that make the most difference tend to occur during puberty, larger lungs, hip more square, denser bones, some females will naturally have some of those characteristics but very few in such a way that makes sport an advantage for them (along with things like twitchy muscle fibres), so the very average trans woman will already be in the top few % of female characteristics which are advantageous to sport, reducing ongoing testosterone reduces some of that advantage, the jury is out on whether it is enough (and being trans has a set of disadvantages built in right now due to societal attitudes that may change over time, that makes it highly unlikely it will be very common and that athletes like Thomas will be an outlier for a number of years). I don't think the sports bodies will want to get it to the point where the single biggest advantage you can get in women's sports is to have been born male.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118849568#Comment_118849568

>Just like if a runner were twice the size of everyone else, that would give one a very obvious advantage,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899678/

All of the world-class sprinters were in the height range of 1.68-1.91 m (men) or 1.52-1.82 cm (women). The fact that the sprinters’ height data was normally distributed indicates that both very short and very tall stature may be disadvantageous for sprinters

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118849731#Comment_118849731

I don’t know where you get the impression that the burden of proof is on me to prove anything. You want to introduce the discrimination, the burden of proof is on you to prove it’s necessity. That’s the way equality legislation works, that’s the way the IOC policy works, that’s not the way organisations like the WA policy works, for now.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118848731#Comment_118848731

I’m claiming that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the claims that males who’s sex does not correspond to their gender identity have an unfair advantage in women’s sports that would justify their exclusion. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Well then you're in luck, because "males who’s sex does not correspond to their gender identity" are also known as simply "males", and we have stacks of evidence that males outperform females in almost every physical activity that depends on strength and/or speed.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118849974#Comment_118849974

And if males who are not transgender were looking to participate in women’s sports, I’d agree there might be a legitimate justification for their exclusion at an individual level, as is permitted in accordance with existing equality legislation.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118850005#Comment_118850005

You've probably lost most people at this stage.

However, as a thought exercise.

What is the physical difference between a male and a male who is transgender, where no surgical or hormonal treatments are used by either?

The answer of course is that there is no physical difference.

The burden in this case is upon yourself, but, as I've pointed out, you are arguing a topic that no one else is (self affirmation is enough to switch categories in sports competition) and doesn't come into the Thomas case that the thread is about.

And I'm sorry, but this is just bananas:

there might be a legitimate justification for their exclusion at an individual level

This reveals that you just want the female sports category to not exist, which is a very sh*tty thing to be espousing (again, reducing your argument to it's base where numerous whataboutery anecdotes can't wiggle yourself away from it).

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118850125#Comment_118850125

This reveals that you just want the female sports category to not exist, which is a very sh*tty thing to be espousing (again, reducing your argument to it's base where numerous whataboutery anecdotes can't wiggle yourself away from it).

It is interesting that whatever ideology-du-jour this island decides to become obsessed with in any given decade, it always carries with it some inherent downside for women.

Girly Gal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118849757#Comment_118849757

Usain Bolt is 1.95 m, which according to the report is above the the height range of "all the world class sprinters", his height was an advantage as his technique and power matched or surpassed his shorter opponents. A taller sprinter with a similar technique and power will almost always beat a shorter sprinter, in order to win a smaller sprinter must compensate by having a better technique.

griffin100

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/60911823

This is an interesting one and to me shows the potential unfairness in allowing biological men compete in women's sports. Bridges was an elite cyclist as a man, held a national record and most likely was training at a high intensity all through puberty. She wasn't a low level athlete before her transition. The athletic benefits that she accrued as a man are not going to be fully wiped out by undergoing testosterone treatment for a year. Being able to train at a higher intensity for such a long period of time is an advantage, hence the reason why banned athletes are still subject to drug testing if they wish to return after their ban. It will be interesting to see how she fairs against one of the best track cyclist of all time in Laura Trott if they indeed get to race each other.

Girly Gal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855518#Comment_118855518

I think the biggest issue, is the speed with which an athlete can go from competing in the male category to the female category, there should probably be a minimum time period of 3 years, as this would allow for the person to complete their medical transition and any surgeries and also allay fears that anyone is trying to play the system.

KieferFan69

At the end of the day it’s just sport so let them compete if they’re not ashamed to - is my answer

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855518#Comment_118855518

It's pretty clear they need separate categories for trans athletes, a kind of offshoot of special olympics. Problem might be finding enough participants, particularly M to F, I suspect numbers would drop significantly when they can no longer compete against biological women.

Bridges seems a genuinely rare case of someone who was already a good male athlete and on the one hand would be both disadvantaged now against men but at an obvious advantage against women. Hard one to solve

Overheal

I hate that we even have to talk about this.

The NCAA is a private, nonprofit sports league. They have a right to assemble, and be as inclusive as they want. There is actually conservative political pressure to have the US congress step in and through federal resolution, re-declare the winner of the NCAA race to be someone else. That, is highly ridiculous of course.

Between the book burning and the transphobia - both being intrinsically related to one another, and this, I'd just like to say as an independent observer that my cup runneth over from public pressure to constantly "other" people who don't adhere to mainstream gender norms.

griffin100

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858560#Comment_118858560

UCI have stepped in to stop her racing.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858689#Comment_118858689

Apparently, she has been withdrawn from the competition after an issue being raised by the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale). There are rumours the real reason was a threatened boycott by female riders in the event. Don't know how true that is.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20220330-British-Cycling-calls-for-coalition-to-address-transgender--and-non-binary-participation-in-elite-sports-0

Fandymo

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2022/03/03/oklahoma-republican-bill-block-transgender-athletes-womens-sports-advances-lgbtq/6878671001/

More and more states waking up. 4 down, 46 to go.

ATR72

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/trans-women-in-sports-5724967-Mar2022/?utm_source=shortlink

Article posted on the Journal. This is rubbish. Women's sport has gaining popularity and the inclusion of trans athletes threatens that. An average hurler would crush their opponents in camogie. Hopefully the GAA wouldn't allow it to happen.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118859997#Comment_118859997

Typical Journal bullshit, a piss streak of an article with absolutely no point other than letting its trans author have a little soapbox rant with the comments closed.

ATR72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860161#Comment_118860161

Afraid of people calling them out on their BS.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860217#Comment_118860217

Seems to be the standard from them on any trans related article - let them spout their nonsense and pontificate to everyone, and then completely turn off any option to debate or comment so they can rant in a safe space.

JC01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860217#Comment_118860217

Afraid of women and most likely female sportspeople calling them out.

The headline is ridiculous on the day after a women’s football match set a new attendance record too.

Not to mention the talk in the article of “anti-LGBTQ+” legislation and then a comment from the author that they won’t be clarifying what is meant by that phrase. Like me claiming there’s been 100 articles of anti-me legislation passed in Ireland in the last year and it’s anti-me because I say it is.

Wibbs

There are five lights.

This is a woman.

"The party told you to eject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command".

Orwell. 1984

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860161#Comment_118860161

That Aoife Martin person has quite the reputation, just ask John Boyne

As you say, opinion pieces in which comments are closed says all you need to know about the quality of the argument

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858690#Comment_118858690

Generally when one has to resort to putting simplistic labels on people any argument has left the building. There are conversations that need to happen in elite sport and being opposed to their inclusion is just a position on what women's sport should be. Incidentally US Swimming recently updated their regulations and it's now out to 3 years plus proof that an athlete has not gained advantage from puberty.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861305#Comment_118861305

Maybe you can help:

Whats the legal definition of a woman?

This had been of great concern to American conservatives too but I couldn’t illicit any of them to produce the definition, despite their outrage that others could not define it either.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861924#Comment_118861924

The legal definition is irrelevant in this context as it's a question of what regulations a sports body defines. They do tend to be grounded in fairness not legality. US State laws can often be made up on account of malice, depending on the state. It's a truly dysfunctional democracy at this point.

KieferFan69

Or males in female sports, it’s a storm in a teacup - you must be weird to care so much - let them fight!!! :)

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861995#Comment_118861995

oh I wish that were the case but since lawmakers now indicate they want the government to intervene and conduct a takeover of the NCAA championship, using Congress to declare the ‘real winner,’ I think it’s entirely relevant.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118862087#Comment_118862087

In the US maybe, otherwise no. The whole political divide is beyond extreme now. There's an awful lot of noise. How do they plan to get Congress involved anyway?

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861599#Comment_118861599

Yep I’m familiar with that situation, deliberately misgendering the man and forcing him off social media. A disgusting **** hypocrite which makes this article even more laughable.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118862100#Comment_118862100

I mean we are discussing a US athlete in a US athletic competition. Among Americans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Several members of congress want it to pass a resolution declaring a different winner.