Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**
Options
Comments
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »What difference do you imagine it should make to me that you think I’m trolling? Making claims without supporting evidence as I’m sure you’re aware, means feckall. It’s why I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and believe in due process rather than expecting a a claim is evidence in itself.
I name the specific drug Hubbard took to transition. And acknowledges to have transitioned.That’s not a baseless claim. It is a fact.
You’ve repeatedly denied that happened.
The fact you need to resort to lies highlights the validity of your position.
Your reading comprehension still needs work.That’s more in line with a theocracy than a democracy, nothing to do with being progressive, but if it comforts you to condemn anyone who questions your ideas as progressive, have at it, because it’s of no consequence to me whatsoever.
I never condemned you for being progressive. I’m in favour of trans rights, which is progressive. I condemned you complete unreasonable attitude, your lies, and your off topic rambling.
You’re not required to be an expert. Nobody needs to be an expert to have an opinion. But when you claim some about sports that is completely incorrect. People who know better are entitled to call you out in your claims. And I’ve called out mistakes on both sides.The IOC are going about it differently than I would, but they’re making baby steps towards the same end, so I’m not required to be an expert, nor have I ever claimed to be an expert in anything. I don’t need to be an expert in anything to know BS when I smell it.
You’ve made so many mistakes, and contradictions at this point that your position is meaningless. And if that’s your best argument for inclusion, well you’ve proved that Hubbards entry is unfair and unwarranted.
Well that is not really true. Other SHW female lifters weigh more than Hubbard. The limit is 87+kg due to womens SHW being shallow talent pool. The same is true of any weight divisioned sport (boxing, wrestling, bjj, MMA).Laurel Hubbard weighs over 130kg, unfathomable for a natural woman to have such muscle mass.
The strength numbers are spot on. That’s the issue here. A mediocre men’s total is an elite women’s total.0 -
I name the specific drug Hubbard took to transition. And acknowledges to have transitioned.That’s not a baseless claim. It is a fact.
You’ve repeatedly denied that happened.
The fact you need to resort to lies highlights the validity of your position.
I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support your claim that Hubbard is cheating, or has cheated. Your evidence just doesn’t support your original claim. I expected evidence that had or would have disqualified them from competing.Your reading comprehension still needs work. I never condemned you for being progressive. I’m in favour of trans rights, which is progressive. I condemned you complete unreasonable attitude, your lies, and your off topic rambling.
Without evidence of intent to deceive anyone, you have no evidence of lying either. I wouldn’t condemn anyone for making a mistake or misunderstanding something,
I do see where you’re coming from now though, I just don’t frame things in those terms, like “trans rights”, I see them as human rights, and everyone being recognised as having equal status under the law. I’ve never thought of it as progressive, it’s just the opposite in my view - as old as humanly itself - treating people fairly means recognition in law and support such as the children and family relationships act or the marriage equality act or the gender recognition act or legislation to regulate assisted human reproduction, all of these pieces of legislation apply to Irish society which concerns me more than an individual athlete in a sport I readily admit I have no interest in and no knowledge of. I’m more interested in the policy and it’s potential impact on broader society.You’re not required to be an expert. Nobody needs to be an expert to have an opinion. But when you claim some about sports that is completely incorrect. People who know better are entitled to call you out in your claims. And I’ve called out mistakes on both sides.
You’ve made so many mistakes, and contradictions at this point that your position is meaningless. And if that’s your best argument for inclusion, well you’ve proved that Hubbards entry is unfair and unwarranted.
Of course they are, and how I know they know better than me is because they’re able to provide me with the information and supporting evidence they think would help my understanding. They don’t generally tend to go off on one throwing around unfounded accusations. From my experience they’re able to calmly explain where I’m going wrong, rather than going off on one, and I’m ok with that because I understand completely how it must painful for them to witness such ignorance. Basic manners, respect and understanding counts for a lot in my book. Arguments from authority just don’t carry much any weight. In my experience they tend to be used by people who are less interested in discussion and more interested in just throwing their weight around who have no respect for anyone. They’re not helping anyone. It’s for this reason I’d be more than interested in what Usain Bolt has to say than some randomer on the Internet, because I know that Usain Bolt understands the value and meaning of respect, another value which, as well as discipline, is important in sports and learned through sports -
'Disgraceful' Gwen Berry slammed as video of Usain Bolt respecting National Anthem goes viral
It’s just unfortunate that other elite athletes aren’t able to show the same respect for themselves and respect for other people as Usain Bolt does. That’s why he’s a role model for children, and someone like Megan Rapinoe, is not. I’d only love to see more athletes of Usain Bolts character, and less Megan Rapinoe types.0 -
Why isn't Megan Rapinoe a role model for kids? I think a lot of people would consider her a great role model. Personally, I have a lot more respect for her than I do for Hubbard.0
-
And I provided that to you.One eyed Jack wrote: »I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support your claim that Hubbard is cheating, or has cheated. Your evidence just doesn’t support your original claim. I expected evidence that had or would have disqualified them from competing.
Hubbard took a series of drugs to transition.
Those drugs are specifically not allowed to be taken by athletes. Taking them sees you disqualified and banned?
Taking them is cheating, regardless of whether you are caught.
Which part of that do you not understand?
I don’t condemn anyone for making mistakes, and you have made many.Without evidence of intent to deceive anyone, you have no evidence of lying either. I wouldn’t condemn anyone for making a mistake or misunderstanding something,
But denying that you said something, until the quote was pulled out is lying. Saying I said something that I did not, is lying.
Saying that sports were not segregated by sex due to strength is perhaps a foolish mistake.
Saying that men do not preform better than women is sport is a lie. I’m sorry, I can’t call that a mistake. Nobody with even a casual awareness of segregated sports would claim that
It’s a subset of human rights. Just like women’s rights.I do see where you’re coming from now though, I just don’t frame things in those terms, like “trans rights”, I see them as human rights, and everyone being recognised as having equal status under the law.
The existence of women’s rights as an idea doesn’t imply women are not equal to others. Quite a strange suggestion tbh.
All those those examples are or were progressive.I’ve never thought of it as progressive, it’s just the opposite in my view - as old as humanly itself - treating people fairly means recognition in law and support such as the children and family relationships act or the marriage equality act or the gender recognition act or legislation to regulate assisted human reproduction...
Surprised you were not aware. But as “old as humanly” is simply not true. In the past, those groups did not have rights.
Nobody is interest in Hubbard individually.all of these pieces of legislation apply to Irish society which concerns me more than an individual athlete in a sport I readily admit I have no interest in and no knowledge of. I’m more interested in the policy and it’s potential impact on broader society.
The issue is her inclusion in a sport where strength is a factor is unfair.
The issue of the same rules apply to all sports. Therefore the rules for all sports are unfair.
Nobody is saying transgender people canny take part in sports recreationally. Hubbard is free to train and even enter under a competition format. But competing against other that were not afforded her biological advantage is unfair.
It’s a really simple.
At least we can agree your ignorance is painful at times.Of course they are, and how I know they know better than me is because they’re able to provide me with the information and supporting evidence they think would help my understanding. They don’t generally tend to go off on one throwing around unfounded accusations. From my experience they’re able to calmly explain where I’m going wrong, rather than going off on one, and I’m ok with that because I understand completely how it must painful for them to witness such ignorance.
I’ve referenced the evidence, such as the WADA rules. These are widely known in sports. If you needed clarify you only needed to ask. But if every word and term needs to come with a reverenyand dictionary entry we’d never get anywhere.0 -
Yeah_Right wrote: »Why isn't Megan Rapinoe a role model for kids?
Because she is an absolute wagon.2 -
Advertisement
-
Which part of that do you not understand?
The part I don’t understand is that it’s evident that you know more than you’re letting on, but you’re not being straight. That’s all. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was my fault I was missing something and I wanted to know what I was missing that enabled you to determine Hubbard is or was cheating that would disqualify them from competition. That’s all I asked for, precisely because I don’t understand where you’re coming from and I’m not convinced that Hubbard is cheating.0 -
Yeah_Right wrote: »Why isn't Megan Rapinoe a role model for kids? I think a lot of people would consider her a great role model. Personally, I have a lot more respect for her than I do for Hubbard.
It’s not Megan Rapinoe specifically, but she’s an example of what she represents, from my perspective (I understand yours is different and that’s fair enough) - pissing and moaning about inequality and social justice and all the rest of it through the framework of identity politics like they’re participating in the Oppression Olympics where there are no winners, only victims. I too know many people who consider her a great role model, but that’s from their perspective too. It’s just not one I share. That’s why I said it was good to see the IOC taking baby steps, not how I would have gone about it, but we have the same legitimate aim.
I think for me it’s the lack of integrity and the blatant insincerity from my point of view. It’s difficult to explain that without example but to give you some idea, recently I watched the White House Convening on Transgender Equality, it was the epitome of insincere, inauthentic virtue signalling, while giving it welly about authenticity. It’s an hour and a half long but Part 2 about fairness and inclusion in sports starts at the 36:20 mark. I do admire Chris Mosier, I know I’m biased, but when they rolled out the children giving a rehearsed performance in the language of identity politics, I was disappointed, frankly -
It’s the same as here in Ireland when we had the marriage equality referendum and the campaign, humourless dry shytes pissing and moaning about equality and all the rest of it, through the language of identity politics. I completely get it, but it was an inauthentic and insincere representation of the issues involved. I would have preferred to have seen something along the lines of this tbh -
NSFW
We Irish have a reputation for our sense of humour, but you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you were only ever exposed to the rainbow coloured whinging.
With regards to respect for either Rapinoe or Hubbard, I don’t care much for either tbh, I see them both equally as unfortunates, or misfortunes - they’re both harmless as far as I’m concerned. I don’t see either of them as role models, but I completely understand why other people do for reasons which are of importance to them.1 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The part I don’t understand is that it’s evident that you know more than you’re letting on, but you’re not being straight. That’s all. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was my fault I was missing something and I wanted to know what I was missing that enabled you to determine Hubbard is or was cheating that would disqualify them from competition. That’s all I asked for, precisely because I don’t understand where you’re coming from and I’m not convinced that Hubbard is cheating.
More waffle and bluster. None of that refers to what I said. Lets go again:Hubbard took a series of drugs to transition.
Those drugs are specifically not allowed to be taken by athletes.
Taking them sees you disqualified and banned?
Taking them is cheating, regardless of whether you are caught.
Do you understand those four sentences? Yes/No
Do you understand how doing that is cheating? Yes/No
Do you agree that Hubbard has done that? Yes/No
There are no wrong answers. If you don't agree or understand that's fine.
But you simply keep repeating that you are missing something, without questioning or highlight where the confusion or disagreement is.
But the vague non-reply kinda looks like you aren't actually interested in understanding, as it's detrimental to your position.0 -
Yeah_Right wrote: »Why isn't Megan Rapinoe a role model for kids? I think a lot of people would consider her a great role model. Personally, I have a lot more respect for her than I do for Hubbard.
Because she's resentful and discriminatory, in no way is she a role model.
She just a resentfully angry woman who cannot accept that men and indeed boys are more talented than her and her team.
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/1 -
More waffle and bluster. None of that refers to what I said. Lets go again:
Do you understand those four sentences? Yes/No
Do you understand how doing that is cheating? Yes/No
Do you agree that Hubbard has done that? Yes/No
There are no wrong answers. If you don't agree or understand that's fine.
But you simply keep repeating that you are missing something, without questioning or highlight where the confusion or disagreement is.
But the vague non-reply kinda looks like you aren't actually interested in understanding, as it's detrimental to your position.
The reason I’m not understanding your position is because I know that transgender athletes such as Hubbard with a theraputic use exemption are permitted to take spironolactone -
Transgender female athletes:
Spironolactone 100-200 mg taken daily. Higher doses up to 400 mg might be required to achieve low level testosterone thresholds defined by the sport.
Transgender Athletes - World Anti-Doping Agency
I’m assuming that you know this too, and you know the criteria for transgender athletes eligibility for competition in the Olympics, so where the confusion arises is that Hubbard is not cheating, but you still maintain they’re cheating, so therefore I’m assuming either I’m still missing something, or you’re not being straight, and that’s why I suggested you know more than you’re letting on.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »The reason I’m not understanding your position is because I know that transgender athletes such as Hubbard with a theraputic use exemption are permitted to take spironolactone -
Transgender female athletes:
Spironolactone 100-200 mg taken daily. Higher doses up to 400 mg might be required to achieve low level testosterone thresholds defined by the sport.
Transgender Athletes - World Anti-Doping Agency
I’m assuming that you know this too, and you know the criteria for transgender athletes eligibility for competition in the Olympics, so where the confusion arises is that Hubbard is not cheating, but you still maintain they’re cheating, so therefore I’m assuming either I’m still missing something, or you’re not being straight, and that’s why I suggested you know more than you’re letting on.
While I personally think she has an unfair advantage given her years developing as a male.
Not sure anyone could call her a cheater.
She is working within the rules. Anyone not happy at this should aim their unhappiness at those that make these rules.
Reality is as many have mentioned she may not win anything - but being competitive in your 40's against a load of young in their prime athletes who are probably full of PED's (forgive my cynicism her) is all you need to see that from a fairness in sport point of view, something is wrong.0 -
Permitted to take with a TUE. It’s not an automatic grant of permission. It would also be required per substance.One eyed Jack wrote: »The reason I’m not understanding your position is because I know that transgender athletes such as Hubbard with a theraputic use exemption are permitted to take spironolactone -
Yes, I’m fully aware of the requirements, and have been since the start. There’s no more to it.I’m assuming that you know this too, and you know the criteria for transgender athletes eligibility for competition in the Olympics, so where the confusion arises is that Hubbard is not cheating, but you still maintain they’re cheating, so therefore I’m assuming either I’m still missing something, or you’re not being straight, and that’s why I suggested you know more than you’re letting on.
Taking those substances is cheating unless you have a TUE, just like all other PEDs like steroids. It’s really simple.
(spironolactone is banned as it’s a masking agent for doping).
We know Hubbard is or was taking these drugs. 100%. Therefore the default position of all NGOs is that Hubbard broke the rules.
Sounds you are claiming she was granted a TUE? I’ve seen no mention or record if that. Any evidence to back that up? Because it sounds like a stretch.0 -
Taking those substances is cheating unless you have a TUE
The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that Hubbard does not have a TUE, in support of your claim, that they are cheating, or have cheated. You made the original claim, I questioned your claim. I don’t have to prove anything, you have to prove your claim by providing evidence for your claim.
Simply claiming that they are taking a substance which is on the banned substances list, when you know they are permitted to take those drugs with a theraputic use exemption, means the onus is on you to provide evidence that they do not have a theraputic use exemption, and then you would have evidence to prove your claim that they are cheating.
Otherwise, the presumption of innocence still applies, because it would be unfair to the athlete to suggest they are cheating without being able to provide any evidence for your claim. Simply taking spironolactone, proves nothing.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that Hubbard does not have a TUE, in support of your claim, that they are cheating, or have cheated. You made the original claim, I questioned your claim. I don’t have to prove anything, you have to prove your claim by providing evidence for your claim.
I have proven she took the drugs. That is against the rules. By the rules of the sport, that's a violation. The onus is on the athlete to provide evidence of their innocence.
Hubbard doesn't claim to had had a TUE.
The only person claiming she had a TUE is you. Where's your evidence, pretty bold claim.
Where you evidence?
How can I provide evidence of something that doesn't exist?Simply claiming that they are taking a substance which is on the banned substances list, when you know they are permitted to take those drugs with a theraputic use exemption, means the onus is on you to provide evidence that they do not have a theraputic use exemption, and then you would have evidence to prove your claim that they are cheating.
As you said, I was aware that TUEs existed. The process to be award one is difficult.
As above, Hubbard hasn't claimed they had one. And probably for good reason, they had ceased competing when they transitioned, Gavin Hubbard was not an Olympic athlete. - therefore it would be impossible for a TUE to have been issued. TUEs are issued to athletes with medical needs. Not members of the public.
That's not how doping violations work, its not court of law.Otherwise, the presumption of innocence still applies, because it would be unfair to the athlete to suggest they are cheating without being able to provide any evidence for your claim. Simply taking spironolactone, proves nothing.
The onus is on the athlete to ensure compliance, if they have a false positive, to provide evidence of their innocence. It's not up to the NGOs to prove guilt.
Hubbard took drugs that were banned.
Hubbard wasn't in a position to be granted a TUE.
You are claiming something to the contrary. The onus is on you to prove it, otherwise, you are just making things up.0 -
I have proven she took the drugs. That is against the rules. By the rules of the sport, that's a violation. The onus is on the athlete to provide evidence of their innocence.
Let’s just take it right back to your original claim, just so we’re both clear on what you were suggesting, and why I questioned your claim, because coming from someone who I’m assuming knows what they’re talking about, it smells like BS to me -Laurel Hubbard is now a women. I have no issue recognising that. That's her choice, and it doesn't affect me. People have no right to tell her that she is X or Y.
Regardless of all of that. I do not support her in the Olympics. She has no business or right to be there. Her biological history means that as a women, she is a doper. Simple as that.
I am yet to see anybody supporting her put forward a logical reason for doing so.
Similarly, people shouting "he's a man" are not doing a good job outlining why she shouldn't be there. It's a poor argument, as it's easily disregard for clearly being bigoted.
You went on to claim that your reasoning for suggesting Hubbard has no business or right to be there is because they are cheating. When asked to provide evidence that they are cheating, your reasoning was that they were transitioning and were taking drugs to transition and those drugs are on the banned substances list. This still made no sense to me because I was assuming you were aware that they would have had an exemption to take the drugs to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in this years Olympics. It stands to reason that they have met all the criteria required of them to compete in this years Olympics.
In order to support your claim of cheating, to support your claim that Hubbard has no business or right to be there, I expected evidence that would substantiate your claim, given your knowledge of the rules and requirements and regulations and so on. Had you said that without a TUE that Hubbard is cheating and has no business or right to be there, I wouldn’t have questioned it at all because that is a qualified statement of fact, not just an opinion.
You repeatedly tried to put the fault for the misunderstanding on me and made claims about my reading comprehension in order to undermine my questioning of your opinion. It is you who was being purposely vague implying I was misunderstanding when I told you straight out I was accepting responsibility for the fact that I must be missing something. I thought I had to be missing something because you would know all this stuff.
The only thing I’m any way certain of at this point is that you have some serious cojones, and that’s putting it as politely as I possibly can.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »you have some serious cojones, and that’s putting it as politely as I possibly can.
And that's pretty much the topic summed up.1 -
Can you you point anytihng I have claimed about her drug history that is untrue?One eyed Jack wrote: »Let’s just take it right back to your original claim, just so we’re both clear on what you were suggesting, and why I questioned your claim, because coming from someone who I’m assuming knows what they’re talking about, it smells like BS to me
If not less of the BS please. Although, it's a bit rich considerign the lies, sorry mistakes, you've been caught out it,You went on to claim that your reasoning for suggesting Hubbard has no business or right to be there is because they are cheating. When asked to provide evidence that they are cheating, your reasoning was that they were transitioning and were taking drugs to transition and those drugs are on the banned substances list.
Correct.This still made no sense to me because I was assuming you were aware that they would have had an exemption to take the drugs to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in this years Olympics.It stands to reason that they have met all the criteria required of them to compete in this years Olympics.
This year is 2021. They qualified for this Olympics in 2020. A TUE issued in the last 12 months doesn't absolve her history.
A TUE also can't be issued for elevated testosterone. Which Hubbard also would have had in the past.
I outlined the reasons why I felt it was cheating clearly, you pretended to not understand, even though it was clear. I didn't mention a TUE as she has been transitioning since 2012. A TUE would not have been granted then, and a TUE for this olympics does not absolve previous rule breaking. So there was no need to mention it. It was irrelevant.In order to support your claim of cheating, to support your claim that Hubbard has no business or right to be there, I expected evidence that would substantiate your claim, given your knowledge of the rules and requirements and regulations and so on. Had you said that without a TUE that Hubbard is cheating and has no business or right to be there, I wouldn’t have questioned it at all because that is a qualified statement of fact, not just an opinion.
I assumed you understood a that as you never mentioned TUE either.
It was a really simple point. I still maintain that you were not being honest when you were "missing" something. If you were genuinely unsure, you simply had to ask.You repeatedly tried to put the fault for the misunderstanding on me and made claims about my reading comprehension in order to undermine my questioning of your opinion. It is you who was being purposely vague implying I was misunderstanding when I told you straight out I was accepting responsibility for the fact that I must be missing something. I thought I had to be missing something because you would know all this stuff.
You clamed she has complied with all the IOC requirements, to try dismiss my point. I pointed out that WADA requirements also apply.
Then you claimed she would have been tested for cheating, and that they are allowed to have low levels of banned substances. I pointed out that this was also not true.
You questioned what drugs were banned and asked for proof. I gave an example of one. There are others.
I think it's fair to say that that claim that you did not understand the rules was substantiated at that point.
At no point did you mention a TUE through all of that. I thought because you knew it was a silly claim. But since you recently have claimed that, it now looks like you only just learned about a TUE and think it is a get out of jail card. It isn't.
Hubbard may have a TUE now for this Olympics. She may no longer need one. My original post, is quite clear in that it refers to her history. Basically that Gavin Hubbard did not have a TUE. That Laurel Hubbard did not have a TUE prior to being in the Olympic testing pool. If Hubbard was talking banned drugs prior to being an olympic athlete who could have received a TUE for Toyko (and we know that she was) then she broke the rules. That is a statement of fact.
Whether she was in a position to be caught, is not relevant as I said previously.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I completely get already how some people are of the opinion that acknowledging and upholding the rights of people who are transgender is an infringement upon their rights or in conflict with their rights, but that’s just not the case. It would be no different regarding discrimination against individuals on any other grounds which are recognised in International human rights law - people claiming that other people having the same rights as they do, is an infringement upon their rights and is unfair to them.
What actually are the rights in question here? On either side?
Is there a single right which isn't at least somewhat constrained in some way, held by anyone? From the right to speech to the right to travel? The right to 'do what you want' is similarly limited, and may well be limited by physical issues. The laws say we must treat disabled people equally. When was the last time you saw an applicant for the fire brigade in a wheelchair? It may not be my fault if I have chronic Asthma, but just because I can pass the Army fitness test on the day does not mean my rights are violated if the Army rejects me because of the asthma. It may be my dream to be a soldier or firefighter or pilot or whatever, and if mother nature put a mismatched gene in somewhere, it's not my fault, but there is no 'right' or 'entitlement' to achieve that dream.
The question is if this analogy applies to the Olympics, and the arguments go both ways. It is not the transgender's fault that they were born the wrong sex and apparently have physical advantages. It is not the cisgender's fault that they were not born the wrong sex and have not the physical advantages. It's not a disabled cisgender's fault that they were born without all their limbs and cannot compete well either. However, the latter are accommodated by the Paralympics, an entire different set of competition geared specifically to the physical differences of the athlete.
It seems that the IOC (and sporting in general) has four choices.
1) To heck with divisions. Everyone competes against everyone, may the best man/woman win.
2) Create an additional division specifically for transgender.
3) Prohibit transgenders in their non-birth-sex contest.
4) Keep the current situation and if transgenders achieve a disproportionate medal count, well, it sucks to have been born a cisgender female, they should have worked harder to make up for their deficiency.0 -
Can you you point anytihng I have claimed about her drug history that is untrue?
If not less of the BS please.
…
I outlined the reasons why I felt it was cheating clearly, you pretended to not understand, even though it was clear.
…
It was a really simple point. I still maintain that you were not being honest when you were "missing" something. If you were genuinely unsure, you simply had to ask.
…
My original post, is quite clear in that it refers to her history.
Your original post wasn’t clear, that’s why I questioned it. You maintained that they had no business and no right to be there, because on the basis of their biological history they were cheating, in your view. You claimed anyone who made the argument that they were a man, their argument could easily be regarded as bigoted and dismissed accordingly.
You also claimed to be supportive of what you called “trans rights”, however your own argument was just as poor logic as the more direct argument that they’re a man, and on that basis they shouldn’t be permitted to compete in the Olympics. The effects of your argument would also apply not just to Hubbard, but to ANY transgender athletes, only on your terms, the basis of your terms being their “biological history”.
You know the rules and regulations and so on, and so your claim that Hubbard is cheating would apply to every athlete who was taking drugs in order to transition. I never questioned the idea that you were correct about Hubbards drug history, it was your claim that they had no business and no right to be there, even though they had met whatever criteria were required of them to be there!
That you claimed to be supportive of “trans rights” was neither here nor there as far as I was concerned, I was only interested in how you thought your argument had any more solid foundation than the argument that they’re men, and shouldn’t be permitted to compete in the women’s events on that basis. The fact that you dismissed other people’s arguments as bigoted while imagining your own was any more legitimate caused a great deal of confusion, as it’s no more or less based upon bigotry than the arguments you’re dismissing. Just so we’re on the same page as to what constitutes bigotry -
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I’m not the least bit concerned with bigotry or claiming anyone is bigoted or their reasoning is bigoted or anything else, I’m interested in the effects and outcomes of their idea that they’re arguing for, or against, and the effect of your argument is the same as the effects of other people’s arguments you’re critical of. I’ll leave it to yourself to figure out why that might be confusing for anyone who imagined your virtue signalling as a supporter of “trans rights” means that you support the right of people who are transgender to be regarded as being of equal status without discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or sex.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »What actually are the rights in question here? On either side?
Essentially it boils down to everyone having an equal right to participate in sports, and the the question is rather how those rights are acknowledged and upheld. There are people who want to participate in women’s sports without discrimination as to their sex or gender identity, and there are people who don’t want people who are transgender to compete in sports which are organised for women.Manic Moran wrote: »Is there a single right which isn't at least somewhat constrained in some way, held by anyone? From the right to speech to the right to travel? The right to 'do what you want' is similarly limited, and may well be limited by physical issues. The laws say we must treat disabled people equally. When was the last time you saw an applicant for the fire brigade in a wheelchair? It may not be my fault if I have chronic Asthma, but just because I can pass the Army fitness test on the day does not mean my rights are violated if the Army rejects me because of the asthma. It may be my dream to be a soldier or firefighter or pilot or whatever, and if mother nature put a mismatched gene in somewhere, it's not my fault, but there is no 'right' or 'entitlement' to achieve that dream.
Nope, but both groups above are arguing in some cases as though their rights are absolute, and there are more people who lean on the argument of the need for discrimination as a means of achieving a legitimate aim, the aim in most cases being to protect women and in the case of women’s sports - to protect women’s sports and women’s participation in sports and the promotion of women’s sports and so on. The argument of people who disagree with this idea is that it doesn’t uphold their rights to be regarded as being of equal status to women. It discriminates against them unfairly on the basis of either their sex or gender identity.
Same sort of thing with the examples you gave - the discrimination is lawful and permitted on the basis of it being necessary for the purposes of achieving a legitimate aim. With regards to your examples and people with disabilities, generally speaking employers are required to make what are determined to be reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. It’s not about any one individual being unable to fulfill their dreams, it’s a question of treating all people as being of equal status and determining how their policies are fair and whether or not the discrimination in their policies can be justified on the basis that it exists as a means to achieve a legitimate aim, and whether the discrimination is reasonable and so on, or whether it is unfair and unjustifiable.Manic Moran wrote: »The question is if this analogy applies to the Olympics, and the arguments go both ways. It is not the transgender's fault that they were born the wrong sex and apparently have physical advantages. It is not the cisgender's fault that they were not born the wrong sex and have not the physical advantages. It's not a disabled cisgender's fault that they were born without all their limbs and cannot compete well either. However, the latter are accommodated by the Paralympics, an entire different set of competition geared specifically to the physical differences of the athlete.
It seems that the IOC (and sporting in general) has four choices.
1) To heck with divisions. Everyone competes against everyone, may the best man/woman win.
2) Create an additional division specifically for transgender.
3) Prohibit transgenders in their non-birth-sex contest.
4) Keep the current situation and if transgenders achieve a disproportionate medal count, well, it sucks to have been born a cisgender female, they should have worked harder to make up for their deficiency.
It does, and that’s why they’re reviewing the policy with regard to athletes who are transgender and their participation in the Olympics. People who are transgender aren’t disabled, but that’s not intended to pour water on your analogy, it still holds to an extent, just not if one were trying to argue that they were born a congenitally disabled woman -
Foy began legal proceedings in April 1997, to challenge the refusal of the Registrar General to issue her with a new birth certificate. Unemployed, Foy was represented in the action by Free Legal Advice Centres. The basis of her action was a contention that the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863 did not justify the practice of using solely biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration. According to Foy, she had been born a "congenitally disabled woman" and the error recording her sex on her birth certificate was not only embarrassing to her but also could interfere with her constitutional rights, as she would be unable to ever choose to marry a man.
The case reached the High Court in October 2000. Foy's former wife and their daughters contested her plea, claiming that it could have "an adverse effect on their succession and other rights."
Judgment was reserved for nearly two years until 9 July 2002 when Mr Justice Liam McKechnie rejected Lydia Foy's challenge, stating that Foy had been born male based on medical and scientific evidence and that accordingly the registration could not be changed. He did express concern about the position of transsexuals in Ireland, however, and called on the government to urgently review the matter.
However any organisation organises themselves and their sports and their competitions must be compliant with International Human Rights law, and that’s where the question of balancing human rights arises, it’s why for example Chris Mosier campaigned for the IOC to change their criteria for transgender athletes to compete, and why Caster Semenya has taken her case to the ECHR to have sports organisations change their policies which are considered unfairly discriminatory against people like her -
Notification of Semenya v. Switzerland
These cases aren’t just about the individuals in question, they are about the policies which have much wider effect in wider society. Focusing on whether or not an individual athlete should or shouldn’t be permitted to compete is missing the bigger picture that the policy has effects for whole groups in society and upcoming generations and shaping society for their benefit. It’s one of the reasons why I detest weaponising children to tug on heart strings when the argument is between adults.0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »It seems that the IOC (and sporting in general) has four choices.
1) To heck with divisions. Everyone competes against everyone, may the best man/woman win.
2) Create an additional division specifically for transgender.
3) Prohibit transgenders in their non-birth-sex contest.
4) Keep the current situation and if transgenders achieve a disproportionate medal count, well, it sucks to have been born a cisgender female, they should have worked harder to make up for their deficiency.
You’re presenting THAT as a choice? That deficiency can’t be bridged without PEDs.0 -
Tilden Katz wrote: »You’re presenting THAT as a choice? That deficiency can’t be bridged without PEDs.
Well, it does seem to be the situation as it currently stands, does it not?0 -
Nobody else had an issue understanding it.One eyed Jack wrote: »Your original post wasn’t clear, that’s why I questioned it.
It took to 20 posts to grasp it, no offence but I don't believe you were tryign or wanted to.
Which part of that don't you understand.You maintained that they had no business and no right to be there, because on the basis of their biological history they were cheating, in your view. You claimed anyone who made the argument that they were a man, their argument could easily be regarded as bigoted and dismissed accordingly.
It's entire possible to support the existence of transgenderism and not support their competing against cisgender females in physical sports.
The argument "He's a man" is obviously transphobic. The fact you think call that a "claim" says more about you than me.
Please highlight the so called poor logic? Actually don't bother. No doubt it will be more waffle.You also claimed to be supportive of what you called “trans rights”, however your own argument was just as poor logic as the more direct argument that they’re a man, and on that basis they shouldn’t be permitted to compete in the Olympics. The effects of your argument would also apply not just to Hubbard, but to ANY transgender athletes, only on your terms, the basis of your terms being their “biological history”.
You know the rules and regulations and so on, and so your claim that Hubbard is cheating would apply to every athlete who was taking drugs in order to transition
You know the rules and regulations and so on, and so your claim that Hubbard is cheating would apply to every athlete who was taking drugs in order to transition
Of course my argument applies to all transgender athletes (well only MTF actually). Why would t only apply to Hubbard.
The issue is the entire concept of MTF transgender athlete in womens division. No Hubbard specifically. what a bizarre point.
The fact you keep putting trans rights in comma also suggests you are on a wind up tbh.
First of all, you did question it, repeatedly. And I proved you wrong every time.I never questioned the idea that you were correct about Hubbards drug history, it was your claim that they had no business and no right to be there, even though they had met whatever criteria were required of them to be there!
Secondly, if they have broken the rules (which they have) then they have no met the criteria. Not being caught/punsihed is not the same as not breakign the rules.
If the IOC was turning a blind eye to transgender athletes and bending the rules, that is not equal treatment.
At this point I'm out. You are 100% trolling now.That you claimed to be supportive of “trans rights” was neither here nor there as far as I was concerned, I was only interested in how you thought your argument had any more solid foundation than the argument that they’re men, and shouldn’t be permitted to compete in the women’s events on that basis. The fact that you dismissed other people’s arguments as bigoted while imagining your own was any more legitimate caused a great deal of confusion, as it’s no more or less based upon bigotry than the arguments you’re dismissing. Just so we’re on the same page as to what constitutes bigotry -
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I’m not the least bit concerned with bigotry or claiming anyone is bigoted or their reasoning is bigoted or anything else, I’m interested in the effects and outcomes of their idea that they’re arguing for, or against, and the effect of your argument is the same as the effects of other people’s arguments you’re critical of. I’ll leave it to yourself to figure out why that might be confusing for anyone who imagined your virtue signalling as a supporter of “trans rights” means that you support the right of people who are transgender to be regarded as being of equal status without discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or sex.
I've proved you wrong repeatedly so now I'm a bigot and vitue signalling. LMFAO. Pathetic trol job mate, you've lost it there.
Edit:
I wish I had of check you post history before considering your nonsense was genuine and not trolling. WP I guess.
You were banned from the LGBT forum for transphobic trolling in the past. SighOne eyed Jack wrote:
The argument isn’t whether [transwomen] are or aren’t any “less” of a woman. The argument is that they aren’t women in the first place.0 -
Another champion coming into their own in middle years. Stephanie lived as a man for most of their life, transitioned aged 33, took up archery for fun at 37, won gold at the 2018 Canadian Field and Target Championships just two years after they first picked up a bow and arrow and now, an awe-inspiring 5 years after first checking out the sport, at age 42, is heading to the Olympics. Stephanie says their phenomenal success is down to the good coaches they have been lucky to have.
2 -
Does anybody else ever wonder if we're being trolled? How can anyone take this seriously? She only started archery at 37 and is now an Olympic level athliete - but that's not at all because she grew up as a male and has male upper body strength?
What are all these 37 year old (natal) women doing with their lives when all they had to do was get a good coach and work a bit harder?
Honestly - bunch of losers, those women. 😎
11 -
Stephanie has a large frame, being 6 foot 1 inches tall and broad across the shoulders, and it is noticeable when they are standing with other competitors.
But sports writers are comparing (gushing about) Stephanie to a character in a fantasy novel who has somehow managed to speed to excellence
''In a sport where mental aspects like concentration and focus are huge, Barrett already had those qualities in spades. Then there is belief: She always felt she would be an Olympian.
“My father was a track coach, so I grew up within a track club, doing sprinting and jumping. High performance as an end goal, Olympics as an end goal, was always right in my mind,” she says. “Every time I think about it, I always go back to elementary school and there was a couple of classmates and the principal at the time who would ask me ‘Hey, remember us when you’re a famous Olympian!’
0 -
So Stephanie is a 6ft tall "woman" who failed to become an Olympian while she was a man, but always wanted to become one.
Hmm. How lucky for her that she was transgender then, because obviously she wasn't getting to the Olympics as a man. It's just odd that she seems almost to hide that fact. And even odder that no journalists refer to it in their gushing praise of her. I thought successful transgender people were all brave and inspiring, andwould want to be role models for others.
7 -
Imagine how many males will be dominating women's events by the time the next Olympics rolls around. Assuming they don't put a stop to it of course.
8 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
Honestly - bunch of losers, those women. 😎
I wouldn’t call them losers. It’s just a sad reality that it’s been observed time and time again that young girls are losing interest in sports once they get into their teenage years, and it’s due to a number of factors, none of which include having to compete with males. Among the more obvious factors are -
- More distractions than there were in previous generations, such as social media
- Lack of support which leads to lack of confidence in themselves
- Lack of role models
If you get the chance to watch it, there was a good programme on RTÉ the other night on “Why Girls Quit Sports?”, and it found these same issues cropping up again and again in the research, and Anna Geary is actually doing something about it as opposed to just bemoaning the idea that it’s anyone else’s fault or that it is because of males participating in women’s sports that girls in Ireland drop out of sports at a rate of 50% once they’re out of primary school, or when they’re entering their teenage years. It’s here on the RTÉ Player -
Imagine how many males will be dominating women's events by the time the next Olympics rolls around. Assuming they don't put a stop to it of course.
I imagine the number of males dominating women’s events by the time the next Olympics rolls around will be the same as it is now - none. Zero. The IOC won’t have to put a stop to anything, it’ll be taken care of by mobs on social media determined to remind people who are transgender to “know their place”, not exactly dissimilar to the way they reminded a 19 year old male who missed a penalty in the Euros final that he and people like him should know their place, by subjecting them to all sorts of personal abuse that have nothing to do with with their athletic or sporting abilities, and everything to do with their most obvious characteristic traits.
One doesn’t need a crystal ball to imagine if it were a 19 year old girl had missed that penalty, the kind of personal abuse she would be subjected to on social media. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that’s one of the main reasons why young girls drop out of sports, they see how people like them are regarded and treated, and figure the personal abuse they would inevitably experience just isn’t worth it.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hYRORLXGvY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9g9RhnbIUA
Advertisement