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

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118897692#Comment_118897692

Female children can start menstruation anywhere between the ages of 8-12, I have never heard of any child being prescribed puberty blockers because they are experiencing a completely natural part of growing up.

This bullshit on the other hand is knowingly disrupting that natural process cos “gender dysphoria”….in an 8 year old who probably doesn’t even know what either word of that means. And I make no apologies for the link I suggest - it’s not outside the realms of logic to say that when people start attempting to impose some sort of self understanding or self consent on 8 year olds about life changing decisions, that rabbit hole will eventually lead to other places.

Adults can **** themselves up however they want, but kids are a red line - under no circumstances should it ever become acceptable for this to occur. None.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118897788#Comment_118897788

YOU have never heard of - therefore it is wrong.

Sure, let's decide medical ethics and good practice based on some anonymous keyboard warrior having a conniption on the internet because they think anything "natural" is good. Bad eyesight - that's "natural". Childhood cancer - soz, also "natural".

You think it's fine that a girl UNDER the age of 8 has a body that is becoming sexually mature - really? Because 8 is the cut off point for diagnosing early puberty in girls.

Getaway out of that with your spluttering outrage fueled by a deadly combination of ignorance and bigotry.

You literally know nothing about puberty blockers, how and when they are prescribed, the proven benefits, the side effects that need to be balanced with positive outcomes but don't let that stop you waving about your pitchfork claiming evil intent on the part of parents and stupidity on the part of experienced doctors and psychiatrists.

https://www.webmd.com/children/features/diagnosis-treatment

Given your low opinion of the medical profession I assume you never seek treatment for anything - in particular anything "natural".

DarkJager21

As I said originally, you can spin and splutter about this whatever way you want - if, but, whatabout- it doesn’t matter. Point remains. And I have no qualms with the medical profession or their means and aims in treating standard illnesses and issues - however we are talking specifically regarding trans here and the deliberate interruption of puberty, not “natural” ailments so don’t think for a second you’ve made some sort of gotcha here.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118897942#Comment_118897942

No gotcha.

Just letting you dig a hole all by yourself where you dismiss medical experts when it doesn't suit your opinion, compare the parent's of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria and prescribed puberty blockers by medical experts with paedophiles yet now wish to back away from your contention that a 6 year old developing breasts is best left alone as it's natural, and generally waving the pitchfork of literal ignorance on the whole topic of puberty blockers.

I'm not the one spinning and spluttering - all you have offered is spinning spluttering outrage while I have linked to medical explanations and a peer reviewed article in the top medical journal in the world which demonstrated, based on available data, in some cases the use of puberty blockers is highly beneficial.

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898253#Comment_118898253

Spinning and spluttering is trying to assert that a perfectly healthy child with no medical condition is the same as a child with an unfortunate hormone imbalance that does require medical treatment. This is no different then trying to claim that someone born intersex, displaying unusual secondary sexual characteristics is proof that there are more then two sexes. Disingenuous at best and horrific Mengele levels of experimentation on children at worst.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118897692#Comment_118897692

For what it's worth, puberty blockers were designed for children who are having puberty prematurely. That's quite different from children who don't want to go through normal puberty, and usage for which, is "off label". I suspect that is what people are referring to by "experimental".

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898329#Comment_118898329

What are your medical qualifications that gives you the expertise to declare a child you never met has no condition that would benefit from medical treatment ?

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898435#Comment_118898435

The same as yours I'd imagine. Basic common sense, does the child have a medical condition? No? No drugs, that were designed for cancer patients t omitigate cancer's growth stimulated but hormones, for you then.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898401#Comment_118898401

For what it's worth all of this is explained to parent's who will make the decision.

Off-label use of a drug means that it hasn't been specifically studied and approved for the condition, age group or weight of the person getting the prescription. The most common "off-label" drugs used for under 18s are antihistamines. Usually for children with asthma. Why? Because their doctor believes the child's asthma attacks are triggered by allergies.

Puberty blockers are designed to delay puberty. That is exactly what they are used for in the very small amount of times they are prescribed for children with gender dysphoria because in the learned opinion of the child's medical team (including therapists) doing so will be psychologically beneficial for the child's emotional well-being. Exactly the same reason they are prescribed for precocious puberty. Which is why in 2008 The Endocrine Society approved them for use with children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Do you have a rebuttal for the article in The Lancet discussing the benefits?

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898474#Comment_118898474

But I am not saying any child has or hasn't any condition. Which is where we differ. I have offered no personal opinion. What I have done is link to medical journals where medical practitioners give their opinion.

I do believe gender dysphoria exists - I am happy to leave any diagnosis or treatment of that in children to the experts.

I reckon the 18,000+ professionals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism who comprise the Endocrine Society have enough experience between them - they approved puberty blockers to be used in some gender dysphoria cases in 2008.

But sure - "basic common sense" as decided by conorhal on the internet is the way to go.

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118898555#Comment_118898555

Your faith is in the 18,000+ professionals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism is wildly misplaced. It's well known that any research that might contravene trans ideology is simply not done out of pure fear that the 'wrong result' will be career ending, to publish any data that runs counter to that cult is to be a Galileo telling the popes of that new religion that the earth is not the center of the universe. An endocrinologist is ill equipped to meddle in psychology anyway.

It seems that sometimes people need a reminder that in 1949, the Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for his development of the prefrontal lobotomy, which was hailed as a miracle cure for many a psychological affliction. If the science was telling you that a lobotomy was the best way to alleviate gender dysphoria you'd no doubt be telling me to 'trust the science'.

The science, when it comes to transgenderism is bull$h1t and everybody knows it. Even the people promoting such studies know it.

Don believe me? Give a read of this breakdown of one of the more prominent studies on puberty blockers that's been used as a justification for giving them to kids, even when their own data didn't fit the conclusion they wanted they published it as if it did, bending and obfuscating their results with bad methodology and weak justifications as to why the data 'really says what it clearly doesn't'.

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers?s=r

Pretending that ideology and fear don't rule the research on transgenderism is delusional.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118896994#Comment_118896994

I'm old enough to remember when an 8 year old hitting puberty was considered unusual and aberrational. IIRC the reason for this can be anything from growth hormones in food to a nonzero amount of estrogen making up so many parts per billion etc. of many municipal water systems, which can come from a lot of sources, and aren't that easy to just filter out with Brita.

Enduro

British cycling showing some great backpedalling skills...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/08/british-cycling-u-turn-freezes-trans-women-out-of-elite-female-events

Enduro

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118896947#Comment_118896947

"It's a specious argument which attempts to ignore the fact that what you're attempting to do is already unlawful - it's discrimination on the basis of gender."

But it is not discriminating on the grounds of Gender. It is categorising participation (or in some cases just results) in sports on the grounds of Sex. And again no one is barred from participating "full stop". Some people may be barred from participating in a category they would prefer to participate in, but they remain able to participate in other categories. It's not a ban from sports. I'm not barred from boxing just because I can't meet the eligibility requirements for participating in the most prestigious heavyweight category. I have to accept the reality that my weight will determine the category I'm allowed to participate in. But I'm not barred from the sport.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118900528#Comment_118900528

The distinction between sex and gender is irrelevant in the context of whether or not the rules constitute unlawful discrimination. Both sex and gender, or gender identity, or gender reassignment in UK legislation, are all protected characteristics in law, upon which it is unlawful to discriminate against individuals or groups in society based upon those protected characteristics. Weight, is not a protected characteristic, before I go any further.

Now, of course depending upon the jurisdiction and the context in which the rules are being applied, they may indeed be considered lawful, or, they may not - they may be considered as having a disproportionate impact on any group in society and therefore be considered to be in violation of equality legislation on that basis. The justification for the discrimination has a pretty high bar attached to it. It’s why for example Renee Richards won their case against the USTA over 40 years ago already -

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/17/archives/renee-richards-ruled-eligible-for-us-open-ruling-makes-renee.html

It’s why the girls in the Connecticut case argued that the CIAC policy of permitting transgender athletes to participate in girls competitions amounted to having an unfair impact on them, and the case was dismissed by a Federal Judge on the basis that there was no case to resolve; the two transgender athletes had graduated and the plaintiffs couldn’t identify other female transgender athletes -

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna758

The point you’re arguing about the idea that nobody is barred from sports, ignores the context in which the argument against discrimination is being made. That’s why it’s a specious argument. I’m not going to lie, it’s a sneery argument that has no validity in the context in which it is being used. That’s why the whole “they’re not barred from sports, they can compete in other categories” just doesn’t fly. Employing a full stop, doesn’t prohibit the unpacking or interpretation of that statement to determine whether it’s impact amounts to having a disproportionate impact upon any particular group of people in society, no more than the argument that “people aren’t barred from entering into marriage” could be used as a legitimate justification to uphold discrimination based upon sexual orientation, sex and gender, which had a disproportionate impact upon people who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender.

Now, having said all that, and again, depending upon the jurisdiction, there does exist in equality legislation, exemptions which permit discrimination in certain limited contexts, such as sports. In Ireland for example, it is permitted for organisations to have rules which are discriminatory, provided the discrimination is demonstrated as being necessary as the only reasonable and proportionate means by which the organisation can achieve a legitimate aim, or in individual cases, that the discrimination is also necessary for other reasons which are already recognised in Irish law -

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/exceptions/

Simply pointing out that nobody is barred from participating in sports, is just irrelevant in the context of the point being made that the rules as they are, amount to unfair treatment which has a disproportionate impact upon people who are transgender. That’s to say nothing of the new rules which are being introduced in order to limit the participation of people who are transgender in sports.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118899733#Comment_118899733

Tell you what.

I will leave you to your grand conspiracy theory that, among others, The Endocrine Society is part of a global something or other intent on ... what? Turning us all transgender? Because obviously anon on the interweb knows far more about it all than the thousands and thousands of medical professionals working in the field. Why, anon was even able to go back to just after WWII to find proof of whatabout.

In the meantime I will continue to have faith in my endocrinologist and his so far successful attempts to keep a diabetic like me alive, you might need to take that barking mad theory of yours to a vet however and put it out of it's desire to cause misery to a tiny proportion of the population for no other reason than it doesn't like them. Unless vets are also part of this grand conspiracy?!?!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118899733#Comment_118899733

Your faith is in the 18,000+ professionals in the field of endocrinology and metabolism is wildly misplaced. It's well known that any research that might contravene trans ideology is simply not done out of pure fear that the 'wrong result' will be career ending, to publish any data that runs counter to that cult is to be a Galileo telling the popes of that new religion that the earth is not the center of the universe. An endocrinologist is ill equipped to meddle in psychology anyway.

Are they? Have you actually never heard of behavioural endocrinology? It’s kinda useful in relation to examining the effects of hormones on behaviour, something which endocrinologists would spend a lot of their time on -

https://nobaproject.com/textbooks/wendy-king-introduction-to-psychology-the-full-noba-collection/modules/hormones-behavior

Certainly they would be in a far better position than a journalist who has no training whatsoever in science or medicine trying to offer a critique on a small-scale study where his main complaint is that he doesn’t have sufficient data to determine anything conclusive, but he’ll take a couple of wild guesses anyway interpreting the study in a way which suits his own preconceived narrative -

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

Pretending that ideology and fear rule research on gender and so on, and putting that forward as the reason why studies such as Lisa Littman’s effort were pilloried by her peers is what’s bullshìt. But you won’t see Mr. Singal singling out that particular effort as an example of how statistical data can be misrepresented, manipulated and used to promote a particular political agenda -

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1453-2

In it’s proper context of course, the review that Singel refers to was the review by NICE which also made the point that it was difficult to draw conclusions from existing studies because of the way they are poorly designed, and there just isn’t sufficient data to determine the actual efficacy of hormone treatments. What data does exist however, shows insufficient evidence for their efficacy -

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp

That’s obviously not a commentary on the ethics of their use in the treatment of gender incongruence, which is a condition addressed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, social workers, and the families of the patients themselves. It’s simply a recognition of the fact that more research is necessary in order that they have better data to work with which would improve the quality of their research, as opposed to your idea that anyone is trying to stifle research by pointing out that poorly conducted research just doesn’t meet established scientific standards.

It's not discrimination to tell a biological male they need to enter the male category in a sporting event.

Sports categories were designated men and women back in the days when it was interchangeable with male and female. The idea that these could mean different things is relatively recent (and something most people disagree with). If we need to rename women's sports to females sports, because a few bad apples are trying to exploit loopholes, so bet it.

The purpose of these rules is to promote fairness, not exclusion. It's simply not fair for a man to enter a woman's sporting contest.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118902574#Comment_118902574

I don't disagree, but I think you are looking for rationality where it doesn't exist. It rankles with people that there needs to be a distinction, they don't want to accept that women typically won't be able to compete with men in most disciplines. It think that's the real issue here.

Bear in mind, the origin of the thread is basically "Look, a biological woman beat a biological man at something. So obviously the whole problem is fake."

It would be like saying that because Katie Taylor could knock the stuffing out of me, there's no problem in men competing in women's boxing. Bonkers, but folk are announcing a political position, and not trying to make sense.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118902815#Comment_118902815

a) Only people in this thread talking about men and women competing against each other are those who do not recognised transgender people as being anything other than their biological sex. For them Trans women are men ergo if they compete in "women's sports " etc etc. To hold this position one must disregard the effects of hormones on the human body.

b) Apparently transgender women have an 'advantage' due to hormones at puberty. This 'advantage' will lead to the end of women's sports.

c) In an elite swim meet between two rival Ivy League collages a 'biological' women who identifies as Male but hasn't medically transitioned beat a transgender woman who medically transitioned a number of years ago. All the competitors were highly trained athletes. None of them was an average person off the street.

Transgender women who have medically transitioned do not have the same testosterone levels as 'biological' aka cis men, and unless you are a professional boxer who fights in the same weight category as Katie Taylor your comparison is nonsense but speaking of Katie Taylor, she applied to fight men in competition and was turned down, she regularly spars against men:

"A boundary, she crossed long ago, she is not permitted to do it in competition. The governing bodies won’t allow it. She enquired last year about fighting in the WSB, a professional male competition in which Olympic boxers are permitted to compete. She said she would fight against men if they would sanction it. They wouldn’t."

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/taylor-made-sparring-bouts-keep-katie-and-paddy-on-their-toes-1.1694629

But since you wish to be rational - care to tell me how many Olympic medals trans women have won?

Grand slams?

How many world records do they hold?

I'll even let you include team sports to save your blushes.

If it is rational that trans women are men and therefore have this supposed advantage sense would say there must be dozens and dozens of them with medals and stuff.

I mean Renee Richards competed in the U.S Open in 1977. She was beaten in the first round by Virginia Wade. She did make it to the Doubles final with Betty Ann Stuart. On the day Martina Navratilova and Betty Stove proved the better players.

(Yes, Martina did play against a trans woman, who later became her friend and coach. No, Martina did not say trans women should not compete in women's sports - she actually said trans women who have not have reassignment surgery should not be able to compete. But if they have, then she has no issue with that.)

j2

Is the opinion "trans women are not women" no longer acceptable? Is this now considered hate speech etc.

bokale

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118903107#Comment_118903107

Is hate speech a thing in Ireland?

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118902815#Comment_118902815

I agree, it's not about rationality. It's a land grab basically. What seems to have changed minds (suddenly) in UK Cycling was the threat of a revolt by women cyclists, not any new argument that hadn't been heard before.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118903010#Comment_118903010

You have your view of things, and that's fine. I suppose the thought that still comes to me is that wider agenda - the need to contend that there's nothing more to being a man or a woman than a bunch of hormones. Fix the hormone level, at the right moment, and Bob's your aunt. Maybe that's true, at some level. But it's truthy-ness probably less important that than the political need to see no difference at all.

I suspect fixating on the hormone level likely misses the point - but probably in a context where the whole point is to miss the point. If the International [insert sport of choice] Association says you're in if your hormones are below some identified threshold, this rule is suddenly deemed to have uncovered some basic feature of human life, when it's more likely a compromise they've been bludgeoned into stating because of substance abuse.

Where are the hordes of successful trans medallists? Ah, here, it's only been an issue for a relatively short period. People are trying to anticipate and deal with an issue, rather than just wait until women's sports have been holed beneath the waterline. In a context where, you'll appreciate, a lot of effort is being put into encouraging women (meaning women) into sport, out of a feeling that this wouldn't be a bad thing to encourage.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118905553#Comment_118905553

The ladies need to be making themselves heard because otherwise this will just become a bureaucratic bit of nonsense that in 5 years ends up going against them.

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906390#Comment_118906390

Where are the hordes of successful trans medallists? Ah, here, it's only been an issue for a relatively short period. People are trying to anticipate and deal with an issue, rather than just wait until women's sports have been holed beneath the waterline.

Renee Richards 1977 is hardly a relatively short period in sporting terms.

It's been 45 years. That's 4 years before Serena Williams was born and 25 years before current US Open women's singles champion Emma Raducanu was born.

Where are the hoards of transgender women winning World Championships? Olympic medals? Grand Slams?

There has been, what, 11 Olympic Games since Richards won the legal right to compete as a woman?

I'm sure Caster Semenya is would be very interested in your theories about what maketh a woman and why hormone levels don't matter.

https://twitter.com/caster800m/status/1507666418065629189

As will the scientists who are of the belief that it is the release of hormones in the womb that triggers a fetus 'becoming' male.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906479#Comment_118906479

Again, your response is at a bit of a tangent.

Caster Semenya's comments seem to broadly be in line with what I've suggested - that the rules aren't revealing the fundamental nature of things. They are pragmatic attempts to set a boundary, which are predictably inconsistent. I'm not sure if you mean this as agreement with what I've suggested, though.

And, gosh, if only we intervened with appropriate hormone therapy while the fetus is still in the womb. So much trouble could be avoided.

I dimly remember Renee Richards. I think wikipedia says it well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

"During college Richards began dressing as a woman, which at the time was considered to be a perversion, with transsexualism classified as a form of insanity."

So hardly several decades of transfolk participating without anyone batting an eyelid, is it?

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906557#Comment_118906557

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/17/archives/renee-richards-ruled-eligible-for-us-open-ruling-makes-renee.html

In 1977 homosexuality was considered a mental disorder- thankfully in the eyes of all but the uber bigots that no longer holds true. That you feel the need to dig up how transgender people were viewed in 1977 as some coherent point about why trans women have no medals shows the depths you need to plummet.

Why? Because only one transgender person has won an Olympic medal - in soccer. 45 years after Richards won the legal right to compete as a woman without taking a chromosome test. 18 years after transgender people were allowed to compete in the Olympics a transgender person won a bronze medal in a team sport. Not a transgender woman, a transgender man who (like the subject of the OP) has not medically transitioned and so, due to their hormones levels, competes in women's soccer. Were they to medically transition there would be no legal impediment to them playing men's soccer - FA on trans people in football document confirms that for trans males who have gone hormone therapy, results in blood testosterone levels are considered within natal male range.

But apparently we are seeing the end of women's sports.

45 years after the landmark Richard's ruling.

18 years afters trans athletes were allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Not one transwoman has won a major tournament, meet, or Olympic event.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906815#Comment_118906815

Simply mentioning a fact doesn't imply approval. I suspect you know that, and your bluster is because you'd rather go for the man rather than the ball. And we all know what that means when it happens.

Yes, the issue is more likely to be occurring on a meaningful scale in the future than in the past. No depths plumbed, the past is simply the past.

Ten of Swords

@ATR72 do not post in this thread again